Clause
80
Unregistered
independent educational institutions:
offence
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
clause 80, page 49, line 7, leave
out ‘51 weeks’ and insert ‘six
months’.
A
number of the provisions in part 4 repeat provisions from the Education
Act 2002. Clause 80 essentially replicates section 159 of the 2002 Act
but with changes to reflect the new term “educational
institution”. Clause 80, however, prescribes a punishment for
conducting an unregulated educational institution as up to 51 weeks in
prison. The 2002 Act, even with amendments subsequent to 2002, carries
a maximum sentence of six months. Will the Minister explain the reason
for the change of policy? Is it to get more people into our jails,
which appear to be lacking in customers, or is there a more specific
reason?
2.15
pm
Jim
Knight:
The clause provides that anyone
who runs an independent educational institution is committing an
offence if he operates without registering the institution.
It carries over the existing offence from the 2002 Act, in relation to
independent schools, and extends it according to this part. I do not
believe that the hon. Gentleman is questioning the principle of
enforcement of registration; as we have just heard, he is merely
questioning the reason for the
change.
The clause sets
out the maximum penalties that can be imposed on conviction for an
offence of operating an unregistered independent educational
institution. The 51 weeks maximum sentence increases the sentence of
six months. That change simply reflects wider amendments to sentencing
law that are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which extended
the maximum sentence available to magistrates courts because short
sentences have proved to be ineffective and inefficient in certain
circumstances. This is not the right place to debate the sentencing
requirements of the 2003 Act. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
It is important to put that explanation on the
record, as the Minister has done. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
80
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
81 to 84
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
85
“Material
change”
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 85, page 51, line 12, at
end insert ‘one or
more’.
Clause 86
requires an independent educational institution to apply to Ofsted for
approval for any change that is material. “Material” is
defined as a change involving any of the items listed in clause
82(3),
“(e)
whether the institution provides accommodation for
students;
(f) whether
the institution is specially organised to make special educational
provision for students with special educational
needs”
If an institution
changes to provide one of those two things, that is regarded as
material.
The purpose
of this probing amendment is to ascertain whether it would be material
change, as specified in subsection (f), if a school catered for just
one student with those needs, or whether the school would have to
become wholly or mainly involved in special educational needs for it to
be regarded as such. My question relates to the definition of what
constitutes “material” in subsection
(f).
Jim
Knight:
I will be brief, to help the Committee, and will
answer the hon. Gentleman’s question simply. In legal terms, the
use of the word “students” in the plural in this context
includes institutions specially organised for just one student with
special educational needs. The amendment would clarify unnecessarily
matters that are covered by the existing drafting. On the basis of that
direct, short answer to his direct question, I hope that he will
withdraw the amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
85
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
87
Inspection
and report where applications made for
approval
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 127, in
clause 87, page 51, line 24, at
end insert
‘if he
regards the change to be of such significance as to warrant an
inspection,
‘(1A) In determining
whether the change is of such significance, the Chief Inspector shall
have regard to
precedents.’.
The
purpose of the amendment is to probe the issue of material change and
what would constitute a change that was significant enough to warrant
an inspection. The size of Ofsted necessitates that it is a somewhat
bureaucratic organisation, so the fear is whether any change reported
to Ofsted as the new registration body for independent schools would
trigger an inspection, and that relates to the debate that we had about
Ofsted-isation.
The purpose of the amendment is
to try to get on the record the Minister’s opinion on the degree
of change that would need to take place for something to be material,
because there is a fear that, once responsibility is transferred to
Ofsted, simply reporting a change could trigger an inspection—at
the moment such a change would be reported to one of the 18.2 officials
in his Department who would record it and the school would just carry
on. That is not to say that those schools are frightened of inspection,
as they welcome it. They are concerned, however, about the bureaucratic
driver of that. If the Minster could give them some reassurance, that
would be
welcome.
Jim
Knight:
Clause 87 allows the chief inspector to conduct
inspections when considering applications from independent educational
institutions for prior approval of material changes. In most
institutions, a material change will be the introduction of boarding or
a change to become specially organised to make provision for students
with special educational needs. Where institutions are specially
organised to make provision for students with special educational
needs, a material change will be any significant change in their
provision, as recorded in the institution’s registered
details.
It is
particularly important that safeguards are in place to ensure that new
boarding provision and any changes to provision for students with
special educational needs will not endanger the welfare, health and
safety of students. The thrust of the amendment would remove the chief
inspector’s discretion to decide whether an institution
proposing a significant change should be inspected. It would restrict
the chief inspector by requiring her to refer to past cases that may or
may not be relevant when considering the merits of a specific
proposal.
I get the thrust of what the hon.
Gentleman seeks reassurance on, which is that the clause might allow
the chief inspector too much latitude to inspect schools for all sorts
of minor changes. I can reassure him that approval of a change is
required only where the change is material—in other words, in
significant cases. Not all changes will require approval, and a large
number of changes will not require prior approval. Indeed, for those
institutions that are not specially organised to make provision for
students with special educational needs, the Bill reduces the number of
changes that count as material and so require approval by the chief
inspector. They will no longer have to get approval from the chief
inspector for a change in proprietor, address, the age range of pupils,
the maximum number of pupils or whether the school is for male or
female pupils or both. That is further deregulation for us to
celebrate.
The only
changes that will require approval are the introduction of boarding
provision and the change to become specially organised for students
with special educational needs. Where a material change is proposed,
the chief inspector should have a free hand to inspect when she
considers it appropriate to do so, and she should not be restricted in
the way that the amendment sets out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman,
who is sensible, will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful for that helpful response, and on that
basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
87 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
88
Determination
of applications for
approval
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 128, in
clause 88, page 52, line 2, at
end insert—
‘(2A) Any such
other evidence referred to in subsection (2)(B) must be made available
to the independent educational
institution.’.
Clause
88(2) contains a phrase that is of concern. Paragraph (a) states that
in coming to a decision the inspector must take into
account
“the findings of
any inspection carried out under section
87”,
but paragraph (b)
then states that the inspector must also take into
account
“any other
evidence relating to the independent educational institution
standards.”
The amendment
would ensure transparency because Ofsted would have to make such
evidence available to the school. Again, it is a probing amendment, and
if the Minister could provide a little more light on the meaning of
that phrase, to alleviate any concerns that might exist in the
independent sector, that would be very
helpful.
Jim
Knight:
In deciding whether or not to approve a material
change, the chief inspector must take account of the findings of any
inspection carried out to consider the institution’s readiness
to make the change, and any other evidence available. To help reassure
the
hon. Gentleman, the evidence may include previous inspection reports,
information from fire and rescue authorities about fire safety,
information from the Health and Safety Executive and the environmental
health authority about the suitability of the premises, confidential
information received from parents or others, matters referred to in a
criminal background check on the proprietor of the institution, and any
other evidence received from police or social services departments
relating to the unsuitability of any person working at the
institution.
Where the
chief inspector is satisfied that the institution is likely to continue
to meet the regulatory standards once the changes are made, she must
approve the change. If she is not satisfied, she must refuse approval
for the change to be made. The chief inspector must inform the
proprietor of her decision. Information received from bodies such as
the fire and rescue service, the HSE and the environmental health
agency would routinely be shared with institutions. The amendment would
not change current procedures, which would then reasonably allow those
institutions to make the necessary changes to conform. However,
confidential information from parents, the Criminal Records Bureau,
social services or the police would not routinely be shared for obvious
reasons. Disclosure to the relevant institution would be determined
according to the circumstances of the case. In some cases it would
appropriate; in others, it would not.
I do not think we should fetter
the discretion of the chief inspector by requiring her to disclose all
the available evidence, regardless of the circumstance. I therefore ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
This was a probing amendment and the Minister has
been very helpful in his response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
88 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 89
to 91 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
92
Duty
to inspect certain registered institutions at prescribed
intervals
Mr.
Gibb
:
I beg to move amendment No. 129, in
clause 92, page 53, line 26, at
end insert—
‘(2A) For the
purpose of subsection (2) the Independent Schools Inspectorate shall
inspect independent educational institutions that
are—
(a) members of
Independent Schools Council associations,
and
(b) all other registered
independent educational institutions other than schools belonging to
the Focus Learning
Trust.’.
The
amendment would enable the Government to achieve a more unified
approach than their proposal to transfer regulation monitoring of
independent schools to Ofsted. Its purpose is to keep the registration
and monitoring with the Department and instead to unify the inspection
by having all non-Independent Schools Council schools other than those
which will be inspected by the Focus Learning Trust or the other new
inspectorates that the Minister is to authorise inspected by the
Independent Schools Inspectorate. That would achieve a unified effect
more swiftly than his proposals.
Jim
Knight:
It will not surprise the Committee that I want to
resist this amendment. The debates on part 4 have used the language of
choice and flexibility. The argument goes that independent schools
should have the flexibility within the basic regulatory regime to
operate as their name suggests—that is, independently. Indeed,
one witness described a parent’s choice to educate their child
outside the control of the state as a human right. I do not
fundamentally disagree with the sentiment about choice and flexibility,
and that is why I am intrigued by the purpose and effect of the
amendment.
Ofsted is
the principal inspection body in England. The breadth of institutions
that it covers, including a significant number of independent schools,
gives it a unique perspective on the English education system.
Moreover, public confidence in Ofsted is high. The Government recognise
that choice and diversity are important in the independent sector,
precisely because it is independent. Parents of children in the
independent sector often desire a more tailored and detailed analysis
of their school than Ofsted can provide through inspections that focus
solely on regulatory standards. That is why the Education Act 2002
enabled the Secretary of State to approve bodies other than Ofsted to
inspect educational provision in independent
schools.
2.30
pm
The Independent
Schools Inspectorate has inspected independent schools belonging to the
Independent Schools Council for several years. Since 2002, two further
inspectorates have been approved. The amendment would exclude one of
those. The Schools Inspection Service inspects schools affiliated to
the Focus Learning Trust and the Bridge Schools Inspectorate has just
been approved to inspect schools belonging to the Christian Schools
Trust and the Association of Muslim
Schools.
On the other
hand, there are a considerable number of schools that choose not to be
affiliated to any particular group or organisation and who are not
inspected by an independent inspectorate. Such schools are inspected by
Ofsted and the Government believe that the option to have Ofsted as the
inspection body should be open to all independent schools. The
amendment would close off that possibility, replacing Ofsted and the
Bridge Schools Inspectorate with one organisation: the Independent
Schools Inspectorate. That would remove the choice that independent
educational institutions desire. In the light of my compelling
reasoning, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
The Minister’s compelling reasoning is that
he does not want to create a unified body, which undermines the thrust
of the policy behind part 4. However, we have aired this debate at
great length and I do not propose to do so again. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
92 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 93
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
