Lords Revolt Against Controversial Schools Bill: Peers Slam State Overreach in Fiery Second Reading Showdown

Peers Warn of ‘State Surveillance’ and Constitutional Overreach as Government Faces Growing Rebellion in the Upper House

London, 1 May 2025 - The Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill faced a wave of opposition from distinguished members of the House of Lords during its Second Reading debate today, raising serious questions about the legislation’s viability in its current form.

A diverse group of peers - including former ministers, bishops, and crossbench experts - voiced concerns that the Bill represents an unprecedented expansion of state control into educational and family life, with far-reaching consequences for school autonomy, civil liberties, and constitutional norms.

Throughout the chamber, concerns ranged from constitutional overreach to fears of ideological interference in education. Below is a summary of some of the most compelling interventions that cast a long shadow over the Bill’s future:

One of the more pointed interventions came from The Earl of Effingham, who warned that the Bill risks undoing decades of work on school autonomy. He argued that the shift away from local governance, without clear supporting evidence, was both serious and risky.

Echoing widespread concern, Baroness Shephard of Northwold described the Bill as “intolerable intrusion” for many families who educate their children at home.

Lord Baker of Dorking, a former Secretary of State for Education, stated: “Clause 47 is very radical. It would mean a major change of power in this country. The clause makes this a constitutional Bill, because it gives powers to the Secretary of State... It moves all the power from local areas to the centre. There has been no consultation on this. There have been no research papers. It has just been plucked out of the air and added to this Bill. I think it is very harmful indeed.”

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich added: “I do not really understand why, for example, the Secretary of State needs major new statutory powers to intervene.”

Raising the alarm over unchecked executive powers, Lord Nash criticised the sweeping ministerial authority being granted, likening it to the “sledgehammer Henry VIII clause”.

Lord Crisp warned that the Bill would “risk damaging the education of thousands of children who are currently receiving good home education”.

Lord Frost noted the risk that home education “will be regulated to death. If that happens, it will be parents and children who are the losers.”

Lord Fink urged the Government to “think again about many of these restrictive ideological measures”.

Lord Browne of Belmont raised concerns that “the Bill will be a reduction in educational diversity. That would be damaging to children’s well-being, purely because children themselves are diverse.” He also criticised the Bill for authorising local authority staff to enter and inspect family homes, warning: “We should not use threats of court orders to force people to give up human rights.”

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie echoed the alarm, warning that “the powers in Clause 30… override the rights of parents and families to decide what is best for their children.”

Offering a Commons perspective, Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP warned that forcing high-performing academies to adopt the national curriculum risks undermining what makes them successful. She also pointed to the presence of Henry VIII powers in the Bill that would allow ministers to amend primary legislation without full scrutiny.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough described “some troubling aspects of Part 2”, warning that the Bill was driven by “the misguided belief that micromanagement by officials... will somehow enhance child safety or education standards.” He strongly criticised the Bill’s intrusive data demands, which would require parents to report how many hours they spend educating their child. This, he said, constituted “state-mandated surveillance of family life on an unprecedented scale”.

Quoting the legal opinion of Aidan O’Neill KC, Lord Jackson highlighted significant concerns over the Bill’s compatibility with both the European Convention on Human Rights and UK GDPR. “The justification for such intrusive measures is that these children are ‘invisible’,” he said. “They are not invisible to their parents, families or communities.” He concluded: “Let us make sure our approach is founded on empirical evidence and not prejudice.”

Lord Wei delivered a powerful and wide-ranging speech warning that the Bill “cuts to the very fabric of our democratic society, which was built on freedom of thought, parental responsibility and the rights of citizens not to be monitored by an overreaching state.” He described the proposals as “an unprecedented intrusion into family life”, and questioned whether the Department for Education was engaged in “mass information gathering against innocent families.” He concluded by urging the House to “reconsider, pause to think, and resist - before it is too late.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley stated bluntly: “The state does not own children. It needs to be wary of overreach and mission creep into families... I trust parents.”

Lord Knight of Weymouth expressed concern that “the unfettered use by officials of the powers of direction in Clause 49 of the Bill could interfere with... good governance.”

Referencing her own experience with home education, Baroness Meyer warned: “Authoritarian regimes always start by inserting themselves between parents and children. Is this really the path we want to take?” She said the Bill would create “an education regime that will be less human, less free, and ultimately less effective.”

The Lord Bishop of Manchester raised serious concerns about the Bill’s impact on yeshivas in Salford’s Haredi community. Citing the Government’s own human rights memorandum, he warned that these religious settings could face closure if the Bill proceeds unamended. He urged the Government to commit to proper consultation with faith communities.

Lord Russell of Liverpool said he would not remain silent “if I sense that children’s well-being and best interests are being drowned out by political and ideological skirmishing.”

Baroness Fleet pointedly asked: “Academies have been one of the most successful education reforms of our generation. Why are the Government intent on sabotaging that success?”

Baroness Benjamin voiced concern that the Bill, as currently drafted, could inadvertently harm young performers by pulling attention and resources away from the vulnerable children it is meant to protect.

Adding a sharp focus on the realities facing families with special educational needs, Baroness Berridge emphasised that for many, home education is a necessity, not a choice—and called on the Government to address fears of intrusive oversight by local authorities.

Lord Addington drew attention to Clause 63, warning that its embedded Henry VIII powers carry constitutional implications by allowing sweeping regulatory changes with limited parliamentary scrutiny.

Echoing concerns over unchecked executive authority, Lord Carter of Haslemere cautioned that the Bill risks undermining the autonomy and proven success of academies by imposing a uniform national curriculum and extending sweeping Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State. He raised particular concern over Clause 47, which would enable ministers to amend key stages, attainment targets, and curriculum content through statutory instruments—sidestepping primary legislation and full parliamentary scrutiny. Such measures, he argued, threaten both educational flexibility and constitutional principle.

Meanwhile, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere stressed that the flexibility afforded to technical schools is critical to their success. He warned that enforcing a rigid national curriculum risks stifling innovation and diminishing outcomes for students with diverse learning needs.

Lord Hill of Oareford argued that the Bill marks a significant departure from two decades of cross-party consensus. He criticised the proposed rollback of academy freedoms, warning that the Government’s approach would erode parental choice and centralise control without presenting evidence of need.

And Lord Young of Acton urged ministers to be guided by evidence rather than ideology, cautioning that the Bill risks reversing hard-won gains in education and setting back progress for future generations.

Taken as a whole, the breadth and force of parliamentary concern leave little doubt: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill now stands at a crossroads. Many families and educational leaders across the country are deeply troubled not only by the content of the Bill, but by the precedent it risks setting for unchecked executive authority in education. With peers voicing deep unease over issues ranging from constitutional overreach to the erosion of educational plurality, momentum is building for a fundamental rethink—if not a full withdrawal—of the legislation in its current form.