Children, Schools and Families Bill

The answer is set out in Sir Roger Singleton's letter to me of 27 January, in which he says:""We need to consider very carefully the appropriateness of Government regulating arrangements that parents or carers make with others for the care and instruction of their children voluntarily and for relatively short periods, outside of mainstream education or other settings already covered by a ban on corporal punishment. Any regulation must be proportionate and involve the minimum possible interference in family life."" He then talks about different considerations in different kinds of settings and for different groups of parents, and says:""In arriving at a way forward, whether…legislative or not, I do think it will be important to give careful consideration to the…evidence and to consult…stakeholders"" to ensure that we get this right. My view is that there is a grey area—a loophole. I personally would favour a tightening-up of the position. I do not want to pre-empt Sir Roger's work, but I think that his direction of thinking will be towards a tighter definition of "in loco parentis", but perhaps not one that goes as far as the particularly tight definition in new clause 10. I am not ruling out the possibility that we might end up with a similar definition to that in the new clause, but I would rather wait for Sir Roger to report before reaching a view.