| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I associate these Benches with the amendment. It seems to me a sensible way at least possible cost of bringing the maximum amount of pressure on LEAs to improve their performance. In the self assessment process even good LEAs have proved that they are capable of improvement. It encourages LEAs to know whether they are doing well or badly, and where to target their resources and efforts. I hope that the Minister will be inclined to accept the spirit of the amendment, even if he does not like every word of it.
Lord Henley: I have a sneaking suspicion that the proposed clause is unnecessary. In part, its provisions duplicate what is already in the Bill; and in part they would simply lead to more bureaucracy. I do not believe that they improve on the simple notion that LEAs should be inspected. I hoped that we would discuss that on an earlier clause but for some reason both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, chose not to move the amendments which were originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but later in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I suspect that they discovered that that was not official party policy. The amendments merely complicate and confuse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the Minister asking us to move every single amendment on the Marshalled List? If so, I suspect that we should be ordering breakfast.
We seek to bring together certain issues in Committee. We shall come back on Report to many of the issues that are not moved tonight. It is a little unreasonable to challenge us as to why we do not move amendments when it is ten minutes to twelve and we still have many amendments to discuss. If the Minister wishes, we can ungroup--
Lord Henley: I was not referring to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. What was intriguing was that it was originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and related to the dropping of "Chief Inspector" and inserting "Audit Commission". For some reason--I think the noble Baroness suddenly discovered the policy of the party opposite--she decided to withdraw the amendment. I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also looks at her own party's policy and she will discover that it too is in favour of inspection by the chief inspector and not the Audit Commission. But that is in passing. I believe that the amendment simply complicates and confuses the issue.
Let me take the first part of the new clause, the preparation of three-year strategic education development plans. I do not believe that this would be a suitable matter for the Bill. Our purpose here is to facilitate the inspection of a stratified sample of LEAs, so that the quality of support provided by different LEAs can be compared. That does not require the submission of LEA development plans from each and every LEA. Such plans are a matter for the LEA itself in the first instance. Ofsted will of course take into account an LEA's intentions as set out in its plans, but above all it will be interested in what an LEA does, not what it said it would do.
Similarly, I fail to see the purpose of subsection (3), which would require LEAs to publish an annual review of their performance against the proposed three-year strategic education development plan. There are already provisions requiring action plans of LEAs following inspection. And under Clause 54(6) LEAs will supply HMCI with information to underpin inspection.
The framework on which LEA inspection will be based has been the subject of substantial consultation and will form the basis of the independent Ofsted-led inspections as set out in the Bill. Why, therefore, spend scarce public resources on a further pattern of five-yearly or three-yearly reviews against yet another framework?
Moreover, it is a recipe for increased bureaucracy at every level: the LEA will be devising frameworks and contracting inspectors; Ofsted and the Audit Commission may be involved in the LEA reviews as well as the Ofsted inspections. And the Secretary of State will need to decide whether the LEA reviews are sufficient to supersede Ofsted inspections. What possible contribution can this duplication of effort make to improving the standards of education in our schools? I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government's response on this issue is a disappointment. I hope that, notwithstanding the Minister's rejection at this stage, he will take time to consider the matter between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Reports of inspections under s.54 and action plan by LEA]:
[Amendment No. 180G not moved.]
Clause 57 [Inspections involving collaboration of Audit Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 180H to 180S not moved.]
Schedule 8 [School inspections]:
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert--
. For subsections (8) and (9) of section 2 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for England) there shall be substituted--
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for England shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in England--
(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and
(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.
(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for England--
(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or
(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function."
. For subsections (8) and (9) of section 5 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for Wales) there shall be substituted--
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for Wales shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in Wales--
(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and
(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.
(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for Wales--
(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or
(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 182. These are straightforward amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales will each have the right of access to schools premises and records.
The two amendments would allow the chief inspectors to authorise Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools additional inspectors or other members of their staff to exercise wider rights of access on their behalf. This would be to collect evidence about aspects of educational standards and quality above and beyond that collected in the course of inspections carried out under other provisions of the Schools Inspections Act. This allows them, for example, to gather information from schools on issues such as exclusions and reading ability.
Other reports published by the chief inspectors--most notably their annual reports--have contributed significantly to public knowledge of standards in schools in England and Wales. Visits to schools under the extended right of access would normally involve looking at lessons and pupils' work, examining documentation and holding discussions with staff, pupils and others.
Although most schools are happy to co-operate on a voluntary basis with informal visits by inspectors gathering evidence for report or survey, the Government consider it important that the chief inspectors' rights of access are set out clearly in statute. I commend the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments seem to us not so much drafting amendments, which most of the previous ones have been, but considerable small additions to, and improvements upon, current legislation.
Nevertheless, there are some questions that we would like the Minister to address before we are completely satisfied. It is quite true that the majority of schools, if approached by HMCI and others with a request for entry for one purpose or another, are not going to stand on the letter of the law and look up the relevant statute before giving permission. That is not the relationship that exists between the inspectors and the schools, for good reasons and bad.
However, it appears that we have here a clarification of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' statutory powers of entry to schools, which includes HMI and, by virtue of Amendment No. 182, additional inspectors. So it is a not inconsiderable addition.
At present, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has the right to enter the premises of a school and take copies, etc., of records only when formally inspecting a school under Section 2(2) of the School Inspections Act 1996. That is quite clearly laid down; and obstruction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in that respect is a criminal offence.
This amendment broadens that right of entry to cover any of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' functions so that there does not have to be a formal inspection of the school for that right of entry to be exercised. We must be quite clear about that. For instance, it could be pursued in order to give advice to the Secretary of State about the quality of education in any named school without having to launch a formal inspection. At least, that is the way it seems to us. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a definitive answer to the question of whether it is or is not. I hope he may be able to use the immortal phrase used by so many of his colleagues on the Front Bench, "My Lords, it has just come to me that ... "
Amendment No. 182, on the other hand, appears to us to clarify the law on the rights of entry for additional inspectors. Let us be quite clear as to who they are. They are individuals appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to do inspection work who are not themselves made HMI, and additional inspectors will have the right to enter schools and still have the protection that an offence is committed if they are obstructed.
I think that even at this witching hour we need the Minister to say one or two things: first, to justify this new power a little more and to give examples of why Her Majesty's Chief Inspector might need this power outside a formal inspection. Secondly, since the matter Midnight
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is right to say that these amendments are not merely drafting amendments and that they go wider than that. That is why I wrote to the noble Lord in some detail on these amendments and I hope it is why--but no doubt there are others who advise him--he was able to set out clearly our current position with regard to rights of access. We considered that it was necessary but that there were certain matters that needed a degree of elucidation and clarification and the Bill provided an appropriate opportunity for that.
The noble Lord asked about Amendment No. 182. I can assure him that he was right that it allows the delegation of the functions to those who are not chief inspectors, but obviously those will be people appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors under the other statutory powers.
He also asked why the Chief Inspector was able to go beyond a formal inspection of a school and why he needs to have these wider powers. To put it very simply, it is to carry out the range of functions laid down in the School Inspections Act, which unfortunately I do not have before me. I think it is Section 2(1) and 2(2) that I should refer the noble Lord to but I shall have to take advice on that because, though it did suddenly come to me, I might not be as clear as I could be. I had better write to the noble Lord about that in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page