| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Elton: My Lords, further to the noble and learned Lord's answer to my original question, is it not extraordinary that there was no convention or document that our representatives could point to and say, "You have had these people for the agreed maximum length of time without charge. Under this convention it is now for you to return them"—and then for them to argue against that case rather than the other way round? As I said, I am a layman, but it seems an extraordinary state of affairs. If the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, can he say what steps the Government will take to initiate discussions about this?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord—at least not quite in the way in which he has put his question. The issues involved are legally complex. That, no doubt, is one of the reasons why cases are proceeding at the highest level through the United States courts. Indeed, there was some litigation in this country as well. I can only repeat my previous answer and not add anything to it.
Education Bill [HL]
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11 Jan 2005 : Column 147
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in England]:
Schedule 1 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England]:
[Amendment No. 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4A and 42, which stand in my name, and speak in support of Amendments Nos. 16, 77, 78 and 82, to which I have added my name. I also wholeheartedly support Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Unfortunately there were already four names attached to those amendments by the time I came to read them.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure the quality of inspection, particularly through the quality of the people engaged in the inspection. At this early stage it might be worth reminding ourselves of the new arrangements for inspection.
First, they allow for only short inspections—one to two days. Secondly, they still require that the inspectors observe and report upon the formidable list in Clause 2, including the quality of the education; how far it meets the needs of the range of pupils; the standards achieved; the quality of the leadership and management, including financial management; the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils; the contribution made by the schools to their well-being, and so on. It is a very formidable list on which inspectors are required to report in that very short time. Thirdly, we should remind ourselves that the inspection team has the power to put the school publicly into special measures—in other words, to declare it as failing to meet the needs of its pupils. We should also remind ourselves of the effect that such a public report has on the children at the school and on their teachers.
I rehearse all this because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that the people involved in such inspections must be of the very highest competence, not only in their ability to form professional judgments based on their own experience and knowledge, but also in their understanding of the methodology of inspection, which seems to have been squashed out of the Bill as if anyone could do it at any time. As Amendment No. 42 provides—I support entirely the thrust of the amendments—both the competence and effectiveness of the team are important.
11 Jan 2005 : Column 148
Inspection would become nonsense if teachers, parents and pupils had no confidence in the professional competence of those inspecting; if the inspection proved to be inadequately organised and prepared; if it was conducted with prejudice and one-sided views; and if plain factual errors were made. Unfortunately, as was well rehearsed during Second Reading, such faults have occurred even with the system of registered inspectors. It is my view and the view of my noble friends that we should be tightening the procedures for registration and training, not dismantling them in the way the Bill seeks to do.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me after Second Reading to explain the Government's thinking behind the changes. Perhaps I may briefly extract from his letter the core of what he said. The letter states:
"Currently, registered inspectors have an independence protected by the . . . 1996 Act. Whilst the majority of inspection reports meet the schools satisfaction, there are a small minority which do not. In these cases, it is not possible for the Chief Inspector to have the reports amended without the agreement of the registered inspector.
So do I. It is absolutely right that responsibility for the quality of the report should rest with the chief inspector and I support those parts of the Bill which ensure that that happens. But there is no sequitur from the wish to put the chief inspector in the driving seat with responsibility for the quality of inspection reports and doing away with the system of registered inspectors. It is important that the registered inspectors should be able to hand their reports to the chief inspector for final vetting, checking and quality control. That is what these amendments—together with what is already in the Bill—would achieve.
I welcome, too, the parts of the Bill which give the chief inspector heightened responsibility for the whole process of inspection. This has been gradually whittled away over the years under the system of contracting-out. The fact that the chief inspector is put firmly in the driving seat and that HMI, through the new arrangements, is to be much more involved—the Minister assures me that up to 80 per cent of inspections will now be under the control and in the hands of HMI—as a former chief inspector myself, is very dear to my heart.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the need for high quality registered inspectors and will restore to England what the Bill leaves for Wales. If Wales believes that registered inspectors are important, why are they not also important for England? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 or 4A.
Lord Hanningfield: I support this series of amendments and fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, who made a powerful and insightful speech.
11 Jan 2005 : Column 149
Unsurprisingly, these amendments are not new. They should be familiar to all noble Lords, coming as they do from a previous Act that the Bill seeks to reform. Their intent is clear: they are designed to retain the status quo in regard to the position of registered inspectors in England.
The Bill as it stands would remove the requirement of the chief inspector to maintain a register of approved inspectors. We on these Benches—despite the best efforts of the Minister during Second Reading—remain highly sceptical that abandoning a system of registered inspectors will bring any significant improvements to the inspection regime. Nor are we convinced that it will speed up and simplify the process, which is one of the principal objectives of the Bill.
We are somewhat in the dark about how the measure found its way into the Bill. None of the various consultations by Ofsted on the revisions to the framework specifically refers to, or provides, a rationale for the removal of registered inspectors. Perhaps the Minister can indicate what prior consultation was undertaken, for how long and with whom, before the proposal was included in the Bill. If there was no prior consultation, will the Minister explain the rationale of the measure and the department's thinking behind its inclusion in the Bill?
A serious concern is how the change will impact on the quality of inspectors and the inspections that they carry out. The Bill will allow the chief inspector to appoint,
as additional inspectors. There is nothing to ensure accountability or the suitability of such inspectors for that role. Under the previous system there was provision for a person who was no longer fit to be an inspector to be removed from the register. Without that qualifying hurdle of the register of inspectors, how will the Minister remove substandard inspectors?
Further questions need to be answered. What impact will the proposals have on existing inspectors? Does the Minister believe that the number of existing inspectors will be reduced? Will he explain how the adoption of this system will speed up the inspection regime? What is meant by the phrase "persons as he thinks fit" in relation to the chief inspector appointing additional inspectors? How will the accountability, quality, impartiality and independence of such individuals be guaranteed?
I have tried to highlight our concerns about scrapping the register of inspectors regime, which are many and varied. That is why I am happy to lend our name from these Benches to all the amendments before the Committee today.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |