From a paragraph approximately 2/3rds of the way through this transcript, Penny Jones stated:
"the concern of the state, is that, because we’ve got ECHR, the state does have a responsibility to make sure that the child – every child receives a suitable education, that’s inescapeable. And, in theory, it would be possible for a home educated child, at some point in the future, to turn round to the state and say ‘look you didn’t secure my interests, I was getting a terrible education, you were aware I was getting a terrible education, why didn’t you do something about it?’ so it’s rather a different situation than you envisage."
It looks as if the state, through its tortuous interpretation of the ECHR's Protocol 1, Article 2 - whereby a negative right is interpreted as being an automatic responsibility of the state to ensure that a positive right is achieved, is walking itself into a situation whereby it will be repeatedly subjected to litigious action by angry children who did not receive a suitable education. Badman's recommendations make it clear that a suitable education is not just about provision, it is also about attainment. Given that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of schooled children do not attain a "suitable" education by anyone's standards, local authorities will be bankrupted, pdq.
Fiona Nicholson commented:
"The Badman proposals move the responsibility from the parent to the state. The scenario outlined by Penny will become reality under Badman. The Department needs to take this back to its legal advisors as a matter of urgency."
I think she's right.