I think, just to say, that we all have a responsibility to all our children. Whether we have children or not, they are our future. And the best way in which society looks out for children, once they’re of a school age, is in school. So, it seems to me that, while it doesn’t mean to say that just because a child is being home educated that they are at risk, the fact that they are not in school means there needs to be extra special attention paid to ensure that somebody is seeing that child. This clearly didn’t happen in this case.

The Minister has already talked about the opportunities lost when vaccinations were due to occur. I’m not arguing and saying that the state has a right to insist that a vaccination occurs, but if the vaccination isn’t going to take place, then the child needs to be seen anyway just to make sure that the well-being of the child isn’t compromised.

The child is entitled to nursery education aged three. So, the local authority—I wonder why they weren’t wondering why this child wasn’t putting their name down for a free nursery place. If not, why not? Because every local authority needs to be planning for that and, if the parent doesn’t wish to take it up, that can be recorded. But, at least the question needs to be asked for those who maybe don’t know about that entitlement. When a child doesn’t present in a reception class when rising five that, surely, is another opportunity for the local authority to check that the child is either registered at school or is registered as being home educated. So, I’m concerned that there is not an express requirement in the 1996 education Act for LEAs to investigate whether parents are complying with the obligation for all children to be educated. I hope that that is one of the—