Clause
94
Power
to inspect registered
institution
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 130, in
clause 94, page 54, line 29, at
end insert
‘, or any
other standard considered to be relevant by the independent
inspectorate.’.
The
purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Independent Schools
Inspectorate can look beyond what is specified by the chief inspector.
That concern was raised by the ISI in its comments on the clause. It
said:
“We would
want to look at more than an area which may be specified, if it was
appropriate.”
The concern
is that this provision might restrict
that.
Jim
Knight:
The clause aims to strike a balance. It will not
impose any requirement on the inspectorate to report on standards
additional to those specified by the chief inspector. Equally, it will
not restrict the freedom of the independent inspectorate to inspect
against a wider range of standards than those specified by the chief
inspector, if the independent inspectorate thinks it appropriate. The
amendment would remove that flexibility by requiring the independent
inspectorate to report on additional
standards.
Given that
the clause does not restrict the freedom of independent inspectorates
and that if the Independent Schools Inspectorate wants to add
additional standards and inspect against them, it is perfectly at
liberty to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
On the basis of that response, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
94 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 95
to 97 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
98
Publication
of inspection
reports
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 98, page 55, line 41, at
end insert
‘except for
reports of inspections carried out in response to a specific
complaint.’.
This
is a probing amendment to ascertain the implications of the clause and
what happens if a specific complaint against a school led to an
inspection and the complaint derived from a confidential matter,
perhaps relating to something that happened to a pupil in the school.
Will the Minister address that
point?
Jim
Knight:
Inspection reports on all educational institutions
are published regularly, so that parents and other interested parties
have access to objective judgments about the quality of education
provided. Indeed, the provisions of the Bill will add to that
information by having Ofsted report on registration of a school, which
it currently does not have to do.
Clause 98 follows the established
practice in allowing the chief inspector to arrange
for the publication of any inspection report she prepares following
inspections of independent educational institutions. Under the Bill,
the Secretary of State will continue to be able to prescribe the manner
in which the chief inspector’s reports are published. The clause
does not require, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
said, the chief inspector automatically to publish inspection reports
carried out in response to a specific complaint, but it gives her the
power to do so. That is an important distinction, because it is easy to
see a situation where inspectors find no evidence to substantiate a
complaint, which may have been made maliciously. In such cases it is
unlikely that publishing the report would be appropriate, and the
clause gives the chief inspector the discretion to decide not to
publish.
On the other
hand, there are circumstances in which the chief inspector may decide
that it is in the public interest to publish a report, even though it
has been prompted by a complaint. For instance, if an
inspection stemming from a complaint identified serious regulatory
failings, the chief inspector might decide that it would be appropriate
to publish the report so that parents were aware of the shortcomings of
the
institution.
Mr.
Heald:
Am I correct in thinking that children would not be
named in the course of the report—that it would be anonymised,
so that the public reading the report would not be aware of
embarrassing details about particular
youngsters?
Jim
Knight:
I am confident that safeguards will be in place,
as in the normal course of operations—how we report court
proceedings and so on—to protect children. I do not have the
specific information with me now, but if it is any different to the
common-sense arrangement that the hon. Gentleman and I envisage, I will
write to the Committee to inform Members of what the situation will
be.
On
the basis that we have a flexible system, which
allows discretion according to individual circumstances, I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
On the basis of those words, I am happy to beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
98 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
9
9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
100
Power
of Chief Inspector to take enforcement
action
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
The clause relates to the power of the chief
inspector to take enforcement action. Subsection (4) says
that:
“the Chief Inspector has, during the
period of three years before the enforcement action is taken, required
the...institution to
submit”
an action plan.
The comment of the Independent Schools Inspectorate is that, for such a
school, that seems like a long period in which to require an action
plan and to allow the school to languish in that condition. Will the
Minister say why the figure of three years was put into the
clause?
Jim
Knight:
The clause sets out the circumstances in which the
chief inspector may take enforcement action—under clause 101,
which we are about to come on to—against the proprietor of a
failing independent educational institution. In order to take
enforcement action, the chief inspector must be satisfied that the
institution is failing to meet one or more of the regulatory standards.
However, to take enforcement action, one of two conditions must first
be met.
First, the
proprietor must, as we heard, in the previous three years have been
required to submit at least one action plan, setting out how the
regulatory failings would be dealt with. Where that action plan was not
submitted by the required date, was rejected by the chief inspector, or
was approved but later not complied with, the first condition is met.
Alternatively, where the proprietor was required to submit an action
plan at least two years previously, and at least one inspection has
taken place since then and the chief inspector is satisfied that at no
time in the two-year period has the institution met all the standards,
the second condition is
met.
The problems
identified would not necessarily be allowed to go on for three years,
but it is important that schools be given time to put an action plan in
place. Three years is the period in current practice, but it would be
extremely unusual for Ofsted to allow a situation to carry on for that
long. I will reflect on whether three years bears my scrutiny. If I do
not raise the matter on Report and the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so,
I will come back with the answer as to why three years is right.
Indeed, I might even write to him and to the Committee if I believe we
need to set things out in more detail. As I understand it, however, the
clause simply reflects the present situation.
The clause carries forward
provisions in existing legislation, but amends them to allow
enforcement action to be taken where institutions do not sustain
previous improvements or fail to meet all the regulatory standards. It
is essential that action be taken, and I hope we can agree that the
clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
The provision contradicts the very welcome policy in
the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that brings about closure
of a poorly performing school within 12 months. I welcome the fact that
the Minister will reflect
further.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
100
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
101 to 114
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
115
Directions
under section 113:
information
Jim
Knight:
I beg to move amendment No. 207, in
clause 115, page 64, line 29, leave
out ‘in connection with the Secretary of State’s
functions’.
Mr.
Bayley, listening to you read the numbers of the preceding series of
clauses made me think that if you need another job, bingo calling might
be the one for you.
Clause 115 carries forward
provisions already in place in existing legislation. It enables the
sharing of information between relevant authorities to prevent an
unsuitable person from working with children by participating in the
management of an independent educational institution. Relevant
authorities are the chief inspector, the Secretary of State, Welsh
Ministers, the Independent Barring Board and the General Teaching
Councils for both England and Wales. This will assist relevant
authorities to discharge effectively their statutory functions to
protect children and vulnerable adults from those who might cause them
harm.
The amendment
allows the Secretary of State to share with the authority responsible
for making the direction under clause 113 any information which may be
relevant to consideration of a direction to prohibit a person from
participating in the management of an independent educational
institution. It will bring consistency between England and Wales and
allow the Secretary of State to share any information that may be
relevant.
Amendment
agreed to.
The
Chairman:
I did not want to interrupt the Minister in full
flow, but as an accomplished and experienced part-time bingo caller, I
should remind him that numbers above 100 do not appear on the bingo
card.
Clause
115, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
116
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
117
Providers
of independent education or training for 16 to 18 year
olds
2.45
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes:
I felt it was important to say a word about this
clause on the grounds that we have not said anything on clause stand
part for a long time. We do not want it to be thought that the
Committee is not scrutinising the Bill with appropriate
diligence.
According
to the explanatory notes, clause 117
“enables regulations to be made
allowing for any part of this Chapter to apply to this particular group
of learning providers”—
the learning providers in question being
independent providers of education or training for 16 to 18-year-olds.
Clauses 117 and 118 deal only with those organisations. However, the
explanatory notes go on to explain that this group of
providers
“do not receive
any state funding from the
LSC.”
Is it really
necessary to regulate the sector further? Is there any evidence that
those providers are failing to safeguard the health, safety and welfare
of young people? If not, and the current regulatory regime works for
them, why do we need to change it? We should never legislate unless
there is a proven need to do so. I look to the Minister to establish
that proven need in the mind of the
Committee.
Jim
Knight:
Those who have been listening and who might have
wondered why we did not talk about previous clauses may be reassured to
know that in large part they repeat what was in previous legislation,
but in respect of the transfer of functions.
The hon. Gentleman raises an
important point about why we should worry about standards or
requirements beyond ordinary health and safety law for those providers
of education for 16 to 18-year-olds. There are important minimum
regulatory standards that we should put in place beyond health and
safety, particularly in respect of child welfare and child protection.
This is a good opportunity to do so.
In placing a new duty on all
young people to continue to participate in education or training until
they are 18, it is right that we take the power to set standards to
ensure that they are healthy, safe and supported wherever they choose
to fulfil the duty that we discussed at such length under part 1. In
many ways the provision is not a response to any specific evidence that
there is a failure on the part of those providers. It is much more a
consequence of raising the participation age through part 1. I hope, on
that basis, that the Committee will support the
clause.
Mr.
Hayes:
I simply say to the Minister that it would perhaps
be useful if he could give us some idea of the history in this
area—not now because I would not expect him to have this sort of
information at his fingertips. If no concerns have been expressed about
the way the system operates now and if there is no record of problems
relating to child protection, health and safety and welfare, the only
grounds I can see for introducing the clause is to establish
consistency. That may be sufficient of itself, but it is important to
know whether that is the only basis on which the proposal is being
made.
Jim
Knight:
It is about slightly more than consistency. As we
have discussed, new forms of provision will be developed by various
organisations from the third sector and elsewhere to engage people who
are particularly difficult to engage. There will be an expansion of
provision in an area where there are no statutory duties in respect of
safety and well-being. Consequential to raising the participation age
and to all the extra provision, it is also important—beyond the
need for consistency—to lay down statutory duties to
safeguard the well-being of the especially vulnerable people we want to
engage. Any regulations laid, however, will be dealt with through the
affirmative procedure, after consultation, as set out in clause 118(2).
We might go on to discuss that if anyone is minded to do so. I hope
that that gives the hon. Gentleman—and the rest of the
Committee—reassurance.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 117
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
118 to 124 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
