Education Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2005.

Education Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

Education Bill [Lords]

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Education Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall, in addition to its first meeting at 9.25a.m. on Tuesday 22nd March, meet—

(a)at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd March; and

(b)at 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 24th March, Tuesday 5th April, Thursday 7th April, Tuesday 12th April and Thursday 14th April;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 27, Schedule 3, Clause 28, Schedule 4, Clauses 29 to 46, Schedule 5, Clauses 47 to 50, Schedule 6, Clauses 51 to 53, Schedule 7, Clause 54, Schedule 8, Clauses 55 to 61, Schedule 9, Clauses 62 and 63, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 101, Schedule 16, Clauses 102 to 107, Schedule 17, Clauses 108 to 117, Schedule 18, Clause 118, Clauses 74 to 77, Schedule 13, Clauses 78 to 98, Schedule 14, Clause 99, Schedule 15, Clause 100, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3, Clauses 64 to 66, Schedule 10, Clause 67, Schedule 11, Clauses 68 to 71, Schedule 12, Clauses 72 and 73, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 119 to 123, Schedule 19, Clauses 124 to 128, other new Clauses and new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 14th April.

I welcome you to your position as Chairman of today’s proceedings, Mr. Forth. We have the opportunity to make good progress today on an important piece of legislation, which has won widespread support in the education world, and on which we had a good, and largely consensual, debate last week.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, and that copies are available in the Room. I also remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools in England

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out

‘be appointed for a term of more than’

and insert

‘serve more than two consecutive terms of’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in Committee this morning, Mr. Forth. I confess that I suddenly find myself in difficulty, because the set of amendments that I was given or their numbers bear no relation to those that I see on the amendment paper. I shall proceed as best I can.

The amendment would restrict the term of appointment of the chief inspector to no more than two consecutive terms. That seems to us a sensible limitation on such an appointment. The amendment would provide a control in the Bill, against very long service by one person in that post. A sensible 10-year term would seem the most appropriate maximum.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr. Forth. I shall be brief.

Clause 1 re-enacts the provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996, which, in turn, re-enacted the original provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992. It includes a requirement for the chief inspector to be appointed by the Queen in Council for a maximum of five years, but places no further restrictions on the reappointment. Those arrangements balance the need to safeguard the integrity of the post, by limiting the length of the term of office, with the need to ensure that the most suitable candidate may be appointed.

We remain committed to making recommendations to Her Majesty about the appointment of the chief inspector on the basis of merit and ministerial accountability. We would not usually reappoint without competition for more than two terms, save in very exceptional circumstances for a short period. However, it is right to retain the flexibility to extend the appointment for a further full term, on the basis of open competition, if the candidate is the very best for the job. I therefore urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 2 - Functions of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools in England

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, after ‘State,’, insert

‘by a resolution of either House of Parliament, or by a resolution of a committee of either House of Parliament,’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ‘State’, insert

‘or to the relevant House or committee’.

No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out ‘Secretary of State’s’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The amendment is a sensible expansion of the scope of the clause. It clarifies the functions of Her Majesty’s chief inspector, in expanding the role taken between the two Houses.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

Clause 2 places a general duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about standards and quality of education and the well-being of pupils in our schools. That is key information for the Secretary of State in discharging her responsibility for ensuring that education policies and education provision in England are of the highest quality. She is accountable to Parliament for that. She needs the best independent information and advice to assess the impact of those policies, to inform the development of new policies and to be able to account for her decisions.

That is not to say that Parliament should not benefit from the independent advice of the chief inspector. Clause 3 specifically requires the chief inspector to produce an annual report, which must be laid before Parliament. The report is made to the Secretary of State, to allow that to happen. I emphasise “to the Secretary of State” because the Secretary of State has no power to intervene in the findings of the chief inspector.

What Parliament receives is the chief inspector’s independent assessment. The annual report distils all the inspection evidence that Ofsted collects into the now very familiar state of the nation in education report. The evidence makes an important contribution to the parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Indeed, one of the biannual meetings of the Education and Skills Committee with the chief inspector focuses specifically on the report.

The chief inspector publishes on his website every school, college and local authority inspection report. He also publishes a wide range of thematic reports and studies, most recently on further education colleges, special needs, out-of-school provision and outdoor education. The chief inspector also publishes more than 100 of those thematic and subject reports every year. All contribute to parliamentary debate and scrutiny of education policies, without the need for a resolution or request from any Committee.

The amendments cut across that clarity of accountability and independence. Amendment No. 6 would mean that the Secretary of State would require the agreement of Parliament before any request could go to the chief inspector. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would mean that that request would no longer be in the Secretary of State’s name and the advice or information would be provided to Parliament.

As I have shown, a great deal of the advice and information is already publicly available; that which is not published is of a more sensitive nature.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the Minister just clarify precisely how the Bill changes the accountability of Her Majesty’s chief inspector to Parliament? What is the present position, and how will the Bill change it?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

As I have just made clear, the Education and Skills Committee has the report and discusses it. Ministers are obviously accountable through questions and debates that take place in Parliament.

The information that is not published is of a more sensitive nature, as it often deals directly with individuals or specific institutions. It would not be right for that information, or even the request for such sensitive information, to be so much in the public domain. There are many occasions when Members of Parliament receive information from others sources that we do not disclose to ensure that no injustice is done, even inadvertently, to individuals or institutions.

It appears to me that the process resulting from the amendments would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Is such additional bureaucracy what hon. Members intend? Perhaps they are concerned that the chief inspector holds back information at the Secretary of State’s request. I assure the Committee that that is not possible. The chief inspector has always published, and will continue to publish, reports that may be viewed as critical of the Government’s policies.

There is nothing in the Bill that enables the Secretary of State to prevent the publication of any report; nor would she do that. I know that she places great value on having such a respected, independent chief inspector as David Bell. As he recently stated in his evidence to the Education and Skills Committee on 16March, it is his job to report as he finds things, with a view to influencing the decisions that Ministers make. I ask that the amendments not be pressed to a vote.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

In view of the Minister’s reassurance on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A)In addition, the Chief Inspector has the following specific duties—

(a)establishing and maintaining the register mentioned in section [Registration of inspectors in England];

(b)giving guidance to inspectors registered in that register, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, in connection with inspections of schools in England under section 5 and the making of reports of such inspections;

(c)keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section and, in particular, the standard of such inspections and of the reports made by registered inspectors;

(d)keeping under review the extent to which any requirements imposed by or under this Part, or any other enactment, on any registered inspector, local education authority, proprietor of a school or governing body in relation to inspections of schools in England is complied with;

(e)promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspections of schools in England by encouraging competition in the provision of services by registered inspectors.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

‘(7)In addition, the Chief Inspector has the following specific duties—

(a)establishing and maintaining a register for registered inspectors in England;

(b)giving guidance to inspectors registered in that register, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, in connection with inspections of schools in England under section 5 or 8 and the making of reports of such inspections;

(c)keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section and, in particular, the standard of such inspectors and of the reports made by registered inspections;

(d)promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspections of schools in England by encouraging competition in the provision of services by registered inspectors.’.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end insert

‘and

(c)to appoint a registered inspector to undertake inspections under this section.’.

Amendment No. 17, in clause 5, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

‘(8)Schedule [Inspections in England under section 5] has effect in relation to inspections under this section.’.

Amendment No. 1, in schedule 7, page 84, line 28, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

‘(1)Section 79P of the Children Act 1989 (early years child care inspectorate for England) is amended as follows—

(2)For subsection (1) substitute—

“The Chief Inspector has a duty to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors for England.”

(3)Omit subsections (2) to (5).’.

Amendment No. 26, in schedule 7, page 84, line 28, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

‘(1)Section 79P of the Children Act 1989 (early years child care inspectorate for England) is amended as follows.

(2)For subsection (1) substitute—

“(1)The Chief Inspector has a duty to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors for England.”

(3)Omit subsections (2) to (4).’.

Amendment No. 27, in schedule 7, page 84, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).

Amendment No. 28, in schedule 7, page 85, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (8).

Amendment No. 3, in schedule 7, page 86, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Amendment No. 4, in schedule 7, page 86, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

New clause 1—Registration of inspectors in England—

‘(1)No person may conduct an inspection of any school in England under section 5 unless—

(a)he is a member of the Inspectorate, or

(b)he is registered as an inspector in a register kept by the Chief Inspector for the purposes of this Chapter.

(2)The Chief Inspector may not register a person under this section unless, having regard to any conditions that he proposes to impose under subsection (4)(c), it appears to him that that person—

(a)is a fit and proper person for discharging the functions of a registered inspector, and

(b)will be capable of conducting inspections under this Chapter competently and effectively,

and no person may be so registered if he falls within a category of persons prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(3)An application for registration under this section—

(a)must be made in such a manner, and be accompanied by such particulars, as the Chief Inspector may direct, and

(b)must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(4)On an application duly made under this section the Chief Inspector may—

(a)register the applicant,

(b)refuse to register him, or

(c)register him subject to such conditions as the Chief Inspector considers it appropriate to impose.

(5)The matters to which the Chief Inspector may have regard in deciding whether to register the applicant include, in particular—

(a)the extent to which the Chief Inspector proposes to exercise his discretion under subsection (1) of section 28 to secure that inspections under that section are conducted by members of the Inspectorate rather than registered inspectors, and

(b)the extent to which there is a need for registered inspectors in England.

(6)Conditions under subsection (4)(c) may be conditions applying generally in relation to all cases, or particular classes of case, or such conditions together with specific conditions applying in the particular case.

(7)Where a person is registered subject to conditions imposed under subsection (4)(c), he is to be taken to be authorised to act as a registered inspector only so far as those conditions permit.

(8)The period for which any registration is to have effect is to be determined by the Chief Inspector and must be entered in the register kept by him.

(9)Nothing in subsection (8) is to be taken as preventing a registered inspector from applying for a fresh registration to take effect immediately on the expiry of his current registration.’.

New clause 3—Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions—

‘(1)If the Chief Inspector is satisfied that any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) is satisfied with respect to an inspector registered in the register, he may remove the name of that inspector from the register.

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)he is no longer a fit and proper person for discharging the functions of a registered inspector under this Chapter;

(b)he is no longer capable of conducting inspections under this Chapter competently and effectively;

(c)there has been a significant failure on his part to comply with any condition imposed under section [Registration of inspectors in England] (4)(c) and subject to which his registration has effect;

(d)he has, without reasonable explanation, produced a report of an inspection which is, in whole or in part, seriously misleading.

(3)If the Chief Inspector is satisfied—

(a)that he is authorised by subsection (2) to remove the name of an inspector from the register, or

(b)that it would otherwise be in the public interest to act under this subsection, he may vary any condition subject to which the registration of that inspector has effect or vary that registration by imposing a condition subject to which it will have effect.’.

New clause 5—Training for inspections—

‘Schedule [Training for inspections] has effect.’.

New clause 6—Appeals in relation to registration—

‘(1)Any person who is aggrieved by—

(a)the refusal of the Chief Inspector to renew his registration under section [Registration of inspectors in England],

(b)the imposition or variation of any condition subject to which he is registered under that section, or

(c)the removal of his name from the register under section [Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions],

may appeal against the Chief Inspector’s decision to a tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule [Tribunals hearing appeals in England].

(2)Where—

(a)a decision to refuse to renew a person’s registration under section [Registration of inspectors in England] is expressed to be based on the ground—

(i)that there is a reduced need for registered inspectors in England, or

(ii)that there is no longer any need for registered inspectors in England, and

(b)the tribunal is satisfied that the decision was based on one of those grounds,

the tribunal must confirm the decision to refuse renewal.

(3)No decision of the Chief Inspector falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) is to have effect until—

(a)the disposal of any appeal against the decision which is duly made under this section, or

(b)the period within which an appeal maybe made has expired without an appeal having been made.

(4)Subsection (3) does not apply where the Chief Inspector—

(a)is satisfied that the circumstances of the case justify the decision in question taking effect immediately, or earlier than would otherwise be the case, and

(b)notifies the person concerned to that effect.

(5)On determining any appeal under this section, the tribunal may—

(a)confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed against, or

(b)remit the case to the Chief Inspector with directions as to the action to be taken by him.

(6)Schedule [Tribunals hearing appeals in England] makes further provision with respect to tribunals constituted to hear appeals under this section.’.

New schedule 1—Training for inspections—

1No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector for England, satisfactorily completed a course of training provided by, or complying with arrangements approved by, that Chief Inspector.

2Where the Chief Inspector for England provides such training he may charge such fees as are reasonable for the purpose of recovering the whole, or part of the cost of providing it.

3Paragraph 1 shall not apply in such circumstances as may be specified, either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of case, by the Chief Inspector for England.

Meeting with parents 4Where an inspection is arranged, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall— (a)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify— (i)the parents of registered pupils at the school, and

4Where an inspection is arranged, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall—

(a)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify—

(ii)such other persons as may be prescribed,

of the time when the inspection is to take place; and

(b)arrange a meeting, in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, between the inspector conducting the inspection and those parents of registered pupils at the school who wish to attend.

Rights of entry etc. 5A registered inspector conducting an inspection, and the members of his inspection team, shall have at all reasonable times— (a)a right of entry to the premises of the school concerned; 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 the purposes of the inspection.

5A registered inspector conducting an inspection, and the members of his inspection team, shall have at all reasonable times—

(a)a right of entry to the premises of the school concerned; and

Offence of obstructing inspector or inspection team 6(1)It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct— (a)a registered inspector, or (b)a member of an inspection team,

6(1)It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct—

(a)a registered inspector, or

in the exercise of his functions in relation to an inspection of a school.

(2)Any person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.’.

New schedule 2—Inspections in England under section 5—

Interpretation 1In this Schedule—“appropriate authority” means— (a)in the case of a county, voluntary, maintained special or maintained nursery school whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority; (b)in the case of a non-maintained school, the proprietor of the school;

1In this Schedule—“appropriate authority” means—

(a)in the case of a county, voluntary, maintained special or maintained nursery school whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority;

(c)in any other case, the school’s governing body;

“inspection” means an inspection under section 5.

Selection of registered inspectors 2Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the Chief Inspector shall, after consulting the appropriate authority for the school concerned as to the tender specification, invite tenders from at least two registered inspectors who can reasonably be expected— (a)to wish to tender for the proposed inspection; and (b)to tender at arm’s length from each other.

2Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the Chief Inspector shall, after consulting the appropriate authority for the school concerned as to the tender specification, invite tenders from at least two registered inspectors who can reasonably be expected—

(a)to wish to tender for the proposed inspection; and

Inspection teams 3(1)Every inspection shall be conducted by a registered inspector with the assistance of a team (an “inspection team”) consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection. (2)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that— (a)at least one member of the inspection team is a person— (i)without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity); and

3(1)Every inspection shall be conducted by a registered inspector with the assistance of a team (an “inspection team”) consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection.

(2)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that—

(a)at least one member of the inspection team is a person—

(ii)whose primary function on the team is not that of providing financial or business expertise; and

(b)no member of the inspection team falls within a category of person prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

(3)Otherwise, the composition of the inspection team shall be determined by the registered inspector.

(4)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that no person takes any part in an inspection if he has, or has at any time had, any connection with—

(a)the school in question,

(b)any person who is employed at the school,

(c)any person who is a member of the school’s governing body, or

(d)the proprietor of the school,

of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to that school.’.

New schedule 3—Tribunals hearing appeals in England—

Constitution of tribunals 1(1)A tribunal constituted to hear an appeal under section [Appeals in relation to registration] of this Act (“a tribunal”) shall consist of— (a)a Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and (b)two other members appointed by the Secretary of State.

1(1)A tribunal constituted to hear an appeal under section [Appeals in relation to registration] of this Act (“a tribunal”) shall consist of—

(a)a Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and

(2)To be qualified for appointment as Chairman of a tribunal, a person must have a 7 year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).

(3)A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the Chairman of a tribunal.

Procedure of tribunals 2(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the making of appeals to, and the procedure to be followed by, tribunals. (2)The regulations may, in particular, make provision— (a)as to the period within which, and manner in which, appeals must be brought; (b)for the holding of hearings in private in prescribed circumstances;

2(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the making of appeals to, and the procedure to be followed by, tribunals.

(2)The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a)as to the period within which, and manner in which, appeals must be brought;

(c)as to the persons who may appear on behalf of the parties;

(d)for enabling hearings to be conducted even though a member of the tribunal, other than the Chairman, is absent;

(e)as to the disclosure by the appellant, and others, of documents and the inspection of documents;

(f)requiring persons to attend the proceedings and give evidence;

(g)as to the payment of expenses incurred by persons compelled to attend proceedings by regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1);

(h)authorising the administration of oaths to witnesses;

(i)as to the withdrawal of appeals;

(j)as to costs and expenses incurred by any party to the proceedings; and

(k)authorising preliminary or incidental matters in relation to an appeal to be dealt with by the Chairman of the tribunal hearing that appeal.

Staff 3The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such provision as he thinks fit for— (a)the allocation of staff for any tribunal; (b)the remuneration of members of tribunals and the reimbursement of their expenses;

3The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such provision as he thinks fit for—

(a)the allocation of staff for any tribunal;

(c)defraying any reasonable expenses incurred by any tribunal.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

This group of amendments relates to the maintenance of a register of inspectors in England. I am puzzled at the omission from the clause of a reference to the maintenance of a register, which has been included in the past. With the changes to the style of inspection that are now proposed for schools, inspections will be shorter, albeit more frequent, and will be less burdensome on schools, but there is a requirement to report and observe on a comprehensive list of activities in schools. The inspections will last only one or two days, and are quite an onerous task for inspectors. It is very challenging to examine all those aspects of school life, and the inspectors will need to be highly competent and experienced in order to carry out such a demanding task.

The chief inspector retains the final responsibility, but he is dependent on the information that he receives in the report from the inspector to inform his decision. So the quality and consistency of reporting between different inspections in different schools will be extremely important.

The amendments seek to ensure that the previous high standards of former registered inspectors are maintained by introducing a register of additional inspectors. It is difficult to see how that would hinder the speeding up or the streamlining of inspections in schools, which is one of the Bill’s main objectives. How did this come about? What representations did the Minister receive, what consultation was there with former inspectors, with chief inspectors, with schools or with governors? Who believed that this would be an improvement to the whole system? What purpose is served by excluding a register, which has always been a reliable indication of competence and would continue to be for additional inspectors?

When an inspector’s service has proved to be unsatisfactory or has given rise to complaints, the ability to remove them from a register would provide quality assurance and would be another indication that quality and accountability were being maintained. We believe that such a facility would be an improvement to the whole system and a failsafe.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

May I apologise for being a little late, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth? I have particularly fond memories from my early days in Parliament when you were the shadow Leader of the House and your exchanges with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) were much enjoyed by us all. Nothing since Morecambe and Wise has quite rivalled them. They were possibly even a little more subtle. May I also warn you that the Bill was considered so dull on Second Reading that we ended up talking about almost everything but the legislation?

I do, however, have a point to make about amendments Nos. 9 and 10, both of which contain an excellent paragraph (c), which refers to

“keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section ... the standard of such inspectors and of the reports made by registered inspections”.

The phrase “keeping under review” leaps off the page. Everyone accepts that there has been quite a variation in how schools are inspected since the days of Matthew Arnold. There have been times when certain procedures were believed to be less than ideal. Even the Government are having second thoughts about how these inspections can be conducted.

Given that background and the complexity of the numbers of subjects that will be inspected and the numbers of new teaching staff who may emerge, there is a need to keep constantly under review the way in which inspections are conducted; whether they are conducted well and whether they achieve the results that people intend them to have. There is therefore no merit in the inner core of the Conservative amendments. Will the Minister assure us that, when we have finally done with this template for inspectors in a few days’ time and it is finished, that will still not be the end of it and that the Government and the chief inspector will monitor and evaluate the process constantly, because it is sure going to need it?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I, too, remember your time as shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Forth; I was serving as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston at the time, and we all enjoyed the exchanges—particularly the Thursday morning exchanges on the business statement.

The hon. Lady reasonably asked how the measures to which the amendments are addressed came about. They came about in the same way as the rest of the Bill’s measures—through a sustained programme of engagement between the Department and the Government and those involved in education, including those involved in inspection, and representatives of schools, Ofsted and local education authorities.

I believe that the measures will strengthen inspection and remove some of the inconsistencies in inspection reports that rightly concern people. It should ensure a much stronger guarantee of the quality of inspection. Indeed, that question was debated not only outside the House when preparing the Bill but in the other place. A number of powerful contributions were made during the debate in the other place, including by former chief inspectors of schools.

The proposals are not about bringing the inspectors back into the Department or undermining their independence; indeed, I would say the opposite. If the proposals gain Royal Assent, we will continue to have—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) challenged us on the subject—a completely independent inspectorate that makes the best-value use of contractual arrangements, with a high-quality core of Her Majesty’s inspectorate at its heart. We want to strengthen accountability in the vast majority of inspections conducted by registered inspectors. The chief inspector is not able at the moment to ensure that final reports are robust and rigorous, or that their judgments match the evidence.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s statement that the Bill will mean a more independent inspectorate. Given that the intention is to bring inspections in-house—I was interested to hear that the Government want to maintain contracted-out inspections—I wonder what proportion of inspectors are contracted out now, and what proportion he envisages being contracted out once the Bill is enacted.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I am not in a position to answer now, but I might magically be able to do so before I finish speaking were a note to appear by my side.

I was seeking to make the point that there is a lack of consistency in the current practice. We want the chief inspector to be able to ensure that judgments are rigorous, and it is important that schools and early-years settings should have the opportunity to comment on those judgments before they are published. Schools and early-year settings should also have confidence that the system of inspection will help them to improve outcomes for their children and their communities.

We all know from our experience—whether as Members of Parliament, as governors or as parents—how hard it can be for a school that is, for example, put on special measures. It is hard for all involved—the staff, the head, but particularly the pupils. We must not shy away from that most critical judgment, but we must ensure that it is defensible, that it is based on evidence and that it has been assured by the chief inspector. The critical point that I seek to make about the quality of inspections is that they have the assurance of the chief inspector himself.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This is an important point. It seems that the inspector will be less directly accountable to Parliament and more accountable to the Secretary of State. Given that, does not giving the Her Majesty’s chief inspector more power over the drafting of the reports effectively mean that he is less independent, particularly because of his closer relationship with the Secretary of State? Does not that take us back to the days before the establishment of Ofsted and to an HMI that many people said was the dog that did not bark in the night?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which he made also on Second Reading. I do not accept that strengthening the relationship between the Department, the Secretary of State and Ofsted need undermine the independence of Ofsted—nor its accountability to Parliament, which is crucial. That accountability was reflected in the fact that the chief inspector, David Bell, appeared before the Select Committee last week. It is in no way compromised, undermined or changed by the proposals set out in the Bill.

I am now able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question. The present position is that there are 250 HMI. That will not change under the proposals. The move from registration to the new arrangements will involve a reduction in the number of contracted inspectors from about 5,000 to about 3,000. That will enable us to manage the quality of inspections far more effectively. I will return to that point in a moment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

If there are going to be fewer inspectors but more inspections, will it not be difficult for that smaller body of inspectors? For example, if somebody is ill or otherwise unable to conduct an inspection that he is contracted to do, then, given the number and frequency of inspections, will it not be difficult to keep up with the schedule? Does it not forecast a slippage?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Of course, while we have the number of registered inspectors that I referred to, many of those are simply on the register, but not taking part in inspections. One of the concerns about consistency and quality is that there are people on the register who are not part of inspection arrangements in any schools, whereas, under the new arrangements, which I will say more about in a moment, we can ensure much closer monitoring and management of the contracts to ensure that the best people are among the 3,000. Therefore, I do not believe that the danger that she drew to the Committee’s attention is likely to arise. I will return to that point.

I want to distinguish between the position for early years education and the position for schools. We want to ensure that Ofsted’s early years inspection work force is of the highest quality. We attach great importance to the training and development of inspectors. Clearly, early childhood is a time of great importance in children’s development and the quality of care that children receive in their early years makes a difference to their development and achievements in later life.

Paragraph 2 of schedule 7 removes the requirement on the chief inspector for England to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors in England. At present, almost all Ofsted’s early years inspectors are Ofsted employees and, as such, they are not separately registered. Removal of the registration requirement for early years inspection will, therefore, have almost no impact. Should Ofsted decide in future to engage more external inspectors, as it does for its school inspections, it will monitor and control the performance and quality of the inspectors through normal contract management arrangements. We believe that those will be as effective as any registration system in securing the services of appropriately qualified and experienced inspectors, which is the purpose of the hon. Lady’s amendments.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I take the Minister back to the quality of inspectors and the specific requirements for inspecting early years provision. As there will be no register, how will it be determined that individual inspectors have the specific and appropriate qualifications for sectors of education provision, particularly for the early years sector, in which child development and associated issues in addition to teaching come into play?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Lady is right to remind us of the importance of having the highest quality, not least in early years settings. Under the new regime, the onus will be on Ofsted to ensure that it employs people of the highest quality, as it is now. One of our concerns about the register, which in practice applies more to schools, but theoretically applies in early years settings, is that it provides a bare minimum accountability for those being employed by Ofsted, but is not sufficient and rigorous enough. She is absolutely right that we need to get things right. We do that by effective contract management, and performance management of both the contract and the individuals who are employed.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Let me press the Minister a little further on the clarity and accountability of the qualifications required. Will it be possible for schools and others to know what qualifications are required of inspectors? Were they on a register, it would be an indication that they had the required level of appropriate qualification. If there is no register, we are totally reliant on the chief inspector. Is there no further information that can be accessed by people who need to know that the people who conduct inspections are properly qualified and offering the right quality of service?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind the Committee of the importance of not just parents but those who work in early years settings in schools having that assurance. Schedule 1 sets out the standards as appropriate, and I invite her to review it. If we can correspond further or take an opportunity later in the proceedings of the Bill to clarify the matter, I will be happy to do so. She and I share a commitment to achieving the highest possible quality. The Government believe that the mechanisms in the Bill will achieve what her amendments seek to achieve, which is that quality.

Under our proposals, the chief inspector will be the single accountable figure under whose name all school inspection reports will be published. On that basis, Parliament will be able to hold him to account. Subject to the fate of the Bill, the chief inspector will use a combination of HMI inspectors and, through a number of regional contractors, additional inspectors to deliver a shorter, sharper inspection system. That means less notice, less stress for teaching staff and schools, less time for schools to undertake unnecessary preparation for inspection and fewer but better qualified members of an inspection team who will produce reports that should be more in line with school improvement and written in a language more accessible to parents.

The critical point, which we have touched on already in our exchanges, is that, through the contracts that the chief inspector will make, he will ensure that all additional inspectors meet the standards that he sets. The standards will be published under schedule 1. The chief inspector will be responsible for ensuring that all inspectors have the necessary qualifications, experience and skills to assist in the discharge of what is an important duty. He will be allowed to operate a much more rigorous contract management arrangement and to ensure that no one inspector can undertake an inspection without first having demonstrated to one of the HMI that they have undertaken an inspection to the satisfaction of that member of HMI. In addition, they must continue to meet the standards. That is the critical difference from how things have been.

Performance management will be a strong part of the new system, with each contractor having rigorous key performance indicators in their contract. At least once a year—although it is more likely to be every term—the chief inspector will publish a list of those people who are engaged by inspection service providers to carry out inspections on behalf of the chief inspector, and every school will have access to details of those who are engaged as additional inspectors. The measures will serve as a powerful incentive for the chief inspector, the service providers and the inspectors themselves to ensure that they deliver a high-quality inspection service.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

May I press the Minister a little further on procedures if an inspector has proved to be unsatisfactory, is providing a service that does not meet the standards required, or has given rise to complaints from several schools? The remedy is simple if a register is in place, as the unsatisfactory inspector can be removed from the register. However, if there is no register, there will have to be some other procedure to deal with the problem.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

In fact, the hon. Lady’s point is part of our case for making these changes. As I said, a register provides only a kind of fitness-to-practise badge. It does not ensure ongoing satisfaction with performance, which we all want. It places an onus on Ofsted to prove that an inspector is unable to remain on the register. That means that, until the process begins, an inspector who is known to be poor at inspection can continue to inspect. That is the situation under the present system, and I do not believe that any hon. Member wants it to continue.

Under our proposals, the chief inspector can ensure, through strong contract management and increased HMI involvement, that there is ongoing meeting of the standards and that an individual who is no longer able to fulfil what is expected of them is removed from the register. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that that will work.

The comprehensive measures that we are putting in place have been improved by discussion not only outside the House but in the other place. They will ensure that only those inspectors who are appropriately trained and who demonstrate not just at the outset but on an ongoing basis that they meet the required standards will inspect our schools. I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendments were in fact designed to probe the Government and to seek reassurance. I hope that I have been able to give her that reassurance.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

This is a very wide-ranging set of amendments, which, as the Minister right says, seek to ensure that the standard of inspections is maintained. As we all know, school inspections make not only head teachers and teachers but parents and governors—indeed, the entire school—enormously anxious. It is only right that they are reassured that systems are in place that ensure that they can be confident that the people who are coming into their school to conduct the inspections are properly qualified, are of the right standard and will have the time to consider the wide-ranging duties that the Bill requires them to perform. Those people will need to be highly experienced and competent to be able to evaluate that wide range of aspects of school life in one or two days.

As we all know, an inspection hangs over a school like a great black cloud. Shorter notice is probably an advantage, so that that black cloud hangs over the school for a shorter time. An enormous amount of time and energy used to be devoted to preparation for the inspection rather than to the everyday life of the school. The Minister has given reassurance on those points, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3 - Annual and other reports to Secretary of State

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I understand that clause 3 re-enacts a previous measure. It asks the Secretary of State to lay a copy of a very important document—the annual report of the chief inspector—before Parliament.

All sorts of documents are laid before Parliament every day. We may, as we speak, hear a quiet thud in the background as many more are laid before the House, but will the Minister say whether he has given any thought to the idea of actually doing something with it when it is laid before Parliament? For example, Select Committees consider estimates and so on. This is clearly a pretty important document each year on the nation’s educational history and is worthy of serious debate. It may not be the best use of the document if the clause simply means that the document is laid before Parliament, and that all that we are mandated to do is to receive it. Has the Minister given any thought to the dynamic way in which the document might be used?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause re-enacts provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996, which require the chief inspector to make an annual report that is laid before Parliament. The publication of the chief inspector’s annual report is one of the key events in the education year, so it is already a key event and is given a lot of publicity. Few people in Parliament or in education are unaware of what the report is about. It always attracts enormous attention.

The report distils all the inspections evidence that Ofsted collects into the now familiar state of the nation education report. That evidence makes an important contribution to the national debate and to Government thinking. Indeed, one of the Select Committee on Education and Skills biannual meetings, in which the chief inspector focuses on the report, provides a broad view of the system for those working in it and celebrates their success. A copy of the report is sent to all head teachers, and particularly successful schools and colleges are named in it.

The clause also re-enacts provisions that allow the chief inspector to make and publish other reports. Ofsted publishes more than 100 schematic and subject surveys a year, all of which have important things to say. They highlight good practice, identify areas that need improvement, and inform the development of policy.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister appears to be saying that everyone takes heed of this document. I agree that everyone will do so, because it is significant in its own right. I simply suggest that a more formal process might make it clear what lessons could be learnt year by year, but there is no mechanism for that. Points can be made in the Department for Education and Skills, on the Floor of the House and in Select Committee. The document is so significant that it is worth ensuring every year that it does not go through such a process by default. If the Minister has given an assurance that that will never happen, so be it.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I mentioned the biannual meeting of the Education and Skills Committee. I re-emphasise that the report has a very high profile and receives a great deal of media attention, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the past few weeks and months. We are satisfied with the current system and the way in which the report is dealt with.

Clause 4 - Powers of entry etc. for purposes of section 2

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

It appears that Ofsted—or the chief inspector—has appreciable powers, rivalled in most countries only by the powers of the secret police. He has

“a right of entry ... a right to inspect”

and a right to take documents away. It is also

“an offence intentionally to obstruct the Chief Inspector”.

A person guilty of an offence is liable to a summary conviction. I have no argument against that, but it moves away from the consensual model of school inspections. I am not saying that we have had a consensual model, but that is no doubt what we aim at.

I shall not argue against the clause, but it would be useful to me and to the Committee to understand how often the powers given in clause 4 are currently operated. How many times are people summarily convicted and fined? Is it one in 1,000 or one in 100, or does it not occur? Equally, one wants to know that the powers are not used too brazenly. Coming into a school is something that one would hope would be done in the normal hours of daylight. Schools would obviously object if they found an Ofsted inspector rifling through their filing cabinets at night. I am sure that inspectors do not do that, that they do not want to do it and that there is no occasion for such things, but there must be cases in which there is tension. For example, documents may be demanded in too peremptory a way or in a time scale that cannot be met by the school.

In addition to asking how many people are convicted under the provisions, may I ask how many complaints there are from schools about the powers of entry used by Ofsted inspectors and how they are employed in practice?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman referred to a consensual model. The Bill seeks to learn lessons from the experience of Ofsted and other modes of inspection to bring about a system that is robust and has the support of schools. On his specific point, I can reassure him that the provisions have never been used. The answer to each of his questions is “zero”. I hope that that reassures him.

All the clause seeks to do is re-enact the provisions for rights of entry to provide the chief inspector and any inspector authorised to act on his behalf with the right of entry. Clearly it is better that such matters are dealt with on a consensual basis. The evidence so far is that that is exactly what happens in schools. Long may that continue. We need the clause for the unlikely possibility of a breakdown in that consensus in the future.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

On that specific point, would not the register be another safeguard? Naming the people with the right of entry into a school on a register would give schools the confidence that the matter has been checked. As I said during discussion of previous clauses, the register is a failsafe mechanism that gives the status and reliability of the people who are named on it.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I do not think so. Notwithstanding the fact that the measure has not been operational, there are often legitimate concerns among schools about quality and consistency, even with the register in place. As I said in the previous discussion, the register is therefore not a sufficient basis on which to provide that reassurance. I am confident that the new arrangements that we put in place in the earlier part of the Bill will provide that assurance of quality.

Clause 5 - Duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed levels

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end insert

‘and to make it available—

(i)to the headteacher, staff, parents and pupils of that school;

(ii)in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, to the school’s governing body or, if the school does not have a delegated budget, to the local education authority; and

(iii)in relation to a school falling within paragraphs (d) to (g) of subsection (2), to the proprietor of the school.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in schedule 7, page 85, line 29, after ‘to’, insert

‘the parents of the children for whom the childminding or day care is provided and to’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Clause 5 relates to the duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed intervals. The amendment relates to the availability of the report that arises from the inspection. Subsection (1)(b) states that

“when the inspection has been completed”,

the chief inspector is required

“to make a report of the inspection in writing.”

The list of people to whom that report should be made available is not specified in the clause. The amendment specifies the individuals and groups of people to whom the report should be made available: the head teacher, staff, parents and pupils of the school. In the case of a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, it should be sent to the school’s governing body, and if the school does not have a delegated budget, to the local education authority. In relation to paragraphs (d) and (g) of subsection (2), it should be sent to proprietors of the school.

The amendment would clarify and specify to whom the report should be made available. It appears that that may be achieved in later clauses, but specifying it in this clause would provide a belt and braces. There is no specific mention of making the report available to staff, students or parents at a school that has undergone an inspection. We feel that that is an essential addition. The Government say that they are moving towards more parental involvement with schools, but making the inspection report available to parents would be an essential part of that process.

Clauses 14 and 16 refer to making a copy available to any interested members of the public. We would like that provision to be more specific to ensure that parents of any child at the school in question or parents of children applying for a place there who have a proper interest in the inspection results would be able to see the report. The amendments would add to and clarify the range of availability and circulation of an inspection report.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

We all agree that those with an interest in an inspection should have access to the inspection report. Clauses 14 and 16 require the chief inspector to send copies of the report to specified persons, including the appropriate authority or the proprietor of the school. He must then send copies of the full inspection report to parents and any other person who asks to see a copy.

Under the new system, parents will receive a copy of the full report, rather than just a summary, as they do under the current system. Staff will have access to the report through the school’s routine communications mechanisms. The legislative safeguard that underpins the process is their right, which is like that of any other member of the public, to request a copy of the report from the school. In addition, Ofsted publishes all section 5 in-school inspection reports on its website, making them accessible to anyone with an interest.

Amendment No. 2 would place a duty on the chief inspector in England to ensure that parents with children attending child minding or day care provision are sent a copy of the inspection report. We recognise the importance of parental involvement in the early years inspection process. Parents can exercise influence in securing improvement in provision where necessary, in addition to having the information that they need to make informed choices about the provision they use.

It is our intention that inspection reports are sent to parents and that they are notified of forthcoming inspections. The new duty will, however, be on registered child care providers rather than Ofsted. Schedule 7 already includes a regulation-making power that enabling regulations to require a registered child care provider to send a copy of the report to parents. That is in line with distribution requirements on school governing bodies.

We consider it more appropriate to specify who should be notified and receive copies of early years inspection reports in the regulations, because it would not be appropriate to provide all parents of children attending child care with a copy of the report. We need to provide for exemptions in the case of open access schemes and certain types of crèche provision where there is limited parental contact or a very temporary relationship between the child care provider and the parents.

It would not be appropriate for parents to receive copies of reports in such cases. For example, where a parent leaves a child at a shopping centre crèche for a couple of hours and there is no ongoing relationship between the parent and the crèche provider, it would clearly not be appropriate for the provider to be under a duty to send a copy of the latest inspection report to all parents who have used the facility. The regulation-making power enables such exemptions to be specified. It would be impractical for the duty to send reports to parents to rest with Ofsted. Ofsted does not keep records of the children who receive child care or their parents, but it will continue to publish inspection reports on its website, which will include from April 2005 childminding reports with personal details.

I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the Government’s commitment, which I set out today, to the degree to which parents play a role, especially in early years inspections, and that she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Will the Minister clarify who is responsible for ensuring that all parents know that they are entitled to apply for a copy of the report, including parents applying for places at a school at which they do not happen to have children at the time?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

That responsibility rests with the school.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

In view of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 5, page 4, line 46, at end insert

‘and

(g)the availability to the school of persons known as school improvement partners and the contribution made by such persons to the effectiveness of the school.’.

The amendment would widen even further the inspection reports. Secondary schools in particular are widening their involvement in the community. The London borough of Havering, for example, has a business and education partnership that is actively involved with local primary and secondary schools, as well as other partners who are becoming involved in certain aspects of school life, and not always on the school premises. School activities and the range of those involved in them are becoming wider and much more community-oriented, so we believe that it is legitimate that that aspect of school life and the effect that it is having on the achievement and welfare of students should be included in the report and should be available to such partners.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing the Committee’s attention to the school improvement partner, which is a very important part of the new relationship with schools. The Bill enables us to make progress on that new relationship. She is quite right that the school improvement partner is one of several external bodies or individuals who are helping schools by working with them to ensure the improvement that we want to see.

The amendment would require the chief inspector to report on the availability to a school of a school improvement partner and the contribution made by them to the effectiveness of the school. It is right that the effectiveness of the school improvement partner role should be evaluated, but the routine school inspection is not the best way of doing that. The school improvement partner will be allocated to the school by its maintaining authority, and they will work under contract to that authority. In Havering, for example, the relevant authority would be the local education authority. Quite rightly, the partner will be part of the accountability arrangements of that authority. The LEA will be responsible for managing the performance of the school improvement partner. That will involve assessing how well the partner offers strategic challenges and support to each school.

The school improvement partner will not be expected to be available to the school at all times. Most partners will be serving head teachers, and we want the very best head teachers to agree to take on the role. Their main function is obviously to lead their own schools, however, so they will not be available to schools at all times. We would not expect the school improvement partner to act on behalf of the authority in the event of a crisis at a school that demands immediate and unscheduled local authority supporting action, as that would not be a realistic use of their time and experience.

The purpose of a school inspection is to evaluate the quality and standards of education in the school and its leadership and management. In future, school inspection reports will be written with parents very much as the key target audience. Judging by what the hon. Lady said, I believe that she will agree that that makes sense. The issue for parents is less about the individual who is helping the school to improve—in this case the school improvement partner—than about ensuring that the school is well managed and effectively led, and that it provides the best education and care for the children. That must be the primary purpose of the school inspection report, and I would not be keen to add a further requirement.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Is the Minister saying that ensuring that school improvement partnerships are working successfully is the responsibility of the council and the local education authority rather than the inspectorate?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

Yes, for those schools for which the LEA is the maintaining authority. It is slightly different in the case of voluntary aided schools, but that is so for the majority of community schools.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

With those reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Reducing burden of inspection on schools—

‘The Chief Inspector when conducting an inspection under section 5 shall in exercising his functions have regard to the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies and headteachers of maintained schools.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Everyone will recognise the changing administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies. Gone are the days when being a school governor meant going to sports days, the Christmas concert and three meetings. That was the end of a governor’s responsibilities. Now, as soon as someone agrees to be a member of a governing body, he is asked on which sub-committees he would like to serve and for which section of the school activities he would like to be responsible. It has become an onerous job.

Those of us who are school governors will know of the volume of printed matter that comes our way. Indeed, there is no head teacher who would not complain about the amount of regulation and paperwork that crosses his desk every day of the school year. It should therefore be implicit in the inspection regime, which is designed to improve and streamline school inspections and take away much of the associated anxiety, that there is a determination to reduce the administrative burden attached to it. I hope that the Minister will describe how that is to be achieved.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

New clause 2 is an aspirational clause that most people would warmly support. Anyone who knows about inspections will know that an awful lot of non-functional documentation is produced simply for the inspection. There have even been disputes between schools and inspectors as to which documents were needed and which were purely functional. It may also be difficult to define “excessive administrative burdens”, so although I warmly support the spirit of the new clause, I have some problem with its wording.

The new clause speaks of the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens, but that is slightly tautological because no one would argue that excessive administrative burdens were desirable. We might agree to the provision, but it might not have much practical meaning. Perhaps we are looking for some sort of regulatory assessment on how much of what Ofsted requires is strictly necessary.

The new system will presumably will need a certain amount of testing so that we can see how much is required and whether anything further will be required, but it would be nice to put in something—a signpost to Ofsted inspectors and the inspection regime as a whole—indicating that documents should not be produced unnecessarily. It would be a new version of Occam’s razor. That seems to be the line that we should go down, but I am not sure how we can get it into the legislation without being tautological.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

We are debating the chief inspector’s duty to be responsible for inspection and reports. Although the present chief inspector is clearly irreproachable, that was not always the case, and it might not be in future. What assurance is there in the Bill, and in the Acts from which it has taken parts, that no maverick future chief inspector will be able to make substantial and arbitrary changes to reports made by his inspectorate? In the past, changes have been made to suit a personal agenda, and in some cases, the schools—one of them was a teacher training institution—that were the subjects of the reports were severely damaged. I imply no criticism or shadow of blame to the present chief inspector, but he will not always be there.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

Let me respond to that, because my hon. Friend raises an important point that I know concerns hon. Members of all parties. It demonstrates the vital importance of the process for appointing the chief inspector, and of the chief inspector’s accountability to Parliament for his or her decisions. The chief inspector should have the ultimate responsibility for inspection reports, but any decision that the chief inspector makes in respect of those reports is a decision for which he or she should be responsible to the House. The arrangement under which Ofsted is accountable to the House via the Select Committee is important. That is the best reassurance that I can offer in respect of the danger to which my hon. Friend draws the Committee’s attention.

Ofsted has conducted more than 100 pilot inspections using a new inspection framework that is designed to support the new extended focus, with the sharper, shorter model of inspection. That extensive testing has shown that the model can deliver a rigorous and reliable inspection while reducing the burden that it places on schools.

The hon. Lady’s new clause draws our attention to important matters of administration and bureaucracy. One of the main purposes of the revised inspection arrangements is to streamline procedures and jettison tasks that are not needed. The regulatory impact assessment that was published to support the Bill, and which has been made available to the House, highlights the benefits to schools that will be brought about by the changes.

The self-evaluation form—the only form that will now need to be available prior to the inspection— will not be used only for the inspection but will form part of the school’s own review. It will be used by the school continuously, in order to inform its school development plan. That is very different from the current position, of which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) reminded the Committee: schools are required to complete four pre-inspection forms solely for the purpose of the inspection, and then a separate post-inspection plan. The feedback from the trials confirms that schools find the new procedure more useful and less burdensome.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

A further spin-off, which is desirable and should be pointed out, is that with the long lead-in time for the inspections that we have at the moment, a lot of schools spend money that they should be using to provide educational benefits for their pupils on preparing for inspections—for instance, by getting consultants in for many weeks beforehand. The Bill is extraordinarily bad news for consultants who perform that role.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman is right. We calculate that schools will save some £40 million a year, simply because of the more streamlined arrangements. That money can be spent where it ought to be spent: on the education of children.

Let me make one final point. We have established the implementation review unit, a panel of 12 head teachers and other senior school practitioners who now work in the Department for Education and Skills with a remit to cut bureaucracy across the schools sector. They have been closely involved in the development of the new arrangements, and will continue to monitor them, by visits to schools and meetings with Ofsted and our officials, to ensure that the full benefits are realised.

In the light of what I have been able to say, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause.

Clause 6 - Duty to notify parents of section 5 inspection

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(2A)The headteacher may, if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.

(2B)If the headteacher has notified the appropriate authority of a meeting under subsection (2A), the appropriate authority shall take whatever action may be required to facilitate such a meeting.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18, page 5, line 16, leave out ‘subsection (1)’ and insert ‘this section’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The amendment would provide that the head teacher may,

“if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.”

It has always been the case under the current regime to have a meeting with the chief inspector just at the conclusion of an inspection. In the interests of parental involvement, it is essential that those parents who wish to should have an opportunity to meet the inspector, the governing body and the head teacher to put such questions as arise out of the report, particularly if failings that give cause for concern have been highlighted. Parents will be anxious to discuss how such failings might be remedied and what systems will be put in place to try to put things right and to help the school to improve.

Even if the inspection has been a great success, parents will wish to have an opportunity to speak to the inspector. We are trying to encourage parents to take a close interest in the education of their children, to come into schools more frequently, to take part in the life of the school and to attend the annual meeting of parents and governors. Therefore, it is essential that they should have an opportunity on such a momentous occasion to meet the inspector. The inspection period has been one of great anxiety for the school: will it pass or not, will it be found failing in some way? Very often, the whole school celebrates at the end of an inspection if its fears or anxieties have not been realised.

In the interests of parental involvement, whether the inspection is a cause for concern or for celebration, it is the right of parents to have an opportunity to meet the inspector in person rather than just to have access to the report and the findings.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Inspired by your example as a legislator, Mr. Forth, I shall speak against amendment No. 15, which states:

“The head teacher may, if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.”

I believe that that can happen anyway, as things stand. Therefore, we would be legislating for things to happen that already can happen. It seems a redundant legislative move, as what would take place at the discretion of the head teacher can already be done by the head teacher. I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that anyone is given additional rights by the amendment. It simply recommends what is, indeed, a desirable practice, but it is not necessarily something that needs enshrining in legislation, unless we want to multiply legislation.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Incorporated in the amendment is a requirement for the chief inspector to make himself available. It certainly is open to the head teacher to arrange a meeting with parents, but the chief inspector may or may not be available to take part in such a meeting, whereas the amendment would make it a requirement on him to be available to parents either during or after the inspection so that they can speak to him personally.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am enlightened a little more, but the amendment is a little inelegant, if that is its intention. It says something about the headmaster’s discretion, but nothing about the chief inspector’s duties. If the intention is to ensure that the inspector is always available for such meetings, the amendment needs a certain amount of rephrasing.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

The amendment would place discretion in the hands of the head teacher in deciding whether it is appropriate to arrange a meeting between the inspector and parents. What about parents who have real concerns that they wish to raise with the inspector, but do not want to go through the head teacher? We need better safeguards to ensure that parents have access to inspection teams, as well as the opportunity to express their views about the schools to the inspectors and, if necessary, to discuss with them areas of concern. Parents’ views form a crucial part of the inspection evidence, so we must ensure that effective mechanisms are in place.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Is the Minister saying that there will be a mechanism through which individual parents or groups of parents can have access to the inspector independently of the school?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

Yes, there can be a meeting if the parents so desire. Obviously, with the shorter, sharper inspection there is less time for one to be arranged, but there is a mechanism for that to happen.

We need to balance the wider issue of the need to establish shorter, sharper, short-notice inspection arrangements with ensuring that key stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute directly to the inspection process that I have just outlined. The provisions are strengthened by clause 6(2), which ensures that when parents are notified of an inspection, they are also informed about the arrangements that Ofsted has made for them to make their views known to inspectors. If parents express views, they will be considered when the report of the inspection is formulated.

Clause 7 guarantees an opportunity for parental engagement by inviting parents’ views, but it does not describe the method by which they are to be sought. That is intentional. We want to ensure that the arrangements are flexible and responsive to evidence from parents about what works for them.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am still slightly unclear as to whether a meeting between the parents and the inspector that excluded school representatives could be instigated by the parents—or will they have to wait to be invited to such a meeting?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

It is entirely for the parents to do that if they so wish.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank the Minister for that clarification and, in view of his reassurance that it is open to parents to have access to the chief inspector in person—

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

They would have access to the inspection team that came to the school.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

That was a slip of the tongue; it would obviously be more appropriate for parents to have access to the team that has visited the school. Given that reassurance, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 11 - Publication of inspection reports

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 11, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

‘(5)The Chief Inspector is required to publish all reports on schools placed in special measures in accordance with the provisions of section 44 and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at that school.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 29, page 18, line 42, at end insert—

‘(5)The Chief Inspector is required to publish all reports on schools placed in special measures in accordance with the provisions of section 44 and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at that school.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am frantically turning pages.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

That makes three of us.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Special measures are dreaded by all schools. They come as a great blow. Schools in my constituency with inspirational head teachers, including schools that are having difficulty that feel that they are making good progress, have been inspected and then told that they are going to be put on special measures. That is a body blow to the whole school community.

It is necessary that the reports are published, however, because identifying the weaknesses or problems in a school that led to its being put into special measures is the path out of special measures. The purpose of inspection is not to point the finger and criticise, but to identify failings and to help schools through them so that they can come out of special measures. The publication process is an important part of the inspection process. That is why the amendments were tabled.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I join colleagues in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. Having witnessed your contribution to last Friday’s debate, I think that few people know our procedures better. I am sure that we will be in safe hands and get through our business quickly with you in the Chair. I commend the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) too. I know that she is a reader of mystery novels. It may be a mystery why she has little support today, but as she is facing three Ministers with surnames that sound the same, she has done remarkably well in tackling the matters that she wishes the Committee to consider.

The hon. Lady’s amendments would require the chief inspectors of England and Wales to publish the reports of all schools placed in special measures and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at the school. I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. They are unnecessary for England because the Bill ensures that the reports of all section 5 inspections, not just those that specify that special measures are required, will be available for inspection by members of the public. Indeed, any person who asks for a copy of the report must be provided with one. Reports are sent to every registered parent of registered pupils at the school.

Under clause 14, the chief inspector is required to ensure that copies of a section 5 inspection report are sent to, among others,

“the appropriate authority for the school.”

The appropriate authority is the school’s governing body, or, if the school does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority. The clause further requires the appropriate authority

“to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the report”.

Clause 38 makes similar provision for the report of section 28 inspections in Wales. It provides for the inspection report to be sent to the appropriate authority for the school. It also places a duty on the appropriate authority to secure that every registered parent and every registered pupil is sent a summary of the report with the full report on request. Clause 11 enables the chief inspector in England to publish any inspection report in such manner as they think appropriate. Clause 29 enables the chief inspector in Wales to do the same. Publication of inspection reports is an important aspect of the role of the chief inspectors in raising public awareness of key educational issues. In practice, all section 5 and section 28 inspection reports will be published. That is the case for such reports now and it will continue to be the case under the arrangements set out in the Bill.

The amendments are therefore superfluous. The Bill already ensures that inspection reports will be publicly available and that parents will receive the reports of their children’s schools, irrespective of whether special measures are required. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to seek leave to withdraw her amendments.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. It is not the news that parents with children at a school put into special measures are hoping for, but they need that information. If parents are aware of the areas of failure in a school, the school community can work together to overcome those problems. Given his reassurance that that information will be available to parents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 44 - Categories of schools causing concern

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 44, page 29, line 28, after ‘failing’, insert ‘or likely to fail’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in clause 44, page 29, line 29, leave out from ‘education’ to end of line 32.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

We move now to the clause dealing with categories of schools causing concern. The new regime has reduced the range of categories that define a school as failing or needing to go into special measures. These are simple amendments. On amendment No. 20, we think that it is important to identify a school that is likely to fail and to help it not to do so before it happens. On the principle that prevention is better than cure, identifying a school as likely to fail and dealing with procedures to prevent it from going into crisis would be an important measure and an improvement to the Bill. It would save some schools from being identified as failing before they reached crisis point. That is the reason for inserting those few words—to clarify the term “failing” and to introduce a different category of schools that have not quite reached that stage and could be prevented from doing so.

Amendment No. 21, at page 29, line 29, would, in effect, delete paragraph (b) from that category, which reads:

“the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.”

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

May I speak against the amendments? I am not a great fan of the blame culture, but neither am I prepared to come over as particularly liberal and lax at this point. The hon. Lady makes the valid point that, in a sense, the system up to now has been a cliff-edge system. Schools have gone along as they will, and suddenly they can be declared to be in special measures, and all kinds of help are then available. That is not the kind of model that we want; it is the model that we are sometimes reduced to working with, because local authorities are so disempowered, but we want a model in which, as she said, schools that are declining and not performing as well as hitherto will be supported so that they can improve without getting into special measures.

Nevertheless, the concept of a failing school can fairly readily be benchmarked. Certain criteria that schools ought to be expected to meet can be defined, comparisons can be made with similar cohorts and decisions can be made about whether a school has failed or not. The phrase “likely to fail” is a much more subjective judgment. We all know when a Government or future Government have failed to do something, but it is not always easy to tell in advance when they are likely to fail to do something. That is usually a point of debate, as all the facts or issues may not be before us. Adding the phrase “likely to fail” adds an element of subjectivity to the appraisal process, which is probably undesirable.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I understand that the inspection regime involves a scoring system on a range of one to nine. There must be a point on that scale at which failure is recognised. I do not know where on that scoring spectrum failure is identified, but if an inspector is considering whether, for example, a certain area of school activity should be scored at two, three or two and a half, that may be the point at which the fact that it is likely to fail could be identified.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I accept that point, but there is an element of subjectivity. I use the rather poor analogy of the premier league. Southampton have just crept out of the relegation zone. An avid Southampton supporter would say that the team is going to advance up the league by leaps and bounds. A rather more pessimistic person, or a Crystal Palace supporter, might well suggest that it is likely to fail. The position on the score sheet cannot be used to extrapolate that failure is likely or will continue.

That brings me rather nicely on to my second point. The Government—possibly going soft in their old age, or as they head towards whatever term they think that they are heading towards—have added a further element. They say that a school will be placed in special measures if it is demonstrably failing and

“the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.”

Therefore, there must be some circumstances in which the school is benchmarked. Perhaps it has a new and dynamic staff—people who are capable of turning the school around—in which case it may be decided to hold back on the special measures that the Government have the option of implementing, because there is the capacity to improve.

If a school has the capacity to improve, it should be given the chance to do so, rather than simply being completely taken over. We are all aware that the head teacher is often a crucial element in a school’s evolution and progress. Changing a head teacher, or the senior management can dramatically turn a school around. The Government are not unwise to say that, in circumstances in which a school is failing, or has failed, relative to other schools, but has the evidential promise to improve, they want to stay their hand a little and to give the school autonomy. That does not necessarily mean failing to give it adequate support.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I will deal first with amendment No. 20. I appreciate the argument that action should be taken at an early stage when problems are emerging in a school and that matters should not be left until the school is identified by Ofsted inspections as requiring special measures. Schools that are likely to fail will be caught by the new “significant improvement” category that we are introducing in the Bill. The category is defined in clause 44(2), which provides that

“a school requires significant improvement if, although not falling within subsection (1),”—

that is, not requiring special measures—

“it is performing significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform.”

Schools that face difficulties and are likely to fail will therefore fall into the “significant improvement” category. I would expect such schools to be identified and supported at an early stage.

Local education authorities are expected to challenge, support and monitor the progress of all their schools. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) knows, from her experience as a school governor, that that certainly happens. It certainly happened when I was a school governor. LEAs should have a clear strategy for identifying weak schools and should take decisive action before those schools receive an adverse inspection report. Schools should seek LEA support where problems emerge. Effective and open communication between schools, LEAs and other stakeholders is essential in those circumstances. Guidance makes it clear that LEAs should work closely with schools and other stakeholders, including, where appropriate, the local diocese or, in the case of sixth forms, local learning and skills councils in England, or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.

The guidance also makes it clear that the aim should always be to provide support before formal intervention. However, when intervention is necessary, LEAs have powers to intervene in schools. The powers are available for use before schools are placed in the “cause for concern” category following inspection. The LEA may give a school a formal warning if it has serious concerns about it, and non-compliance may result in the LEA using its intervention powers, which would enable it, for example, to add governors to strengthen the governing body. I personally have encountered a situation in which the LEA brought in additional governors.

Therefore, the “likely to fail” category is not needed to ensure that early action is taken to improve a school. Schools in England will be able to look to their school improvement partner, who will be an experienced practitioner accountable to the LEA and charged with providing advice and support to schools on improvement matters. In Wales, schools will continue to work with the LEA.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Can the Minister say a little more about the improvement process for a school that has been identified as needing significant improvement or that is in special measures? What period would elapse before another inspection and what process would a school follow to get out of such categories? Will there be any change from the current regime?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I will come back to that in a moment, if I may. I would like to continue with some of the matters that I originally intended to cover.

On amendment No. 21, the Bill provides that a school requires special measures if two criteria are satisfied: first, if

“the school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education”,

and, secondly, if the school’s leadership is

“not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement”.

The amendment would delete the second part of the definition and remove the requirement to take into account the school’s capacity to improve. We have introduced that new requirement, which is an important change to the current definition of special measures, to ensure that inspectors who are making special measures judgments give specific attention to a school’s capacity to improve.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

On that point, can the Minister say a little more about what action will be taken in respect of the individuals in the school who are failing to show leadership or management skills? Obviously, there are personnel implications.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

There are clear implications for the personnel in schools if such measures are taken. I may be able to deal with the matter to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction when we deal with other amendments that she has tabled.

The clause will improve the effectiveness of the categorisation, thus ensuring that the worst cases of school failures are identified and tackled. Let me explain why we are proposing the change.

Occasionally, schools have been placed in special measures because they are not providing an acceptable standard of education despite having acquired the capacity to improve. That may have resulted, for example, from a recent change of leadership that is demonstrably driving the school forward. The school may already have made an accurate self-evaluation of its provision that coincides with the inspection findings, and it may already be well on the way to putting things right. It is not difficult to imagine the frustration likely to be felt by a strong head teacher if the school is then placed in special measures. That could knock the school back. The progress that it was making could be halted by the adverse effect on staff morale of a special measures judgment in such circumstances.

The Government’s view is that it makes no sense to place in special measures a school that is already well on the way to recovery. The Bill’s definition of special measures reflects that, ensures that school failures will continue to be identified and challenged, and that support will be provided as part of the continuing effort to drive up standards. The points made by the hon. Member for Southport reinforce what I am trying to get across.

The hon. Lady asked about follow-up action for special measures. The LEA would take the action and produce a plan, which would be monitored by Ofsted, for combating the problems that required special measures. I hope that that explains clearly and to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction how we would deal with the matter, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am still a little unclear about the implications where individual members of staff are identified as contributing to a school’s failure. I wonder what the logical conclusion of that might be. Could it lead to official warnings or even dismissal in extreme cases?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

In extreme cases, it could. I tried to make that point in my response. Of course, it would be a matter for the school governors and there might well need to be changes in senior management. Again, such measures were first introduced when the Conservative party was in government, and we have now vested greater influence and power in school governors. Their influence and power is certainly greater than when I first became a school governor at the age of 18—

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Ten years ago.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

Around 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman is now on my Christmas card list.

The change has been beneficial. There is now greater empowerment of local school governors, who can respond to the problems faced by schools in our communities.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

After that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 46 - Sixth forms requiring significant improval

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister into a slightly wider debate. Clause 46 is fairly innocuous, and schedule 5 is unbearably dull, but there is a significant issue about what kind of inspection regime will prevail in sixth forms. The Government’s change in policy raises the possibility of there being a multiplication of sixth forms in many LEAs, with 11 to 16 schools having the opportunity to exert their right to develop sixth-form provision.

The Minister will be aware that, historically, there has been quite a debate in many LEAs about rationalising sixth-form provision, with the object of ensuring that it is high quality across the LEA. He will also be aware that the profile of certain sixth forms is somewhat similar to that of a further education college—many of the students do not do the standard 11 to 18 school A-level or AS courses, but pursue various vocational or semi-vocational courses.

Given that environment, some embryonic sixth forms will be inspected and found not to exhibit the classic profile that sixth forms are expected to exhibit. They will perhaps have small numbers at first, or people will be doing a limited range of subjects. I want the Minister’s assurance that, if schools go down that road, they will not find themselves in dire straits. If they have something like a sixth form, it may be vulnerable to severe criticism when an inspection takes place. I would like him to acknowledge intellectually that the scenario about which I am speculating could occur—perhaps he would like to reassure me that it could not—and that when it does, whatever form of inspection we have will be appropriately tailored to take account of what the new embryonic sixth form has been allowed to become in the limited time in which it has been allowed to evolve.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It is a consequence of something that we set out in the five-year strategy for the Department for Education and Skills, which was published in July 2004. He will know that we have been consulting on the proposal to make it easier for a school that does not have a sixth form to open one. We are certainly not saying that we want a free-for-all, which would not be in the interests of learners or, indeed, schools themselves. We are saying that we want a proper quality choice of institutions and courses in each neighbourhood. The 14 to 19 challenge provides an opportunity for institutions to work more closely together. I understand the scenario that he describes and I accept that it is a possibility. I think it unlikely because a school that introduces a proposal to open a sixth form will have to consult other local providers and talk to the Learning and Skills Council. Will it be in the interests of that school to open a sixth form that is unlikely to be viable?

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister has mentioned a quality threshold, and that is entirely sensible. Is there a quantity threshold? Is there an animus—I used the word on Second Reading—against a sixth form of fewer than 100 students?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a series of area reviews is being conducted by the Learning and Skills Council to consider precisely that question. I do not believe that we can set an absolute national quantity threshold because what may be an appropriate quantity in inner-city London or Manchester may not make sense for a rural school serving a sparsely populated area. The key starting point has to be the availability of the necessary range of courses and qualifications for children and young people. Of course, with technology, there are opportunities for distance learning, video conferencing and so on, so there cannot be an absolute figure.

I would accept, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would, that we have sixth forms that are not viable in practice. I have seen reviews during the work I have been doing in London, where schools that have sixth forms with quite small numbers of students have agreed to give up their sixth forms and to support a sixth form college as a solution in the best interests of learning in their area. That demonstrates that one size fits all is not an appropriate way to deal with the matter. Different solutions are suitable for different parts of the country.

To comment on the clause, the term

“Sixth forms requiring significant improvement”

reflects the new significant improvement category of schools causing concern introduced by clause 44. Currently, a school may be judged on inspection to have an inadequate sixth form. In future, such a school will be categorised as having a sixth form that requires significant improvement. It is simply a part of the simplification of categories and I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Inspections of denominational education in Wales

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I have a brief question about the nature of inspections of denominational education in Wales.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

In Wales?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Yes, in relation to schedule 6. I presume the process does not differ significantly from denominational inspections in England. As a governor of a denominational school, I am acutely aware how a denomination affects the ethos of the school. I happen to be the governor of a Roman Catholic school, although I am not a Roman Catholic. A range of denominational schools are springing up. There are Sikh schools, schools for Jewish children and for other denominations. Is it intended that the inspecting team or inspector who goes to inspect religious education will subscribe to the particular denomination of the school?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I believe that that is the case, but I am somewhat in doubt. I shall write to the hon. Lady to clarify the matter.

Clause 51 - Power of LEA to inspect maintained school for specific purpose

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The clause allows the LEA to inspect schools and to exercise any function where the local authority requires information in connection with any function discharged by it. I strongly support the clause but I wonder how far it extends. It was regarded as quite a minimalist clause, whereby the local authority simply arrives in a school to inspect whether education maintenance allowances, for example, are administered properly. It can be seen as a much more positive clause. My view is that LEAs should have a strongly supportive role in all their schools and that the LEA’s support is particularly useful in connection with such things as behavioural difficulties. Early intervention, good monitoring and a properly managed transfer from primary to secondary school are crucial in order to keep on top of the problem.

I do not think the Government are opposed to the idea, but I strongly advocate LEAs acting as important partners in ensuring that all the schools in the area are well behaved and well run, that problematic children are in class and that problematic situations are adequately dealt with. That crucial LEA role may be seriously underestimated. In many respects, it would certainly be a cheaper option than establishing hosts of turn-around schools or more pupil referral units.

I do not want to be politically contentious, but it amuses me that the Tory prospect of turn-around schools will create more places than the number of children currently being expelled. That leads me to the irresistible conclusion that children will be worse behaved under the Conservatives. Otherwise, why have all those additional places? Because of the capacity being planned, I can assume only that disciplinary standards will decline sharply and markedly.

The local authority has a key role, for instance, in identifying children at risk or those with behaviour difficulties, and in ensuring that primary schools do not neglect the situation and simply wait to get such children into secondary school. Such work involves a degree of liaison and demands a strong and positive local authority role. If the local authority is to do that job properly, it needs to know about the schools’ behaviour programmes. I believe that the best local authorities already do so. However, they need the right to have the information, and I guess that they can do that only if it is included in the clause as a local authority function. I want clarification about what we might construe the local authority function to be in the context of the clause.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman spoke in support of the clause. The clause is important. We do not anticipate the power being used by LEAs to conduct routine school inspections on standards. That is not their role; it is Ofsted’s. However, he is absolutely right to remind the Committee that LEAs have a number of important roles. In some ways, because of the agenda in “Every Child Matters”, it is an increasingly important role on questions of child protection, the inclusion of children and on some of the behavioural issues to which he referred. The clause ensures that the authority has the power to go to a school and to exercise its functions. I take the opportunity to reaffirm the important role that LEAs have to play.

Schedule 7 - Inspection of child minding, day care and nursery education

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I would like to tease one or two answers out of the Minister. With respect to child minding, I wonder to what degree the record of children minded by an individual child minder is taken into consideration. Some child minders have great experience and have been doing it for a long time. Having visited some, I know that the length of time that a child stays with a child minder is a good indication of the service being provided, as is the fact that siblings follow on. A less satisfactory child minder may be noted for a quicker turnover of children. I would like to establish that that is taken into consideration.

The National Day Nurseries Association and the National Campaign for Real Nursery Education have said in discussions that the old nursery nurse qualification awarded by the National Nursery Examining Board was far more effective, and that students with that qualification were much better prepared for looking after young children than students leaving sixth form and other colleges with NVQs in child minding. They also say that the standard of the old NNEB qualification suited their purposes much better. It should be borne in mind that the scope of the NVQ may not be wide enough or may not incorporate sufficient information about, say, child development to fit students for the roles in nurseries that they hope to play.

The Minister reassured us that parents of children in nurseries and other child minding settings would receive a copy of the inspector’s report. Problems accelerate faster with very young children than they do with older children. The damage that can be done to a very young child if there are problems in a child minding setting can be serious and have long-lasting effects. The details of the report and the inspector’s findings are therefore of paramount importance in early years settings.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The schedule is important because child minding is an important aspect of many people’s lives. There have been some horrific stories of child minding being done badly. We have all seen television broadcasts that show that services can be poor if they are not inspected properly. Parents can be the last people to know exactly how bad those services are. Therefore, they need some guarantee or warranty from the inspection service to show that the service that they are using is of good quality.

It is self-evident that not everyone should be allowed to take up child minding. We would not, for example, give King Herod a licence. However, I have from time to time as a constituency MP come across cases in which people have invested significantly in child minding ventures. They have had plans for the future and have had every intention of performing a good, professional and caring service. However, occasionally, they have had difficulties because of what inspectors said and have believed that the verdict was partial.

There needs to be a very good assessment and a very good result, but there also needs to be an appropriate, reasonable and robust appeal mechanism to deal with occasions when the assessment is disputed and people believe that the service that they provide has been unfairly criticised. I am not asking for any latitude for people who provide a bad service, but we want to ensure fairness for those people who believe that they provide a good service but who may not, at first blush, impress inspectors.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

To be fair to the Committee, I shall write to the hon. Lady, to the hon. Gentleman and to other Committee members to ensure that I respond fully to the legitimate points that they have made. The Government seek through the legislation to strengthen the consistency of practice in inspection, but the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman have raised a set of issues with regard to very young children and the position of child minders in particular, and I want to do justice to those points by considering them fully with colleagues in my Department.

Clause 54 - Inspection of independent schools

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

It is an extraordinarily short clause, which states:

“Schedule 8 contains amendments relating to the inspection of independent schools.”

I apologise to the Minister; I may not have read those words with the attention that they deserve. Independent schools always have a particular view of how they should function. It is often at variance with the standard state education. One thinks of the difficulties that Summerhill school had with the inspection regime. There is clearly a balance to be achieved between recognising that independent schools are indeed independent and are often chosen by parents because they want a particular genre of education not available in the state system, and ensuring that independent schools provide a good education. Without going into the detail of the amendments, will the Minister assure me that the flexibility and independence of independent schools is not in any way modified by any of the amendments in schedule 8?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The changes set out in the clause are essentially technical. In practice, since the possibility of registered inspectors being used in the independent sector came in, registered inspectors have not been used. That situation has not occurred. All the inspections that have been carried out have continued to be undertaken by Ofsted. The removal of the power for inspection by registered inspectors will, therefore, have no practical effect.

Schedule 9 - Further amendments relating to school inspection

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in schedule 9, page 100, line 26, at end insert

‘Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14) 22AIn section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (tribunal to hear certain appeals) omit subsection (2)(ca).’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 32, 33 and 35.

22AIn section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (tribunal to hear certain appeals) omit subsection (2)(ca).’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 32, 33 and 35.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

Government amendment No. 35 simply removes the other place’s privilege amendment. The remaining amendments in the group are technical and consequential on the repeal of the register of early years inspectors in England.

New Clause 4 - Complaints Procedures

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Complaints procedures (Wales)—

‘(1)The Assembly shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—

(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;

(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interest of the complainant; or

(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.

(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

New clause 4 relates to England. New clause 7 is an identical clause that refers to complaints procedures in Wales.

The new clauses are designed to protect schools, head teachers and others involved in the inspection process from what they feel to be an unfair result. As we all know, occasionally, there is a clash of personalities between the management of the school and the Ofsted team. Head teachers of schools in my constituency have commented to me that their Ofsted inspectors were wonderful. They came in, they did not interfere with the school, they said hello and good morning to people. Unfortunately, some Ofsted team members do not have the interpersonal skills that smooth the passage of an inspection and put people at ease. The problem may be something as trivial as that. It may be a serious complaint or some dissatisfaction that arises from the inspection. The new clauses provide a mechanism for appeal against what the school may consider an unjustified or unfair outcome.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I support the new clause. I should make it clear that I need not declare an interest. In God knows how many years of teaching, I was not once inspected by anyone. I managed to be in the right place at the right time, so I bear no grudge myself. They never got me.

I have no axe to grind, but I know of inspections that have gone awry in one way or another: for example, whole-school inspections in which people felt that the inspection got off to a bad start and deteriorated further, and inspections of individual departments. A competent and well-staffed language department was inspected by a fairly professional inspector. They had different views on how language should be taught and exactly what the procedures should be to provide children with a better education in French, German and so on. As a result of what one might call an ideological clash between the inspector and the staff, a satisfactory inspection did not take place. As the whole-school inspection was regarded as something of a success, the individual teachers who suffered as a result of the judgment passed upon them simply had to grin and bear it.

Such situations always strike me as slightly unfortunate. Some inspectors enter the world of inspection as fellow professionals and partners in education. They have the aim of producing a better, more coherent curriculum or better pupil performance. Unfortunately, there are other inspectors—they are a rarity—who relish their new power as an opportunity to wreak professional havoc on their peers. One would hope that such people were identified fairly early and eliminated from the inspector cohort, but serious injustices occur from time to time. In some cases, people on whom the most adverse judgments are passed are, in fact, some of the most dedicated professionals. I know many teachers. Some of the people who fret most about inspections, who become most nervous under their influence and who are likely to under-perform are the most committed, dedicated and worried about failure. Some people can sail through, adopting a slightly more casual approach.

The general thrust of the new clause is right. We must give teachers, who ultimately are the people being inspected, an assurance that we are mindful of such concerns. If such a provision is not included anywhere else in the Bill, the new clause will be a useful adjunct.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

The new clauses seek to establish procedures for schools or others in England and Wales with an interest in a school inspection to complain to an independent adjudicator. There is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted. The adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State.

Education Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

New Clause 4 - Complaints procedures

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 7—Complaints procedures (Wales)—

‘(1)The Assembly shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—

(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;

(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interest of the complainant; or

(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.

(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

When we adjourned, I had just said a few words about what I saw as the intention behind the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), which seek to create a procedure for complaints to the independent adjudicator. There is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted, who was appointed by the Secretary of State. Before I speak about her role, it is worth saying a word about the context of complaints about school inspections in England. Because of the other changes that we seek to make in the Bill, the responsibility for school inspections will, in future, be firmly with Ofsted and complaints about inspections will have to be dealt with in that new context.

Ofsted has already developed, and is currently consulting on, a new complaints procedure for inspections, which will take particular account of the planned arrangements. The new procedure will set out clearly how schools will be able to discuss any concerns about an inspection with Ofsted, as well as to complain more formally. It will be explicit that a complaint may be about the inspection, the report, including judgments, or the conduct of the inspector.

The hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Upminster expressed some concerns this morning about the reaction that teachers get when they have a problem with inspectors. The hon. Gentleman gave an example from his own experience. Ofsted will soon publish a code of conduct for inspectors. A similar code of conduct already exits and is published in Wales. In future, Ofsted will be able to address concerns directly at all stages of the process and amend reports when a complaint is upheld.

The independent complaints adjudicator is in place and is completely independent of Ofsted. The adjudicator can consider complaints about any of the issues covered in subsection (1)(a) to (c) of the proposed new clause tabled by the hon. Lady, provided that the person complaining has exhausted Ofsted’s own complaints procedure. It must be right that an organisation has proper opportunities to see whether it needs to take action in response to a complaint before that complaint is referred to a third party. Unlike Ofsted, the adjudicator is not able to overturn professional judgments, but she is able to make recommendations if she considers that there is no evidence for a judgment or if the report does not adequately explain the link between the evidence and the finding. The adjudicator can recommend that the chief inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decisions, he must make a public statement giving his reasons.

The only thing proposed in the new clause that cannot happen now is that the chief inspector is not able, without limitation, to modify and republish inspection reports. Under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996, they are not his reports; they are those of the registered inspectors. However, we seek to change that through the Bill, which will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspection reports in England with the chief inspector.

I believe that the remit of the complaints adjudicator is right. She is already appointed by the Secretary of State so there is no need for the appointment to be statutory. Robust procedures are in place for schools to be able to ensure that inaccuracies are corrected, to challenge judgments when they think that they are unfair and to seek independent adjudication when they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. As the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southport demonstrate, there are difficulties. I am sure that we all know of cases where there have been tensions when inspectors have gone into schools and there have been disagreements, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, about the way in which a subject has been taught. We recognise those tensions and the pressures put on all teachers as a consequence.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the independent adjudicator and Ofsted? If the independent adjudicator decided that the original inspection report was incorrect or in need of amending, whose decision would have authority when it came to whether that amendment was made? Would it be the independent adjudicator or Ofsted?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

The independent adjudicator would not be able to overturn professional judgments in the report, but she can recommend that an inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decision, he must then make a public statement to say why he has done so.

New clause 7 would put a duty on the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations setting out a procedure for complaining to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator would be required to consider complaints lodged against the conduct of a school inspection and the conclusions set out in the inspection report. That could include complaints that an inspection had been conducted in a manner inconsistent with legal requirements.

As I understand the hon. Lady’s intention, the adjudicator could also consider a complaint that the evidence gathered during the inspection did not support the conclusions of an inspection report. In such circumstances, the chief inspector would be required to act in accordance with the findings of the adjudicator, and that would include revising and republishing the inspection report when required.

It is right that there should be clear and readily available avenues of redress for those who wish to lodge complaints about professional judgments and opinions expressed in an inspection report and about the extent to which the inspection was conducted in a manner consistent with the accepted processes and procedures. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that Estyn—Her Majesty’s inspectorate for education and training in Wales—already has detailed and transparent procedures for handling such complaints.

The position in Wales is that, under the common inspection framework, a school nominee will be attached to each inspection team and will be able to bring additional evidence to the team at any point during the process. That person will be aware of the emerging judgments and will therefore be well placed to challenge the findings and to present additional information or evidence to the inspectorate team.

On the production of reports, regulations already provide for reports to be completed within 35 working days. Estyn’s guidance requires that, within that period, the registered inspector give the school a late draft of the report to help with the checking of factual content. The school then has five working days in which to consider the draft, and the inspector has to take account of comments offered and to correct factual errors. The main purpose of that process is to enable the correction of factual inaccuracies, but it presents the school with an opportunity to raise issues about which it feels strongly. Beyond that, any complaint about the professional judgments that are made in the course of the school inspection will be considered initially by the lead inspector. If complainants are not satisfied with the response, they may ask for the complaint to be considered by a senior HMI or the chief inspector.

On the processes and procedures followed during an inspection, it is also right that schools should have access to further independent avenues of redress. Again, such provision is already made. Those who are dissatisfied with the conduct of an inspection or with the way in which Estyn has managed their complaint can approach the Welsh administration ombudsman, who is empowered to investigate complaints of injustice due to maladministration by Welsh public bodies, including Estyn. Maladministration includes poor administration resulting from the failure to follow correct procedures, as well as unfairness, bias or prejudice, and giving misleading or inadequate evidence. The ombudsman has powers to investigate complaints about the administrative actions taken by Estyn or those acting for the inspectorate. If a complaint were justified in the opinion of the ombudsman, the inspectorate would be required, within a set period, to take action to meet any recommendation set out by the ombudsman.

Therefore, there are already accepted and readily accessible procedures for challenging the professional judgment registered in an inspection report and the manner in which the inspection was conducted, and they include recourse to independent adjudication. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Lady will better understand the intention behind what the Government seek to do and why we are resisting the new clauses that she has tabled.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am reassured in part by the Minister’s comments, but I foresee certain circumstances in which there is a dispute about the justification for the results of an inspection and a difference of opinion, because the independent adjudicator has upheld the views of the school but Ofsted has decided that it was right. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofsted will make a statement about its reasons for not wanting to change its views on the report, that appears to be the end of the line, and the school will be saddled with an Ofsted report that it believes to be unjustified. If I understand the Minister correctly, there is no further recourse beyond that point.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I take the hon. Lady’s point. She will recall that I went on to say that we are seeking to make changes to the School Inspections Act 1996 so that provisions in the Bill will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspectors’ reports on the chief inspector. The chief inspector will therefore be ultimately responsible for the publication of all reports.

I did say that the chief inspector would then be required to make a statement if he rejected the independent adjudicator’s comments in upholding a complaint. I have no doubt in those circumstances that hon. and right hon. Members will seek opportunities in this place to take the matter further in Adjournment debates and by other measures. We cannot, and should not, go further at this stage. This is an important way of making progress on the issue of complaints. The process is open and transparent, which is important. The requirement on the chief inspector to make a public statement of the reasons why he would reject an independent adjudicator’s complaints is very important.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

In view of those comments, which go some way to reassuring me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 101 - Funding of maintained schools

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I received a very pleasant letter from the Minister the other day, which clarified my understanding of the clause and its implications. Again, it is a short clause—it has only two lines—but behind it hides a schedule and a wealth of detail and consideration that are not even in the legislation but are probably worth airing in part.

With your leave, Mr. Forth, I shall indulge myself, if not the Committee, and if I can test my understanding of the clause, I will be mightily reassured. As I understand them, the schedule and its proposed new subsections change the date at which schools know their budget, and give their budget a three-year predictability.

I am trying to get to grips with the consequential effects on the structure of the school budget and the local authority budget. In recent history, formula funding shares were agreed for education, an element of which eventually becomes the aggregated schools budget, and the local education authority keeps an element for its statutory functions, which the Government want it to carry out.

Other money is taken back from the LEA, subject to an overall ceiling of how much the LEA can spend in total, relative to the school budget for various services that the LEAs will provide in different parts of the country. The money is extracted from the schools budget. From time to time, the LEAs also lay out a third level of services, and schools are freed from their devolved budgets to buy into them. As I said, this is all subject to an overall limit on what LEA spend should be compared with the total sum.

The new arrangement, if I have come to terms with it, is that schools will have a designated budget for three years. I assume that every local authority settlement will contain a different specific sum that is reserved for necessary local authority functions as defined by the Secretary of State.

Money from the designated school budget may still come back to the local authority so that it can perform various functions, subject to the approval of the school forum. I said in the Chamber that that put an extra lock into the process and was an extra obstacle against local authorities carrying out their strategic functions. To my eternal discredit, I was wrong.

I understand now that that is not the case. Whereas such an agreement would formerly have needed to be ratified by the Secretary of State, he is now not necessarily involved. The forum can agree it on site with the LEA, and the schools can agree on how to administer certain strategic functions for the local authority under the designated school budget. I think that I am correct in saying that even if there is no agreement between the forum and the local authority, and the local authority cannot carry out what it sees as a major strategic purpose, it may subsequently apply to the Secretary of State, who will then use the judgment of Solomon. That is not quite as reprehensible a state of affairs as I said it was a week or so ago. I apologise to the Secretary of State for not getting it right first time.

None the less, I wish to make a few comments on the arrangements. The forums will clearly play a crucial role. The forum is a relatively new beast, and many local authorities and many in the teaching profession probably do not appreciate how important it is likely to become. I wonder whether any thought has been given to the exact structure of the forums or to whether the issues are better left to the discretion of local authorities and schools.

I shall try to crystallise that point by referring to a case from my neck of the woods, where the school formula was changed with the agreement of the forum, but in a way that had particular disadvantages for infant-only schools, which were sorely aggrieved. When the issue was looked into, it was discovered that there was no infant representation on the forum. School forums with functions in that particular format will obviously have problems, and that will lead to a good number of appeals being made over their heads to the Secretary of State. The question is whether we are satisfied that forums are good enough for the task in hand.

Other issues raised by the local authorities are also important. In one sense, the designated school budget is money being parcelled up by the Government and sent to specific schools. I presume that it will be pitched at a level that is judged to be nationally appropriate, and that it will therefore to some extent override pre-existing formulas. As we know, some local authorities are more generous to their schools than others. The general fear is that we may be moving towards the national funding of schools and that, subject to certain criteria, every school will get the same type of deal.

Schools in impoverished areas will obviously get a different deal from those in suburban and relatively rich areas, but it seems that a national prescription will nevertheless apply. I cannot see how that will be accomplished under the Bill, however, because it is obvious that when schools receive their designated school budget they may get a further exhibition of largesse from the local authority. Nothing in the Bill will stop them saying, “This is what the Government have given by way of designated budget, but we normally give you a lot more. Here, have the additional money.” That will necessarily lead to problems for local authorities that, even though they are not funded to do so, currently fund their schools at a higher level. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the question whether all schools will have the same formula. Is that the destination or at least the likely outcome?

We have all received a good amount of lobbying from the Local Government Association, which seems to have objected in principle to the three-year deal. I apologise if I have not understood it correctly, but the line seems to be that if the money is set aside for the schools for three years or three years ahead, it circumscribes and limits local decision making, local strategic manoeuvres and so on. I am a little unconvinced by that argument, as many local authorities wish to move or are moving to three-year budgets. They are budgeting in a fairly formal way on a three-year cycle.

I remember long before I was in this place—longer ago than I care to remember—speaking about budgets to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) when we were on the same council. We went through the ordeal of a council budget every year, which meant a lot of burning of the midnight oil. I said to him across the chamber that what we really wanted was three-year budgets. That must have been 15 or more years ago. He took me aside and, speaking very kindly, said that that sad illusion would never be fulfilled. We are near to fulfilling it, and I do not think that the LGA should have any reason for opposing that. Obviously, the Minister may wish to comment on its representation.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

Let me first address the last of the three sets of comments made by the hon. Member for Southport. It is fair to say that the LGA has expressed several concerns about the ring-fencing arrangements that we have put in place, but I believe that they are a sensible approach to giving schools the stability that they have rightly been asking for and to assisting them in planning for the future.

It is true that there is both an upside and a downside to three-year budgeting. We discussed in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago the trade-off between certainty and flexibility to meet the changing needs of a changing school population. That is one of the issues on which the Government are consulting at present. We welcome comments from colleagues of all parties, although the consultation is principally with schools and local governments. The hon. Gentleman answered his third point himself, in that we can give reassurance. The general trend of policy is indeed towards three-year budgets, which are advantageous to local government as well as to schools.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about the schools forums. The position that he described was accurate and correct—in a sense, he corrected the comments that he made on Second Reading—so I do not need to repeat it. He raised a perfectly reasonable point by asking, in the light of the role that schools forums were taking on, whether we needed to consider how they operated their constitution, voting procedures and so on. At this stage, the best thing for me to say is that we will consider whether any changes are required to the regulations dealing with the constitution and procedures of schools forums. We shall have to take the opportunity to have discuss those matters if revisions are needed in the light of the new decision-making powers. My Department’s preference would be to build on what we view, by and large, as very good practice in schools forums and to issue guidance that we hope will be widely adopted. In doing that, it is clear that we will need to take into account the kind of circumstance that he described from his constituency experience.

Finally, let me address the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the measure is, in essence, a move to a national funding formula. It is worth while to emphasise that, although we are creating a dedicated schools budget and saying to local governments that they must spend the funds on their schools, we are also continuing with the LEA’s important role in schools funding. There will still be a local formula for distributing funds locally.

In recent changes to schools funding, we established the principle of having a core amount of money that any pupil in any part of the country would get, and then top-ups for factors such as deprivation, rural sparsity and so on. Clearly, we continue to debate in this House and elsewhere whether the mix between those two aspects is right, but even with the ring-fenced, dedicated schools budget, at the local level, the authority will still decide in conjunction with its schools on a local formula for distributing the money.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The Minister will know that there is significant variation at present in the amount passed to schools by their LEAs. My authority in the London borough of Havering is extremely good. It is an extremely lean and efficient organisation at the centre, and it passports the absolute maximum to its schools. Sadly, that is not the case in some authorities elsewhere in the country. There are significant variations. It would be much better if school funding were passed directly from the Secretary of State to individual schools rather than channelled through LEAs, so that head teachers and governors had total control over their own budgets and could plan much more effectively.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

There would be advantages to that alternative, but there would also be disadvantages. We certainly considered the option of a national formula when we were deciding how to take forward school funding. In the end, we decided to adopt one aspect: the guarantee to get money to schools. That is what the legislation does through the dedicated schools grant, but there is still local flexibility to meet particular local circumstances. I am not convinced that central Government are best placed to decide the budget of each and every school in the country. We can decide how much goes to each local area, but the decision about distributing that money within the local area is best taken locally.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The method by which funding would be passed directly from Government to individual schools would need certain elements, such as a per-pupil element and elements to reflect local circumstances, such as areas of deprivation, large numbers of children without English as a first language and unusually high numbers of children with special needs. All sorts of elements would have to be taken into consideration, but it would still be possible to fund directly in that way.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Lady is right that one could construct a formula, but it would inevitably be less flexible than allowing an element of local decision making. People often talk to me about mobility—pupils moving in and out of an area. Some schools have very high mobility, for many different reasons, and others have much lower levels.

Our national formula has no element at all to cover that issue, but the formula of some local authorities will have a local element for it. There is sense in saying that some areas exhibit much higher levels of pupil mobility than others and that those matters should be decided locally. We can, of course, consider adding that element to the national formula, but I am not convinced that we can get every little bit right in the national formula to meet the needs of more than 20,000 schools throughout the country. I am sure that that debate will continue.

I believe that I have dealt with all the points made by the hon. Member for Southport, but I shall happily respond to them again if he wants to return to them.

Clause 103 - Removal of requirements for governors’ reports and parents’ meetings

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Annual parents’ meeting—

‘(1)It shall be left to the discretion of the governing body of each maintained school in England and Wales to decide whether or not to hold an annual parents’ meeting.

(2)The governing body and headteacher shall decide on the nature, length and style of any meeting which is to be held.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I rise to speak to new clause 14, which relates to the annual meeting of the governing body and parents, to be held at their discretion.

In the interests of parental involvement and continued contact between teachers, governing bodies, parents and schools, the facility should be available to them to hold an annual parents’ and governors’ meeting if they want to do so. As governors, we have all been to annual meetings at which the teachers and governors have outnumbered the parents—very often, they do so by two to one. The ones who turn up are the usual suspects, but there may be circumstances in which there has been some crisis or something unusual has happened at the school. Indeed, the school might be doing exceptionally well, and the parents will want to come to the meeting.

We often take it as a compliment that parents do not come to the annual parents’ evening, and regard it as a sign that they are all very happy with what is going on in the school. If someone does have a serious complaint, they ensure that they are there. There should be an annual parents’ meeting if there is a demand for it in the circumstances, and it would be up to the school and the governors to test whether the parents wanted a parents’ evening. It is quite easy for them to test opinion to see whether there is a demand. They could decide that if x number of parents wanted to attend an annual parents’ meeting with the governors, they should be able to do so. If only individual parents wanted a meeting, they could have one on an individual basis with the head teacher or governors.

Subsection (2) of the new clause states:

“The governing body and headteacher shall decide on the nature, length and style of any meeting which is to be held.”

Clearly, that would depend on the level of demand, the reason for wanting the meeting and the likely outcomes. I feel that the facility should be available so that anyone who needed it could take advantage of it.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Again, I think that the new clause falls under the heading of legislating for what can happen anyway. I do not think that anything in the Education Act 2002 bans schools from engaging in these rather strange rituals that have been so horrendously unsuccessful ever since the Conservatives introduced them. I should hate to create a presumption in their favour, because local authority after local authority has pleaded to discontinue them. They are extraordinarily wasteful of resources. I think that schools and head teachers have the capacity to hold meetings, and to decide on their nature, length, style and objectives. I remain unconvinced that new clause 14 is needed, because I cannot see that it would achieve much.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

As was reflected on Second Reading as well as in the other place, hon. Members across the House agree that parental engagement in education is critical. The only debate between us is about how best to achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman said, the governing body has the discretion to hold an annual parents’ meeting. Nothing in the Bill would prevent a school’s governing body from deciding that it wanted to maintain an annual meeting with parents.

We cannot accept the new clause for two reasons. First, it would be wrong to legislate to give a discretionary power to governing bodies when that discretion already exists. That may fetter governing bodies’ discretion in other areas. At present, governing bodies may do anything that appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the conduct of the school. To provide specific powers in certain areas such as those proposed in the new clause could lead governing bodies to question their wide powers and to make them look for explicit powers in statute before doing anything. In addition, it could be construed by the courts as narrowing those wide powers.

Secondly, there is a specific point with regard to Wales that explains why we cannot accept the new clause. Governing bodies in Wales will still be required to hold an annual parents’ meeting under clause 103. The introduction of discretion for the governing body on whether to hold annual parents’ meetings would be in direct conflict with that requirement. One cannot impose a duty and give discretion over the same matter. In the light of what I and the hon. Member for Southport have said, I ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The Minister has said that it is open to head teachers and governors to meet parents if they desire. It is clause 103 that removes the requirement, so that such a meeting need not take place but may take place if there is demand. In the circumstances, I shall not press the new clause.

Schedule 18 - Further amendments related to provisions of part 4

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Paragraph 2(6)(b) concerns access to buildings by special needs pupils. There are funding implications; huge costs are involved. I am a governor of a mixed comprehensive school that has several students who use wheelchairs. Because the school is on two floors, we had to install a lift at great expense, and it was incorporated into the extension that was built when the school obtained special status. There need to be special circumstances if we are to overcome expensive access problems such as installing lifts. Ramps on the ground floor are less expensive and most schools can manage to have those put in. The installation of lifts is a problem for mainstream schools that have students with special needs, particularly those with mobility problems who use wheelchairs or walking aids. For a while, we had to confine our wheelchair users to ground floor lessons. That is not real inclusion. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I know that the hon. Lady is very knowledgeable in this area and has done a lot of work involving special schools and handicapped children. The clause provides for a parent or carer to be served with a penalty notice or prosecuted if his or her child fails regularly to attend—[Interruption.]

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

May I help the Minister? The hon. Lady was talking about schedule 18, specifically paragraph 2(6)(b)(ii) and (iii).

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I apologise. The best answer that I can give is to say that, when schools are built in future, we shall consider disabled access. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I shall write to her in more detail while we take the matter forward.

Angela Watkinsonindicated assent.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I thank the hon. Lady.

Clause 75 - Functions of agency

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 10—Duty of Training and Development Agency for Schools to consult other statutory bodies—

‘For the purpose of the exercise of their functions under section 75(2)(a) and (b), the Agency must consult the General Teaching Council in England and Wales and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.’.

New clause 16—Annual Report of Training and Development Agency for Schools to Parliament—

‘The Agency shall produce an annual report which shall be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution.’.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

New clause 10 says:

“For the purpose of the exercise of their functions under section 75(2)(a) and (b), the Agency”—

that is, the newly titled Training and Development Agency for Schools—

“must consult the General Teaching Council in England and Wales and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.”

That would mean a consultation exercise to ensure that the objectives of all the bodies are held in common and the highest calibre of people exercise those powers, because their common aim is to assist the career development of not only teachers but the whole work force in schools. The work force are becoming more diverse as the functions in schools expand. The new clause is sensible, involving the General Teaching Council and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in making joint decisions after consultation about the exercise of the functions under the new power.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I have a few queries on clause stand part, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clear up. First, on the relationship between clauses 74 and 75, it is clear in the supporting notes that clause 75(2) extends the objectives of the Training and Development Agency for Schools listed in section 1(2) of the Education Act 1994 to include matters relating to all members of the school work force. In the Bill, the listed functions of the new agency do not include all the functions of the Teacher Training Agency. From memory, one of the TTA’s function is to secure the appropriate supply of teachers. That is not included in the Bill. After this Bill is enacted, are we to have two Acts, the Education 1994 Act and this one, both containing different functions for the new agency?

Secondly, clause 75(5) states:

“For the purposes of this Part, the school workforce consists of the following members—

(a) persons who work in schools”—

which is quite clear, and I presume includes all non-classroom workers—

“and,

(b) persons not falling within paragraph (a) who are teachers or carry out work that consists of or includes teaching.”

That could include itinerant music teachers and people brought in for special reasons. It may even mean supply teachers. I do not know. I am all in favour of the revamped agency taking over responsibility for the whole school working community, but we are discussing an agency that will have responsibility for the training of the dinner staff, the caretakers and the people who work on the grounds. The provision will almost double the responsibilities of the new agency. Well, perhaps they will not increase by that much, but the provision will massively increase the agency’s responsibilities.

I would like to hear from the Minister how he envisages the new agency expanding its staff, its required expertise and its budget to cover the increase, and whether he can assure me that the new agency will be competent to train groundsmen, for instance, in how to look after football pitches, or caretakers in how to unblock toilets. It is a huge increase and it is welcome, but I do not get any indication from the Bill of how the competencies of the new agency will change and expand to cope with it. Those questions will come up again in relation to schedule 13, where I think there are some more anomalies, but I will raise those when we discuss that schedule. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those points.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

This is an important part of the Bill. The clause sets out the overarching framework for the activities of the Training and Development Agency for Schools. My hon. Friend has just asked about the remit of the agency, as set out in the Bill, and how it fits in with previous legislation, and particularly the 1994 Act. I can certainly assure him that the duty on the Secretary of State under section 11A of the 1994 Act remains in force. It remains the primary function of the agency to ensure that we see a continuing improvement in the standards of teaching and learning in our schools.

In response to the perfectly reasonable points that my hon. Friend raised, it is worth clarifying that the agency’s job is about making training available. It is not about the direct delivery of that training. It needs to build the capacity in the market and to do that in conjunction with a range of organisations, including some that the hon. Member for Upminster has set out in her new clause, to which I will come in a moment.

The role is therefore different. It addresses the needs of the whole school work force in the way that has been set out. The role is geared to raising standards in the classroom. For example, it is geared to learning assistants, sports specialists and others and to ensuring that the proper training, support and development is in place for those other members of staff, as well as for teachers in the classroom. The provision, and the associated work that is going on to ensure that it becomes a reality, is the product of a great deal of debate, discussion and engagement. The agency itself is keen to take on the role and believes that it has the capacity and resources to do so. Detailed work is going on between our Department and the agency to ensure that the resources are in place. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to set that out in much more detail and to copy that to all members of the Committee.

On new clause 10, I welcome the acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that, in exercising its functions, the new agency needs to work closely with other bodies with an interest in raising the standards of teaching and learning, such as the General Teaching Councils and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. However, the new clause is in danger of achieving precisely the opposite of what she wants. Similar, related amendments were first tabled in another place. In response, Carol Adams, the chief executive of the General Teaching Council for England, writing to my noble Friend Lord Filkin, said that

“while we do not believe that these amendments have undermined the concrete and positive nature of our partnership working and contribution to the TTA, we are concerned that they may have had the potential to do so”.

I know that that view is shared by the agency.

In encouraging the agency to take an inclusive approach to its business, it is vital that we do not encumber it with bureaucratic procedures to an extent that could inhibit its ability to act. The new clause seeks to oblige the agency to consult various organisations and agencies before doing anything with the objective of raising the standard of teaching and other school work force activities, or promoting careers in the school work force. In practice, that would encompass most of what the agency’s routine funding is for and its other activities, and it could turn out to be—I am sure that this is unintended—a recipe for pointless red tape and wasted time and resources for all the bodies involved. If there is any doubt on the issue, let me assure hon. Members that the TTA already works closely, not only with ourselves, but with the General Teaching Councils and the QCA—for example, through the School Workforce Development Board and the school work force strategy group. Likewise, in the past, the TTA has always consulted those and other bodies when they were likely to have an interest in particular activities. The new body, the TDA, will obviously continue to do so in the future.

New clause 16 raises the important issue of parliamentary oversight of the TDA. The TTA is already accountable to Parliament in two main ways. First it is required to make an annual report on its activities to the Secretary of State, who in turn is required to lay the report before both Houses. Secondly, the agency is required to submit its accounts annually to the Secretary of State—and to the Comptroller and Auditor General—who in turn is required to lay them before both Houses with his report on them.

The provisions figure in schedule 1 of the 1994 Act, and they are re-enacted in schedule 13 of the Bill. We have proposed no lessening of parliamentary scrutiny of the finances and performance of the agency and it remains open to either House to debate or table questions on any of these documents. The mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny, inquiry and, if need be, censure that I have described are proportionate to the importance of the work that the agency undertakes.

In the light of that, I do not believe that it is necessary for us to adopt the proposal that the hon. Lady has put before us. Both new clauses 10 and 16 may have unintended negative consequences, so I hope that she will reflect on what I have said and not press the motion to a Division.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The remit of the new agency is clearly wider than that embraced by the General Teaching Council because the career development of other categories of staff in schools will be covered by the new agency, whereas the GTC has not traditionally involved itself in that. I would like to see career paths to enable teaching assistants, for example, to move into teaching and I wonder whether the General Teaching Council would be attracted to that and might give it as a reason for becoming involved with the new agency.

Given the Minister’s reassurance that new clause 16 is a duplication of what appears elsewhere in the Bill, I will not press my new clause.

Clause 77 - Membership etc. of Agency

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 77, page 43, line 38, at end insert—

‘(1A)In appointing the members of the Agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him—

(a)to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in—

(i)teaching in schools,

(ii)teaching in higher education (other than training teachers), or

(iii)training teachers, or

(b)to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for—

(i)the provision of education in schools,

(ii)the provision of higher education (other than the training of teachers), or

(iii)the training of teachers; and in appointing such persons he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of, or in carrying responsibility for, such matters.

(1B)In considering the appointment of members in accordance with subsection (1A) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons whose relevant experience or responsibility is, or was, in or in relation to—

(a)institutions of a denominational character, or

(b)teaching persons with special educational needs.’.

This amendment relates to appointing members to the agency and the circumstances surrounding their appointment. The inclusion of people with relevant expertise and experience would be essential in enabling the agency to exercise its functions. The appropriateness and relevance of qualification and experience of those people appointed to the agency is important and it must ensure that the greatest expertise is available to the agency so that standards can be driven up. Every element of the whole spectrum of school provision should be included in the field of expertise in the new agency.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is aiming at, but the list set out in the amendment seems to me a very limited one. I know that the phrase “desirability of including” is used, but it is nevertheless limited, particularly taking into account the expansion of the responsibilities of the agency, which we discussed a few moments ago. The provision also seems a bit incestuous, in that the list is entirely composed of those who have come through the route of teaching in schools or higher education.

I do not therefore support the amendment, although I sympathise with the hon. Lady in her attempt to clarify what sorts of people will be required for the agency. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to what extent the list in the amendment would reflect the make-up of the Teacher Training Agency as it is now and as it has functioned for some years.

I have a simple question about the clause. It is very open ended in stating that the agency

“is to consist of such number of members appointed by the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may determine”.

That could mean any number of people, and could be added to whenever a Secretary of State thought fit. I am sure that the present Secretary of State would not do that, but the agency could be infinitely expandable; every time a problem came up someone would be bunged on to it. Eventually about 500 people would be sitting there trying to sort out a new range of responsibilities.

Why is there no upper limit on the number of people who can be members of the agency? Would it be advisable for the Minister to think about the range of suitable people, from business, trade unions and commerce—given the importance of teacher education to the welfare of the country—and to come up with a list of appropriate areas of expertise that might be represented in the new agency?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

Amendment No. 25 would re-enact a substantial portion of the 1994 Act, so the answer to my hon. Friend is that the list very much reflects the existing make-up of the TTA. However, in his opening remarks, he set out the argument against the amendment, which is that it is prescriptive, particularly in the context of the changing role and remit of the agency.

I take my hon. Friend’s point that, in extremis, the clause could result in a very large agency. However, we want to maintain flexibility, because of the challenges and the way they change over time. The agency may meet challenges in two or three years that even this Committee could not anticipate today. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the membership of the agency does not become unmanageable, and the Secretary of State will be the guardian of that.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about direct representation of industry and employers in the agency’s work. It is important that we maintain the flexibility that our proposal sustains, rather than setting out in the Bill the detail of membership which, as he said, could be unnecessarily restrictive.

I do not suggest that the groups specified in the amendment or in the 1994 Act should be without representation; we want sufficient flexibility in the system to enable those groups with a close interest in the activities of the agency to be represented, although not at others’ expense. My fear is that the amendment would unnecessarily restrict our ability to proceed in that way. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

It is difficult to know how justified the Minister’s comments are without knowing how many members the agency will have, but I should like to make it clear that I believe that someone with expertise in special educational needs, and a representative of denominational schools, should be included in the agency. With that caveat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 13 - The Training and Development Agency for Schools

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I glanced quickly through the schedule as we discussed clause 77, and seek clarification from the Minister of the supplementary powers that the schedule confers on the agency. The agency’s powers are wide ranging. It can

“acquire and dispose of land and other property ... enter into contracts ... invest sums not immediately required for the purposes of the discharge of their functions, and ... accept gifts or money, land or other property.”

There is one caveat in paragraph 1(2):

“The Agency may not borrow”.

I am interested to hear more, particularly about the acquisition and disposal of land and other property. I felt, as I glanced through that list of supplementary powers, that they were quite draconian. I wonder how the Minister envisages that they might be used.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

It may be my misunderstanding, but paragraph 5 states that

“The Agency ... must pay to their members such salaries or fees, and such travelling, subsistence and other allowances, as the Secretary of State may determine”.

I take it that “members” means board members. Am I right? Paragraph 6(2) states:

“The Agency may pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Agency may determine.”

Paragraph 6(3) states:

“The employees are to be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Agency may determine.”

Am I right in identifying what appears to be a contradiction, in that paragraph 5(1)(a) refers only to board members?

I shall make a wider point while I am on my feet. I am concerned that the schedule and the relevant clauses seem to contain an open-ended budget for the TTA. How and when is the overall budget for it determined? I hope that the agency will have to limit its expenditure, because the schedule and some previous clauses contain many sentences that suggest that it can spend whatever it likes on this and on that. What is the overall budget likely to be?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion of the agency having an unlimited call on public funds or on the resources of the Department. It receives a budget, as will any other agency with which the Department works. It works to a remit letter from the Secretary of State, which sets out the terms of its functions, such as the new role that has just been discussed in our debates on previous clauses.

I absolutely assure the hon. Lady that the change made by the schedule is modest. The provisions are taken largely from previous legislation such as the Education Act 1994, except in three respects. The schedule entitles a representative of the National Assembly for Wales to attend meetings and to take part in discussions for the first time. The representative may not, however, vote when members take decisions. The change simply regularises a long-standing and formal arrangement under which a National Assembly official has attended meetings. Paragraph 1(1) makes a provision similar in effect to that found in the 1994 Act, but in a different form given the breadth of the new powers conferred on the agency under clause 83. The new power includes the ability to borrow money—the hon. Lady referred to this—but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The change is intended simply to allow the agency to make use of the Government procurement card, a service that offers greater purchasing efficiency to bodies in the public sector.

Consideration of the schedule in another place also brought to light the fact that a number of technical changes were needed to take account of developments in Government accounting practice since 1994. Those modifications have now been incorporated into the schedule. Beyond that, it simply re-legislates the provisions of the 1994 Act. I hope that the Committee will agree that they are sensible and proportionate provisions and that the schedule should be agreed to.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

May I ask for confirmation of whether my analysis of the meaning of the word “members” was right?

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I apologise. I nodded vigorously when my hon. Friend was speaking, but that will not be shown in the record of the Committee’s proceedings. His explanation was certainly right; the first part refers to the members of the board; the others are employees of the agency.

Clause 65 - Publication of proposals with consent of Secretary of State

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 65, page 39, line 3, at end insert

‘, including schools wholly rebuilt as part of Building Schools for the Future’.

The amendment would be added to the end of subsection (2) of proposed new section 28A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The provision is about the publication of proposals with the consent of the Secretary of State. It states:

“Any persons (referred to in this Part as “promoters”) may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish under this section their proposals to establish (otherwise than pursuant to a notice under section 66 of the Education Act 2005) a new foundation or voluntary school which is proposed to be maintained by a local education authority in England.”

The amendment would add the phrase

“including schools wholly rebuilt as part of Building Schools for the Future”.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) asked on Second Reading whether schools build under the “Building Schools for the Future” programme would be subject to the competition requirement set out in clause 66. Local authorities will be required to hold competitions whenever statutory proposals are required to establish schools, except where the Secretary of State consents to the publication of the proposals under clause 65.

We believe that there is a positive relationship between the diversity of secondary provision and higher standards. We want to extend the opportunities available for alternative providers of secondary education to set up schools. It is particularly important to create increased choice at a time when local authorities are taking a strategic view of their provisions and planning reorganisations as part of the “Building Schools for the Future” programme. The programme offers local authorities an opportunity to reorganise provision in a way that fulfils the long-term vision for education. We expect all authorities, in developing their plans for “Building Schools for the Future”, to undertake a root-and-branch review of the nature and pattern of provision in their area to ensure that it meets the needs of communities.

The programme is designed to drive innovation and transformation in education. To secure their participation in the programme, local authorities, working with other stakeholders, must come forward with bold plans that demonstrate their commitment to those objectives. We therefore expect that local authorities’ plans will entail the closure of some existing schools and the establishment of new ones. As I have already explained, local authorities will normally have to hold competitions whenever proposals are required to establish a school.

More generally, “Building Schools for the Future” guidance requires local authorities to consider how to secure a diverse range of schools in their areas. We expect local authorities fully to explore the options for introducing innovative approaches to school management, including an evaluation of academy options. Local authorities will also wish to consider other ways of involving new partners in providing new schools. Clause 66 allows local authorities to hold competitions voluntarily, even if they were not required to hold one.

The Department and our delivery partner for the programme, “Partnerships for Schools”, challenge local authorities to show how their proposed capital investment will translate into demonstrable educational benefits. Authorities are not allowed to proceed with their plans until they have done so.

The Government have a joined-up approach to promoting diversity in the provision of schools. The school organisation provisions of the Bill mean that local authorities will not normally be able to set up schools without inviting a range of providers to make proposals. The programme challenges local authorities to reorganise provision in their areas and provides resources to fund new schools. Together, the measures will guarantee that new providers have many opportunities to establish schools and to increase the choice of schools available to pupils and parents.

There are, however, some circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to require a local authority to hold a competition, such as if a local authority, having undertaken the thorough review required to secure inclusion in the programme, decided that an existing school should be rebuilt or transferred to a new site. I hope that hon. Members agree that it should be possible for a good school to be rebuilt without a requirement for a competition. To introduce such a requirement would be bureaucratic and unnecessary.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. We on this side—there is the royal “we” again—support the expansion of school provision by a range of providers. As that is, in part, the same aim that the Minister described, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 66 - Proposals for new secondary schools in England

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

This is an important clause, and I shall discuss it in connection with the accompanying schedule, which touches on some significant territory. I shall attempt to identify some significant flaws in the legislation.

The legislation may be largely academic in some respects, as falling school rolls across the country mean that there may not be that many new schools opening. However, any new schools will have to follow a particular process, and it is the weaknesses of that process on which I wish to dwell.

The basic concept is that local authorities are not the generators but the promoters of schools. They decide that there is a need for a school and put out advertisements indicating that the need exists. Various providers, including local authorities themselves, are then allowed to come into the frame. They may be anything from Wackford Squeers to the most exalted academy, but they all can come into the frame. The process is rigorously controlled by exacting rules and so on, but, none the less, it is a kind of beauty contest to decide what best fits the model that the local authority originally decided that it wanted.

A process is mapped out by which the decision goes to the school organisation committee, which has wide powers to consider the proposals. It can reject the proposals, approve a proposal without modification, approve a proposal with modification, or, if it is unable to do any of those three things, send the whole process to the adjudicator and let him make the decision. If it dallies for some time, not making the decision once the process is under way, the Secretary of State has power to intervene and send the process to the adjudicator anyway. However, the decision-making bodies are the school organisation committees and the adjudicators. They decide what best satisfies the concept of a new school that the local authority originally envisaged.

I do not understand what is wrong with the local authority making that decision. The local authority is a representative, democratic body. I see no reason to prefer that the school organisation committee or adjudicator should take the decision. There may be cases in which the local authority is incapable of making the decision, but that is a fairly unlikely contingency.

There is a downside to letting the school organisation committee make the decision, rather than leaving it with the local authority, as it traditionally would have been: the school organisation committee will not, ultimately, have to fund whatever it recommends. The local authority will probably be involved as a funder or at any rate as a landlord for any new establishment, whether it is an academy or any other educational institution that the school organisation committee chooses.

The problem, which I tried to clarify in the Chamber, is that where a number of schools are promoted by the local authority and chosen by the school organisation committee in a specific area—let us suppose that an authority is undergoing a major process of configuring its secondary schools—it is likely that there will be some kind of result. However, whereas the local authority has a specific duty to ensure that an equal offer is made to all children in its area, that there is an equity of outcome and that all children receive their entitlement, there is no guarantee that the activities of a school organisation committee, however well intentioned, will achieve that result. The committee may, for example, recommend schools with admission arrangements, which to some extent conflicts with most local authorities’ laudable objective of ensuring that all children get a fair deal.

That is the crux of the matter. It cannot be said that the procedure will not achieve a highly desirable outcome whereby every child receives the same type of educational entitlement. I am not saying one size fits all—a phrase that I hate; it has been used so many times, by so many Ministers and in so many circumstances that I thought that I would never utter it myself. Unfortunately, it has slipped out, so I shall have to check myself in future. If the local authority is empowered to deliver certain laudable social objectives and to ensure that every child who is represented through it achieves everything that their parents would aspire to, but are in no way disadvantaged by whatever educational arrangements transpire, it does not seem to me that an arrangement whereby the matter could be decided by the school organisation committee or by the adjudicator, or delayed and then decided by the adjudicator, will necessarily produce that outcome.

There is a strong suspicion that the intention behind the procedure is to generate a plethora of academies throughout the country. There has been criticism recently of what the project of academies is delivering. Intellectually, I cannot see that intention in the Bill, because although an academy can be a response to a local authority promoting a school or putting out a prospectus for one, there is no onus on the school organisation committee necessarily to choose that project. In fact, there is a further hitch in getting an academy proposition going, as the Secretary of State is necessarily involved in the complex of arrangements that are associated with delivering an academy in an area.

There is no credible case for saying that the provision is just about academies, full stop, but there is a case to be answered on how the arrangement ensures that there will not be myriad different admission arrangements in a local authority area that do not provide equity of outcome for each child. That is my fundamental objection, and nothing that the Minister has said so far in the debate has convinced me that it is other than a fairly solid objection. I may well get a nice letter in a few days’ time, explaining to me how wrong I am.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the points that he has made. It is important to note that the clause is intended to improve the diversity of provision. As to the question why the school organisation committees will take the decisions, rather than local education authorities, part of the reason is that local authorities may publish their own proposals for community schools, alongside any received from other promoters. It would not accord with what we want to achieve if those authorities, as organisations that might be presenting such proposals, also took the decisions.

The school organisation committee is an independent body, which is well represented in the community. It is also worth pointing out that not all schools are LEA schools. In view of that fact, the importance of the committee’s independent take on such matters and the fact that the local authority may be able to make its own proposals, the Government think that it is most fitting for the school organisation committee to make the decisions.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister must at least accept that school organisation committees throughout the land are still in a fairly rudimentary form. If we carried out an examination of who was serving on those committees, how long they had been there and what they understood their task to be, I think that we would be surprised at how unprepared they were for some of the quite onerous tasks ahead of them. That is clearly a matter of concern.

The Minister referred to the need for an independent decision maker if the local authority were in the frame, but that argument is slightly weakened by the fact that local authorities are among the major representatives on the school organisation committees. Even though his approach provides an advantage, that does not offset the disadvantages, because it would after all be the local authority that saw a need for a school in the first place.

If I may make one more point, because I do not want to make another speech out of this intervention—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention on the Minister’s reply to him, and that we should observe the proprieties. We are running in a fairly relaxed mode today, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can bear it in mind that interventions are supposed to be brief. We have quite a lot of latitude for dialogue in Committee, but I ask him to keep his intervention brief.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The intervention concludes on the point that my argument has never been against diversity; it is about which is the appropriate decision-making body.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in that respect, but the fact that LEA can itself put forward proposals is a key part of the argument.

The Department has dealt with correspondence in a relatively small number of cases in which concerns have been expressed about procedures followed by the school organisation committee or the LEA, and we found no evidence of abuse or any cause for the Secretary of State to intervene. As I mentioned before, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, it is possible to appeal to the adjudicator.

I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. We are keen to push forward on the matter of diversity and to ensure that the best local decisions are made. We shall keep a close watching brief on how the matter develops, and I hope that he will be satisfied with that assurance.

Clause 67 - Rationalisation of school places in England

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I do not have a particular objection to the clause; I merely want to make sure that I have understood it properly. I prefaced my remarks on the previous clause with the suggestion that we did not need to worry too much as very few schools would be opening because of demographic trends. Plenty of schools will close because of demographic trends, and the process is often heart-rending and difficult. Their lordships have tried to qualify that process in later clauses.

Will the Minister assure me that my understanding of the procedure is correct? Essentially, I understand that he will recommend that the local authority take action where the Department for Education and Skills has identified excessive provision, examined the figures on surplus places and decided that it is time for action. The Department can then require the local authority to take action, and the authority will have the job of preparing a plan that will presumably go through the school organisation committee and possibly on to the adjudicator, with all the upset and upheaval that that customarily involves.

That is more or less the current procedure, and there is nothing novel about it. The Minister gives various signals or sometimes the local authority reaches conclusions for itself because of financial strictures and so on, and the process begins with that format. However, there seems to be one novel provision in the legislation. Where the local authority drags its feet and does not exercise its power, the Minister is given powers to intervene and do the job for it. In other words, if provision is not rationalised, the brave Secretary of State will step in and take all the odium upon himself. That is very noble of him, and local authorities will be pleased that he is playing backstop, although I understand that in the first instance he will not name particular schools.

At some point as the Secretary of State works through the process, however, the local authority may find it unbearable. Metropolitan authorities have particular problems with local elections every year, and nothing is more guaranteed to gain adverse publicity and an adverse reaction from constituents than going round the place deciding to close schools. It strikes me that many local authorities will be slightly pleased with the clause, and the Minister may live to regret it, but if I have not understood it correctly, that will not be the case.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Most of us will know that it takes a brave local authority to undertake rationalisation where there are small but popular schools. It has recently happened twice in my local education authority area, although, thankfully, not in my constituency. Schools have had falling rolls and have been down to barely one form at entry level, but they have still been extremely popular, and they have been defended to the death by local families, with vocal protest meetings and petitions. Such was the pressure put on the local authority it decided not to go ahead with school closures, despite the fact that the schools had more than 25 per cent. spare capacity. There may well be local authorities that welcome the intervention of the Secretary of State to take that responsibility off their shoulders.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

We might be able to provide some useful information to enlighten the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southport about the powers and what has happened in the past. That will give them a better understanding of where we are and what we are doing.

The reserve powers have not yet been used. In practice, we have found that LEAs are usually happy to work with the Department to explore the options for reducing wasteful surplus places. The powers have proved useful for demonstrating our commitment to the proper supply of certain school places and for requiring action if it is not taken voluntarily. It is not always the case that local authorities uniformly put in place best practice or that they will always do so in every area of their activities. It would be irresponsible not to have the powers if they were ever unfortunately needed. I stress that the provisions give the Secretary of State power not to decide the proposals, but only to require that they are brought forward. Even in extremis, if she were to bring forward the proposals, they would still be decided by the local school organisation committee, and if it could not agree, they would pass to the schools adjudicator.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Where a school has a seriously falling roll and is recommended for closure because it is no longer viable, but house building is about to take place in the vicinity, only children who are in the area at the time can currently be taken into consideration when calculating the need for places. When it is clear that new housing is going to mushroom in the vicinity and that school places will be needed again, can that be taken into consideration after the school has closed?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

Having been involved myself over the years in a few school reorganisations and closures, I understand the hon. Lady’s point. The LEA can do that now and tell the council what future needs will be in its area.

The powers are firmly in the context of the existing structures: they do not impose any central control, but merely enable the Secretary of State to initiate the debate, with consultation in the area, the publication of a notice describing the proposed changes, and the opportunity for local people to comment or object. They are part of our approach to local decision making, which involves local people rather than sidelining them.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

To come to a specific situation, let us suppose that there were no community consensus in a particular area about rationalisation. If various schools were spoken of, but it had not been decided which were the right ones for closure, there would be what one might call a “council paralysis”. If the council officers or the cabinet member for education failed to come to any conclusion, and therefore failed to put anything before the schools organisation committee, would the Secretary of State’s powers apply, so that the cabinet member of a particular local authority could be coerced into putting recommendations before the schools organisation committee? In that way, the committee would still have a role, but the missing step is not that it would be unwilling to decide, but that the council itself would duck out of the responsibility of producing a recommendation.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

The hon. Gentleman suggests a hypothetical situation. I refer him to what I said a few moments earlier: clearly, we want to ensure that a local solution is found. Any responsible LEA working with its schools and the community would want to come forward with a solution. As hon. Members have explained, these are often difficult situations. In extremis, as I said before, the Secretary of State can intervene to bring forward our proposals, which would then be decided by the local schools organisation committee. It is difficult to give a clear answer to a hypothetical situation, and we would have to consider each case on its merits. As I said, the powers have not been used so far, and usually a solution is found. The fact that the Secretary of State has that power is usually good enough to ensure some movement in such difficult circumstances.

We think that that is the right approach to these problems, and we do not accept that there should be a free-for-all with schools able to take decisions in complete isolation from the local context of other schools and the LEA.

Clause 70 - Closure of rural primary schools

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 37.

Government new clause 17—Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school.

Government amendment No. 31.

Government amendment No. 34.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

Clause 70, which I will invite Members on all sides to vote against when the question is put, is in the Bill following a joint Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment inserted on Third Reading in the other place. Although the protection that it offers is not, in our view, really necessary, since most of it was copied from existing guidance, we are not opposed to its provisions for that same reason. The Government gave assurances in the other place that we would strengthen guidance along the lines of their lordships’ amendment. However, the will of the other place was that the provisions should be in the Bill.

The clause requires that before a rural primary school may be closed, parents and district, parish or community councils must be consulted, and the implications of closure for transport and the local community and alternatives to closure must be considered. Legal advice, particularly from parliamentary counsel, is that the amendment is technically flawed and should be recast. New clause 17, therefore, is a version of clause 70 that has been tweaked to make it legally more watertight and workable in practice.

This version of the provisions has been accepted by the sponsors of clause 70 in the other place. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Schedule 12 - School organisation: further amendments

Clause 72 - Closure of special schools: statutory consultation

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 18—Proposals relating to maintained special school.

New clause 11—Closure of special schools: authorisation.

‘(1)No special school in England shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Secretary of State.

(2)The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow him to perform his duties under this section.

(3)No special school in Wales shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Assembly.

(4)The Assembly shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow it to perform its duties under this section.’.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

I would like to speak to new clause 18, and reassure hon. Members that we have accepted the intention of their lordships with regard to clause 72. However, as in the previous discussion on rural schools, because of technical weaknesses, the clause as drafted would not have had the effect intended by the other place.

The existing provision on consultation in the case of the closure of special schools is contained in section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as well as in guidance from the Department. The 1998 Act provides that when an LEA or a governing body intends to discontinue a maintained special school or make prescribed alterations to it, it must, before publishing any such proposals, consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate and, in doing so, must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly.

The proposed Government new clause does not affect the substance of the clause. The requirement for consultation in the clause has been inserted into section 31 of the 1998 Act, where the existing provisions regarding special schools lie. The wording of the new provisions has been made consistent with existing legislative provisions. The provision is restricted to community or foundation special schools in line with the existing wording of section 31 and, indeed, the new clause goes wider than what was introduced by their lordships on Third Reading in another place. It imposes a specific statutory requirement for the local authority or governing body to consult parents of registered pupils and the placing local authority not only prior to the publication of any proposal to discontinue the school, but prior to any proposal to make a prescribed alteration to the school. For example, that would cover a proposal to reduce the number of pupils in a school so dramatically that the school was no longer viable.

The drafting makes separate provision in respect of proposals to establish new special schools, maintaining the status quo in this regard, and the wording in proposed new subsection (4A)(a) and (b) is not applicable to new schools. The new clause retains the requirement that in exercising the specific statutory duty to consult, regard must be had to guidance. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that we have made contact with their lordships through the usual channels, and they have said that they are happy with what we propose. I therefore trust that our new clause will have the support of Members on both sides of the Committee.

New clause 11 is unnecessary, as the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals submitted by local authorities and the needs of the local community. The new clause would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process in which the existing safeguards are sufficient.

Members on both sides of the House are aware of the often difficult, complex, and sometimes emotive issues that can surround the closure of special schools. However, we should also acknowledge that other closures, such as one or more special schools closing to move to a more modern facility, have secured local agreement. I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no good reason why decisions such as that should be referred to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales.

In Wales, any disputed proposals are already referred to the National Assembly for its decision. The new clause would require even closure proposals that are accepted by parents and other local interested parties to be approved by the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.

I reassure hon. Members that there is no question of local authorities being allowed to decide to close a special school arbitrarily. There is an established process for formal consultation before proposals are published. After publication, there is a two-month objection period, during which anyone can submit their formal objections to the authority. Any such statutory objections must be sent to the school organisation committee or, in Wales, to the National Assembly.

A proposal put to a schools organisation committee may be implemented without reference to any other body if it is approved unanimously. If the committee cannot decide unanimously, the case will pass to the independent adjudicator for determination. Adjudicators look afresh at all cases that are referred to them. They consider each case on its merits and take account of the reasons for disagreement at local level. The adjudicator may reject the proposals, approve them without modification, or approve them with modification subject to consultation. Decisions taken by adjudicators are binding on all involved. They can be challenged only through judicial review.

In Wales, the function of assessing disputed proposals on the balance of the arguments and of taking a decision that can be challenged only by judicial review rests with the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.

Local authorities are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils and parents in their areas. That is why the Government deliberately strengthened local participation in decisions about patterns of provision. In England, they deliberately removed Ministers from direct involvement in those decisions.

New clause 11 would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process. These are difficult, complex and important decisions. Consultation is vital, and concern in our communities is understandable when consultation does not run properly. The provisions that I have outlined are the best way of ensuring that decisions are taken at local level. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

This is a subject close to my heart. I predicted that the Minister would start by telling me that my new clause was unnecessary, but it seeks to halt the closure of special schools.

Since 1997, there have been 70 closures of special schools, yet the number of children in mainstream schools with special needs has risen by 49 per cent. We know that about a quarter of all pupils will have some sort of special needs in part of their school career, if not throughout it. There has also been an increase in the number of children with behavioural problems, which is almost a separate issue.

The new clause states:

“No special school in England shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Secretary of State ... The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow him to perform his duties under this section.”

It continues:

“No special school in Wales shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Assembly ... The Assembly shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow it to perform its duties under this section.”

The needs of special needs children are so diverse that it is impossible to generalise. Many children with special needs—with physical disabilities, health problems or other reasons that give rise to special educational needs—do well in mainstream schools. Others do not. Some children with special needs, no matter how sympathetically or well a mainstream school tries to cope with them, need the more protected environment of a special school, such as the smaller classes. Some of those whose needs are profound are unable to cope, so if they were placed in a mainstream school, it would place a huge burden on teaching staff and the time that they would need devoted to them would be detrimental to the other children.

We need a balance. We need provision in mainstream schools for special needs students who can cope and with whom the school can cope. At the same time, the demand for places in separate special schools is growing. For example, in the whole of Greater London, only one special school caters for children who are profoundly deaf. Lots of deaf children cannot get a place in that school. It is just one example of a range of health problems that means that children need special school provision.

Rather than see any more closures, I wish to see more special schools established where demand has been shown. The purpose of new clause 11 is to halt the closure of special schools and to give us cause to reconsider inclusion, because that is not right for every special needs child. It is right for some but not others. We need to keep the range available, so that children have the ideal provision to suit their purposes.

New Clause 17 - Proposals for discontinuing of rural primary school

New Clause 18 - Proposals relating to maintained special school

New Clause 8 - Abolition of School Organisation Committee

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would abolish the school organisation committees. That is because the Conservative party wishes new schools to be established wherever it can be demonstrated that there is parental demand, and new schools to be opened by faith groups, charities, voluntary organisations, the private sector or groups of parents. In those circumstances, the functions of the school organisation committees would be redundant.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am fairly unenthusiastic about school organisation committees and adjudicators, but I am also fairly unenthusiastic about educational anarchy. Opening schools willy-nilly strikes me as not being the most prudent use of public resources. None the less, it is fair to say that, were the new clause to be passed, some hurried consequential amendments would have to be made in many of the clauses that we dealt with earlier. Since that work has not been done, I throw the ball back into the Minister’s court to respond.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

As the hon. Lady said, and we agree, the new clause would effectively abolish the decision makers for changes to schools in England—the local school organisation committees and schools adjudicators. It would remove the duty on local authorities to establish school organisation committees and the Secretary of State’s power to appoint school adjudicators.

In passing, I note that adjudicators decide cases of contentious admissions arrangements that are referred to them, as well as deciding school organisation issues. The new clause would, therefore, disadvantage parties with an interest in admissions in the area, including parents. In particular, it would no longer be possible to refer to the adjudicator objections to school admission arrangements as provided for in section 90 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

As hon. Members know, before the decision-making arrangements were introduced by the 1998 Act, decisions on statutory proposals were commonly taken by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. We took the view that such decisions should be made at local level by the key stakeholders who understand local issues and are able to take a balanced view of the competing arguments. That would also secure local ownership of the important decisions that affect the local community. That local knowledge and the ability to balance competing arguments would be important when it came to deciding between a number of different proposals.

The constitution of the school organisation committee was carefully designed to give equal representation to all the local stakeholders—the local authority, which has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places, schools themselves, through members of their governing bodies, the local Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and the Learning and Skills Council. We think that the system works well and is a sensible middle way between a complete free-for-all and centralised decision making in Whitehall.

We owe it to our children to do our best to ensure that the school system delivers equity and quality for all. The system that has been devised offers a means of achieving that. There is no evidence of a clamour for change, although we are not complacent and will continue to monitor arrangements, taking account of the extent to which they deliver good outcomes for local communities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that some such arrangements are necessary and that it is simply not practical for schools to be set up without proper consideration of their viability and the educational and social needs of an area.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does the Minister therefore wish to retain the surplus places rule, which prevents popular schools from expanding or new ones setting up because there is sufficient capacity in the area as a whole?

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

That rule does not exist any more. The Bill enables popular schools to expand. We are keen on that policy.

Hon. Members will be aware that, in the contestability arrangements for new secondary schools, we are proposing to extend delegation further to ensure that decisions that, under the present arrangements, are taken by the Secretary of State will be taken by the local school organisation committee or, in some circumstances, the schools adjudicator.

The sections of the 1998 Act that require the publication of proposals for changes to schools will still remain. They require the proposals to be sent to the school organisation committee for a decision. Those proposing such changes could not decide on the proposals themselves. If the new clause were accepted, no alternative decision maker would exist. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my arguments on that point.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I do not altogether accept the Minister’s arguments but, as I am without troops, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 9 - Community schools, foundation and voluntary aided schools

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would give more autonomy to individual schools if they decided to change their status.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The Government greatly value the historic and ongoing contribution that faith organisations make to the provision of publicly funded education in England and Wales. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches already provide thousands of state schools, but Jewish schools have existed in England on that basis for many years. Since 1997, other faith groups have taken the opportunity to set up schools in the state sector, including Muslims, Sikhs, the Greek Orthodox Church and Seventh Day Adventists.

The new clause seeks to make it easier for community and foundation schools to become VA schools. Although not all VA schools have a religious character—that is, they are not all faith schools—the majority do, and of course not all schools with a religious character are VA schools. Foundation schools and voluntary controlled schools may also have a religious character.

Under section 35 of the School Standards and Framework Act and schedule 8 to that Act, statutory proposals are required in order to change the character of a school from community or foundation to voluntary aided. Taken together with the Bill, it is not possible for a school that does not have a religious character to acquire a religious character in the course of changing category. To do so, proposals must be published to discontinue the school and to establish a new school with a religious character.

I take this opportunity to explain why we believe the acquisition of a religious character is so fundamental a change that statutory procedures should apply. That belief is consistent with existing legislation. First, the acquisition of a religious character will have an impact on the management and conduct of the school itself. A voluntary aided school with a religious character provides religious education in accordance with the tenets of the faith rather than following the locally agreed syllabus. All schools with a religious character may appoint staff on the basis of faith, and they may give preference in their admission arrangements to members of a particular faith or denomination.

Secondly, the acquisition of a religious character will have implications for the overall pattern of school provision in an area. If schools adopt admission arrangements that give preference to members of a particular faith, it will obviously have an impact on the exercise of parental choice throughout the area. We believe that all local people, and not only the parents of children who attend the school at a particular time, have a right to be consulted on such a significant change and for their voice to be heard. The statutory proposals process required under the 1998 Act guarantees that.

I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that the existing procedures have prevented schools from acquiring a religious character.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

In my constituency, the process is actually taking place. Looking at the new clause, can the Minister anticipate difficulties if, for example, the majority of the pupils were Muslim and the proposal had the approval of the local mosque? Because it was Islam rather than Catholic or Church of England, it would not be possible to accomplish the change under the new clause. That could raise questions of equity.

Stephen Twigg (Labour, Enfield, Southgate)

The hon. Gentleman is right. That demonstrates the importance of significant changes in the pattern of local provision being properly considered locally. In a sense, it connects well with what I was about to say in closing.

In recent years, a significant number of proposals have come forward. Since 1999, 14 proposals have been approved in England to establish schools with a religious character in place of existing community schools, as distinct from completely new schools, or existing independent faith-based schools coming into the state sector in place of existing community schools. Two similar schools were established in Wales during the same period. We are committed to reducing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on schools. However, the arrangements ensure that all the relevant local parties have sufficient opportunity to make known their views about changes that will affect not only a particular school—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that—but others in the area. The new clause would deny many local people and parents a say, so I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 119 - Functions to be exercisable by National Assembly for Wales

Schedule 19 - Repeals

Clause 126 - The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made

Clause 128 - Short title, etc.

New Clause 12 - Abolition of Independent Appeals Panels

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is about the abolition of independent appeals panels. The decision on appeals against exclusion should remain with the head teacher and governors of a school and should not be subject to being overturned by independent appeals panels. Head teachers exclude only as a last resort, when all their other disciplinary and pastoral procedures have been tried and have failed. Every school in my constituency has a pastoral unit and those units go to extraordinary lengths to turn round children who are disaffected or disruptive in one way or another.

On the rare occasions when exclusion arises, it is only as a result of all other means failing. The head teachers will feel that they have failed; they do not like taking such action. However, when things get to an extreme state and the school feels that it can no longer contain a pupil for whatever reason, once it has made the decision, that decision should not be subject to being overturned by an independent appeals panel that has not been present in the school and is not familiar with the train of events that have led up to the exclusion, which is usually very long. We want the head teacher to have the autonomy, in consultation with his governors, to make a final exclusion order. That is the purpose of the new clause.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I have some sympathy with the general noises that the hon. Lady is making, but she is making the mistake that the Conservatives habitually make: they do not distinguish between how a system works or may work and the principle behind it. The principle behind this system is based on the sound argument that, although head teachers are undoubtedly wise, competent individuals who get most things right, they do not invariably get everything right. Although most head teachers, as she said, expel or exclude pupils for good reasons that no rational person would object to, we cannot rule out the possibility that, in certain circumstances, a head teacher may not do that and may not behave as other head teachers might behave in similar circumstances.

Equally, there may be appeals panels that are untutored, know little about the realities of schools and simply fall for any gullible line spun by any dissenting pupil, but that is not necessarily the case, and it ought not to be. Appeals panels should be appropriately trained and experienced so that they can call the judgments correctly. If we cannot exclude the possibility that a head teacher may be wrong, we must consider that the system proposed by the Conservatives would allow no opportunity for redress or appeal when a headmaster has acted harshly. Although I have encountered lots of complaints about badly behaved children, I have also occasionally seen parents take up issues with respect to how their child has been treated. They are not necessarily parents who are antagonistic towards the objectives of the school.

So, a general prima facie case can be made for having an appeals panel. If there are problems with the working of the panel, they should be studied and the Department for Education and Skills should do its best to get things right so that we do not have all the outcomes that the Conservatives allege that appeals panels are traditionally having, and that they may in some circumstances have. I am not confronted with the empirical evidence at the moment.

When this issue was argued about on the Floor of the House, I think it was a Labour Member who made the point that, if there were not an appeals panel, that would not prevent a case from being taken to court involving the behaviour of a headmaster who it was thought had not been fair. The answer from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) went something like this: “Oh yes, there may be appeals to the courts. If we do not have an appeals system, perhaps that will be the result. But we will not grant legal aid in those circumstances.” According to that logic, if an injustice is done against a child who comes from a well-heeled family, something can be done, but if an injustice is done against a child whose family do not have any resources, justice will not be done. It is simply not satisfactory to feel comfortable with that outcome. If that is the answer to the problem, the policy as advocated seems deeply flawed. The hon. Lady must distinguish between the feelings she has about the workings of the system and the principle of having such a system in the first place.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I want to add to what the hon. Member for Southport, my next-door neighbour, has said. The appeals panels make some potty decisions from time to time, and that is almost inevitable, but their one advantage is that they can see across an area the different thresholds for exclusion that schools have. I have seven large secondary schools in my constituency. They are all very good and I have no quarrels with any of them, but they have different tolerance thresholds for what they judge to be punishable by exclusion. It is not fair that a school with a good, cosy, middle-class intake can exclude a pupil for an action that a school a few miles away with a tough, rough intake would take in its stride without even considering exclusion. When those latter schools exclude, it is the absolute last resort, and they are seldom kicked back on appeal.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that one of my secondary schools, which is in a nice, cosy, leafy, middle-class area and is high-achieving, has a very good record of accepting excluded pupils from the less advantaged area where the least popular school in the constituency is situated? It does very well with them. Often, an excluded pupil does much better with a change of surroundings, circumstances and friends. That is sometimes the answer.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

That does not surprise me. What worried me about the hon. Lady’s remarks was that she said that head teachers in general would not make catastrophic errors. Some heads do. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) told me a story about a school he knows where the head excluded a child for throwing the hat of another child out the window. The governors upheld the exclusion, although it was later turned down on appeal. That is perhaps an extreme example, but such reasons for exclusion are nonsense. Some heads will exclude. The pressure on heads from their school community and governors is sometimes quite strong. Sometimes the activities that pupils get up to that are not pleasant but are judged worthy of exclusion would not warrant such action in my experience of schools.

The schools exclusion appeals system is a good safeguard against the nonsense perpetrated by a small minority of head teachers, but perhaps any head teacher, however good, is liable to make a mistake. I am married to a head teacher. However good they are, they make mistakes. In conclusion, I agree with the hon. Member for Southport. He is absolutely right, and we would be foolish to agree to the new clause.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

The hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made strong cases as to why we should oppose the new clause, but I would like to place the Government’s position on the record.

The subsections of the Education Act 2002 to which the new clause refers provide for the setting up of an independent appeals panel to hear appeals against the exclusion of pupils from schools and pupil referral units. The Government believe unconditionally that an orderly and safe environment is essential for effective learning to take place. The work to sort out the root causes of exclusions and improve standards of behaviour has been placed for the first time at the heart of our schools policy. Through our behaviour and attendance strategy we are helping schools to tackle the behaviour that gives rise to exclusion, and we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to backing head teachers’ authority when pupils’ behaviour warrants exclusion; heads can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. Our guidance states that we do not normally expect independent appeal panels to reinstate such pupils.

We believe that it is right, however, in a matter as serious as permanent exclusion from school, with all its implications, that parents should have a right of appeal to an independent body that is in a position to review the school’s decision impartially. In find it difficult to believe that, given their concern for parents’ interests, the Opposition do not seem to share that view. Independent appeal panels were originally known as appeal committees. They were introduced by the Conservative Government and came into operation in 1987.

We are committed to the idea that excluded pupils should get the most appropriate education to tackle patterns of poor behaviour, so that they can be effectively reintegrated into mainstream education. A range of provision is available for excluded pupils. The number of pupil referral units has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997 and the number of places in them has nearly doubled, from 7,500 to 13,000. Our recently published guidance will help to ensure that all alternative provision addresses pupils’ behaviour and attainment.

For most pupils, however, mainstream school provides the broadest and most inclusive educational setting, but the pupils in question will be admitted to a school only when they are ready to return. We do not expect all permanently excluded pupils to be reintegrated into a mainstream school. That does not happen now and it will not happen in the future. It will depend on the child in each case.

Appeal panels are a necessary safeguard for pupils and parents. They are needed in the interest of natural justice, and they comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Abolishing them would inevitably lead to a sharp increase in legal action by parents against schools, and more cases about exclusion from school would be brought in the courts. That would mean more stress for teachers, governors and head teachers.

The majority of parents would not want that. A survey found last year that 60 per cent. of parents in England wanted to keep appeal panels. At present, there are about 1,000 exclusion appeals in each academic year, and parents seek judicial review of those in no more than a handful of cases. The risk of legal action being taken would increase significantly if appeal panels were abolished as parents would not have recourse to any other independent review of a school’s decision. That would be costly in time and money to everyone involved. The estimated cost would be in excess of £2,000 in legal fees per case—a cost that would fall on schools, parents and local authorities.

I know that concerns have been expressed about decisions by appeal panels to reinstate particular pupils, such as the case in 2002 of two pupils at the Glyn technology school in Surrey, who were permanently excluded for making death threats against a teacher, but who were subsequently reinstated by an appeal panel, and the more recent case of a pupil at a school in Hampshire, who was reinstated by a panel following exclusion for assaulting a member of staff. In both cases, teaching staff refused to teach those pupils, and places for them were found elsewhere.

Following the Glyn case, in January 2003, the composition of panels was changed to ensure that they would better reflect the realities of school life. Now a three-member panel comprises a serving or recently retired head teacher—or, in Wales, another education practitioner—a serving or recently serving governor and a lay member, who takes the chair. With a majority of panel members having experience of contemporary school life, there is less chance of odd or perverse decisions. Another change that was introduced in January 2003 was the option, in exceptional circumstances, for a panel to overturn an exclusion without reinstating the pupil.

Since 2003, panels have also been required, in deciding whether to reinstate a pupil, to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all the members of the school community, including pupils, teachers and support staff. The National Assembly for Wales has adopted the same approach in its guidance on the issue.

Our guidance, to which, by law, appeal panels must have regard, emphasises the need for all panel members to be fully trained, and updated whenever changes are made to the law and guidance. Since 2001, a training pack has been available for the training of panel members in England. That has been revised to reflect changes in exclusion legislation.

Independent appeal panels do not reinstate a large number of excluded pupils. In the academic year 2002–03, the last year for which we have figures, there were 990 appeals and 21.1 per cent. of them went in favour of the parents. In fact, only 149 pupils out of a total of 9,290 pupils who were permanently excluded were reinstated that year. That is fewer than 2 per cent. We believe, however, that it is important that parents should continue to have that safeguard in a matter that could have such a devastating and far-reaching effect on their children’s education and well-being. I hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The Minister referred to balancing the rights of the excluded pupil with those of the rest of the school. Such circumstances arise only when it has become impossible for a school to contain a disruptive pupil. The rights of the other pupils and, in some instances, the teachers—when there is violence against a pupil—must prevail.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but I have great confidence in the good sense of experienced head teachers. It remains my view that schools should have autonomy over exclusions, which should not be overturned by appeals panels. However, under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 13 - Pupil referral units: supply and publication of information

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The thinking behind the new clause is that, on the rare occasions when pupils are excluded from school, it is absolutely essential that they do not have part-time education; for the rest of the week they could be wandering around and getting into trouble. They need proper specialised full-time education.

The new clause would embrace whether there is sufficient capacity in pupil referral units to accommodate all the students who need them, would ensure that they receive a proper education while they are there, and would monitor their attendance—we know that it sometimes a little too casual, to put it mildly. It would ensure proper monitoring of how many children are referred and what progress they are making while they are in the units, so that progress can be made towards returning them to mainstream schools when that is appropriate.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

We are into the à la carte element of the agenda now, and I begin to wish that I had thought of all sorts of cunning little new clauses to detain everybody for a while. Actually, the new clause is very good and has a lot of sense behind it. There is a danger of looking at pupil referral units as sin-bins, where the children are thrown into the outer darkness and left to vegetate. Certainly, when they go to such units, there is often a sense of relief in the school: people are glad to see the back of them because they have been problematic. However, they will go on being problematic unless the PRU does the job and changes their behaviour, their level of attainment, or their general demeanour. That is essential.

If all that happens in the PRU is that a pupil goes on for a few more years in perhaps a more managed environment, but does not fundamentally achieve any more or change in any way, that pupil who has been thrown out of school as a problem will eventually go out into the world as a problem. Society picks up the tab for that. There is a lot of sense in a system in which the buck stops somewhere. If children are going to PRUs, we must rationally assess what good it is doing them, what progress they are making, and try to give the PRU a mission to be accomplished. I do not mean that patronisingly, but if they are subject to the same rigours as established, mainstream institutions, they will recognise that their job is every bit as, if not more important than, what happens in the mainstream.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

It worth establishing at the beginning that about 60 per cent. of the young people in most PRUs are not there because of behavioural problems in school, but because they have been hospitalised or have health problems, or problems with teenage pregnancy and so on. It is worth pointing that out, because there are often misconceptions about what type of young people are in PRUs.

The new clause would enable the regulations to require PRUs to collect and publish data on levels of achievement, attainment and absence, numbers of full-time pupils and any other prescribed information. I hope to show that we do not need the regulations to obtain that information. Some of it is already published. The PRU census is published each year and already collects information on gender, ethnicity, free school meals, the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs and the number of pupils who are dual registered.

Some of the information is not published. There are several reasons why we do not publish information on educational achievement and attainment in PRUs. Many pupils passing through the PRUs never sit an exam. As the majority of pupils spend fewer than two terms in a PRU, any achievement and attainment data collected would not give a reliable picture of the educational standards in that PRU, but would merely present a snapshot at a particular moment.

One of the main ambitions behind the PRU is to re-engage the pupil in learning, with a view to their speedy reintegration into mainstream education. Although that often means a more flexible pattern of study and assessment, it does not mean a lower standard of care. Achievement and attainment data are recorded on a pupil’s individual learning plan, which goes with that pupil when he or she returns to the mainstream school. That allows the school to see how the pupil has progressed while attending the PRU. The achievement of pupils who are dual registered is captured by their mainstream school.

All PRUs are different. A hospital PRU will be different from a PRU for teenage mothers, which will be different again from a PRU catering for merely excluded pupils. Some PRU pupils are part-time, while some are dual registered and continue to attend a mainstream school for part of their time. Pupils who are sick are required to attend school for only five hours a week. It would therefore be difficult and misleading to publish comparative data.

Sharing information about achievement and attainment would not necessarily be a useful form of accountability. Individual learning plans are focused on the specific needs of the child, not always their educational attainment. For example, a pupil with behavioural problems would probably have goals connected with their behaviour rather than their academic achievements. In that sense, it is important to realise that the goals of PRUs, their staff and their pupils are the not the same as those for mainstream schools.

On the collection and publication of data on authorised and unauthorised absence, PRUs are legally obliged to keep an admissions register and an attendance register. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said in his letter of December of last year, there is currently no requirement on PRUs to pass on such data. I undertook to correct that. We intend to contact local authorities in England before the end of the school year, in order to allow those data to be collected for the 2006–07 academic year.

The new clause proposes publishing information on

“the proportion of children required to attend the unit on a full time basis”.

In order for the PRUs to collect and publish data on authorised and unauthorised absences, they will have to know which pupils are full-time and which are part-time. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in the regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am encouraged by some of the Minister’s comments about the intention to collect absence data in future, and about the number of children attending full-time. Those two things are crucial to a child’s progress, and to ensuring that they are not truanting, but receiving a full-time education.

On recording attainment levels, I take the Minister’s point that students are often in PRUs for only a relatively short period, so it is difficult to map progress or to give a general indication of attainment. Each child is an individual. However, the service provided is quite different from that provided in a mainstream school and each child needs individual reporting and monitoring that take on board the circumstances that led to the child being placed in the PRU, and predictions of how long it might take to turn them round and send them back into a mainstream school. There ought to be some means of plotting their progress, although it may be completely different from the way that that is done in a mainstream school.

Derek Twigg (Labour, Halton)

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about pupil plans. The pupils in question often work with mentors, and their progress requires a high level of involvement with teachers and mentors. How would one measure a school such as the one that I went to in Fulham a couple of weeks ago? It took on several young people who were on the verge of being excluded from their mainstream school. To avoid exclusion, the school took them into the PRU and worked with them to get them back into their school. Measuring such work is difficult. Its prime aim is to sort out pupils’ behaviour and get them back into the mainstream, where most of them could be. The Government plan to introduce personalised learning plans, which will plot the individual’s progress.

The arguments are put in terms of numbers and the different reasons why young people are in PRUs. Some are there to prevent them from being excluded, some are there because of ill health or teenage pregnancy and some are there just to try to get their behaviour sorted out and get them back into a mainstream school so that when they leave they will be able to go into employment or further education, which many of them are able to do. It is very difficult to measure all those things in the way that the hon. Lady is asking.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I think I understand from the Minister’s last comments that there will be some means of reporting on the progress of each student and liaising with the mainstream school from which they may have been excluded and to which they hope to return. I thank him for that reassurance and, on those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 15 - Reducing administrative burdens on schools, etc.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is about reducing the administrative burden on schools. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with that.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.