| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The strategy board overseeing the creation of the new Ofsted demonstrated the priority that it gives to this area of Ofsted’s functions. Its first meeting with external stakeholders was with the CBI, the TUC and a sector skills council, and I understand that this dialogue demonstrated the benefits that could be brought by the cross-fertilisation of the qualities of the two inspectorates.
The amendment would require a senior member of Ofsted’s staff to have responsibility for adult learning. It may reassure the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and the noble Baroness who spoke to hers to know that Christine Gilbert, the new HMCI, has indicated there will be a director of skills in the new Ofsted, who will report directly to the chief inspector at exactly the same level as the directors for education and children’s services, which are also planned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, stated in Committee:
“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”.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1710.]
I should clarify that the Bill does not propose a head of inspection of schools, so a director of adult learning to mirror this is, by definition, unnecessary. Furthermore, defining in legislation separate heads of inspection runs the risk of embedding in statute a federal system in Ofsted that is contrary to the underlying principle of integration and that would tie Ofsted’s hands in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, it should be Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector who takes operational decisions on the organisational structure, rather than it being dictated through legislation.
The amendment might also undo the core principle of Ofsted, which has been a key part of its success over the years—that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is solely and personally responsible for inspection judgments and does not have to arbitrate those judgments, either through a board or through management dialogue in Ofsted. We would risk damaging the credibility, simplicity and success of Ofsted if we were to weaken the accountability system of the office of the chief inspector.
On Amendments Nos. 133 and 134, as I said in Committee, since 2005 Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection have arrived at a local authority’s performance rating for its children’s services
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1191
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about self-assessment on behalf of the Local Government Association. I emphasise that self-assessment is at the heart of the annual performance assessment. The local authority produces its self-assessment, and Ofsted evaluates this against other evidence. That process produces the performance rating, so we accept the importance of self-assessment and do not believe that it is diminished by these arrangements.
Government Amendments Nos. 134A to 134E, 145A and 145B are technical. They are consequential on recent amendments to the Police and Justice Bill, which were announced by the Government and approved by the House last week. The amendments that I have tabled will ensure that the reciprocal arrangements for co-operation between all inspectorates apply between the new Ofsted and each of the criminal justice inspectorates.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I join him in paying tribute to the work of Ofsted. I was surprised that he sounded surprised that 92 per cent of parents are in favour of school inspection. As a parent, I think that inspection is crucial. I have never come across a parent who does not think that it is important to have transparency and accountability. Ofsted has performed a brilliant role in making parents feel comfortable and assured that the school to which they send their child and in which they put their faith for their most precious possessions is assessed. There is a feeling of accountability, which was sorely lacking before, and of confidence in the school system.
I will not detain the House at this late hour. Obviously we are disappointed in the Minister’s reply although we are somewhat reassured by some of the things that he said. I should like to think about his response to our amendment. I hear what he says about our looking for something that perhaps is not mirrored in another way. For now, I feel that it is best to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 [Annual reviews of local authorities in England]:
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Interaction with other authorities]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 134A to 134C:
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1192
“(1) In this Schedule references to inspection authorities are to be read in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A) or (1B), as the case may be.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 8]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 134D to 134E:
“Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) “(b) discharge any other particular functions which may be specified in connection with the courts listed in subsection (2) in a direction given by the Lord Chancellor.”(3) In subsection (4) for the words from “subsection (1)(c)(i)” to “subsection (1)(c)(ii),” substitute “subsection (1)(b),”.
“(4) The Chief Inspector must report to the Lord Chancellor on any matter which the Lord Chancellor refers to him and which is connected with the courts listed in section 59(2).”
“(1) An inspector exercising functions under section 59 may enter any place of work occupied by persons provided under a contract made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of section 2(4).
(2) An inspector exercising functions under section 59 may inspect and take copies of any records kept by persons provided under such a contract which he considers relevant to the discharge of his functions.””
On Question, amendments agreed to.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1193
Clause 155 [Power of Chief Inspector to investigate complaints by parents about schools]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 107, line 14, leave out from beginning to “is” in line 15 and insert “Regulations may enable the Chief Inspector to determine that a condition prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) by virtue of subsection (3)”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 135, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. Amendment No. 135 makes a technical correction to the drafting of subsection (4) of the new Section 11A to the Education Act 2005 which is to be inserted by virtue of Clause 155. By virtue of subsection (4), regulations will enable the chief inspector to disapply a condition specified in regulations which requires parents to have exhausted other complaints mechanisms before their complaint may be investigated. It is right that in normal circumstances, under this clause, parents should seek to resolve their concerns locally before approaching Ofsted. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that the chief inspector has the ability to act immediately on receipt of a complaint where the matter raised justifies urgent investigation—for example, where the chief inspector has serious concerns about pupil well-being.
Government Amendment No. 137 inserts new Clauses 167A to167D into Part 10 of the Education Act 2002 to allow the appropriate authority for independent schools to make a direction which would prohibit or place restrictions on a person participating in the management of independent schools on one or more prescribed grounds to be set out in regulations. The new provisions also provide for a right of appeal against such a direction. The current arrangements are contained in Section 142 of the Education Act 2002, which will be repealed once the vetting and barring scheme is introduced by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. A full consultation will be undertaken before regulations are made. The consultation will propose prescribing grounds, such as criminal convictions for fraud, theft, money laundering, glorification of terrorism and membership of a proscribed organisation.
In addition, Amendment No. 138 deals with the removal of independent schools from the register of such schools where unsuitable persons are employed. Amendment No. 139 puts in place a power to make transitional provisions to cover those persons currently subject to a Section 142 direction. Parents and the general public will expect the Secretary of State to protect children in independent schools and the public by continuing to have arrangements which prevent unsuitable people from running independent schools. These amendments, together with existing powers to prescribe the standards relevant to the suitability of proprietors and staff in independent schools, seek to continue the current arrangements for preventing people who are unsuitable from taking part in the management of independent schools.
Government Amendment No. 145 meets a commitment that I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Committee. I stated then that we accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1194
Finally, Amendment No. 143 is a minor technical amendment to correct the cross-reference to the framework power at Clause 168 within Clause 169, which places restrictions on the framework power conferred by Clause 168. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome and support these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 140:
(a) in the definition of “maintained school”, for “or a community or foundation special school” substitute “, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school”, and (b) omit the definition of “pupil” (which excludes children who are being provided with nursery education).” (a) may not take part in the management of an independent school; (b) may take part in the management of an independent school only in circumstances specified in the direction; (c) may take part in the management of an independent school only if conditions specified in the direction are satisfied.(2) A direction under this section may be given in respect of a person only on one or more prescribed grounds connected with the suitability of persons to take part in the management of an independent school.
(3) Regulations may prescribe the procedure for giving a direction under this section (including provision about notification of persons who are subject to directions).
(4) The appropriate authority may vary or revoke a direction under this section in prescribed cases.
(5) Regulations may prescribe the grounds on which a person subject to a direction under this section may seek to have it varied or revoked under subsection (4).
(1) A person in respect of whom a direction has been given under section 167A may appeal to the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999-
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1195
(1) The Secretary of State may provide to the appropriate authority any information relating to a person which is held by the Secretary of State in connection with his functions-
(2) The National Assembly for Wales may provide to the appropriate authority any information relating to a person which is held by the Assembly in connection with its functions as registration authority under this Part.
(3) The Independent Barring Board may provide to the appropriate authority any information relating to a person which is held by the Board in connection with its functions and which appears to it to be relevant to the exercise by the appropriate authority of its functions under sections 167A to 167C.
(4) The appropriate authority may provide to the Independent Barring Board, the General Teaching Council for England, the General Teaching Council for Wales, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales any information relating to a person which is held by the appropriate authority in connection with its functions under section 167A.
(1) Where the appropriate authority in relation to England gives a direction under section 167A(1), or varies or revokes any such direction, it must notify-
(2) Where the appropriate authority in relation to Wales gives a direction under section 167A(1), or varies or revokes any such direction, it must notify-
(1) In section 169 of EA 2002 (unsuitable persons), for the words from “any work” onwards substitute “work of a prescribed kind is subject to a direction, order or decision of a prescribed description made under any prescribed enactment having effect in any part of the United Kingdom”.
(2) In section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14) (the Tribunal), in subsection (2) after paragraph (b) insert-
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1196
(2) Regulations may provide that, as from a time specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations, persons who fall within subsection (1) are to be treated for prescribed purposes as if the direction given under section 142 of EA 2002 were a direction given by the appropriate authority under section 167A of that Act.
(3) Regulations may make provision in connection with the determination of any appeal under subsection (1) of section 144 of EA 2002, or application for review under subsection (2) of that section, which is pending on the relevant day.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for an appeal, or application for review, under section 144 of EA 2002 to be treated as an appeal under section 167B of that Act.
In section 317 of EA 1996 (duties of governing body or LEA in relation to pupils with special educational needs) after subsection (3) insert-
“(3A) The governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school or a maintained nursery school shall designate a member of the staff at the school (to be known as the “special educational needs co-ordinator”) as having responsibility for co-ordinating the provision for pupils with special educational needs.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |