§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 71, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations may provide for substituting for the words "Secretary of State", in paragraph (b) of section 2(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975, the words "local education authority" and for section 2(1A) of that Act to cease to have effect.'.The amendment would allow the parents of children who begin to be educated at home after the age of 16 to claim benefit. The present position on allowing children over the age of 16 who are being educated at home to be eligible for benefit is unclear. I have never seen clear guidelines from the Department as to the exact position. I understand that approval of parents educating their children at home is in the hands of the local education authority.The Bill proposes to put that decision in the hands of the DHSS. The local education authority must be better equipped to make that decision, but, whoever makes the 251 decision, it must accord with our principles of parental choice and responsibility and not penalise parents who decide to educate their children at home by withholding benefit. After all, parents who decide to educate their children at home save the taxpayer and the ratepayer a great deal of money.
It is argued that allowing children over the age of 16 to be liable to benefit would give scope for parents who are not educating their older children properly falsely to claim benefit. Why not allow the local education authority to decide, as it does now, whether parents are giving their older children a proper education? After all, that is what the local education authorities are doing, successfully and with no complaints. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider a policy that must go against all our principles of freedom of choice, of parental choice and of individual responsibility.
§ Mr. SternVery briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] Very briefly. Since we discussed the matter in Committee, has my hon. Friend had time to reflect upon the invidious decision that he proposes to take upon himself under the clause? As a social security Minister, he is being asked to decide educational matters.
§ Mr. MajorI understand the intriguing and interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). It was well worth making.
Important though it is, I shall deal with the matter briefly because I appreciate that the official Opposition are anxious to move to the next amendment before the guillotine falls. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will permit me to give him a fuller answer after the debate than the answer that I can give him between now and eight o'clock.
Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's advocacy, he proposed a regulation-making power which I am inclined to resist and which. even if it were granted, the Government would be disinclined to use. As my hon. Friends know from the Committee stage, clause 66 is a beneficial measure introduced by the Government to extend the payment of child benefit to people who educate their children at home. As such, it has been widely welcomed, not least by my hon. Friend. Child benefit is payable for all children up to the age of 16 wherever and however they are educated, but heretofore it has not been payable when a child who was educated at home before the age of 16 continued that education after the age of 16. It could not be paid because the Child Benefit Act 1975 would not allow a home to be regarded as "an educational establishment".
The Government recognised the difficulty, and clause 66 resolves it by amending the Act. I stress that the link to education at home before the age of 16 is important. This is because local education authorities have a duty placed upon them by the Education Act 1944 and its Scottish equivalent to ensure that a child educated at home receives sufficient full-time education which is suitable for his age and his aptitudes.
My hon. Friend's amendment attempts to go further. It aims to provide regulation-making powers to local education authorities to recognise the education being provided at home, for the first time after the age of 16, where no approval or supervision has been sought or 252 provided previously. Such a regulation would place a new, onerous and, I strongly suspect, unwelcome duty on education authorities which they do not shoulder now and which they have shown no inclination to accept. The objective of placing this additional burden is to ensure the payment of a social security benefit. We cannot assume that authorities, whose concern is with the standard of compulsory education, would welcome that extra responsibility.
I am aware that this brief and hurried response will not placate my hon. Friend or other hon. Members, but I hope that they appreciate the reasons behind my decision and that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. OppenheimI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.