Column Number: 45
Standing Committee A
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Mr. Eric Illsley, †Mr. Eric Forth
†Allan, Mr. Richard (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Hexham) (Con)
†Baird, Vera (Redcar) (Lab)
†Burnham, Andy (Leigh) (Lab)
†Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)
Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Hoban, Mr. Mark (Fareham) (Con)
†Pickthall, Mr. Colin (West Lancashire) (Lab)
†Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)
†Touhig, Mr. Don (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)
†Turner, Mr. Neil (Wigan) (Lab)
†Twigg, Derek (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills)
†Twigg, Mr. Stephen (Minister for School Standards)
†Watkinson, Angela (Upminster) (Con)
Watts, Mr. David (St. Helens, North) (Lab)
†Wright, Iain (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 47
Tuesday 22 March 2005
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]
New Clause 4
Complaints procedures
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a) the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b) a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interests of the complainant; or
(c) the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2) Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 7—Complaints procedures (Wales)—
‘(1) The Assembly shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a) the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b) a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interest of the complainant; or
(c) the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2) Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any
Column Number: 48
complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): When we adjourned, I had just said a few words about what I saw as the intention behind the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), which seek to create a procedure for complaints to the independent adjudicator. There is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted, who was appointed by the Secretary of State. Before I speak about her role, it is worth saying a word about the context of complaints about school inspections in England. Because of the other changes that we seek to make in the Bill, the responsibility for school inspections will, in future, be firmly with Ofsted and complaints about inspections will have to be dealt with in that new context.
Ofsted has already developed, and is currently consulting on, a new complaints procedure for inspections, which will take particular account of the planned arrangements. The new procedure will set out clearly how schools will be able to discuss any concerns about an inspection with Ofsted, as well as to complain more formally. It will be explicit that a complaint may be about the inspection, the report, including judgments, or the conduct of the inspector.
The hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Upminster expressed some concerns this morning about the reaction that teachers get when they have a problem with inspectors. The hon. Gentleman gave an example from his own experience. Ofsted will soon publish a code of conduct for inspectors. A similar code of conduct already exits and is published in Wales. In future, Ofsted will be able to address concerns directly at all stages of the process and amend reports when a complaint is upheld.
The independent complaints adjudicator is in place and is completely independent of Ofsted. The adjudicator can consider complaints about any of the issues covered in subsection (1)(a) to (c) of the proposed new clause tabled by the hon. Lady, provided that the person complaining has exhausted Ofsted’s own complaints procedure. It must be right that an organisation has proper opportunities to see whether it needs to take action in response to a complaint before that complaint is referred to a third party. Unlike Ofsted, the adjudicator is not able to overturn professional judgments, but she is able to make recommendations if she considers that there is no evidence for a judgment or if the report does not adequately explain the link between the evidence and the finding. The adjudicator can recommend that the chief inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decisions, he must make a public statement giving his reasons.
The only thing proposed in the new clause that cannot happen now is that the chief inspector is not able, without limitation, to modify and republish inspection reports. Under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996, they are not his reports; they are those of the registered inspectors. However, we seek to
Column Number: 49
change that through the Bill, which will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspection reports in England with the chief inspector.
I believe that the remit of the complaints adjudicator is right. She is already appointed by the Secretary of State so there is no need for the appointment to be statutory. Robust procedures are in place for schools to be able to ensure that inaccuracies are corrected, to challenge judgments when they think that they are unfair and to seek independent adjudication when they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. As the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southport demonstrate, there are difficulties. I am sure that we all know of cases where there have been tensions when inspectors have gone into schools and there have been disagreements, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, about the way in which a subject has been taught. We recognise those tensions and the pressures put on all teachers as a consequence.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the independent adjudicator and Ofsted? If the independent adjudicator decided that the original inspection report was incorrect or in need of amending, whose decision would have authority when it came to whether that amendment was made? Would it be the independent adjudicator or Ofsted?
Mr. Touhig: The independent adjudicator would not be able to overturn professional judgments in the report, but she can recommend that an inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decision, he must then make a public statement to say why he has done so.
New clause 7 would put a duty on the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations setting out a procedure for complaining to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator would be required to consider complaints lodged against the conduct of a school inspection and the conclusions set out in the inspection report. That could include complaints that an inspection had been conducted in a manner inconsistent with legal requirements.
As I understand the hon. Lady’s intention, the adjudicator could also consider a complaint that the evidence gathered during the inspection did not support the conclusions of an inspection report. In such circumstances, the chief inspector would be required to act in accordance with the findings of the adjudicator, and that would include revising and republishing the inspection report when required.
It is right that there should be clear and readily available avenues of redress for those who wish to lodge complaints about professional judgments and opinions expressed in an inspection report and about the extent to which the inspection was conducted in a manner consistent with the accepted processes and procedures. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that Estyn—Her Majesty’s inspectorate for education and training in Wales—already has detailed and transparent procedures for handling such complaints.
Column Number: 50
The position in Wales is that, under the common inspection framework, a school nominee will be attached to each inspection team and will be able to bring additional evidence to the team at any point during the process. That person will be aware of the emerging judgments and will therefore be well placed to challenge the findings and to present additional information or evidence to the inspectorate team.
On the production of reports, regulations already provide for reports to be completed within 35 working days. Estyn’s guidance requires that, within that period, the registered inspector give the school a late draft of the report to help with the checking of factual content. The school then has five working days in which to consider the draft, and the inspector has to take account of comments offered and to correct factual errors. The main purpose of that process is to enable the correction of factual inaccuracies, but it presents the school with an opportunity to raise issues about which it feels strongly. Beyond that, any complaint about the professional judgments that are made in the course of the school inspection will be considered initially by the lead inspector. If complainants are not satisfied with the response, they may ask for the complaint to be considered by a senior HMI or the chief inspector.
On the processes and procedures followed during an inspection, it is also right that schools should have access to further independent avenues of redress. Again, such provision is already made. Those who are dissatisfied with the conduct of an inspection or with the way in which Estyn has managed their complaint can approach the Welsh administration ombudsman, who is empowered to investigate complaints of injustice due to maladministration by Welsh public bodies, including Estyn. Maladministration includes poor administration resulting from the failure to follow correct procedures, as well as unfairness, bias or prejudice, and giving misleading or inadequate evidence. The ombudsman has powers to investigate complaints about the administrative actions taken by Estyn or those acting for the inspectorate. If a complaint were justified in the opinion of the ombudsman, the inspectorate would be required, within a set period, to take action to meet any recommendation set out by the ombudsman.
Therefore, there are already accepted and readily accessible procedures for challenging the professional judgment registered in an inspection report and the manner in which the inspection was conducted, and they include recourse to independent adjudication. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Lady will better understand the intention behind what the Government seek to do and why we are resisting the new clauses that she has tabled.
Angela Watkinson: I am reassured in part by the Minister’s comments, but I foresee certain circumstances in which there is a dispute about the justification for the results of an inspection and a difference of opinion, because the independent adjudicator has upheld the views of the school but Ofsted has decided that it was right. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofsted will make a statement about its
Column Number: 51
reasons for not wanting to change its views on the report, that appears to be the end of the line, and the school will be saddled with an Ofsted report that it believes to be unjustified. If I understand the Minister correctly, there is no further recourse beyond that point.
Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Lady’s point. She will recall that I went on to say that we are seeking to make changes to the School Inspections Act 1996 so that provisions in the Bill will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspectors’ reports on the chief inspector. The chief inspector will therefore be ultimately responsible for the publication of all reports.
I did say that the chief inspector would then be required to make a statement if he rejected the independent adjudicator’s comments in upholding a complaint. I have no doubt in those circumstances that hon. and right hon. Members will seek opportunities in this place to take the matter further in Adjournment debates and by other measures. We cannot, and should not, go further at this stage. This is an important way of making progress on the issue of complaints. The process is open and transparent, which is important. The requirement on the chief inspector to make a public statement of the reasons why he would reject an independent adjudicator’s complaints is very important.
Angela Watkinson: In view of those comments, which go some way to reassuring me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101
Funding of maintained schools
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I received a very pleasant letter from the Minister the other day, which clarified my understanding of the clause and its implications. Again, it is a short clause—it has only two lines—but behind it hides a schedule and a wealth of detail and consideration that are not even in the legislation but are probably worth airing in part.
With your leave, Mr. Forth, I shall indulge myself, if not the Committee, and if I can test my understanding of the clause, I will be mightily reassured. As I understand them, the schedule and its proposed new subsections change the date at which schools know their budget, and give their budget a three-year predictability.
I am trying to get to grips with the consequential effects on the structure of the school budget and the local authority budget. In recent history, formula funding shares were agreed for education, an element of which eventually becomes the aggregated schools
Column Number: 52
budget, and the local education authority keeps an element for its statutory functions, which the Government want it to carry out.
Other money is taken back from the LEA, subject to an overall ceiling of how much the LEA can spend in total, relative to the school budget for various services that the LEAs will provide in different parts of the country. The money is extracted from the schools budget. From time to time, the LEAs also lay out a third level of services, and schools are freed from their devolved budgets to buy into them. As I said, this is all subject to an overall limit on what LEA spend should be compared with the total sum.
The new arrangement, if I have come to terms with it, is that schools will have a designated budget for three years. I assume that every local authority settlement will contain a different specific sum that is reserved for necessary local authority functions as defined by the Secretary of State.
Money from the designated school budget may still come back to the local authority so that it can perform various functions, subject to the approval of the school forum. I said in the Chamber that that put an extra lock into the process and was an extra obstacle against local authorities carrying out their strategic functions. To my eternal discredit, I was wrong.
2.45 pm
I understand now that that is not the case. Whereas such an agreement would formerly have needed to be ratified by the Secretary of State, he is now not necessarily involved. The forum can agree it on site with the LEA, and the schools can agree on how to administer certain strategic functions for the local authority under the designated school budget. I think that I am correct in saying that even if there is no agreement between the forum and the local authority, and the local authority cannot carry out what it sees as a major strategic purpose, it may subsequently apply to the Secretary of State, who will then use the judgment of Solomon. That is not quite as reprehensible a state of affairs as I said it was a week or so ago. I apologise to the Secretary of State for not getting it right first time.
None the less, I wish to make a few comments on the arrangements. The forums will clearly play a crucial role. The forum is a relatively new beast, and many local authorities and many in the teaching profession probably do not appreciate how important it is likely to become. I wonder whether any thought has been given to the exact structure of the forums or to whether the issues are better left to the discretion of local authorities and schools.
I shall try to crystallise that point by referring to a case from my neck of the woods, where the school formula was changed with the agreement of the forum, but in a way that had particular disadvantages for infant-only schools, which were sorely aggrieved. When the issue was looked into, it was discovered that there was no infant representation on the forum. School forums with functions in that particular format will obviously have problems, and that will lead to a good number of appeals being made over their heads
Column Number: 53
to the Secretary of State. The question is whether we are satisfied that forums are good enough for the task in hand.
Other issues raised by the local authorities are also important. In one sense, the designated school budget is money being parcelled up by the Government and sent to specific schools. I presume that it will be pitched at a level that is judged to be nationally appropriate, and that it will therefore to some extent override pre-existing formulas. As we know, some local authorities are more generous to their schools than others. The general fear is that we may be moving towards the national funding of schools and that, subject to certain criteria, every school will get the same type of deal.
Schools in impoverished areas will obviously get a different deal from those in suburban and relatively rich areas, but it seems that a national prescription will nevertheless apply. I cannot see how that will be accomplished under the Bill, however, because it is obvious that when schools receive their designated school budget they may get a further exhibition of largesse from the local authority. Nothing in the Bill will stop them saying, “This is what the Government have given by way of designated budget, but we normally give you a lot more. Here, have the additional money.” That will necessarily lead to problems for local authorities that, even though they are not funded to do so, currently fund their schools at a higher level. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the question whether all schools will have the same formula. Is that the destination or at least the likely outcome?
We have all received a good amount of lobbying from the Local Government Association, which seems to have objected in principle to the three-year deal. I apologise if I have not understood it correctly, but the line seems to be that if the money is set aside for the schools for three years or three years ahead, it circumscribes and limits local decision making, local strategic manoeuvres and so on. I am a little unconvinced by that argument, as many local authorities wish to move or are moving to three-year budgets. They are budgeting in a fairly formal way on a three-year cycle.
I remember long before I was in this place—longer ago than I care to remember—speaking about budgets to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) when we were on the same council. We went through the ordeal of a council budget every year, which meant a lot of burning of the midnight oil. I said to him across the chamber that what we really wanted was three-year budgets. That must have been 15 or more years ago. He took me aside and, speaking very kindly, said that that sad illusion would never be fulfilled. We are near to fulfilling it, and I do not think that the LGA should have any reason for opposing that. Obviously, the Minister may wish to comment on its representation.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Let me first address the last of the three sets of comments made by the hon. Member for Southport. It is fair to say that the LGA has expressed several concerns about the ring-fencing arrangements that we have put in place, but I believe that they are a sensible
Column Number: 54
approach to giving schools the stability that they have rightly been asking for and to assisting them in planning for the future.
It is true that there is both an upside and a downside to three-year budgeting. We discussed in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago the trade-off between certainty and flexibility to meet the changing needs of a changing school population. That is one of the issues on which the Government are consulting at present. We welcome comments from colleagues of all parties, although the consultation is principally with schools and local governments. The hon. Gentleman answered his third point himself, in that we can give reassurance. The general trend of policy is indeed towards three-year budgets, which are advantageous to local government as well as to schools.
The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about the schools forums. The position that he described was accurate and correct—in a sense, he corrected the comments that he made on Second Reading—so I do not need to repeat it. He raised a perfectly reasonable point by asking, in the light of the role that schools forums were taking on, whether we needed to consider how they operated their constitution, voting procedures and so on. At this stage, the best thing for me to say is that we will consider whether any changes are required to the regulations dealing with the constitution and procedures of schools forums. We shall have to take the opportunity to have discuss those matters if revisions are needed in the light of the new decision-making powers. My Department’s preference would be to build on what we view, by and large, as very good practice in schools forums and to issue guidance that we hope will be widely adopted. In doing that, it is clear that we will need to take into account the kind of circumstance that he described from his constituency experience.
Finally, let me address the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the measure is, in essence, a move to a national funding formula. It is worth while to emphasise that, although we are creating a dedicated schools budget and saying to local governments that they must spend the funds on their schools, we are also continuing with the LEA’s important role in schools funding. There will still be a local formula for distributing funds locally.
In recent changes to schools funding, we established the principle of having a core amount of money that any pupil in any part of the country would get, and then top-ups for factors such as deprivation, rural sparsity and so on. Clearly, we continue to debate in this House and elsewhere whether the mix between those two aspects is right, but even with the ring-fenced, dedicated schools budget, at the local level, the authority will still decide in conjunction with its schools on a local formula for distributing the money.
Angela Watkinson: The Minister will know that there is significant variation at present in the amount passed to schools by their LEAs. My authority in the London borough of Havering is extremely good. It is an extremely lean and efficient organisation at the centre, and it passports the absolute maximum to its
Column Number: 55
schools. Sadly, that is not the case in some authorities elsewhere in the country. There are significant variations. It would be much better if school funding were passed directly from the Secretary of State to individual schools rather than channelled through LEAs, so that head teachers and governors had total control over their own budgets and could plan much more effectively.
| 
