| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 171:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 172:
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
[Amendment No. 172A not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 173:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transfer of property]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 174:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Transfer of staff]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 175:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 177. I am tabling these amendments on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. Their purpose is simply better to reflect the statutory protection afforded to employees of SCAA and NCVQ by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which will apply when those employees transfer to QCA or ACCAC, as the case may be. The amendments will bring this clause into line with those regulations and with the comparable provision made under the Education Act 1993 for the transfer of employees to SCAA from the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are well content with these amendments but there is just one question I should like to ask the Minister. Do any staff of NCVQ or SCAA not have a contract of employment but only working conditions? Does the term "working conditions" encompass more than terms and conditions of employment?
Lord Henley: I do not have the first idea but I shall write to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Levy on bodies awarding qualifications accredited by relevant Authority]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 177A:
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I wish formally to move this amendment.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness is formally moving this amendment, which has not been spoken to at any time, I should like to object to that formally.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Touche. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177B not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 178:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Requirement for approval of certain publicly-funded and school courses leading to external qualifications]:
[Amendments Nos. 178A to 179 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Inspection of LEAs]:
[Amendments Nos. 180A to 180E not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 180F:
Page 71, line 7, leave out ("National").
Page 73, line 18, leave out ("National").
Page 73, line 24, leave out ("National").
Page 37, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("National").
Page 39, line 14, leave out ("National").
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("National").
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("the terms and conditions of his employment") and insert ("his working conditions").
Page 40, line 20, leave out ("the terms and conditions of a person's contract of employment") and insert ("an employee's working conditions").
Page 40, line 38, leave out ("vocational").
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("National").
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) Each local education authority shall prepare a three-year strategic education development plan to be updated annually and submitted to the Secretary of State.
(2) An education development plan to which subsection (1) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority.
(3) Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan, and the conclusions of such review shall be published, reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan.
(4) Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities.
(5) Where requested to do so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4).
(6) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent, he may either--
(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review.").
The noble Baroness said: During the debate on an earlier amendment, I noted that the Minister referred to the above amendment. At that stage, my understanding was that he would not accept it. It is important for us to probe and explore what reluctance the Government could have about the alternative local model for the inspection of LEAs. The proposed model, as set out in
Subsection (2) of the amendment says:
Under subsection (3) of the amendment,
Finally, subsection (6) of the amendment says:
All those terms are part of the process of the amendment which requires development plans from LEAs. It will, of course, take Ofsted several years to inspect all local education authorities and the Bill implicitly acknowledges that fact by making the process permissive and controlled by the Secretary of State. As a back-up, inspection under an independent person--for example, as in the model employed by Staffordshire county council--offers a way of involving local expertise more rapidly without losing the benefit of what one might term "heavyweight" periodic inspection by Ofsted.
The proposed new clause leaves it to the Secretary of State to determine whether local reviews have any place within the structure. This is intended to be a constructive amendment to the Bill. It does not seek in any way to remove anything that is proposed in the legislation but it opens up the possibility for constructive developments in an important, and developmental way.
The White Paper Self-Government for Schools which preceded this Bill included a section headed, "Assessing the Effectiveness of LEAs" (paragraphs 38 to 41 in chapter five, pages 56 and 57). That section noted moves by local authorities and professional associations representing education officers to set up frameworks for the use of LEAs in self-review activities.
The final paragraph (chapter five, page 57, paragraph 41) states:
This amendment provides the vehicle for the Government to do precisely that. One of its clear advantages is that it does not undermine the existing power of the Secretary of State to use the Audit Commission and HMCI to carry out a completely external inspection of LEAs. However, it allows and encourages LEAs to take the initiative for self-review which can, and on present experience would, be more extensive and far-reaching than what the Bill currently provides. The idea of development planning is already well established for schools and is built into the inspection framework that operates for them. This would make a more explicit connection between the nationally prescribed inspection process and LEAs' own initiatives for development and improvement.
Other advantages are that it is likely that LEAs with a certain amount of resource input from HMCI and the Audit Commission would be able to carry out their inspections on a three or five year cycle rather than the 12 to 15 year cycle that is currently being envisaged for the Ofsted driven process. This would deliver much more information about the performance of LEAs to the public but would not give rise to additional expenditure. Indeed, the development of an approach based on local self-review could lead to resource savings at the centre.
However, power will remain with the Secretary of State to ensure that whatever is put in place is both adequate and sufficiently rigorous to meet the purposes of the Bill. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
"An education development plan to which subsection (l) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority".
"Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan, and the conclusions of such review shall be published, reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan".
"Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities".
"Where requested to so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4)".
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent",
"(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review".
"The Government will keep the process of these initiatives under careful review, with a view to promoting over time the development of robust mechanisms for assessing and improving LEAs' performance".
11.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking to this amendment I hope that the Government will not come forward with the idea that the problems in our education system are so immense that a three year development plan is hopelessly unrealistic and that what we need is a 10 year development plan. I support my noble friend who moved this amendment because I think at this stage in the development of our education system it is entirely realistic.
We can recognise that there are two major significant problems that our education system is beset with. The first is the physical state of the educational establishment; the fact that so many of our schools require major investment that will require five or 10 year programmes to resolve. The other major problem is the fact that we are totally incapacitated in our relationships with the rest of the world, and in particular the Continent of Europe, as regards our inability in foreign languages. I think it is well understood that we shall not resolve that problem with a three or even a five year development programme; it requires a 10 or 15 year development programme.
Given the resources that we have at our disposal nationally, it is quite realistic for my noble friends on the Front Bench to propose a three year development programme at this stage. While we recognise the immense problems our education system is faced with, and the need for a 10 or 15 year development programme, it is quite reasonable that we should present at this stage a three year development programme.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page