| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): The idea of an annual report is worthy of consideration because it will help to tell us whether the common inspection framework is working. Getting it to work may be harder than we think. I say that not because I do not support the joint inspection process--I do--but because I have evidence of a joint inspection in Lowestoft college in my constituency in March, which took place under the transitional arrangements.
That joint inspection, with a common framework, was described by the college as a shambolic process. There was supposed to be a single team from the Further Education Funding Council and the Training Standards Council, but my discussions with the college lead me to believe that there was not a single programme of meetings or lesson observations and that the common evidence base was not effectively used.
Inspectors from both organisations turned up to observe the same class. There was clear evidence that they were failing to share the base of information that had been provided by the college. The staff felt that two separate inspections were taking place. They were asked to participate in feedback sessions, and the two organisations held their sessions at the same time, so it was impossible for staff to attend both. It was felt that the designated lead inspector took no notice of what the inspectors from the other organisation said.
I give that example to make the point that we must ensure that the procedures witnessed at Lowestoft college are not repeated as the new inspection framework is developed and comes into being from 2001. The annual report may help in that process.
The process at Lowestoft failed to provide the opportunity for colleagues to seek redress in respect of ineffective planning procedures. It is worrying that we are, perhaps, trying to join two diverse groups who are reluctant to come together, and, if we shuffle the same individuals as a pack, the process may not work. A common set of principles must be established, as
clause 67 requires. The irony is that, at the moment, both inspectorates demand separate evaluations, yet no single body appears to be evaluating the joint process.I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and he gave the commitment that it would be investigated. I am sure that it will be, but that has not happened yet. Will he assure me that the matter will be investigated, not only out of fairness to Lowestoft college, but--and this is my point about the amendment--to learn valuable lessons that will help with the establishment of the joint inspection process, which I want to happen?
11.30 pm
Mr. Rowlands: As I understand it, the inspectorate in Wales will cover not only schools and further education, but the whole gamut of training. Indeed, it is already inspecting training providers; some inspections have already taken place.
Following that experience, I should draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two points. One is to do with some of the comments on and criticisms of the training providers' work and programmes. The inspector has been saying, "You should do this, this and this" although those things are not part of the training providers' contract. I cannot see how such an inspection could take place. Surely, there can be inspection only of what the training provider is contracted to do.
The position should at least be clarified. It is perfectly right for the chief inspector to say to the body that has issued the contract--it has been the TEC--"You shall now do something else. Offer a wider contract to training providers," but it is not right to criticise training providers for not doing something that is not part of their contract. There have already been such criticisms during some of the inspections of training providers.
The second point is to do with the nature of the inspections themselves and the inspectors. I know of one case where the inspectors who turned up had experience as ex-principals, or experience in further or higher education, but had no experience of training, including industrial training, employment and the other world to which training is linked.
In Wales--it is the right and proper decision--we are to have one umbrella inspectorate. We will not have ALI: the adult learning inspectorate. We will have one inspectorate to cover the whole of Welsh provision, including training and training providers. We must ensure that the inspectorate is equipped and has people with experience and knowledge of the world of industrial and employment training. They should not come just from schools and further and higher education traditionally.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that, in Wales, we will bestow on the chief inspector those wide and broad powers; that inspectors will have regard to the contracts that training providers are given; and that the personnel who carry out the inspection will be much more broadly based. They should have a wider range of experience than was part and parcel of the old schools inspectorate, as we all called it.
Mr. Wicks: Amendment No. 17 concerns a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for Daventry
(Mr. Boswell). It is a very minor amendment. Clause 58(1)(d), which describes the extended remit of the chief inspector, contains the expression
- training of or for teachers or lecturers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised some important points. Although it is not the intention of the legislation to provide for the chief inspector of Wales to inspect the service specification of the new National Council for Education and Training in Wales, the provisions in clauses 76 and 84 enable the chief inspector to draw the attention of the Assembly to any shortcomings in the council's specification, as appropriate. That is a sensible longstop in addition to the Assembly's arrangements for the monitoring and oversight of the council's functions. I hope that that explanation reassures my hon. Friend, but we are happy to discuss the matter in greater detail with him.
In discussing amendment No. 77. the hon. Member for Daventry raised some interesting points about the nature of the new inspections. In order to satisfy public accountability on the operation of the framework, there is a clear opportunity in each inspector's annual report to describe the previous year's experiences. That will be an on-going process. If there is a case for a joint report--I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's point--we will want to explore it. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I promise that we and the new inspectors will think again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) drew on the experience of one joint inspection. That proves the value of our reforms, as my hon. Friend was describing the status quo and not the new system. The problem was that the two inspectorates were working to separate frameworks. Under the common framework, a single team would work with more harmony. We are persuaded by the first area inspection that joint inspectorates can work very well. If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of that experience, I will make sure that we properly consider the matter. I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will support the Government amendments and not press theirs.
Clause 62
Amendment made: No. 18, in page 28, line 19, leave out "66" and insert "66(2)".--[Mr. Betts.]
Schedule 6
Amendments made: No. 23, in page 81, line 20, at end insert--
'( ) If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is not already a member of the Inspectorate, the Secretary of State must appoint him as a member for the same term as his appointment as chairman or chief officer.
( ) If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is already a member of the Inspectorate but his term of appointment as such would end before his term of appointment as chairman or chief officer ends, the Secretary of State must extend his term of appointment as a member so that it ends when his appointment as chairman or chief officer ends.'.
No. 24, in page 81, line 21, after "member" insert--
', chairman or chief officer'.
No. 25, in page 81, line 23, after "chairman" insert "or chief officer".--[Mr. Betts.]
'.--(1) The Chief Inspector for Wales must, for the purposes of the consultation required under section 104(4) of the 1998 Act (funding of HM Chief Inspector of Education and Training for Wales), prepare a plan for each financial year.
(2) The plan must be submitted to the National Assembly by such time before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates as the National Assembly may direct.
(3) The plan must contain estimates of--
(a) the expenditure necessary, in the financial year to which the plan relates, in order to secure that the functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales are discharged effectively; and
(b) the income which the Chief Inspector for Wales will receive in that financial year and which may be applied towards meeting the expenses of the Chief Inspector for Wales.
(4) The plan must also contain proposals for the management of any funds which may be provided by the National Assembly for that financial year.
(5) The Chief Inspector for Wales may, after the plan has been approved under section 104(4A) of the 1998 Act, publish it in such manner and at such time as appear to the Chief Inspector for Wales to be appropriate.
(6) "The 1998 Act" means the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 73
Amendment made: No. 19, in page 33, line 10, leave out from "1998" to end of line 12.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 79
Amendments made: No. 20, in page 36, line 17, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
No. 21, in page 36, line 27, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
No. 22, in page 36, line 30, leave out--
'(5) to (8) of section 34'
and insert--
'(6) to (6C) of section 35'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 89
Mr. Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 40, line 23, leave out subsection (11).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |