My Lords, Amendments 432A and 434 in my name concern enforcement provisions. They are critical elements of the Bill that seek to address the harm caused by unregistered educational settings.

Let me begin by referring to the experience of a woman whom I shall call Dina, a mother in the Haredi community in Stamford Hill. Like other Haredi women, Dina received a broad and balanced education in a Haredi school. She wants the same for her son, but boys are expected to be protected from secular education, and Dina found herself with no genuine choice but to send her son to an unregistered educational establishment called a yeshiva. The curriculum that Dina’s son studied was exclusively religious, with no provision for any secular subjects, including important subjects such as English and mathematics. This was not parental choice in any meaningful sense; it was the result of communal pressure within a context that often leaves families with no real alternatives. These are the institutions that Clause 36 rightly seeks to bring within the scope of regulation.

I accept that there are parents who genuinely choose to send their sons to yeshivas, but let us be clear: they are schools by any functional definition, and the Bill makes the necessary statutory clarification to ensure that they are treated as such for regulatory purposes. Once within the scope of regulation, they will be a viable option for parents who wish to make use of their services. However, boys in these environments often attend for very long hours, including Sundays. That secular education can be delivered at evenings and weekends in the home is, in almost every case, entirely implausible, so there is no adequate home education for boys who are attending these institutions, often from 7.30 am until late in the evening and on Sundays.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, whose name is also on the Amendment, and I offered to visit two yeshivas, but the offer was rejected. There was therefore no transparency in that respect. However, we have met young men who attended such yeshivas. We were struck by their resilience but also deeply saddened by the obstacles they faced in accessing the education that was denied to them in childhood. I am deeply disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who is not in her place, was so disparaging about the comments that they have made; they were genuine, and the young men were deeply concerned.

It is important to note that these young people do not wish to abandon their religion or community; they seek to live full lives as both observant Jews and fully educated citizens. That is a goal that all in this Committee should affirm, respect and support. They also raised serious safeguarding issues in relation to the excessive use of corporal punishment in the yeshivas. We should be concerned about that, too.

The Bill adopts a two-pronged strategy. First, Clause 31 introduces a home education register to provide transparency and ensure that those genuinely providing home education can continue to do so, and Clause 32 strengthens school attendance orders where that education is not genuinely being delivered.

Secondly, Clause 36 enables regulatory oversight of independent institutions operating outside the law. Our amendments strengthen the enforcement mechanisms required to make these provisions truly effective. These provisions are not about targeting responsible home educators; they are about ensuring that no child, whatever their background, falls through the cracks. Unfortunately, these boys are falling through the cracks in a big way.

I turn now to the amendments themselves. Amendment 432A creates an offence for landlords, property owners and letting agents who knowingly facilitate the operation of an illegally unregistered educational institution. It also creates a further offence for assisting or encouraging such activity in any other manner. This is a proportionate response to a practical challenge. In many cases, it is not immediately clear who owns or operates these institutions, but it is clear who owns the buildings. This amendment aims to create a disincentive to any individual or organisation from profiting from unlawful activity that places children at risk, either directly or indirectly.

Amendment 434 grants His Majesty’s inspectors the power to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools. This is a necessary power to prevent disguised compliance and to enable timely safeguarding action. Delay can perpetuate harm.

The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities; they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education, irrespective of cultural or religious context. I greatly agree with everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Berridge, said in their speeches to a previous group of amendments.

I acknowledge the important contribution by the noble Lord opposite, who referenced Article 2 of the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is indeed vital to uphold the right of parents to educate their children in line with their beliefs, but that right is not absolute, and that is what we must all accept. It must be balanced with the state’s duty to ensure that every child receives an education that meets minimum standards of safety and quality. That duty is enforced by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Bill does not constrain religious practice; many Haredi children already attend registered schools, where they receive both religious and secular education, and they are frequently within the maintained sector. That might be relevant to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked earlier.

As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, stated at Second Reading, no cultural or religious norm should be permitted to override the fundamental rights of children. I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who engaged on this issue with considerable care and conviction, but I urge the Minister to consider these amendments seriously. They seek only to ensure that all children in this country, without exception, can access the education that they deserve.