| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
While I fully accept what the Minister has said and I will go away and think about it, I hope that he will consider this set of circumstances, which is very common.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for his answers, and I begin by saying how much I approve of the direction being taken by the Government. It is immensely helpful that they have shortened the period from 15 to five days. It is a reasonable and practical target for an education authority and a school to make alternative provision and to do it properly, because it is so important in respect of non-returning exclusions. It is perfectly reasonable that the onus for the first five days is placed on the parents because that is where the responsibility for children should lie. Yes, if there are problems with the parents, mechanisms ought to swing in to support them and help them fulfil their obligations.
However, where I differ from the Minister is that the solutions that the Government have arrived at are just not practical. I was trying to deal with two areas. The first is the period of notice that parents require to deal practically with their obligations. The method of telling a parent that a child has been excluded is governed by Section 572 of the Education Act 1996. That allows notice to be given by sending it in a pre-paid letter addressed to him at his residence. That letter might not arrive until two days after the period of criminal liability has started. If you are dealing with a lunch-time exclusion and someone is working as a bus driver, for example, what are they supposed to do? Get out of their bus at Charing Cross and take the tube home because a message has been sent?
Lord
Adonis: I accept the case given by the noble Lord
would be a reasonable justification. However, in
25 July 2006 : Column 1708
Lord Lucas: Yes, but it can be extremely difficult to make alternative arrangements. It takes time to do so and that should be recognised. Also, there is no sense in which exclusion is a punishment for a seriously rebellious child. You cannot do anything with them that they would regard as a punishment. Being locked up in their room with their comics and television is not a serious punishment. Being made to trail around behind Mum may be. The idea that being out of a public place is more of a punishment than being in a public place properly supervised is not correct. It makes life extremely difficult for the conscientious parent and employee. They cannot even take their child to work and make them sit in the corner studying their books, which is a solution that might be allowed by reasonable employers to help out. They are not allowed to say, “Come on. You can come with me and help me wash the dishes or clean office”, or whatever else.
It is wrong to think that incarceration is the only form of punishment. The punishment is actually on the parents in this case. The people who will suffer are the parents, and the child will suffer because the parents are suffering. That is the mechanism being used. To inconvenience the parents sufficiently for them to want to discipline the child it is not necessary to tell the parent, “You go home and stay home for five days”, in order that the child should be properly disciplined.
For this provision to be workable we need a broad and reasonable interpretation of “reasonable justification”. That will only be based on whatever guidance the Government choose to provide, because the servants of the state in their great wisdom are fond of pettifogging interpretation of the rules. That may not be in every case, but we are all familiar with people who have been arrested for reading newspapers in Whitehall because that happens to contravene some aspect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the interpretation of the police officers involved. That sort of thing goes on throughout the country in all sorts of petty and unreasonable ways and we do not want that applied to parents. We want a good solid set of guidance.
The difficulty at the core of my amendment is this business of not being in a public place because that is obstructing the proper treatment of the child and obstructing arrangements that might be made to use that period for education and reintegration for the child. It is an unhelpful interpretation.
Baroness
Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Lord
withdraws the amendment, I want to say that it would be useful if the
Minister were to share with the rest of
25 July 2006 : Column 1709
Lord Lucas: I shall certainly think on what the Minister has said. I shall read it in the course of the Recess—I have little else to do on these sunny days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils]:
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Clause 96 [Duty of parent in relation to excluded pupil]:
[Amendments Nos. 243 to 246 not moved.]
Clause 97 [Notice to parent relating to excluded pupil]:
[Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 248ZA:
- Page 212, line 7, after
“State” insert “one of whom must have knowledge
and experience of post-16
learning”
The noble Baroness said: We now move to Part 8 of the Bill which deals with reforms to Ofsted and the new office which will be created. In moving Amendment No. 248ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248B. Both amendments concern the amalgamation of the Adult Learning Inspectorate, ALI, and Ofsted.
Broadly speaking, we welcome the proposed merger of Ofsted with the Adult Learning Inspectorate and the other inspectorates. This is intended to ensure that all issues concerning the welfare of children and young people are brought under the same umbrella, thereby creating a more joined-up approach. It is also part of the Government’s welcome ambition to reduce the number of bodies involved in the regulation of schools and colleges and the childcare sector, which is another important part of the reforms to the inspectorate.
There is support
in the further education sector for the merger of ALI and Ofsted and it
is seen as an important step in reducing the bureaucratic burden.
However, the expertise and often helpful attitude demonstrated by the
Adult Learning Inspectorate need to be preserved and the high degree of
commitment it has shown to adult learning must be
25 July 2006 : Column 1710
- “One of the
persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of
Schedule 11 is to be appointed as director of post-16
learning”.
Clause 112 creates the children’s rights director. Just as there is to be a children’s rights director as part of the new, larger Ofsted, there should also be a director of post-16 learning. The role of the children’s rights director was established under the Care Standards Act 2000, and what the Bill proposes is a continuation of that role. But the Bill provides a good opportunity to enshrine in law a new post to recognise the importance of post-16 learning within the new Ofsted structure. The amendments make the dual suggestion—there is one in the schedule and one in Clause 112—that we should recognise this new post and the person appointed to it. I beg to move.
4 pm
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 248ZAC and 248G. Amendment No. 248ZAC would create the role of an adult learning director in Ofsted to redress the balance after the abolition of the Adult Learning Inspectorate. The amendment was put forward by my honourable friend in another place, John Hayes MP. He raised the issue as a result of correspondence with the Institute of Directors, whose expectations for the future of adult learning are far from optimistic. In its experienced opinion, the Institute of Directors states that,
- “it seems
inevitable that, despite the Government’s protestations and
soothing reassurances, the new inspectorate will concentrate on
children and schools at the expense of
adults”.
The Minister in another place suggested that this amendment would not stand up to scrutiny as in his opinion, a head of schools and a head of adult learning would place a dividing line between the academics and the vocational. Aside from the obvious oversight that adult learning takes place in further education colleges and not schools, so the comparison is, to a certain extent, redundant, I suggest the very opposite. Surely the existence of a head of inspection for schools but no position for adult learning will create a division of attention in the inspectorate that all but ignores adult learning.
The Minister in another place stated that he wants pathways between the vocational and the academic. That is a laudable aim which would be fully supported by our amendment and would ensure that both the vocational and the academic would be equally represented within the inspectorate.
Lord
Lucas: Can the noble Lord enlighten me about
something that is related, but not directly, to the amendments? We have
all got used to referring to
25 July 2006 : Column 1711
Lord Adonis: I can assure the noble Lord that we will continue to refer to it as Ofsted, and the reports will be called Ofsted reports. There will be minimal change in that regard.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to ensure that a member of the new Ofsted board has knowledge and experience of post-16 learning. The primary criteria for board members are good corporate governance, experience and credibility. Board members will not be appointed as sectoral representatives. However, the Government will be looking to appoint board members witha range of expertise, skills and professional backgrounds, including some with direct experience of education, children’s services and skills and some from business and other walks of life so as best to fulfil the role of the board to provide strategic direction and effective corporate governance.
I hope that I can give similar reassurance on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on post-16 learning. In expanding Ofsted’s remit, the knowledge and experience built up by the Adult Learning Inspectorate will not be lost and, furthermore, we do not expect there to be any drive towards uniformity. Different sectors have different needs, different approaches will remain, and we shall expect these to be reflected in the new Ofsted arrangements. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she is seeking.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his response, which we shall have to think about. I must say, with regard to his response to the change of name, that I cannot understand why the Government have bothered with all the preamble. Why not just leave it as Ofsted, if you are going to call it Ofsted? Education is a very broad word and covers many things. Why bother to say that we are going to make it the Office of Standards in Education, Children’s Services and so forth? Why not just leave it as the Office of Standards in Education? Then you do not have to bother having initials that say something else—you can just call it Ofsted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: A large body of those in the social care field feel very strongly that social care should be reflected, and are immensely grateful for what has happened.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I say, my reaction is why bother with the preamble and changing the name—but I take account of the sensibilities of those in the social care sector.
On the director of adult
services or post-16 learning, perhaps it is the same issue and there
are sensibilities involved. This whole question of where adult learning
is going is very important. We need to
25 July 2006 : Column 1712
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 248ZAA:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 248ZAA, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 248ZAB and 248ZH. This cluster of amendments is intended to probe the precise strategy for the new Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, which I see will retain its former acronym, Ofsted—as we have already said.
Amendments Nos. 248ZAA and 248ZAB are probing amendments. It is not our intention to abolish the salary of the chairman and appointed members of Ofsted; neither is it our intention to abolish committees that may be set up. But in the absence of on-the-record information from the Minister in another place on the precise financial arrangements of Ofsted, I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on these issues.
My honourable friend Nick Gibb MP asked in another place whether the Minister felt that the present arrangements lacked strategic direction. In response, the Minister said that he was,
It seems to me that the answer to my honourable friend was, “Yes”—the department’s present arrangements for Ofsted do lack strategic direction.It is right that Ofsted should function entirely independently; that is at the core of its great value for education in this country. There would be no point in having a government-run body to inspect schools and, by implication, the government education policy. Even so the department, which in the words of the Minister in another place has no strategic input into Ofsted, has implemented spending powers to be set by the Secretary of State and introduced new powers to create committees—all of which come with a generous civil servant pay and pension packet.
What the Minister in another place failed to answer was the point concerning the structural reconfiguration and the accountability of levels of remuneration. The regulatory impact assessment quotes the Government's policy on inspection of public services, which states that it,
But nowhere in the regulatory impact assessment is there mention of an advance audit of how effective Ofsted spending will be. The RIA states that at the time of publishing, cost estimates were based on an early assumption that,I hope the Minister can fill us in on the detail of that policy, how much it is set to cost the taxpayer and, crucially, whether it will affect the independence of Ofsted.Further to the question of initial
finances, there is also little to no incentive in the Bill for the
office to
25 July 2006 : Column 1713
The proposed inspectorate will incorporate a vast remit and not just in educational terms. It will stretch from nursery schools to adult education—also incorporating the children's services from the Commission for Social Care Inspection—to prison inspection work with juvenile estates. That is planned, I understand, to happen by 2008. That is a tight schedule. I fear that while these various different inspectorates jostle for their new roles under the Ofsted umbrella, roles will become confused and the vital component of our educational system, the head official body for holding schools to account, will suffer, resulting in literally immeasurable damage to standards in schools.
Amendment No. 248ZH injects a duty to promote high standards into the office, which, in its title, stands to represent standards in education, children’s services and skills. I was extremely surprised to note that such a priority was not already included in the Bill, and even more surprised to note the Minister’s rejection of the amendment in another place, stating that the amendment was at odds with the general purpose of Ofsted, although the regulatory impact assessment states:
and—this is the most important thing of all, on which we have touched again and again, although maybe not enough in this Committee—I should be interested to know which of those statements is true.Why should not Ofsted focus on high standards? The key to the role of Ofsted must be to ensure that all schools are good. Both the White Paper and the RIA state repeatedly that,
The educational goalposts shift ever upwards. However, that aim, which I read to mean that all children must achieve their best, must be tested.The Government’s policy is clear. Page 143 of the RIA states unequivocally:
- “The
Government challenges all schools to provide the best possible
standards of education to all their pupils, so all children and young
people can achieve their potential”.
25 July 2006 : Column 1714
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I shall speak to the three amendments under my name in this group, Amendments Nos. 248ZAD, 248ZAE and 248ZAF. I have some residual concerns about the process proposed in this part of the Bill. These are probing amendments that I hope will bring clarification of what the consequences and achievements of such a part of the Act would be as it becomes an Act. What is the added value of the office being structured in this way? Is there a potential deficit? I stress also the points made in the previous speech about the importance of independence for Ofsted and clarity of purpose and governance. I suspect that these clauses of the Bill will add to neither independence nor clarity.
This measure could be expensive. Doubtless, as committees and sub-committees multiply, it will become more expensive because they all have to be fuelled and the expenses covered. Ofsted has happily moved ahead in its management arrangementsto include independent members of the senior management group within Ofsted. I think that these independent members have given considerable value and provided what this part of the Bill ideally sets out to provide. They have been a valuable addition and this model of governance has served Ofsted well.
4.15 pm
As for additional value, could it be that weare to use the blessed words “accountable” and “accountability”? Those words usually appear at this stage in such a debate. Her Majesty's Chief inspector is accountable. He or she is accountable to Parliament, and is rightly held to account by Parliament through, for example, the annual report, the Secretary of State and the Select Committees.All of those operate well and in a way that teststhe independence and clarity of vision of the inspectorate.
That is happening—accountability is there. If there be any doubt, there are more than 25,000 schools in England, each of which has a complement of teachers who regard it as a sacred duty to keep an eye on Ofsted. So there is an informal form of accountability. I believe that accountability is there and clear and should properly continue to be exercised by Parliament.
Is there then the risk of a deficit in these departures? I believe that there is, and I think that the risk is that the office, constituted as it is in the Bill, will perhaps raise issues about both the professional and independent judgment of the chief inspector and his or her colleagues.
What precisely
is the office meant to add and what will it do? According to the Bill,
it will “determine strategy”. The Government properly
determine policy. If a body such as this determines strategy, what is
left for the professionals in the organisation who have served us very
well not only in exercising
25 July 2006 : Column 1715
There will be a layer of bureaucracy between the inspectorate and the exercise of its judgment in practical ways. Does it have to go back to the body in question—in monthly meetings, six-weekly meetings, three-monthly meetings? Does the chief inspector have to go back to that body before making sometimes very urgent practical decisions to ensure that it is in line with strategy and strategic priorities as set out in the mind of the office?
My view is that this element of the Bill will at best add little to the activities of Ofsted. As it stands, however, it could confuse the lines of accountability and the professional responsibilities of the inspectorate and the chief inspector by adding another line of accountability. I know that the schedule spells out in some detail who does what, but I do not think that it adds up to a clear line of responsibility or a clear line of accountability. For example, the office can make appointments but only through the action of the chief inspector. That seems rather convoluted, and there is a series of similar examples in the Bill.
I would ultimately wish that these clauses be excised, but I suspect that that is too much to hope for. However, if they are to remain, I hope that they can be modified to make plain where independence, professional judgment and accountability lie, which is quite clearly with Parliament rather than, effectively, a quango.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have three amendments standing in my name in this group: Amendments Nos. 248D and 248E, to which I wish to speak, and Amendment No. 251A, which I shall not speak to or move.
We have tabled Amendments Nos. 248D and 248E on behalf of the Local Government Association. They relate to Clause 130, on reviews of local education authorities. The LGA is putting forward these amendments to give the chief inspector a power rather than a duty to review and rate the overall performance of each local authority every year.
The LGA
sees the creation of a single inspectorate for children as an important
step forward as it reflects the focus on the child rather than the
institutions providing services. However, the LGA is concerned about
the proposal to require the chief inspector to review the overall
performance of each local authority every year and to award a
performance rating. Whileit is adamant that inspection of
direct services to
25 July 2006 : Column 1716
The landscape of children’s services has changed significantly, even in the short time in which children’s services inspections have been formally under way. The LGA and the IDA have proposed that the new local performance framework to replace CPA should be consistent with the way localities are governed and focus on improvement rather than compliance. They would like to see an annual assessment at the heart of a new framework undertaken by local authorities and their partners. This would draw on a robust evidence base, including the inspections carried out by the new inspectorate, so they would expect that inspection and assessment of services for vulnerable children would continue to be important. The results of these inspections would be used by local authorities and their partners in their own annual assessments but they do not want to see the new single inspectorate required to carry out an annual review of the local authority’s performance in isolation or to give authorities a performance rating. This reflects the current CPA framework, and they do not think that the legal basis for the new inspectorate should prescribe existing inspection methodology for the future.
Lord Adonis: Amendment No. 248ZAA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, concerns paragraph 5 to Schedule 11. I stress that these remuneration and salary arrangements for members of the office are common to any public organisation with a non-executive board. They are not unusual and replicate those made in other equivalent cases. It is only right that members of the non-executive board are financially compensated for their services through a remuneration package, the payment of allowances and pensions. Removal of this provision would limit the ability to recruit members of sufficient expertise.
The noble Baroness asked what pressure there would be on the new Ofsted to contain costs. There is a requirement on the office in that regard under Clause 108(1)(c) and Clause 109(1)(c). Clause 109(1)(c ) states:
- “The Office is
to perform its functions for the general purpose of
encouraging...(c) the efficient and effective use of resources in
the carrying”
25 July 2006 : Column 1717
On Amendment No. 248ZAB, paragraph 7 to Schedule 11 is a standard provision, giving the non-executive board flexibility to establish whatever committees and sub-committees it chooses. There is nothing unusual in that respect. As my honourable friend said in another place, at the moment we do not know what pattern of committees and sub-committees the office will choose to establish and we regard that as beyond our remit to determine. The office should be free to determine those matters itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, spoke to Amendments Nos. 248ZAD, 248ZAE and 248ZAF with all the authority of a former chief inspector. I appreciate the points that he made. He was the first head of Ofsted and established it as one of our most successful inspectorates over the past 15 years, if one looks at the results in terms of higher school standards and the increased accountability in the schools system. However, I think that the noble Lord would accept that our proposed model of a non-executive board is not unusual. Indeed, it is much more common for organisations of this kind than that which has been in place for Ofsted.
The present chief inspector, Maurice Smith, and his predecessor, David Bell, who is now Permanent Secretary in my department, met noble Lords a fortnight ago to look at these provisions. Both expressed satisfaction with the current provisions and they believed that the demarcation of responsibilities between the proposed non-executive board and the chief inspector are appropriate to the task and did not raise concerns.
I should emphasise that the Bill provides the board with no powers to overrule the chief inspector on any matter concerning his inspection and regulatory functions. It places those powers and duties firmly and unambiguously on the chief inspector. So, the independence of the chief inspector to report onthe findings from any inspection and to advise the Secretary of State as he or she sees fit are firmly enshrined in Clause 110. As in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, as chief inspector, the new Ofsted will be a non-ministerial government department, emphasising that it will continue to have the same status and independence as today. Her Majesty’s Chief inspector will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty in Council, which is a further significant guarantee of the inspectorate’s independence.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |