---

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches, we, too, have added our names to the amendments, and I shall add a few words to those that have already been said.
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 150
 

Accountability and quality control are real issues. I echo entirely the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the importance of inspection and the effect of inspection reports on the reputation of schools and teachers. Such reports should not be taken lightly as they are important documents. Therefore, there must be proper quality control. The reason for registration was to maintain quality control over those who participated as inspectors. If inspections were undertaken by those who are employed by Ofsted—in other words, those who are directly Her Majesty's Inspectorate—there would be no problem. It is clear that, while retreating a little from the regime in which there are many subcontractors and many small firms who undertake inspections, the Government are not retreating completely from that regime. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I, too, received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who explained at some length why the Government saw the need for change.

In that letter, the noble Lord states:

"We shall remove the requirement for the Chief Inspector to maintain a register of inspectors, leaving him solely accountable for the system".

That is fine, but he continues:

"The intention is that Ofsted will contract with a small number of inspector provider companies through efficient value for money contracts. These inspectors will be required to constantly and consistently demonstrate their continued effectiveness and suitability to conduct inspections".

It is clear that if they are to be independent, small provider companies, they will be free standing and will have free-standing legal powers. It is important to have some means of keeping tabs on who is operating on behalf of those free-standing companies. Therefore, the quality control and accountability issue is central. Our questions have not been answered, and we do not know why.

We used to have a register, but no clear explanation has been given for it being dropped. We know that Wales has opted to keep the register, and we believe that Wales has made the right decision while we are making the wrong one. What will happen when there are differences between Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and the independent providers? What is the appeals procedure?

There is a question about the accountability of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, and the need for the chief inspector to work through registered inspectors who have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, thereby providing accountability. The Bill sweeps that away and gives additional powers to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to decide the arrangements for school inspections. For example, scrutiny indicates that Ofsted is moving from 40 providers of inspection services to six, all of which have a regional focus. There will be two providers in each of three regions: two in Bristol; two in Manchester; and two in Nottingham. How will competition be undertaken? If we are to have a smaller number of providers, the power of Her Majesty's chief inspector becomes even greater. There is a question of accountability in that direction, too.

All told, we are unhappy about the removal of the concept of the register, and do not understand why it is taking place. We should like those clauses to be
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 151
 
reinstated. I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we have no problem with control and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools being responsible for reports, but we cannot see how that necessarily means that the registration process needs to be dropped.

Lord Dearing: I put my name down in support of Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, added his name to Amendment No. 43 and would have done so for Amendment No. 42, but the list was already full. I know that the noble Lord would wish me to say that he is engaged in the work of another committee. As a former chief inspector of schools, he supports the proposal that there should be registration. I agree very much with the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Sharp, that because Her Majesty's chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports it does not follow that there should not be registration. Indeed, it increases the case for it. Inspections are his responsibility and he should determine whether a person is fit and proper or whether someone should be removed. It works the other way round.

The inspection team is in the position of being investigating officers, judges and jury—sometimes of the fate of a school. It is a weighty responsibility—a quasi-judicial responsibility. Those who exercise it should be explicitly approved for the purpose and the chief inspector should be accountable for their appointments. I note, also, the wisdom of Wales. Who can resist it? I, therefore, add my support for the amendments.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the powerful advocates in the debate, who have a great deal of experience in the education inspection system. I hope that I can respond to the overwhelming cry to explain why we have gone down this route, as there are, necessarily, few clues in the Bill.

The amendments have been spoken to with great passion, so I shall take some time to address the central question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the need to ensure that we have people of the highest possible calibre within the system and that we lose no value in the changes that we intend to make.

With that in mind, I thought it might be useful if noble Lords had on the record a longer statement of our thinking, particularly on issues which have been raised, such as quality and accountability within the system, and on why we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness in the context of what we are trying to do. I can do so within a broader context that will allow me to address the amendment more swiftly. I hope that noble Lords will be happy if I do that. It will be a rather longer note than we would normally provide.

We had a very positive and extensive consultation process on this whole package with schools and with the providers who are responsible for the registered inspectors, and a pilot in 100 schools is testing the new
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 152
 
system. We believe that we have found a way forward that builds on the strengths of the system of the past 12 years and makes it fit for the future.

Like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to all the inspectors across the system and to the extraordinary contribution they make towards raising standards in education. We have had a register for more than 12 years in schools. In that time, the cadre of registered inspectors, working with 250 HMIs, has increased to 5,000, with more than 700 of those being registered inspectors and the rest being enrolled inspectors. They have carried out more than 50,000 inspections over the years; so they have a huge body of experience and a huge and conscientious expertise which we certainly do not want to lose. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that there will be no damaging impact on the inspectorate and that we are in fact offering enhanced and welcome opportunities.

Noble Lords have recognised in recent debates on the new inspection system that our proposals present new challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred to that in her opening remarks. We are asking for shorter inspections, smaller teams, and a targeted approach that focuses more on core systems, engages more with the management team through self-evaluation and engages with parents and pupils. That will place new demands on the inspectorate. We need to ensure that inspectors are fully competent and can continually demonstrate competence to deliver the new model. Far from dismantling the system, we see this as a tightening up which will bring improvements.

Noble Lords are rightly concerned about what will happen to the existing pool of inspectors who have brought such value to the system. The inspectors have been recruited from many different backgrounds over the years. Their enrolment is covered in law under Schedule 3 of the 1996 Act and was introduced by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. But regardless of where they come from, the inspectors have in common an ability to produce the standards necessary to lead and manage a school inspection. That means taking account of the school environment and ecology, recognising what a stressful time an inspection is for a school, and recognising the impact that the report will have on the school in the community. They must be able to demonstrate the experience and skills for the phase of education they intend to inspect. They have traditionally worked alongside HMIs who are directly employed by the chief inspector.

Being on the register has simply provided a status that means that the individual can be trusted to undertake a school inspection—it is a badge to do so—and can be trusted to write a report. To get on to the register an individual must initially demonstrate fitness to practise. However, the register has not been an indicator of how good an inspector is at delivering inspections to the required standard. That is reflected in the fact that being on the register is, paradoxically,
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 153
 
no guarantee of employment or regular participation. It is possible to be on the register without intending to inspect regularly, and some inspectors may make only three or four inspections a year. For some, inspector status has been a passport to other forms of employment.

Moreover, registered inspectors are not a part of Ofsted; they are employed by a range of contractors who are themselves independent of Ofsted. Many of them operate on self-employed terms as autonomous units. The chief inspector has little or no say on which individuals are used to conduct which inspections; he can only require that they meet the specification for a tender exercise.

We are asking schools to learn and improve continuously and to look critically at how they might do so. It is right and proper that we ask the same of the inspection system. So in making the decision to replace the system of a register of inspectors with a greater role for HMIs in the inspection and reporting process, we have been motivated by the intention to enhance the inspectorate system and to enrich the professional development opportunities and systems that will ensure that quality, performance and accountability are improved. That reflects the progress that we have made through the inspection system in recent years. That will keep and mobilise the experience and mix of skills that we already have. It will improve the consistency of inspection, make the process simpler for schools and develop greater flexibility in the inspection system as it grows and develops.

I think that it would help noble Lords if I were to sum up what we believe are the defining differences between the old and the new systems. Our proposed new system creates a new relationship between Ofsted and the providers which is based on collaboration and teamwork rather than regulation. It builds in quality provisions across an integrated system where HMIs and those who we have designated as additional inspectors will together and equally be charged with delivering the new inspection system.

How will we build in quality? It will be built in at all levels. Every additional inspector, HMI or not, and regardless of skill, competence or experience, will have to undergo the same training to implement the new system as HMIs. They will be trained together to deliver the new framework. Indeed, they are already being trained together in the pilot. That will be assessed by senior HMIs and delivered through the providers. Feedback from the providers suggests that the inspectors are very supportive of these changes because they regard the additional opportunities as welcome.

How will we achieve greater consistency and quality? It will flow from the fact that, rather than sample checks by HMI on reports, which is what we have at the moment, there will be a scheme of continuous performance assessment that will apply to all inspectors and inspections and set out the principles for quality in terms of new inspections and the principles for performance management. I refer noble Lords to the Ofsted website where the new scheme for
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 154
 
performance management is set out. That is a lengthy and detailed document which is still in development and has been the subject of a lot of hard work. It is difficult to describe because it is long and detailed but I will do my best to boil it down to a few key elements.

Performance management will be undertaken on a team basis. Ofsted and RISPs will share responsibility for HMIs and contracted inspectors. They will work to key performance targets. There will be a continuous process that feeds individual professional improvement and development. There will be no new entry test for additional inspectors but there will be a clearer, tighter framework for continuous professional monitoring and improvement.

A third element of quality assurance will come from clearer accountability and a greater role for HMIs. The independence of the registered inspectors left him or her entirely accountable for the system and, sometimes, as we all know, at war with the HMI who was powerless to intervene to change things. That will be replaced by the chief inspector who will authorise inspectors who are fit to practise and remove that right if necessary. I am very pleased that noble Lords have welcomed the fact that every inspection report will be quality assured by the local managing inspector to ensure that the judgments match the evidence and will go out in the name of the chief inspector himself.

HMIs, the elite of the inspection process, will have a clearer role in leading and reporting on inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has mentioned that the proposal is for HMIs to lead 80 per cent of secondary school inspections and 20 per cent of primary school inspections. In future they will work alongside the additional inspectors.

Who are these additional inspectors? They may be inspectors who are already registered or who would have sought registration under the old system. To what standards will they be working? As I said, there will be no new entry threshold, but they will all have to meet the criteria that HMIs set out and on which we have been working. The criteria will be much nearer to those that we would expect for HMIs themselves. Inspectors will have to demonstrate the ability to meet those criteria in the inspection process, the evaluation of evidence, the choice of evidence and the quality of judgments. HMCI will be directly responsible for ensuring that they are all up to the job.

Why do we regard the system as simpler and more accountable? The reports will certainly be issued in the name of the chief inspector. At the moment a registered inspector, independent of Ofsted, can publish a report without the approval of the chief inspector. Even in the most serious cases, where he feels that special measures are warranted, an inspector could in theory publish a report although the chief inspector disagreed with the judgment. That means that at present Ofsted can make changes to inspection reports only with the agreement of the registered inspector. As a result, schools have in some cases been left frustrated, dissatisfied with the judgment and unable to have their concerns addressed swiftly and helpfully. Discussions with the Secondary Heads
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 155
 
Association and other teacher associations highlight the frequency with which they are called in to arbitrate in school-inspector disputes. That is, no doubt, one reason why schools and teachers have supported the changes we propose.

Clearly, schools should have a right to swift action. To that end, the new arrangements will also allow the chief inspector to establish a helpline to which schools can address questions. Where there are more serious concerns, he can have a more direct role. He can send one of his HMIs to ensure that all is going well or that the inspector addresses the school's concern. If we retain the terms and conditions for registered inspectors, he cannot do so and our schools will not have the support they need. In the most serious cases, the chief inspector could order HMI to take control of the inspection. If that were to happen, the chief inspector intends that the contractor provider will risk heavy fines.

Under these new arrangements, inspectors will not have free-standing powers to issue reports as all reports will be issued by the chief inspector. Since a key purpose of the register of inspectors is to confer the right on those inspectors to issue reports in their own right, the requirement for a register becomes redundant. However, there is another element. A simple fitness to practise register will not be sufficient to meet the new demands which we are building into the system—a more comprehensive system with performance management, a quality assurance system and a process which is being tested successfully in the pilot schemes at present.

Let me reassure noble Lords that removing the register does not remove the independence which is reflected in the market operation of the provider system. The experience of contractors—who will be fewer but not less competitive—will be used to best effect working in partnership with Ofsted. Contractors will have a vital part to play. They will have to recruit inspectors and demonstrate that those recruits meet the criteria defined by Ofsted, matching the competencies expected of HMI. HMI will monitor the process and ensure that they are of consistently high quality.

A further expansion of independence flows from the difference in conditions of employment. Under the new system, given the likelihood of far fewer inspectors, many individuals are likely to become employed by these contractors with the employment protection that that brings. Individuals who feel aggrieved will be able to call upon the full range of employment protection laws and other services.

Those changes anticipate another, final, change to simplify the system. Deregistration in the past was a cumbersome and expensive way of removing a less than effective inspector. While complaints are relatively few in number, they impact severely on those affected. In future, we want a system where Ofsted can intervene quickly and effectively. If contractors have, or HMCI has, doubts in future about an inspector's competence they will simply be able to cease to use that inspector, without a time-consuming deregistration process. They are not able to act arbitrarily. There will
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 156
 
be arrangements to follow up complaints from inspectors. But the system will be much more responsive to evidence of quality.

Given the changes we wish to see, the excellent pool of inspectors who will make up the new additional inspectors, the shorter, sharper, more frequent inspections and greater flexibility, we believe that the notion of a fitness to practise register has served its purpose. Not only will the HMIs have that extra quality and accountability, we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness. It has served the nation extremely well for 12 years. It is time to look for something better; and a better system comes with better performance management and quality controls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the issue of tribunals. One of the problems with the tribunal system is that during the tribunal Ofsted has to prove that you are no longer fit to inspect. It is a complex and expensive process which adds little to the quality of inspection. To operate the system is also expensive. It can run to £100,000 in a single extreme case. We do not believe that the tribunal process adds any real value to the system.

Wales is different. I am probably one of the few people in this House who can say that with total authority. However, in this instance Wales is keeping a registration process for good, pragmatic and sound reasons. The inspection system in Wales, reflecting the size of the country, is smaller. The workforce is very stable. There is low turnover. We have a highly experienced, small group of registered inspectors who are working closely with HMI, not least because these are people who are always drawn from the same pool. They know the schools, the teachers and the situations. In Wales, there is not a need for changes which build in the performance management which we shall see. Also Wales has just introduced a common assessment framework for inspection. That is very recent—September of last year. It is bedding down. We want to see that change introduced successfully. Wales reserves the right to innovate. It will be able to make any changes which are consistent with what we seek to do in England as and when it wants. Indeed, I am sure that as we watch standards rising across the education sector in Wales, it will develop a system which ensures that that continues.

To summarise, Her Majesty appoints a chief inspector to ensure that inspection is carried out. He or she should be held accountable for the system and be accountable for the quality of all reports. That is what the Bill achieves. We believe that there will be greater accountability and transparency. I hope noble Lords are happy with that description. I shall be happy to write with any further detail.

Amendment No. 3 removes the chief inspector's ability to arrange for additional inspectors to assist him in carrying out his functions across the range of his remit. His ability to operate in this way was put in place at the outset when Ofsted was established, as I am sure the noble Baroness remembers well. It remains an important feature.
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 157
 

Ofsted uses this power to engage inspectors to work alongside HMI on inspections of further education colleges, LEAs, and initial teacher training. We do not want to lose that power. Many additional inspectors will have specialist skills. The amendment would prevent Ofsted engaging additional inspectors in these or in any other capacity in the future. I am sure the noble Baroness and noble Lord would not want to prevent the chief inspector doing that.

The current system has a register of inspectors who lead school inspections as well as inspectors who support them—and additional inspectors will be engaged in the way I have just described, drawn from the best of the existing pool. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw that amendment.

Amendments Nos. 4A and 42 seek to reintroduce the system of registered inspectors. In the light of the detail I have provided, I hope that noble Lords will not press those amendments. Without this change, the greater use of HMI, which has widespread support, will highlight the fact that the chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports.

Amendment No. 43 enables the chief inspector to remove inspectors from the register. Perhaps I may refer to specific points. The amendment provides for the removal of an inspector. Under the proposed system, if the chief inspector is dissatisfied, he simply does not have to use that inspector. Were the register still to be in place, to maintain its credibility, although he would not be using the inspector, he has to consider whether there are grounds for that inspector to be struck off. That would mean that the inspector would face a double jeopardy situation. The whole process would be burdensome and time-consuming.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 82 would give inspectors a right of appeal to a tribunal. Again, I covered this in my opening statement. We believe that an appeal would have no practical outcome. A tribunal could overturn the chief inspector's decision to deregister an inspector: it could not insist that the chief inspector use that inspector. Given that the legal costs alone run into many thousands of pounds, it would be difficult to justify the maintenance of an expensive and inefficient process.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to introduce some of the architecture of the system in which Ofsted's role is that of regulator. A regulator gives guidance, lays down standards and monitors. A regulator should keep under review the system that he or she regulates. However, we do not want Ofsted to do that in the future. We want to make the chief inspector directly accountable for the delivery. He will need to ensure that all inspectors receive appropriate guidance and support. He will be held to account for all of that through the Select Committee on Education and Skills, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

Amendment No. 77 also concerns the process of tendering for inspections and the constitution of inspection teams. This would require the chief
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 158
 
inspector to consult the appropriate authority for the school which, in most cases, is the governing body, about the tender specification and only then to invite tenders. While supporting the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in their concern to secure value for money and efficiency, it is quite difficult to believe that the amendment reflects their intentions. I am not aware of any evidence that there is concern among schools about the specification for an inspection that would suggest that schools need to be consulted on this matter.

One consequence of the amendment would be to prohibit a move to short notice inspection. Once the appropriate authority was consulted, notice would have to be given to the school. There would have to be a significant time lapse to allow for tendering to take place. It is easy to imagine that this would increase the notice period—currently six to 10 weeks—at a time when we are all trying to move towards shorter inspections.

Of course we are concerned about value for money. Tendering for individual inspections is costly and time-consuming. Moving to a system based on strategic contracts will help secure consistency in standards.

The amendment would also require the inclusion of a lay inspector in every inspection. Let me place on record the Government's acknowledgement of the valuable contribution of lay inspectors over the years. Some of them are among our most experienced and effective inspectors, and they may well be engaged in the future as professional inspectors, where their skills and experience meet the standards.

Lay inspectors were introduced at a time when little was known outside the profession about the performance of schools. Much has changed. There are a great many more performance data available to parents to access; inspection reports have proved an extremely popular hit on the Ofsted website. Many more parents are involved in the performance of schools, both nationally and locally. There is no room for cosy professionalism.

Given that in the future some schools, particularly smaller primary schools, will be visited by only one or two inspectors, it would be hard to justify having a lay inspector as a discrete role. We have proposed that the requirement for a lay inspector on every team be removed. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that the chief inspector and Ministers are committed to ensuring that the user or the lay voice is heard within the inspection process. The school self-evaluation form will need to show how the school is engaging with parents, pupils and others.

Furthermore, we are considering using lay inspectors in other contexts such as area-based and cluster-based inspections. In addition, there could be a lay input to some aspects of the quality assurance process.

Finally, the amendment proposes to place a duty on the registered inspector to ensure that no person takes part in an inspection if he has a connection with the school that might raise doubts and conflicts. We fully support this concept; we assure Members of the Committee that our provisions already include this
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 159
 
requirement. That will be achieved through the stringent contract management procedures being developed.

On Amendment No. 78, I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I shall not go over in detail the argument about registered inspections. Needless to say, if there is to be no register of inspectors, the issue of rights of entry becomes irrelevant. Other provisions cover the rights of entry for HMI and additional inspectors.

The amendment also picks up the issues of meeting parents and training for inspectors. Again, I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the principle of parental involvement in their children's education. Indeed, we seek to strengthen this through the package of reforms in the Bill. However, it is important to bear in mind that under the new inspection system, schools have a very limited time in which to organise such a meeting. Ofsted acknowledges this and is working with focus groups of parents in the trials to understand how best to manage this. Often a meeting is not the preferred medium for parents, who may feel the meetings are being hijacked by other, over-anxious parents. So we have included in Clause 6 requirements that steps are taken to notify parents, which may well include a questionnaire.

Amendment No. 78 also requires that all inspectors complete appropriate training prior to conducting inspections. I have spoken at some length about that training programme, what it will involve and how it will be different. This is in place and has been supporting the implementation of trial inspections. Feedback has been very positive. Satisfaction rates about the inspection process are significantly higher than those achieved under the existing system, which themselves are very good.

The programme of training will continue through to the planned roll-out of the new system from September. That includes training inspections overseen by HMI experienced in the new approach.

I hope Members of the Committee do not feel that I have gone into the amendments in inordinate detail. I felt it important to put those points on the record. I hope that my explanation will reassure noble Lords who have been seeking a rationale and that they will withdraw the amendment.

---