Education and Inspections Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 May 2006.

Standing Committee E

Clause 86

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 398, in clause 86, page 66, line 21, leave out from ‘authority’ to end of line 24.

It is good to welcome you back to the Chair,Mr. Chope. The clause provides that a magistrates court will be able to take into account non-attendance at a reintegration interview when imposing a penalty order. It also permits regulations to restrict the power to seek a parenting order where the school that a child attends is not in the area or when the child does not reside in the area. The amendment would remove the restriction on seeking a parenting order where the child does not reside in the area of the local authority. If a child is at a school in a local authority area, the fact that that child resides outside that area should be irrelevant to the local authority’s decision.

I note that the power to restrict the actions of the authority with respect to pupils outside its area is not used in the draft Education (Parenting Contracts and Parenting Orders) (England) Regulations. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Chope.

New section 22A of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which the clause inserts, contains a number of regulatory powers that, as we have heard, are intended primarily to avoid duplication in the use of parenting contracts and orders and to ensure that relevant bodies liaise with one another before using the measures. Our intention is that the school or authority in which the child is currently educated should normally take the lead in using the measures, unless the pupil has been permanently excluded from a school outside the authority in which they live, in which case the home authority or the receiving school should normally take the lead.

The exception to those arrangements, which is addressed by the amendment, is where the schools or local authorities have entered into local agreements to the contrary. Such agreements could, for example, be between schools working in partnership or between neighbouring authorities. The indicative regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred demonstrated those intentions.

As I understand, the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove an aspect of the Government’s proposed regulation-making power, which we believe would prevent us from making comprehensive regulations and lead to a lack of clarity for schools and local authorities about which body ought to take the lead in the various circumstances that I have described. The amendment would make those cross-border collaborations much more difficult to achieve. The regulation-making powers are necessary to provide clarity about how an arrangement agreed between, for example, the education authorities in Dorset county council and Poole borough council would work. I am sure that we all agree that such collaboration can be useful for children where there is a lot of movement across borders, as there is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), for example.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands our intent, can agree with it and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out that explanation. I understand the Government’s intent, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 87

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause provides that a governing body must provide alternative education for excluded pupils from a day determined in accordance with the regulations. Under the present arrangements, schools only have to send work home for the pupil to complete, although for exclusions longer than 15 days they are expected to ask the local education authority for full-time.

Regulation 3(1) of the draft Education (Provision of Full Time Education for Excluded Pupils) (England) Regulations states that

“the day from which the governing body...is required...to make arrangements...is the relevant day.”

Regulation 3(3) defines “the relevant day” as

“the sixth day of the aggregate number of...days for which he has been excluded.”

That duty does not apply where the pupil is in year 11 and has already taken or has missed all the public examinations for which he was entered. Why does the duty not apply in these circumstances too?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I was hoping that the in-flight refuelling that has just taken place would give me the answer to that question. Sadly, it did not. While I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a good clause, I cannot give him the answer right now. I will write to him and copy my letter to all members of the Committee. I hope that that will suffice.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am very happy to accept that assurance.

Clause 88

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause relates to the duty of the local authority in respect of excluded pupils. The authority must make full-time arrangements for children excluded from schools and pupil referral units who have not been accepted by another school, and for pupils excluded for a fixed period from pupil referral units. That must be done by the prescribed day. It is helpful of the Government to have distributed the draft regulations so that we can look at them in connection with the relevant clause.

Regulation 4 of the draft Education (Provision of Full Time Education for Excluded Pupils) (England) Regulations defines the relevant day as the sixth day of a fixed period exclusion, in the case of pupil referral units, and the sixth day of a permanent exclusion. It also states that where the pupil was temporarily excluded immediately before the permanent exclusion while the behaviour giving rise to the exclusion was being investigated, the duty begins on the sixth day of the temporary exclusion—so it is not necessary to start again once the permanent exclusion begins.

At present there is no statutory time limit on providing that education. All local authorities are currently committed to providing education for permanently excluded pupils from the 16th school day following an exclusion. The regulatory impact assessment states on page 292 at paragraph 19.7:

“A PSA target was introduced in 1999 that by September 2002 all local authorities in England would be providing suitable full time education for their permanently excluded pupils from the sixteenth day following the head teacher’s decision to exclude the pupil. However, this target proved extremely difficult to achieve. At the beginning of 2002 it became clear that a substantial number of local authorities would not meet this critical target despite additional funding. A consultancy firm was engaged to work directly with local authorities and CEOs were asked personally to sign an undertaking to meet it. Although all authorities achieved the target by the specified date they have had difficulties sustaining it and at no time have all 150 local authorities met this commitment.”

Paragraph 19.8 states:

“As far as we are aware, all but two local authorities are currently meeting this commitment although as one authority meets the commitment another is found not to be.”

Given the difficulties that local authorities have had in meeting the 16-day target, even with extra funding, how confident is the Minister that simply making the matter statutory, albeit with a little more funding, will enable local authorities to meet the six-day target?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall make some brief comments on clause 88—clause 87 flashed past me before I could jump up to speak. I want to put it firmly on the record that we are very supportive of this provision. It is vital to provide full-time education for excluded pupils. Again, we are talking about a slippery slope: once someone is out of education, they never get back. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was right to ask about the details, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

One factor that may have caused the difficulties in reaching the target is the reluctance of some schools to accept pupils who have been excluded from other schools. Although the clause places a welcome new duty on local education authorities, it does not specify how they are expected to fulfil it. I want to mention the role of the protocol for hard-to-place pupils, which some local authorities have already implemented, while others are working on it. It is a crucial part of the range of measures that a local authority can use to fulfil the duty in the clause.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister say something about the Government’s view on the protocols, and if he cannot do so now, will he write to the Committee? I am sure that all members of the Committee recognise that there is increasing concern about the differential distribution of hard-to-place pupils in schools. Some schools display active resistance towards accepting such pupils. The only way to resolve that is by sensible peer group discussion between head teachers and the local authority. The local authority’s role is crucial, but so is a firm steer from the Government.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is useful to have had a clause stand part debate, which has not always been a feature of these proceedings, because this is an important move forward to set a much more ambitious requirement—not just a target—for local authorities in respect of their duty to continue the education of excluded pupils. I welcome what hon. Members’ said in welcoming the shift from 16 to six days. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, it is very important to ensure that we can keep the education of excluded pupils going so that they do not end up becoming permanently excluded from education as a whole.

On the question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), all but two local authorities are meeting the 16-day target, as he said. At no time have all authorities met the target, but all have met it at some time, if people know what I mean. I am confident that local authorities will meet the new requirement of six days. We are making £16 million of funding available to local authorities to help them to meet the requirement. We will circulate information on good practice in achieving it and we will certainly monitor carefully the progress of local authorities to ensure that these children, who are vulnerable in respect of their education, can be properly served.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is right: these are vulnerable children. According to his description of the performance of local authorities so far, the position is both variable and fragile, in that authorities are moving in and out of where they ought to be. I suspect that that is because the pressures on them depend on the numbers of excluded children at any one time. My experience of the issue goes back to the time when I was a member of an LEA, and frankly the position historically has not been particularly good. What measures will the Minister put in place to ensure that the House is able to know what the position is? Will he report back regularly on the progress that has been made against the new statutory requirements?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman says that authorities move in and out. Clearly, authorities on the margins are moving in and out, but I am not persuaded that the majority are moving in and out. Clearly for the majority it will be less challenging than for those who are on the margins moving in and out, and we might have to look at how we allocate that £16 million of funding accordingly to assist those that are struggling to fulfil their obligations.

In respect of reporting to the House, I am sure that that is a subject about which hon. Members of all parties will remain concerned and will want to continue to scrutinise Government on. I will seek to assist that scrutiny as and when it comes about, and I am sure that hon. Members will ensure that the House hears from us regularly about how we are doing in this area.

On the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), the Government are strongly encouraging all schools to agree a local hard-to-place pupil protocol to share hard-to-place pupils. That includes any group of pupils that schools may have difficulty placing who seek admission outside the normal admission round, including excluded pupils. Over half of schools have agreed such a protocol, and we expect all schools to do so by September 2007, which is also the time by which we expect all secondary schools to be working in local partnerships to improve behaviour and tackle persistent truancy. We are seeking to co-ordinate those aims and achieve them by September 2007 at the latest. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and that the Committee will agree that clause 88 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 399, in clause 89, page 68, line 16, leave out ‘require’ and insert ‘enable’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 400, in clause 89, page 68, line 17, leave out ‘request’ and insert ‘require’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make reintegration interviews mandatory. The interviews are conducted with the parents of excluded children prior to their readmission to the school. Guidance currently only recommends that schools offer reintegration interviews to parents following an exclusion—they do not have to do it. Often parents do not have to attend and do not attend, although failure to attend such an interview can be taken into account when considering an application for a parenting order, which we discussed on clause 86.

The Steer report recommended this measure in clause 89, and the White Paper recommended that a requirement for parents to attend reintegration interviews be put into legislation. We totally agree with that. The regulatory impact assessment says that legislation is required to make interviews mandatory. Schools that fail to carry them out may be directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

The amendments would enable head teachers to require parents to attend an interview, as opposed to requiring them to request that they do so. We feel that the clause as currently worded is the wrong way round and may not impose a duty on parents to attend these interviews, merely requiring the head teacher to ask them to attend. We feel that to require the head teacher to hold an interview yet not require the parent to attend is to reverse responsibilities. If anyone has discretion over the reintegration interview, it should be the head teacher and not the parents.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

We strongly support the principles here. This is important. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I see his point, but we need a balance, and it is important to work co-operatively and try to make progress in the best possible way, perhaps achieving a little more before resorting to the parental order. It is a difficult balance, and I can see the argument, but I want to listen to the Minister, because working with the parent until the crunch point is reached will probably achieve more in these circumstances

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We have heard a good explanation of what the amendment is designed to achieve, but I believe that it would undermine the actions that we are taking to implement the recommendation of the practitioners group on school behaviour and discipline, that schools should be required to offer parents reintegration interviews. As we have heard, the amendment would make that a matter for the head teacher’s discretion rather than a requirement.

Our intention is that the interviews be mandatory, with schools being required to offer them and parents being expected to attend them, and that the parent or carer be held accountable for not attending. That is what Steer recommended, and we endorsed it in the White Paper. I recognise that many schools already offer parents reintegration interviews and that it is accepted good practice. That is why we want to ensure that all schools offer them.

Amendment No. 400 is unnecessary. It states that parents should be required to attend an integration interview. If we were to do that, there would need to be a commensurate penalty for non-attendance, such as a fixed penalty notice fine, because failure to attend would be a breach of the law. We have already considered that possibility, but decided that it would be excessive and inappropriate. Furthermore, a requirement to be in a particular place at a particular time would risk violating article 5, the liberty section, of the European convention on human rights.

There are provisions in the Bill, however, that allow for a legal consequence should the parent fail to attend, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred. Clause 86(2) states that the failure of a parent to attend a reintegration interview may be taken into account by magistrates when deciding whether to make a parenting order. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is satisfied with my explanation and will support the clause.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that response to the amendments. I think that parents should be held accountable, and that the way in which to achieve that would be to make the interviews mandatory. Rather than imposing a criminal penalty, such an interview could be a condition of re-entry for the child.

We shall have to see how the provision works in practice, and whether we find that parents do not attend the interviews. If the reality is that they do attend, there will not be a problem to address. We shall monitor the position, but in view of the Minister’s confidence that there is not a problem with not requiring parents to attend reintegration interviews, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 90

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 375, in clause 90, page 69, line 3, leave out subsections (3) to (6).

I thought that it would be useful to have a little debate on clause 90, because it restricts traditional civil liberties and we should not simply let it go through on the nod.

Subsections (1) and (2) require the parent of a child excluded from school to ensure that the child is not in any public place in the first five days of their exclusion. Subsection (7) defines “public place” as virtually anywhere other than the child’s own home or, presumably, garden. I suppose that most people would find that sensible. After all, presumably we do not want an excluded child to think that they are on holiday—exclusion must be some sort of punishment. Most people might think that if a child has been excluded, it is no bad thing if he is kept at home, and that that should be a deterrent or punishment tied up with the exclusion. Otherwise, the child might view it as an opportunity to go to the cinema or wander the streets.

I imagine that most people would be quite happy with that sentiment, but then we move on to the middle part of clause 90. This is a probing amendment, but it raises the serious issue of what is effectively an extension of the criminal law. The subsections that I want to leave out may, I believe, go too far. Obviously, by definition, the excluded pupil is difficult, if not downright impossible, and will probably take no notice of any penalty suffered by his parents, so long as he does not suffer himself.

The measure that we are to pass today provides:

“If the excluded pupil is present in a public place at any time during school hours on a school day falling within subsection (2), the parent commits an offence”

unless they have

“a reasonable justification for failing to comply with the duty imposed by that subsection.”

We are creating another offence.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

We must hold parents accountable for the behaviour of their children, and many excluded children are not kept within proper boundaries by their parents, and roam the streets and threaten other children who are behaving themselves and attending school. Many of the children who are excluded from our schools are bullies who continue to bully children even though they have been excluded from school, so it is important that we let the clause stand. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is right—we all know that—but the hon. Lady’s point is not so much a question to me as a debating point that she could make in her own time. We all know that many excluded children are absolutely impossible and make life hell for their parents and other kids, and we all know that the parents of many excluded children are irresponsible, but for all that, this is the House of Commons, and the point of this place is to protect people’s civil liberties. Before we rush into making law, let us just think it through and have a little debate on it.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I would like to the state for the record that not all excluded children have behavioural problems. Many of them—the figures are huge—have special educational needs. If their needs had been addressed sufficiently, they might not have been excluded in the first place.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Of course, that is a point. We cannot generalise and say that all excluded children, or their parents, are utterly irresponsible. There are many reasons why children might be excluded.

Even if the parent is responsible and tries to keep the child in, he could easily escape from home. Those things happen. To fine such parents—we are talking about an offence for which there will be fines, rather than a rap over the knuckles or being summoned to see the head teacher—when the excluded child escapes from home and plays in the park or loiters in the street could make matters worse. After all, will an impossible child change his behaviour just because mum has been fined? Do we really believe that? Often, in such cases, mum is in severe personal difficulties: that might be the reason why the child has behavioural problems and has been excluded in the first place. The child probably will not change his behaviour because mum has been fined, but fining mum might put her into even more difficulties, and so the vicious circle continues.

A more subtle approach might be needed, but I do not have a solution. I suppose that putting the child into some kind of sin bin would be considered to be politically incorrect nowadays and would be opposed by the Children’s Commissioner, so we apparently are not going to go down that route, we are just going to make ourselves all feel better by creating another offence. We know that there is a real problem in society. How many criminal justice Bills have we had in the past 10 or 15 years? How many more offences have we created? Does anybody actually believe that putting another offence on the statute book will make a great deal of difference?

I have doubts about the concept of house arrest. I do not like it; it does not traditionally figure in our common law. House arrest has the connotations of some rather unpleasant regimes, which I need not go into.

Like you, Mr. Chope, I was taught when reading for the Bar that when a person commits an offence, he commits an offence because he is committing an offence—he is causing harm to other people and, because he is an adult, the criminal law bites. Therefore, I have doubts about generic offences.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. I gave the clause a great deal of thought when we were considering whether to table amendments to it. I do not see how, in terms of liberty, the situation differs in any way from the offence of truancy. Parents are committing an offence if they do not send their child to school. How is this different? The only reason a specific offence is needed in this instance is that we are dealing with pupils who are excluded from school and who are, by definition, not committing an offence by not being at school. I cannot see the difference in constitutional terms.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

There may be a slight difference. A parent still—thank God—has the right to educate their child at home, if he or she wishes to do so, but there is, rightly, an offence of truancy. There is general public acceptance that a parent has a duty to get his or her child to school. We are debating an extension of that—the creation of a new offence. The child has been excluded and has been put under what is, in effect, house arrest, and the parent—in many cases a parent who is in severe personal difficulties—is now to be fined if the child escapes from home. Any parent here will know that it is not always easy to keep a child in. Homes are not prisons. We should think this through before we rush to put it on the statute book. Are parents going to lock the doors to keep the child in? Presumably if a parent goes out shopping and his child wanders out into the street, that parent will be committing an offence. The proposed measure is an interesting extension to the criminal law, is it not?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about creating personal difficulties for the parents. I have constituents who are in enormous personal difficulties because they cannot send their children to school, because their children are being bullied at school by the type of children that the clause deals with.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am not defending bullies. It is a very good idea not to allow a child who is excluded to roam the streets. All that I am saying is that the clause—it will be agreed to; I will probably not even press the amendment to a vote—is another extension of the criminal law, and it is incumbent on us to ask the Minister what he means by it. There is no point in putting it on the statute book unless he is prepared to enforce it. We all know what is going on in the Home Office. So many duties are imposed on the Home Office, the police and everybody else that it is increasingly difficult to enforce the legislation that we already have. Perhaps the best thing that this Parliament or any future Parliament could do would be to pass no legislation at all for the next five years, but simply ensure that what we have on the statute book is enforced.

To convince us that he can enforce the measure, the Minister will probably say that the police and local authorities will be able to take the circumstances into account and consider whether there has been an honest attempt by the parent to keep the child at home. Let us hear what he has to say. However, I, as one who was brought up to be a traditional Tory, believe that our duty here in the House of Commons is to protect civil liberties. We live in a liberal democracy and I do not believe that we are here just to make ourselves feel good. The reason why there are such problems in society is not that there are too few laws or too few offences, but that society is dysfunctional in many ways. Many people think that society gives them rights but not responsibilities or duties. We all know that those problems are far greater than anything that we can solve in this room today.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

For the second time in a few days my hon. Friend and I disagree. The dysfunctionality that he describes is not a feature of people having too little liberty; it is a consequence of their having too much. What society needs—and children doubly so—is order, security and discipline and, as he said, a sense of responsibility. The Government recognise that, and it seems to be what they are encouraging.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Well, if we disagree, we disagree. Of course, we all want children to be well behaved, and have ordered lives and caring parents. We all want parents to take their child to school in the morning as my mother, and your mother, Mr. Chope, used to do, and preferably to pick them up in the afternoon. We were brought up in loving families; when we came home mum was already there with the tea. But that is the dream world, not the real world that people in many parts of the country live in today. An attempt to impose our will in the way proposed raises serious questions about enforceability, which we should at least debate before we accept the clause.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I have great sympathy with the sentiments voiced by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and I share his anxieties about the clause, although I completely understand its intentions. I wholly agree that if a child has done something so serious that the consequences are exclusion from school, it is important to involve the parents, who should know the reasons for the exclusion and take responsibility for their child. However, in many cases the breakdown in the child’s behaviour will be the result of problems at home.

My concern centres on the definition of reasonable justification, and I hope that the Minister will reply to my questions on the matter. The clause states that an offence will have occurred unless there is “reasonable justification” for the parent being unable to keep the child away from a public place, but it is not clear to me exactly what that means. For example, will it cover a single parent who is paid by the hour and is unable to take five days off work to look after the child? What would be the consequences for the child’s welfare if there were a substantial drop in income? Is the proposal actually realistic?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I have had constituency cases of parents who cannot send their children to school because of bullying. They face all the problems that the hon. Lady highlighted. We need to tackle those problems first before we start worrying about the parents of children who cause problems at school.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very trite point. I was just as irritated when he intervened on his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. No one is questioning the need to tackle bullying or bad behaviour in schools. We are asking whether the proposal is enforceable and practical and what will be the consequences of applying the offence to vulnerable families. I am not questioning the need to take serious action, and the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was unjustified.

My concerns are about what would qualify as reasonable justification. Are we talking about severe financial penalties on a family that is already on a low income? What about a child who is already so out of control that the parent is unable to keep that child at home? Let us suppose that the child in question is a physically strong teenager. Parents in my constituency have come to see me to express huge concern about their children’s behaviour: they have been physically threatened, perhaps even with a knife or a gun, because the children are on drugs and they have been stealing from the parents. What are the consequences for such parents if they are unable to keep their child at home? There are parents in such circumstances.

Although I am sympathetic to the Government’s intentions, I am extremely worried about the practical implications of the clause. I will need considerable reassurance from the Minister if I am to support the clause.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I apologise for the lack of clarity in my intervention. I support the clause, but, like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I challenge the notion that it offers a legal power that is any different from that which applies to the responsibilities of parents whose children are truanting. It is the same concept; it offers the same legal penalty for, in effect, the same offence.

The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), that the parents of children who are excluded may not be able to take time off work to look after their children when they are excluded from school, does not stand the test. If we are saying that parents cannot be held responsible because they have to work, we throw into doubt the entire power of exclusion. We as an authority—as a Government—and schools would be putting children at risk if we accepted that parents need not take responsibility for their children by making appropriate arrangements if they are excluded. That would be legally challengeable.

In this modern era of education, and certainly since 1997 and the advent of the Labour Government, many measures have been put in place that should minimise the number of exclusions. The hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned sin bins. The proper term is learning support units and they were introduced in 1997 the under excellence in cities programme as part of a range of measures for learning mentors for the gifted and talented. Pupil referral units, mentioned in the Bill, are used both pre-exclusion and post-exclusion to cater for children who have difficulties in school. We also have the hospital and home education service. With the advent of children’s services, we surely have the best chance for a generation to ensure that the whole package of measures introduced since 1997 works to minimise exclusion.

The fact remains, however, that some children continue to pose a problem to their school and to the other children there. My husband is 6 ft 4 in tall, and he was challenged with a knife in a school playground two years ago by an excluded child. The playground was being opened in front of a number of councillors and council officials. That child was able to come into the playground and challenge my husband; the child had no fear whatever. My husband was later challenged by another excluded pupil who was bullying his own daughter. We must think of those children before we vote against the clause.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I fully sympathise with the hon. Lady. For children who have been excluded for malicious or violent behaviour, the clause is justifiable. However, two thirds of children excluded from school have special needs. As I said yesterday, 27 per cent. of autistic children are excluded from mainstream schools: today, 27 per cent. of autistic children are not attending school. The parents of such children have an incredibly difficult job. I am loath to mention the mother of the autistic child who recently committed suicide, but had the boy been excluded? What sort of difficulties was the mother battling against? Would she have been subject to the provisions of the clause?

The Minister will probably say that we have spoken previously about introducing behaviour management policies. However, Sir Alan Steer told journalists this morning that he was specifically asked not to include special needs children in his report—a report that informs the Bill’s provisions on excluded pupils. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s point of view, because we are introducing a policy that will affect a huge number of parents. The parents of children with special needs are already battling against the odds—they probably have to fight every day for their children to receive appropriate education. How should the parent of a child with emotional and behavioural difficulties restrain that child in the home and stop it moving to a public place?

We are dealing with an incredible number of problems. We are talking not only about children who behave badly, who bully, or who enter school playgrounds with knives. We are talking about children who have deep problems. Some of those problems are associated with language and speech difficulties. Some of the children will not understand that what they are doing is wrong.

The Minister has been incredibly generous and compassionate in his attitude towards special needs children. I am heartened by the fact that he seems to understand the problem, and I will be very interested to hear his response.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I come to this important debate from a slightly different point of view. The issue of excluded children was considered in some detail by the Education and Skills Committee when we considered the proposals in the White Paper. The Committee said that there would be serious practical difficulties in implementing those proposals. Perhaps the greatest argument that could be made in favour of clause 90 is that the practical difficulties of implementation would be so great as to discourage schools from excluding so many pupils.

I acknowledge the dilemma that will face the parents of a child who is out of control—who has over time behaved in ways that are completely beyond the capacity of trained, experienced school professionals to control—if they are forced at short notice or immediately to keep that child under house arrest for a fixed period of time. That is difficult. I also acknowledge the comments by the hon. Member for Brent, East about the impact on parents—particularly single parents—who work all the hours God sends for the minimum wage. How can they reasonably be expected to get out of work? What are the consequences for their future employment prospects if they have to drop everything at short notice to take responsibility for keeping their child at home for that five-day period? The definition of “reasonable justification” in subsection (3) is important. Would a parent be able to claim reasonable justification for not complying because they simply cannot get out of work, or they fear the consequences for their future employment if they leave work on that day?

I specifically want to draw attention to the definition of the five-day period. In subsection (6), it is quite clear that if a child is excluded in the morning, the afternoon is the starting-point of that period. A child could be excluded at 11.55 am with that day’s afternoon session being counted as the first half-day of the five-day period. That seems to make it even harder reasonably to expect the parent to take responsibility for that child at 1pm if the exclusion was at that time. The position is further complicated by clause 91, which requires head teachers to issue a notice to parents specifying the terms of the exclusion. Perhaps I have misread or misunderstood that completely but I do not understand how, if a child can be excluded in the morning with the five-day period beginning that afternoon, the head teacher can, during a lunch time period and without knowing where the parent is, issue a notice to the parent informing them of the start of that period. The practical difficulties of implementation seem to make that requirement almost unworkable.

I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough on the legal implications and the temptation that we in government frequently face—the temptation to pass new laws and assume that that solves the problem, without trying to get to the root of it or considering the detailed implications of those new laws—I am particularly concerned about the detail of how the measure would be implemented given the definition of the five-day period and requirement to issue the notice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Perhaps we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Gainsborough for stimulating this useful debate. I detect that the hon. Gentleman may not be speaking for his party, given the interventions from his Front-Bench colleagues. It might be interesting if he were, given that he wants no laws to be passed for five years. Perhaps that makes sense, since we are familiar with the notion that there are no policies. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman was not speaking from the Front Bench so I will not labour the point.

Clause 90—as we have heard—creates a new duty for parents to ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours during the first five days of exclusion. The amendment would mean that while the parent had that duty, there would be no consequence for them if they failed in it. The hon. Gentleman has explained that he is not sure whether he is precisely right, but he wanted to air the debate and that has been done.

The clause does not state that the child must be at home. It does not impose house arrest, or state that the excluded pupil should be locked up at home. Indeed, there might be some difficulty in terms of false imprisonment, for example, if that were to be done. The Government simply want to ensure that the child is safe and properly supervised, and is not in a public place causing a problem.

I stress that the clause applies only to normal school hours, and, as the hon. Member for Brent, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North have discussed, it allows a defence of reasonable justification. The hon. Lady is right to focus on that phrase, because it is critical to making the measure workable. It is fair to ask what would constitute reasonable justification. We recognise that in some circumstances it may be necessary for a child to be out in a public place on a day when they are excluded. They might, for example, have a pre-arranged medical appointment or there might be a medical emergency needing immediate attention. Similarly, there might be a pressing need for the parent to seek medical help, and they might think it inappropriate to leave the child at home unattended and be unable to make alternative arrangements.

More to the point, as was mentioned by the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend—whose comments I always have to take seriously, in the light of his knowledge and experience—the older and larger the child and the more difficult it is physically to compel him to remain at home, the more likely it is that the parent will be able to claim a defence of reasonable justification. The courts will have to interpret that, but if it is unreasonable to expect a parent—perhaps a frail parent—to restrain a large, strong and burly child, who, as the hon. Lady described, might be armed or under the influence of drugs, that may well be a reasonable justification that the court would bear in mind.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Will the Minister consider issuing some guidelines before Report stage? We support the principle of getting parental involvement after a child is excluded, but we are concerned about the vagueness of the term, and the considerable distress that might be caused to a family for the long period that might be needed to take the matter through the courts, when there might be a perfectly reasonable justification for the child’s being in a public place.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am certainly willing to look at the draft guidance that we have published and to reflect on our debate in that respect. Perhaps all members of the Committee would like to examine the guidance. If they think that there is a problem with it, I hope that they will feel free to contact me and let me know.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Bowing to the pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and the hon. Member for Brent, East, the Minister has just told the Committee that reasonable justification might include the inability to deal with any child who displayed extreme disruptive tendencies, if they were strong and big and so on. That description might be applied to any child—certainly any boy—over the age of 12 of the type likely to be excluded for exactly those reasons. Is that not an all-embracing justification that will make the law almost impossible to enforce?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No, I do not think so. The courts will have to make a judgment about whether a parent has taken reasonable steps, given their and the child’s circumstances. There may be circumstances in which dealing with the matter will be genuinely difficult for the parent. The courts and the guidance will have to be sensitive to that. I hope that all members of the Committee will consider the matter on that basis.

The report of the practitioners group on school behaviour and discipline, chaired by Sir Alan Steer, made several recommendations designed to make exclusion from school a more effective sanction. The group believed that it was important that excluded pupils should not waste time wandering the streets and making a public nuisance of themselves. Its view, which we share, is that in a democratic society parents must take responsibility for their children. The Steer group recommended that parents should be responsible for ensuring that their child is properly supervised during the first five days of exclusion and that the child attends appropriate provision from the sixth day. As we have heard, we are changing the law to bring it to the sixth day.

I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), which we largely discussed yesterday. I said then that the Steer report stated that further, more detailed work was needed to consider issues involving SEN pupils, and that is certainly something that I want to pursue.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I have a question about the extremely difficult cases where the parent cannot control the child, for whatever reason. Does the Minister envisage any particular support, such as a hotline, being made available? To take us back to yesterday’s debate, how will he ensure that a multidisciplinary approach is taken and that social services are fully involved? I would like to see more of that in guidance, as well.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is certainly something that I can consider. The Government, through the respect agenda, are seeking to bring together the various elements of Departments, local government and so on in order to tackle some of the serious problems that are causing a nuisance and worse to our constituents. We acknowledge that some of the children in question are very vulnerable and we have heard that some have specific needs that need to be addressed. That can only be done in the round and I am certainly happy to look closely at how we engage with all agencies to try to minimise the effects of such problems.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister clarify whether Alan Steer’s further report on children with special educational needs will be ready by Third Reading? Given that two thirds of excluded children have special needs, the Steer report has only considered one third of the children who are excluded. Sir Alan was asked expressly not to look at children with special educational needs, as was confirmed this morning. Why has he produced a report on only a third of excluded children?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I said, we discussed this at some length yesterday. Perhaps at this early stage in my ministerial position I am guilty of having exhausted my knowledge and thoughts with what I said to the hon. Lady yesterday. She has certainly been successful in persistently and consistently raising such points and causing me to want to reflect on them. I promise her that I will do that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole makes a powerful point about the mechanisms that might be put in place to allow co-ordination between different agencies and support for parents in such circumstances. Is the Minister prepared to consider addressing those specific points in guidance? The “Every Child Matters” agenda, with the subsequent structural changes in local authorities, will help, but it seems to me that, particularly in relation to this part of the Bill, guidance would be helpful for all concerned.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I have said, we have published the draft guidance. I shall reread the report of the debate and ensure that when I agree the final guidance, the comments that have been made and reasonable points that have been raised are properly dealt with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) effectively outlined the measures that we were taking to minimise exclusions and the way in which we have sought to address the problem.

Mr. Hayesindicated assent.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nodding; he acknowledges that some progress has been made in that area.

Parents must take their responsibilities seriously. We have made it clear that we expect parents to take responsibility for excluded pupils in the first five days of their exclusion by ensuring that they are doing school work and not wondering the streets. Under current arrangements, parents might have to take time off work to attend to their excluded children in the initial stages of exclusion. That was a point of concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North.

We are not requiring parents to take time off work. They will have to ensure only that adequate supervision is in place, and that could be provided by another relative or responsible adult. Where a child is excluded from school, the parent can rely on the right to time off work for dependants to deal with the situation when it first arises and to put care arrangements in place. That is the advice that we have received, and I hope that that is helpful.

I accept that that arrangement might involve a loss of income for some parents, which is a real issue given the concentration of exclusions in areas and families suffering from deprivation. However, in the context of reasonable justification, it will be incumbent on those involved to assess whether an individual has made every reasonable effort to find alternative arrangements for the supervision of their children. Again, we should all reflect on that, and the courts will have to do so in time.

I hope that I have said enough in responding to this useful debate to encourage the hon. Member for Gainsborough to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am grateful that the Minister will bring out draft guidance. He is between a rock and a hard place on this issue, because some of these kids are physically difficult to control. However, if people have a blanket excuse that their son is over 12 and, by definition, quite strong, they will not comply with the clause and there could be very few prosecutions indeed.

None the less, the Minister has given a characteristically good summing-up. We have had a good debate and have aired the difficulties of enforceability and reasonable justification, which are important. I might table a parliamentary question in a year’s time to see how many people have been prosecuted under the clause, and I suspect that very few will have been, for all the reasons we have discussed. However, we shall see.

Having said that, there is one area of consensus, and we all agree that we want to promote parental responsibility. Some of us are worried—we have said so already, and there is no point labouring the issue—about how the criminal law can be made to work in this difficult social area.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Of course every exclusion is a little tragedy for a family, and the people we are discussing are often vulnerable—I am particularly concerned about special needs children and the volume of exclusions among young black people—but the law must have force in this respect if we are to encourage the responsibility that my hon. Friend seeks. I hope he will come round to my view that people want certainty and security, not ever more unbridled liberty.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I believe that more liberty engenders more responsibility, which is why I am a Liberal Democrat on this issue, as well as a traditional Conservative—if that is possible, and I think it is. My hon. Friend and I have so many things in common, but we differ slightly on these issues, which is something we shall have to live with.

Lastly, I am grateful that the Minister is thinking not simply about house arrest, but about other ways of proceeding. We have had a good debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 92

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 401, in clause 92, page 71, line 1, leave out

‘(other than a pupil referral unit)'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 402, in clause 92, page 71, line 3, leave out

‘(other than a pupil referral unit)'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause provides authorised officers with the power to give penalty notices where a parent fails to ensure that their excluded child is not in a public place, and it follows on very much from the debate that we have just had. Under the definition in subsection (7), an authorised officer means a constable, as one would expect, but also

“an officer of a local education authority...who is authorised by the authority to give penalty notices, or an authorised staff member”.

An authorised staff member is then defined as

“a head teacher of a relevant school in England”

but, in parenthesis,

“other than a pupil referral unit”

or

“a member of the staff of a relevant school in England (other than a pupil referral unit) who is authorised by the head teacher of the school to give penalty notices”.

The amendment is probing as we want to find out why subsection (7) excludes the head teachers and staff members at pupil referral units from issuing notices. I do not understand why that should be the case. When I first read the clause, I thought that it was because pupil referral units could not exclude pupils. However, later in the Bill, there is mention of what happens when pupils are excluded from a pupil referral unit, so obviously that is not the reason. I am very interested to know why those staff members are excluded.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The amendment would allow the teacher in charge to be automatically designated as a person who may issue a penalty notice, rather than his having to be designated as such by the relevant local authority, because a reference to a head teacher is taken as being a reference to the teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit under schedule 1 of the Education Act 1996.

The teacher in charge will also be able to authorise other members of the PRU to give penalty notices. That offers advantages. It means that authorities will not have to put in place designation processes, and teachers in charge of PRUs will have the same powers as head teachers of maintained schools when it comes to issuing penalty notices to a person guilty of an offence under clause 93. Furthermore, it will ensure that penalty notices issued under these provisions are treated consistently with those issued under section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Parliamentary scrutiny is a wonderful thing. These are excellent amendments and I am happy to accept them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am shocked, and very pleased. I thought that I had misread something somewhere, and I am delighted to hear the Minister’s response.

Clause 96

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 404, in clause 96, page 73, line 30, leave out ‘may' and insert ‘must'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 403, in clause 96, page 73, line 30, leave out from ‘section' to ‘must' in line 33.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Flushed with success, I live with high expectations. Subsection (6) of section 444A of the 1996 Act states:

“Sums received by a local education authority under this section may be used by the authority for the purposes of any of its functions which may be specified in regulations”.

The Bill amends that by stating that funds that are not spent by the local education authority must be paid to the Secretary of State. That is all to do with the proceeds of the penalty notices that we have been discussing. I am not sure how much money there will be if my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right.

Amendment No. 404 would leave out “may” and insert “must”. “May” is usually used to imply thatthe requirement is optional. The draft Education Penalty Notices (England) Regulations 2007 state, at regulation 22:

“Any sums received by local education authorities by way of penalties must be applied in meeting the costs of issuing and enforcing notices, or the cost of prosecuting recipients who do not pay.”

So, “may” is not used in the draft regulations. Contrary to the Bill, the regulations do not appear to require local authorities to pay the money to the Secretary of State if it is not used in that manner.

Can the Minister confirm that there will be a requirement for any surplus to be handed over to the Exchequer regardless of what the regulations say? I am concerned that we should avoid the perverse incentives that arise when bodies that levy fines benefit from their proceeds. I strongly believe that, regardless of the issue, whether it concerns education or parking, the proceeds of any fine levied by a body other than the courts should not go to that body. That is why we end up with traffic wardens trawling quiet residential streets at8.31 am to pile on parking fines—not to clear roads to allow traffic to flow freely, but to raise revenue for local authorities. The decision to allow local authorities to keep that revenue created all those perverse incentives.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, having already disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, but surely there is an argument that the money raised in fines in a particular area should be spent in a relatively similar area. If money is simply absorbed by the Government, it will be spread all over the place. Is there not an argument for hypothecation?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

There is, but it is not one that I accept. There is an adage of common law that goes back centuries: the body that levies the fine should not benefit from the proceeds of that fine. Since I have been in the House, I have tried to make that point at every relevant opportunity because it is a terribly important principle of law and governance. This happens too often, and it will happen under the Bill.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I give way to the hon. Lady with trepidation for fear of the trite comments I might receive.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Actually, I was going to make a trite but sympathetic comment on the division between the two Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, on the basis that I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole agrees with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Now I feel guilty about my ungracious acceptance of the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not think that we need apply collective responsibility to our debates on these important and interesting issues of principle.

I have said enough on the point. I am not convinced that people are likely to trawl the streets and other public places looking for excluded pupils to raise millions of pounds for local authorities or schools, but I make the general point that it is important to separate those who benefit from fines from the bodies that levy them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I accept the point about traffic wardens trawling for fines, but perhaps this matter is rather different. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the local authorities kept the money it could be well invested in behaviour strategies in schools, into which we need to put a lot more money and support?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that intervention, but I would prefer the regulations to have incorporated the provision that any surplus after the costs of issuing penalty notices and mounting prosecutions had been defrayed should be returned to the Exchequer. I hope to receive that reassurance from the Minister.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We should be grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate, because it takes us on an interesting philosophical quest. The last debate was a sort of moral maze, and this one also raises practical points.

It is difficult to understand how my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for South Holland and The Deepings, who share collective responsibility on the Front Bench, could reach slightly different, nuanced opinions on this, but that is the joy of opposition: it does not really matter what we say as we are not going to implement any of our views—at least not for another two or three years—so we can say what we like. Perhaps I, too, should have a different, nuanced opinion, just to create a tripartite structure in the Conservative party.

The trouble is that we constantly say that we want local authorities to be given more powers and we want to allow them to raise more money locally—we are all, in theory, in favour of that concept—yet we introduce legislation that makes it more difficult for money raised locally through fines or other means to stay in the locality. We have to face that dilemma.

Having said that, on balance I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I veer towards his view slightly, if only because he may be a more important person in the parliamentary party than my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, so I want to curry favour with him at this time. Although I agree that this provision will not raise a great deal of money and we need not worry about it, the public are worried, particularly in respect of matters such as parking fines, that local authorities may be a tiny bit too assiduous on occasion. That may be because they feel that money raised from the long-suffering public will stay with local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raises a serious and important point: those who impose fines, unless they are the central criminal authorities, should not benefit from imposing them. This has been a useful debate and I hope that the Minister makes a good response so that we can find a way forward.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is tempting for all Government Members to leave the Room so that you, Mr. Chope, can exercise your casting vote on what the Conservative policy should be, but I shall explain the purpose of the clause. It enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the purposes for which sums received by local authorities from paid penalty notices can be used and—I think this is the reassurance the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wants—it provides for any sums not used for those purposes to be returned to the Treasury. That is our clear policy. It is a technical matter and I could say many technical things about it, but I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman, clearly and succinctly, the reassurance that he wants and that he will withdraw the amendment so that we can deal with the remaining amendments in the time left.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for the Minister’s response and assured by it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 45

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

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

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has supported this proposal for some time and he recently reaffirmed his support when launching the Conservative party’s charter for inner-city schools. The new clause is designed to improve behaviour in schools by giving them the power to make the signing of the parental declaration of the home-school agreement a condition of admittance. It would also remove the prohibition on sanctioning pupils whose parents fail to sign the contract.

Home-school agreements were introduced as part of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and each maintained school and academy is expected to adopt a home-school agreement, setting out the aims and values of the school, the responsibilities of the school and of the parent, and the expectations of the conduct of pupils at the school. The parent is asked to sign the parental declaration, which indicates that they acknowledge and accept their responsibilities and the expectations of their child’s conduct.

There is, however, no requirement that parents sign the parental declaration, and governing bodies are expressly forbidden to use home-school agreements as part of their admissions process, or to sanction pupils whose parents fail to sign them. As such, home-school agreements lack any weight, and public opinion is that many of them are not worth the paper they are printed on. Only when a child has been engaging in serious misbehaviour is a more drastic option, such as a parenting contract, a parenting order or exclusion, considered.

Our position is clear. As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech in Leeds on 4 April, if parents and children do not sign up to a code of behaviour and stick to it, they cannot attend. That is clear. We believe that schools should be able to make acceptance of the home-school agreement or contract a condition of admittance to a school. If parents want their child admitted to a school they should be willing actively to subscribe to that school’s value and ethos. I do not believe that any parents will refuse to sign the agreements, but by making it a condition it gives that contract added bite. Parents will then not regard it as not worth the paper it is printed on.

Our amendment does not remove any of the existing safeguards on the contents of home-school agreements in the legislation. Subsection (2) of section 111 states:

“If the Secretary of State by order so provides, the governing body of a school to which subsection (1) of that section applies shall ensure that any form of words—

(a) specified in the order, or

(b) having such effect as is so specified,

is not used in the home-school agreement or (as the case may be), in a parental declaration”.

There is no possibility therefore, provided that the guidance is properly drafted, that schools will be able to use the power to exclude pupils for the purposes of social exclusion. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member for Bury, North that this is not the purpose of this new clause; it is not there to try and enable schools to manipulate their intake so that they can achieve better results in the raw figure league tables, it is there to try to improve behaviour in schools. Behaviour in our schools is a concern that teachers, head teachers and parents raise continuously. We have to tackle it and sometimes we have to take draconian measures to ensure that we have good behaviour in our schools.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I made most of my arguments when we debated this point regarding admissions. I will not repeat all of them here again, especially as we are short of time, but I will place it on the record that we disagree with the Conservatives on this matter. We think that home-school contracts can be an extremely useful tool for working with parents, but we do not think it appropriate to use them in orders as an admissions policy because we fear, regardless of what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, that that would be used to exclude difficult students and families and it would be entirely contrary both to the spirit and the letter of the code, of which we spoke in favour in a previous debate. I will finish now so that we can hear from the Minister.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Home-school agreements are specifically prohibited from being linked to the school admissions process by section 111 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This amendment seeks to invalidate that. I agree largely with what the hon. Member for Brent, East has just said. It is not a contract in the legal sense and although schools may and probably should encourage parents to sign the agreement, parents are not required to do so. Whether a child obtains a place at a school should not be determined by the willingness of their parents to sign an agreement, although they can be invited to sign one after their child has been admitted to the school.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that he did not believe that any parent would refuse to sign. I disagree. There may be circumstances in which parents refuse to sign, which could create some difficult circumstances in respect of the authority’s requirement to educate the child.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I make the same intervention on the Minister that I was going to make on the hon. Member for Brent, East. It seems that as a matter of justice, if people know where they stand at the beginning of their child’s career in a school, things are better for all concerned. If we deal with the matter when something has gone wrong, people might claim that they were not clear about what was expected of them. That is what we are interested in: clarity and fairness.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I agree that there should be that clarity, which we discussed in respect of discipline and behaviour earlier, but my concern is that a child should not be refused because of a parent’s unwillingness. There may be issues other than a refusal to sign—they may not have the language or literary skills to understand the agreements. In respect of parents with other languages and so on, it can create all sorts of problems if we create such an imposition—

Standing Committee E

Clause 98

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in clause 98, page 74, line 11, leave out ‘The Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 266, in clause 98, page 74, line 12, leave out ‘The Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.

No. 267, in clause 98, page 74, line 13, leave out ‘the Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendments are purely probing. Until now, Ofsted has been known in law as the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in England. The Bill alters that by establishing a separate body corporate, of which the chief inspector will be a member.

The problem is that the new body is to be known as the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, and the mnemonic for that is “off-sex”. Do the Government wish it to be known as that? The purpose of the amendments is to probe how the new body is to be known.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Far be it from me to be in favour of “off-sex”, but it is a good idea to rename the body and streamline the inspectorate. Many teachers have felt that the burden of Ofsted, and the fear that it would come to their schools, made it difficult to develop any constructive relationship. I hope that a new, renamed and streamlined inspectorate will enable a more constructive working relationship. I suspect that the Government will have to change the acronym, but I am very much in favour of renaming and streamlining.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The amendments, which are intended to probe, would change the statutory abbreviation used in the Bill. I hope that they will not be agreed to, but interestingly, if they were, they would introduce the first reference to “Ofsted” in primary legislation.

However, we have chosen the title of Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills to reflect exactly what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said. We did not want to use a statutory shorthand and entitle it “Ofsted” in the Bill. However, we are aware of the need for a general brand name by which the office will be known, and do not want to suggest that changing the name will mean any less focus on schools and their importance to the organisation’s role.

We will use “Ofsted” as the brand for the organisation. Although it will have a longer name to encompass its new responsibilities, the organisation will be known popularly as “Ofsted”, as it is now. We do not want to put that into statute, but it is the branding that we shall encourage in future.

Ofsted is one of the most accepted and recognisable of all our public service inspectorates; for that reason, I am happy to confirm that we are not suggesting any change to its branding. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that assurance. The Bill states that the new body corporate is to be known as “the Office”, which sounds like where David Brent works. However, with the Government’s assurance that the office will be known as “Ofsted”, and given that that is the broad direction of our amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 99

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 519, in clause 99, page 74, line 19, after ‘Office', insert

‘and an HMI as defined by section 100(1) and (2)'.

The clause allows for the appointment of Her Majesty’ chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills. The chief inspector is to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council for a renewable five-year term. The amendment would ensure that the chief inspector is an HMI—Her Majesty’s inspector. That would ensure that he had a background in inspection when he was appointed. If the Government are unable to accept the amendment, will the Under-Secretary explain what he regards as the minimum qualifications necessary to become the chief inspector?

Amendment No. 520, which was not selected, was intended to correct the drafting of clause 99(9). I shall not speak to that amendment, but I will address the matter of clause 99(9) in a clause stand part debate, and ask whether it is proper drafting to begin a sentence—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. It would be quite out of order to discuss that on this amendment. The opportunity will come later.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I shall leave the issue of amendment No. 519 for the Under-Secretary to address.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I can understand the hon. Gentleman wishing to clarify the type of person whom we might expect to take the post of chief inspector. Interestingly, being an HMI has never been a prerequisite of holding the office of chief inspector. Lord Sutherland, the first Ofsted chief inspector, was not one of Her Majesty’s inspectors; neither was Chris Woodhead nor, more recently, David Bell. What matters is that the chief inspector has the necessary skills and knowledge to discharge the responsibilities of the office. Experience has shown that such attributes are not confined to those with HMI status. Heading up the inspectorate requires strong leadership, political awareness, sound judgment, strategic vision and the ability to represent the work of Ofsted to Parliament, the public and the media and to run a non-ministerial Government Department in accordance with expectations of such a public office.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment, but to limit appointments to candidates who are inspectors would be a move away from a full, transparent and open competition with selection on merit to a more limited competition with a severely restricted pool of applicants for what we all agree is a key position. In future, HMIs will come from an education, skills or social care background. Any HMI who can demonstrate the experience, skills and competence for the office of chief inspector will be given the opportunity to apply for the post, but in competition with other suitable applicants. On the basis of the evidence and arguments that I have put, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said. Given the effectiveness of the chief inspectors whom he listed, who were not qualified HMIs, in their role as leaders of Ofsted, his point is valid. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I would like the Under-Secretary to address clause 99(9), which begins:

“But any person holding that office”.

That appears to be sloppy drafting, and I wonder whether it can be addressed.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

We discussed grammar and morphology in earlier clauses. It could be argued whether we should start a subsection with the word “But”. It is like starting a sentence with the word “And,” with a capital A for emphasis, is it not? There may be a question of grammar, but the clause achieves the outcomes that we want it to achieve. Although I accept that the hon. Gentleman may wish to push the point about a sensible sentence structure—we could get into parsing and everything else—as long as the clause achieves what it is set out to achieve, we should leave well alone.

Schedule 11

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment No. 467, in schedule 11, page 196, line 29, at end insert

‘, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service'.

This amendment amends schedule 11 to require that the chief inspector is responsible, on behalf of the office, for setting staff conditions of service, but that he does so

“subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.”

That is a standard provision and, in practice, the Minister for the Civil Service will authorise the chief inspector to exercise the power without the need for ministerial approval. It therefore does not in any way compromise the operational independence of the chief inspector which we have been careful to protect throughout this Bill, in particular in setting out the separate functions of the chief inspector and the office in chapter 1 of part 8.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

As the Minister has said, the amendment makes the conditions of service of members of Ofsted subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Why should that be so, when the Secretary of State determines the terms of appointment in the case of the chief inspector, and the chief inspector determines the terms of appointment of the HMI without prime ministerial approval? Secondly, the office is to have five to 10 other members, plus a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, but the chief inspector and HMI is inspected by the Queen in Council. Will the Under-Secretary explain why there are all these different arrangements?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

This is a standard provision. In order to do his job the chief inspector needs to appoint people. So that he does in a way that is congruent with the way that things have been done in the past, we need to insert this amendment to ensure that he can carry out his functions, including the appointment of staff. If we did not do this we would find ourselves in constitutional difficulty. It is a technical change. There is no change to the status and influence that the Government have over the appointments that he makes. It is a mechanism for delegating authority and responsibilities.

Schedule 12

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment No. 468, in schedule 12, page 201, line 17, at end insert

‘, or otherwise having effect in connection with any such power of entry'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 469 to 484, 486 to 499 and 501 and 502.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I will not take up hon. Members’ time by explaining each of this substantial list of amendments. Given that they are almost entirely consequential on establishing the chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills to cover a new, expanded remit, I propose to provide just a flavour of them. A number of amendments update legislation to reflect the transfer of remit to the “new” chief inspector. Those include amendments Nos. 478 and 479.

Amendment No. 481 reflects the abolition of the adult learning inspectorate and transfer of inspection remit to the chief inspector. A number of other amendments make technical changes to tidy up part 8. Included in this is amendment No. 488 which reflects a change to the current chief inspector’s powers made by the Childcare Bill. Others tidy up existing legislation concerning the chief inspector’s current legislation, such as removal, through amendment No. 485, of legislation covering publication of inspection reports which is no longer needed, covered by general provisions for the new chief inspector. Although it is a long list, the amendments are entirely technical in nature and I hope that the Committee will approve them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I agree with the Under-Secretary that the proposals are mostly consequential and relate largely to references to the chief inspector and the inspection bodies, but there are a few points that I should like to mention. First, amendment Nos. 471 and 472 both seem to be examples of amendments that remove powers from the chief inspector—in the case of amendment No. 471 the relevant Act is the Education and Training Act 1973, and in the case of Amendment No. 472 it is the Children Act 1989. The amendments seem to remove the chief inspector’s power to offer advice to the Secretary of State on the matters which they cover. Is that because the Bill transfers the advice functions to the chief inspector, or is the Minister consciously attempting to remove those powers?

Secondly, I am concerned about amendment No. 469, which seeks to leave out paragraph 11(4) of schedule 12. That provision says:

“An additional inspector acting within the authority conferred on him by the Chief Inspector has all the powers of an HMI.”

It would allow the chief inspector to enter into arrangements with other people to assist him with his functions, including arrangements with inspection service providers who can provide people to carry out inspections on the chief inspector’s behalf. Sub-paragraph (4) gives such additional inspectors the same powers as an HMI, but removing the sub-paragraph will remove those powers. Will that not stifle the effectiveness of the additional inspectors, especially when they are not supervised by an HMI?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I shall take the latter point first. The amendment is a tidying-up amendment. Sub-paragraph (4) is not necessary as HMI no longer has any inherent powers; school inspection powers and responsibilities are vested instead in the chief inspector. For example, section 5 of the Education Act 2005 requires the chief inspector to inspect schools on the basis of a prescribed cycle—there will be an amendment concerning that later. In fulfilling his duty, the chief inspector delegates the carrying out of inspections to HMI or to additional inspectors. There is no question of removing that ability; the powers are routed through the chief inspector.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, clause 104 contains the general reporting duties of the chief inspector. The report can be made by means of any party he chooses, and the extra provision is not needed because clause 104 deals with the point.

Clause 102

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The role of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills is to determine strategic priorities for the chief inspector and to ensure that they are carried out effectively. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can assign additional functions to the office in connection with the chief inspector’s function. Will the Minister indicate what strategic targets he envisages the office will set? Does he feel that the present arrangements lack strategic direction?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the new functions and structures that we are putting in place. The office will determine strategic priorities and set strategic objectives and targets for the chief inspector. The clause also places a duty on the office to ensure that the chief inspector’s functions are carried out efficiently and effectively. That is important: we believe that the split of functions between the office and the chief inspector will result in a more modern, more accountable system of governance, providing the office with the ability to hold the chief inspector to account for the performance of his functions.

There was widespread agreement from respondents to our consultation document “A single inspectorate for children and learners” that Ofsted’s governance should be modernised. The proposals to move to a non-executive chair and board were seen by respondents as a sensible development in good governance and a useful way to ensure that the chief inspector was held to account. An effective non-executive board of directors is a key component of successful corporate governance, and the system that we are introducing adheres to the principles of good governance that are used in both the public and private sectors, where oversight and accountability are key characteristics of good governance. It is not my job today to spell out what that strategic direction should be; that is, obviously, a matter for the office. That is why we have created this new governance structure.

I say the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that I am not here this afternoon to spell out those strategic directions. However, I should like to make it clear, in concluding my description of the new structure, that all the respondents to our consultation made it clear that the continued independence of the chief inspector should remain sacrosanct. That is important—the chief inspector’s ability to make clear, authoritative and robust judgments, free from interference or favour, was seen as essential. Accordingly, neither this nor any other clause in the Bill will do anything to change that.

Clause 103

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 521, in clause 103, page 76, line 9, leave out ‘encouraging' and insert ‘delivering'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 522, in clause 103, page 76, line 9, at end insert—

‘(za) higher standards of education in schools,'.

Amendment No. 523, in clause 103, page 76, line 41, at end insert—

‘(d) “user-focused”, in relation to each of the activities, has such meaning as shall be prescribed in regulations.'.

Amendment No. 524, in clause 104, page 77, line 16, at end insert—

‘(za) the standards of education in schools,'.

Amendment No. 525, in clause 105, page 78, line 8, leave out ‘encouraging' and insert ‘delivering'.

Amendment No. 526, in clause 105, page 78, line 8, at end insert—

‘(za) the standards of education in schools,'.

Amendment No. 529, in clause 107, page 79, line 5, at end insert—

‘(2A) The annual report shall include a statement on—

(a) standards of education in schools,

(b) GCSE results,

(c) ‘A' level results,

(d) standards of literacy and numeracy, and

(e) international comparison of standards of education in other OECD countries.'.

New clause 57—The Schools Director—

‘(1) One of the persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 is to be appointed as Schools Director.

(2) The Schools Director is to have such functions in relation to the performance by the Chief Inspector of functions within subsection (3) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The following functions of the Chief Inspector are functions within this subsection—

(a) his functions under Chapter 1 of the Education Act 2005 (c. 18) (school inspectors and school inspections: England);

(b) his functions under Part 4 of this Act (schools causing concern: England).'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment would replace the word “encouraging” with “delivering”. We feel that “encouraging” is a weak word that does not explicitly focus on delivery of those goals. That is particularly the case with amendment No. 525, which would change the same wording with regard to the chief inspector’s functions. Amendment No. 522 would introduce a new function of the office, encouraging

“higher standards of education in schools”.

Amendment No. 526 would place a similar requirement on the chief inspector, and amendment No. 524 would place a duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the standards of education in schools. Those amendments are motivated by the fact that there is very little in this part of the Bill that directly addresses that issue. We feel that school standards should be one of the principal focuses of the office, or Ofsted, and that that should be reflected in the Bill.

Amendment No. 523 provides that the definition of “user-focused” will be defined in regulations. It is a probing amendment, intended to find out what the Government mean when they use the words “user-focused”, as in clause 103(1), which says:

“The Office is to perform its functions for the general purposes of encouraging...

(b) the carrying on of such activities as user-focused activities.”

That phrase is a poorly defined concept. It is management jargon that is bandied about in many fields of modern society. The Audit Commission has produced a briefing for councils entitled “User focus and citizen engagement”. The commission sees “user focus” in these terms:

“Developing an approach that is more centred on service users is not just a regulatory obligation. It is also part of good management and providing high-quality services. Consulting and involving service users, and finding out what the general public want from their local services, can help councils to carry out their work more efficiently and effectively.”

It goes on to identify five factors for success in user focus: commitment to user focus; clarity of purpose; understanding communities; communicating appropriately; and delivering change. It is clear that there will be a diverse range of views on the nature of inspection. For example, there has been a great deal of concern about the new Ofsted inspection regime that came in after the 2005 Act. Although the new regime was supposed to be a light touch, it has in fact placed considerable burdens on schools through the self-evaluation process, leading to less time being spent examining what happens in schools and more analysing statistics. For instance, the July 2005 Ofsted document “Conducting the inspection” states that inspecting standards and progress at a school is primarily

“based upon the most recent information in the PANDA”—

that is, performance and assessment—

“report comparing the school’s results against all schools nationally”.

In particular, it draws inspectors’ attention to

“the performance of different groups of learners”.

Even the inspection of teaching is based primarily on outcomes, the document noting that

“it is only in smaller schools that it is likely that all or most of the teachers will be observed”.

The National Association of Head Teachers has also expressed concern over post-inspection letters sent to primary school pupils which identify poor teachers and, it believes, undermine discipline in the school by doing so. Liz Paver, an NAHT council member, said that “strike action” was justifiable over that issue. While we on these Benches would not agree, a motion at its latest conference stated:

“At best, these letters are patronising, condescending and supercilious”,

going on to say:

“at worst, the letters may expose and humiliate some teachers, while misrepresenting good individual teachers with blanket criticisms of the school”.

I have one such example from my own constituency. It is for a secondary school, not a primary, but it says:

“Dear Students,

My colleagues and I greatly enjoyed inspecting your school last week. Many of you told us how the good relationships between you and the staff meant that you really enjoyed school and felt safe there. A large number of your parents/carers agree with you...

To make your college even better, we have asked the staff to improve two main things: raise the achievement, particularly of boys, in years 10 and 11. You can help staff improve this for all students by asking for more help and clearer guidance from the teacher when you do not know what you need to do to improve your work”

and

“further improve the quality of teaching by harnessing and spreading the skills of the best teachers”.

What concerns the profession are sentences such as the last one in that Ofsted report.

It is important that the inspection process has the confidence and support of all users of the educational system. Meanwhile, it is necessary to prove that providing user focus will not sacrifice the integrity and rigour of the inspections process. We can see that the recent Ofsted inspections framework, although intended to reduce burdens on teaching staff, has largely failed to deliver that. I do not believe that putting a phrase as vague as “user-focused” into legislation will assist that.

Amendment No. 529 concerns the content of the annual report made by the chief inspector, ensuring that the report focuses on key educational issues in addition to any other matters on which he wishes to report. Specifically, the amendment asks him to focus on the standards of education in schools—on GCSE and A-level results, standards of literacy and numeracy and OECD comparative statistics.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I realise that it is difficult to be totally inclusive, but I have always found the section on special educational needs rather important in the annual report. Should that not also be included?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not believe I said it should not be, so I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady says. The amendment does not impose an undue burden on the chief inspector, but ensures that his principal focus is on educational standards, whatever the specialism of the school. We also feel it necessary for the chief inspector to demonstrate annually what progress Ofsted has made in encouraging these ends.

International comparison is particularly important, as the English educational system does not exist in a vacuum. In the emerging globalised economy, jobs will go to those who have the best knowledge and skills. If our economic competitors are teaching their children more effectively, that necessarily raises the bar for our own schools. It is disappointing and unfortunate, then, that England has failed to participate adequately in the most recent Program for International Student Assessment study, where England—and, by extension, the UK—was explicitly excluded from the statistics because ours were regarded as unreliable.

Finally, new clause 57 ensures that one of the staff of Ofsted is to be a schools director, who will be responsible for functions given to him by the Secretary of State related to the chief inspector’s functions on school inspection and schools causing concern. Given the much wider remit of the inspection body, we believe that there should be a director with specific responsibility for education in schools. The chief inspector will not necessarily be able to give these issues his full attention so the post would also act as a safeguard if a chief inspector were not appointed from a school inspection background, although I understand the point that the Under-Secretary was making. We believe that a schools director would ensure that there is always an individual at senior level who has school inspection experience.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I am sympathetic to some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Including high standards somewhere in the clause is no bad thing. However, amendment No. 525 would fundamentally change the relationship of the office to schools. The office is not commissioning or providing education so it is difficult to see how it can deliver high standards. To change the word “encouraging” to “delivering” will change that relationship from one which is about providing advice, support and independent assessment—information to parents and other interested stakeholders—to one which involved providing education. I can see that there may be another variety of words that could be used—perhaps “promote”—but that would be semantics. Changing “encouraging” to “delivering” would fundamentally change the meaning of this particular part of the Bill.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 521 and 525, which seek to change the general purpose to a more active role—or so it would appear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—in “delivering” the changes to services.

I will explain. The office and the chief inspector have a general purpose with regard to services within the chief inspector’s remit of encouraging improvement, user focus—I will come to that in a moment—and value for money. We believe that “encouraging” is the right focus and the right level of activity. This idea of establishing a general purpose for the new Ofsted is strongly supported by all our respondents to the consultation on this single inspectorate. We certainly want to send a clear signal to the new Ofsted that the Government want inspection and regulation delivered, so to embed the principles of encouraging improvement, user focus and cost-efficiency.

No one here would deny that Ofsted has had a huge impact on the education system—the way it goes about its business, its reputation and professionalism and how it actively encourages those outcomes. However, the hon. Member for Brent, East is right—Ofsted cannot, of itself, deliver these improvements. That is not its task; it is an inspection body, not a delivery body in those terms. We understand the desire of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to find a way of raising the energy level of Ofsted, if I may put it that way. The amendment does not achieve that. In fact, it is at odds with the general purpose of Ofsted, but the point is well made that Ofsted plays an important role in the education system, and we want it to carry on doing so.

In amendments Nos. 522, 524 and 526, I clearly see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to secure a specific mention of higher standards for schools in the functions of the office and the chief inspector and to seek reassurance that Ofsted will continue to help drive up standards in schools. I can offer that reassurance fundamentally. Yes, that is what the Office for Standards in Education—the clue is in the title—Children’s Services and Skills sets out to do. The Government are also putting in place a non-executive board and chair with a duty on the board to have regard to the needs of users. This offers further evidence of our commitment to modernise Ofsted governance to reflect this expanding remit as well as its current responsibilities. I hope that hon. Members will be sufficiently reassured by these words that our commitment to higher standards in schools is absolute, and on that basis will not press these amendments.

Amendment No. 523 states that the term “user-focused” would have

“such meaning as shall be prescribed in regulations.”

I am slightly disappointed by the hon. Gentleman, because it is a fairly well accepted part of modern management approaches, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, that one should focus on the needs of the users—or, as the private sector might call them, customers. That is a pretty standard part of how any organisation is run.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause is not irrelevant management jargon; it is real and important. Clause 105 defines the general purpose of the office, which includes the encouragement of a user focus in the activities within the chief inspector’s remit. That means that in setting the strategic direction of the new Ofsted, and subsequently holding the chief inspector to account, we send a clear signal to the office that the views of users matter and should be at the heart of what it does. Likewise, when the chief inspector is conducting his or her inspections, the principle of encouraging a user focus should be at the core of how he or she works.

In essence, a user focus means that services reflect the needs of those receiving them, be they children, young people, parents, adult learners or employers. In practice, the views of users are a major source of evidence for inspections. Those views might be learned through speaking to children in children’s homes or seeking the views of parents when inspecting schools. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not subscribe to the traditional Tory roots of his party and those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and I hope that he will join with us in a modern approach to running organisations, seeking to ensure that bodies such as Ofsted fully take into account the needs and views of users.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I meant to mention when I spoke earlier that one of the slightly odd things about the amendment is that it does not include any measure of vocational skills.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Indeed. Perhaps we can be charitable to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would not allow him in any way to decry the need for and importance of vocational skills and standards. I am sure that it was an oversight in the amendment, which I hope we will not accept, rather than any downgrading of the importance that the Conservative party gives to that part of the education system. However, the hon. Lady is right to point out the fact that, in drawing up a list of this kind, one can sometimes get oneself into difficulties.

Amendment No. 529 would require the chief inspector, in making his annual report, to include a statement on standards of education in schools and on GCSEs and A-levels and so on. Annual reports are made independently of Government. I think that every hon. Member will know that they attract a significant amount of attention and have not always made comfortable reading. That was certainly the case in previous years under former Administrations, when the reports had a fair impact. I am pleased to say that the reports show continuous improvement through measures for reform and investment in the education system, but they still make difficult reading at times and create challenges for us. They make a vital contribution to the debate about how to raise standards and improve services for children and learners of all ages.

As it does now, the annual report will cover all services in the chief inspector’s new remit. We do not list the specific subjects to be included in the report, not just because of the example that the hon. Member for Brent, East, gave but because we believe that it is for the professional judgment of the chief inspector to determine his own annual report. The principle of the professional independence of the chief inspector underpins the establishment of the new Ofsted. I hope that I have not been too harsh to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and that, having heard our clarification, he will withdraw his amendments.

New clause 57 is designed to create a separate schools directorate within the new Ofsted. We cannot accept the new clause, because we do not want to create a federation of inspectorates within Ofsted that would lack accountability and coherence. That is not something that the Government, and indeed those whom we have consulted, want to see; it would fracture the chief inspector’s remit. To have other posts within the new Ofsted with specific statutory responsibilities for schools would undermine the principle of a single chief inspector being accountable for all inspection judgments. We have ensured that the chief inspector’s ability to make such judgments free from interference is maintained. Our belief is that providing in legislation for directors with specific statutory responsibilities to inspect provision would dilute this ability—the ability of the chief inspector to be accountable for all the inspection judgments.

I have to add that the consultation process clearly demonstrated to us the need to harness the collective expertise of the various inspection bodies within the new Ofsted. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I can give him the firm reassurance that there will not be a drive for uniformity in creating the new organisation. Different sectors have different needs—they require different approaches. That will remain the case.

I want to stress that our strategy for raising standards in schools is under no threat from the new Ofsted. Ofsted’s record on schools speaks for itself. We see no reason to jeopardise that. Having heard those comments and clarifications, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel free to withdraw his amendments.

I want to pick up a couple of points. First, we think that pupils getting involved in inspection is right. That they should receive some sort of feedback is right, which comes back to the earlier point about users in the system making a contribution and finding out what is going on. That pupils can see the full report is right. Inevitably, the version that the pupils get is going to be condensed and in language accessible to them. As we see our education system develop, engaging pupils in this way—in a dialogue, with feedback—is absolutely the right way to go about ensuring that schools in the round improve their performance and raise their standards.

Finally, to ensure that there is no further doubt about the approach, under previous arrangements some 68 per cent. of head teachers considered that the benefits of the interior inspections by Ofsted outweighed the negatives. With the new arrangements we have increased that satisfaction rate to 85 per cent. There is a welcome for the new arrangements and a welcome for the approach being taken in these clauses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his amendments on the basis of my remarks.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that full response to the amendments. I take his point that the newly merged Ofsted inspectorate will have different sections within it. The particular skills to inspect schools are different from the skills needed to inspect a social services department within a local authority. People with those particular skills need to be developed and specialised. I am reassured by the comments that he made.

The Under-Secretary was right to say that the purpose of the amendments was to find a way to raise the energy level of Ofsted. We want to ensure that this hugely increased new body, with its vast new responsibilities, will not result in a loss of focus on raising standards in schools. The Under-Secretary said that he was committed to higher standards in schools and that the Government’s commitment to higher standards in schools is absolute. We share that objective. That is why there is consensus on the Committee and in the House over the Bill in general and on such clauses as this in particular.

The Under-Secretary is also right to say—and I accept it—that “user focus” is a widespread phrase in modern life. I bow to no one in my modernisation credentials. The purpose of raising the phrase was to have it defined. He was very helpful in fleshing out what he means by “user focus”. On the basis of that response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 105

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 376, in clause 105, page 78, line 24, at end add—

‘(5) The cost of any inspection by or on behalf of the Chief Inspector shall be carried entirely by the Office of the Chief Inspector.

(6) No school, whether maintained or independent, shall be charged for inspection, nor be charged for any expenses incurred by the inspectors.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 377, in clause 109, page 80, line 24, at end add—

‘(5) The cost of any inspection by or on behalf of the Chief Inspector shall be carried entirely by the Office of the Chief Inspector.

(6) No institution shall be charged for an inspection, nor be charged for any expenses incurred by the inspectors.'.

New clause 41—Payment of annual fee to the Chief Inspector by the Secretary of State—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Office of the Chief Inspector the annual fee and any other such fees as are due by virtue of inspections made of, or on behalf of, local authorities.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify the amount of fees he will pay to the Office arising from subsection (1).'.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Until now Ofsted inspections have been paid for by the maintained school, out of that school’s budget. Where Ofsted also inspects independent schools, it also charges the school. Not only does that place an extra cost upon a school’s already tight budget, but it means that there is no incentive upon the inspectors to act as economically as possible. They can take more days to inspect the school and they can send in a greater number of inspectors than is necessary. They can add travel and hotel expenses and have no incentive to find the most economical means of travel or the cheapest hotel.

Depending on the size of the school and the length of the inspection, the cost can be between £6,000 and £20,000, which would put a big hole in any school’s budget. When that cost is compared to the budget that some schools have for their children with special educational needs, there is a huge disparity. Should not the office of the inspector therefore have a budget that will enable it to pay for its own activities? That might bring focus of thought and make it restrict its activities to what is absolutely necessary.

I am not sure how schools will feel about paying up to £20,000 for the reports that the Minister just mentioned. I am quite in favour of reports being written in language that the children can understand, but recently the newspapers have contained examples of similar reports that say, “Your teachers need to work harder” or, “Your teachers need to try harder.” I am not sure that that is appropriate language or that schools will be happy to pay for it to be given to their pupils. As the mother of a child with special educational needs I have had some head-on battles with teachers, but I know that most teachers are trying their best, and I am not sure that that is the right way to represent the teaching profession.

Turning to new clause 41, the inspectorate has no incentive to minimise how often inspections are carried out, how long inspections take, how many inspectors are used, and the extra expenses that may be incurred. The local authority should not have to pay out of its budget. One of the reasons why many children are in mainstream schools rather than special schools, and are not statemented to the extent they should be, is that the local education authority tends to run out of money. Should the local authority pay for such inspections, or should the cost be paid out of the Secretary of State’s budget or from the budget that he designates for the inspectorate? It is too easy politically to present all this inspection as cost-free when, in fact, the costs are paid out of school budgets or the budgets of local authorities that are already strapped for cash. We should have open sight of the cost of each inspection and the budget for inspections should go directly to the inspectorate.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

We have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) has raised, but we shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response on why the budget has never been given to the inspectorate, and has instead been a matter for schools.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Amendment No. 376 is designed to ensure that schools in both the maintained and the independent sectors will not be charged for inspections or forced to pay the expenses incurred by inspectors. I assure all hon. Members that the new Ofsted will meet the entire cost of inspecting maintained schools, including any costs incurred during inspection. There are absolutely no plans to introduce charging for maintained schools.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will that also apply to independent schools, or will there be a dual standard?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I was about to turn to the independent sector. Since 1 September 2003, independent schools have been charged for the cost of inspection under the Education Act 2002. The Government believe it is important that all schools—maintained and independent—are inspected on a regular cycle and that the results of those inspections are available to parents, so that they know about the standards of education that are being delivered in their child’s school. The fees charged by Ofsted for the inspection of independent schools are to enable it to undertake the more detailed inspection that is required to publish more informative reports. That was a change from the previous position, in which parents had no access to information about standards in independent schools. I see no reason to move from the current position.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Why does the Under-Secretary believe that the independent sector needs more thorough investigation than maintained schools? I would argue that parents have more power in the independent sector, because if they see something going wrong they can vote with their feet or argue their case, whereas parents in the maintained sector sometimes cannot.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I am intrigued by the notion that the independent sector should not be inspected, so that the children at independent schools and the parents who send them there cannot make a judgment about the quality of the education provided. If I sent my child to an independent school, which I have no intention of ever doing, I would be slightly worried if the school could not be inspected to ensure that my child was getting an adequate education. I am surprised that the hon. Lady advocates that. I am not sure that the sector does not want to inspected. Of course, parents pay fees and fees pay for the education, which includes the cost of the inspections conducted in that sector.

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

Ofsted argued recently to the Education and Skills Committee that light-touch inspection is the way forward and that self-assessment should be the way forward in maintained schools so that they would do a lot of the work themselves. If so, should the independent sector be treated any differently?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the amendments are not about whether there should be inspections, but about who pays for them.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Precisely so. We think that independent schools should pay the costs of being inspected. The inspection regime that applies to independent schools is no more detailed than the one that applies to the maintained sector. I still see no reason why, in terms of the costs and who bears those costs, we should change the system. We are not going to enter into a debate, at least not on this group of amendments, about the nature of that inspection regime and how it is administered.

The intention behind chapter 3 of the Bill is to provide the statutory basis of inspection of publicly funded further education and training institutions by the new chief inspector in the same way as now applies with the adult learning inspectorate. The adult learning inspectorate does not currently charge any institutions providing the education and training described in clause 109 for an inspection or to meet any expenses incurred by inspectors. I can assure hon. Members that that will continue to be the case with the chief inspector. Those are the major points that the hon. Lady made in presenting her amendments to the Committee. They covered a wide area, but I think that I addressed her specific points. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am intrigued: the Minister began by saying that independent schools will have to pay for inspections because they will have a more thorough inspection, but later he said that they would have the same level of inspection as maintained schools. He contradicted himself. I am quite happy for independent schools to be inspected. We have no argument with that. We are asking why there should be one rule for one—

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

That is what the hon. Lady said earlier.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

No, that is not what I said. The Minister is completely wrong. I am happy for independent and maintained schools to be inspected. However, I am not happy for one of those groups of schools to have to pay for that inspection. It should be the same across the board.

Mary Creagh (Labour, Wakefield)

If parents choose to send their children to a fee-paying private school, should they not be expected to pay the full costs of that school?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

No, because unfortunately the money that parents pay through their taxation is not hypothecated. Those parents pay their taxes and then they pay the independent fees. They are actually paying twice. Why should they have to pay for the inspection?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Another good point.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

We are hearing typical ideological comments coming from Labour Members. The fact is that those parents are paying twice and they should not. I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment because the Minister’s comments will have been recorded in Hansard for everyone to see that he has contradicted himself.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I ought to point out that the hon. Lady is ready to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Sorry, Mr. Cook. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 106

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 527, in clause 106, page 78, line 28, leave out ‘Rights' and insert ‘Welfare'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 528, in clause 106, page 78, line 29, leave out ‘Rights' and insert ‘Welfare'.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We tabled the amendments before seeing the draft regulations in order to probe what is envisioned by the title “children’s rights director.” Our initial concern was that the title over-raised expectations of the true extent of the functions of that post. The children’s rights director established by the clause is limited to assisting the chief inspector in three main areas. First, he is to be responsible for functions under section 87 of the Children Act 1989, which relates to the welfare of pupils at boarding schools. Secondly, he is to be responsible for functions under the Care Standards Act 2000 relating to the regulation of care homes, children’s homes, and independent hospitals, among other things. Thirdly, his functions will cover the inspection of social services functions relating to children aged under 18 and functions conferred on local authorities by the Children Act 1989. Those functions appear to be far more about welfare than about children’s rights.

The draft Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Children’s Rights Director) Regulations give the children’s rights director the functions of advising and assisting the chief inspector with all the functions that I have mentioned. When doing so, he should have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children, and to views expressed by relevant persons about activities within his remit. He is also able to inform the chief inspector of any matters that could be considered as significant to the rights and welfare of children in those three areas.

The regulations clarify the purpose of the children’s rights director, and we broadly welcome them. However, there is a risk that the role could be confused and overlap with that of the children’s commissioner established by the Children Act 2004, which is to promote awareness of the views of young people. The children’s commissioner

“must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”,

and is able to initiate inquiries into children’s issues and publish them. He is charged with representing the interests, and therefore the rights, of all children. The functions of the children’s rights director are instead primarily related to the welfare of certain groups of children, particularly vulnerable children, and not with children’s rights more generally. That is why the amendment would change the title to “children’s welfare director”.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, had some concerns that there could be confusion about the roles of the children’s commissioner and the children’s rights director. As I understand it, in effect, the latter position already exists; I look to the Minister for clarification. Indeed, I am not even sure whether the title already exists.

I am certainly aware of the reason for all the functions. The inspection of boarding schools is important as part of the overall inspection regime. It makes sense to bring everything under one umbrella.

I reiterate that I should like to be clear about whether the children’s commissioner will work with the children’s rights director. Is there any overlap? Will we expect any communication between them? Does the commissioner have the right to get any information from the director? Has the title been used before? I agree that there is an element of confusion, as things stand, and I should like to hear the Minister fully explain the title.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for moving the amendment, which gives me an opportunity to clarify the position of the children’s rights director. I am going to argue that we do not see any benefit in changing the title, and perhaps he will be convinced of that after hearing what I have to say. I shall come on to the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) raised about relationships.

The essence of the post of children’s rights director, which is set out in the draft regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is to be the voice within Ofsted of the most vulnerable children. That is the most critical function. To encapsulate all that the hon. Gentleman described, the director’s role is to be the voice of those most vulnerable children. We intend the children’s rights director to assist and advise the chief inspector with his duties, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children when carrying out his functions, and in particular to find out what children think about the services they receive. His function is restricted to those children in receipt of social care services—that is a crucial difference between his role in the inspectorate and that of the commissioner. He must ensure that the most vulnerable and those most are risk are protected and that those accommodated in schools and further education colleges are given a voice in the new Ofsted.

The post of children’s rights director has been in existence since 2002. Last summer, we consulted on transferring the post, at present hosted by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to the new Ofsted as part of the wider consultation that I have already mentioned. There was great support across the piece for the transfer of the post to the new inspectorate and we responded by making a commitment to doing so. No one who responded to the consultation suggested that we should alter the title of the post, and I hope that that I have clarified its functions.

I want to make it clear that the word “rights” in the title refers to the entitlement of children to receive the services set out in legislation. I cite the example of the regulatory framework in part 2 of the 2000 Act for establishments such as children’s homes. The inspectorate’s job is to undertake responsibility for those rights.

Let me describe the relationship between the role of the children’s rights director and that of the commissioner. Each will have his own separate powers and duties as set out in the relevant measures and they will have separate, but inter-related roles, as the hon. Lady rightly said.

The children’s commissioner has been appointed to ensure that there is someone looking out for all children and young people and to see that they have access to the universal services. The children’s rights director is appointed especially to look out for the three groups of children and young people described in his duties and to see that they have access to the specialist services.

There is a relationship between the two posts and it is important that the holders work together. However, they have different functions, roles and responsibilities, which are located in different parts of the legislation. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady. I am happy to write to her and to other members of the Committee to spell out in more detail matters that I do not have time to explain now if that will help hon. Members to understand how the two roles differ, how they relate to one another and how they might work together or separately, depending on the circumstances.

I hope that that clarifies the position and that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is a helpful explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 109

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 530, in clause 109, page 80, line 6, at end insert—

‘(ga) education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions;'.

The amendment would extend the clause to prison education. At present, there are significant problems in prison education, which most people believe contribute to reoffending. The Government issued a Green Paper on the subject in December last year, which I am sure the Under-Secretary has with him. I, too, have read it carefully and we have been able to discuss it, thanks to his generosity and courtesy. The Green Paper acknowledges the many significant problems; I will highlight a few in support of my amendment.

One of the difficulties is that prisoners are often moved around, so they do not have consistency in education opportunities. Those who teach them often move around, too, so they are often left not having the same teacher and not being able to build a relationship with a teacher that would assist their learning. I imagine that you know, Mr. Cook, that the Forum on Prisoner Education has warned the Government that, in its judgment, a year after the Education and Skills Committee wrote a damning report on the quality of learning in prisons in England, little has improved. Only four of that Committee’s 55 recommendations have been fully met. The forum also says that the plans published in the Green Paper will help—in particular, they should help offenders to find jobs when they leave prison.

The salient point is that if we can provide prisoners with a reasonable opportunity to learn while in prison we may first, reduce the reoffending rate, and secondly, assist them to build a life once they leave prison that is worthwhile, wholesome and lawful. The Education and Skills Committee found that 96 per cent of jobs were not available to people leaving prison because they did not have adequate skills to do those jobs.

I do not for a moment suggest that the Under-Secretary or indeed the Labour party as a whole does not care about this matter or recognise some of the points that I am making. However, by accepting the amendment before us the Under-Secretary would signal an intention to build into the Bill the proper consideration of these urgent matters. Indeed, one might say that if the amendment were resisted precisely the opposite signal would be transmitted: that the good intentions of the Green Paper were not being given force in legislation. Given that we do not yet have legislation affecting prison education, the amendment gives us a golden opportunity to make that commitment to send precisely that signal.

I could go on but the lateness of the hour, the length of the Committee sitting and the urgency of other matters forbids me from so doing. I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary has to say before deciding whether we will press our amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

We are very supportive of this Conservative amendment, despite the fact that when we moved a new clause in an earlier sitting requiring a statutory obligation to provide education for those in prisons, the Conservatives did not support us but abstained in the Division. The amendment seems to be in the spirit of our new clause, so we support it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole went through the arguments at some length in a previous sitting and so I shall not repeat them, but the Minister said in response to the points that she made that a Green Paper was out for consultation now, so there was no need for such provisions to be put into the Bill. However, it will take some time to move from a Green Paper through the consultation to the process of getting the proposals enacted. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, we have an opportunity to make sure that we get something into legislation now, so that there is ongoing monitoring and so that we can drive up the standards of education in prison from now and not simply wait for that legislation to come on to the statute book.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Hon. Members will appreciate that this is a short debate on a large topic. Before I speak to the amendments, I would like to draw attention to the fact that a considerable amount of work has been carried out to improve the quality of offender learning both in and outside prisons and funding for offender learning has increased from £57 million in 2001-02 to £151 million in 2005-06. We have a much better external inspection of prison education to the same tough standards as for mainstream education and training, and we have seen an impressive increase in offenders’ basic skills. We are building training into the prison day, alongside activities such as prison industries, catering and so on, as well as more opportunities for offenders to take part in higher education.

I accept the criticism. We would not have published a Green Paper unless something needed to be done, but I think that we have already travelled quite a long way along the path. I cannot accept the analysis offered by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings of the Education and Skills Committee’s report or the Forum for Prison Education’s comments. We rejected some of the recommendations because we did not agree with them, but those that we agreed with are either being implemented or form part of our Green Paper.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, particularly so late in our consideration of the Bill. We want a happy afternoon. However, the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, speaking of these very matters, said that the Government have failed to meet their manifesto commitment to

“dramatically increase the quality and quantity of education provision”

in that field. The Government published the Green Paper in December. What had they been doing since 1997?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I shall not be drawn into a debate on the present Government’s track record on offender learning compared with the Conservative Government’s. We are pleased with what we have achieved so far, but we want to go considerably further. The Green Paper spells out what we want to do to improve training within the Prison Service to give offenders within and outside prisons the skills they need to get into jobs. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that one of the critical things—among many others— that goes wrong in the lives of offenders is not having a job, with no income and all that that might lead to.

Another point that I wanted to pick up was on young people in the prison system. We make it clear in the Green Paper that we need to get that issue right. We are looking at proposals on how school-age offenders are dealt with within various parts of the prison system—secure detention centres, young offenders institutions and the like—and whether we can produce a coherent and strategic approach to their needs, particularly their educational needs. I put that before the Committee because I think that is important to understand in relation to whether the amendments are needed. I am going to argue that, because of our ongoing work, the amendments are not needed.

The adult learning inspectorate at Ofsted already inspects education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions that is funded by the Learning and Skills Council. The inspectors do so as part of the general inspections of prisons and young offenders institutions carried out by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. Where ALI and Ofsted have the power to inspect now, the new inspectorate will continue to have that power, so prisons inspection will continue in the same way as now. That is why the amendment is unnecessary.

It is possible through clause 109(1)(h) for the Secretary of State to make regulations bringing

“such other education or training”

into the definition of educational training that will fall within the remit of what the new chief inspector can inspect. The regulations can include education and training for offenders that for whatever reason is not funded by the LSC. That means we cover all angles.

I assure hon. Members that education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions will not fall through any potential gap that hon. Members may have been concerned about. Co-operation and joint action provisions are also built into the Bill. The chief inspector will have to co-operate with the chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody, where appropriate, and to act jointly, again where appropriate. I want to reassure Committee members that we want the quality of teaching and learning for offenders and for all other types of education and training provision to be of an equally high standard across the FE sector, irrespective of the type of provision or setting.

In conclusion, I take the issue very seriously. I am aware of the challenge. Putting aside any party political points that we might wish to make, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I have found common cause in wanting to find a way forward for the prison system and the offenders’ learning system as a whole. When we bring forward proposals on the treatment of young people within the prison system, I hope that we find common cause on meeting their needs as well. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Under-Secretary has again demonstrated that he understands the issue and is anxious to do something about it. The problem is profound and though I do not want to prolong the debate any longer than necessary, I want to mention what was said by the director of the Forum for Prisoner Education, Steve Taylor. He said:

“Government would close a failing school or college if improvements took this long, so why is it acceptable in prisons? They should return to the Committee’s recommendations and take urgent action.”

I understand that the Government have published their consultation paper, but I think that it may be necessary to look again at statutory measures that would make proposals a reality. Although much can be done without statutory provision, some action may require it. I hope that the debate will continue—indeed, it may be time for a debate in the House, and I hope that the Minister agrees that we should encourage that.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Consultation on the Green Paper closes at the end of May, and there has been widespread public consultation, but rather less discussion in the House. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to debate such matters either in an Adjournment debate or through whatever mechanism the hon. Gentleman thinks most appropriate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful for that assurance. It would be right to have a debate at the end of the consultation, and when it takes place we can explore the areas where we can agree, and those where we can suggest further Government thinking. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 110

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 531, in clause 110, page 80, line 38, leave out ‘quality adequate' and insert ‘sufficiently high quality'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 532, in clause 111, page 81, line 17, leave out ‘quality adequate' and insert ‘sufficiently high quality'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendment takes us to the subject of the quality of education offered in FE colleges. The Opposition do not want the Government to focus only on coasting schools and not on coasting colleges. In the early days of the Committee, there was a good debate on the difficulties of coasting schools—Members were all fresher and younger then—and the point was made that the focus is often on institutions that are at the bottom end while coasting institutions are neglected. That applies equally to colleges.

Sir Andrew Foster’s report has given a great deal of cause for debate on FE. He talks about its diffuse purpose and the fact that it perhaps tries to do too much, so its purpose is therefore misunderstood. Part of the problem is also that the best should be demanded of FE. In my work as Opposition spokesman, I have visited a number of colleges. I suspect that Ministers have visited even more, so they will know that there is some excellent FE practice that we need to export.

By raising the bar on standards and by using the amendment to increase the expectations of FE, the Committee would do a service to the Bill, the Government and the sector. It is right to be clear about what is expected of FE, but it is also right to be clear about the standards that FE should achieve. Inserting the words “sufficiently high quality” to ensure high FE standards would be an appropriate response to the Foster review.

This is another subject that we might debate at greater length on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, and I shall conclude by observing that only 15 per cent. of employers use FE colleges when seeking solutions to their training and skills needs.

There is some way to go in making the improvements we all seek. I hope that we start that journey with the ready acceptance of the amendment, which I anticipate is about to issue from the Under-Secretary’s lips.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise in support of the hon. Gentleman. This is anew-found alliance for the last day of consideration in Committee.[Interruption.] No, I do not think I could go quite as far asCornerstone. [Interruption.] Or firmfriends.

The wordingin this section of the Bill is really strange to the layman. Iappreciate that the draftsmanship might be correct, but if I may beforgiven, it sounds peculiar to requirethat

“the Chief Inspectorconsiders the education or training inspected to be of a qualityadequate to meet the reasonable needs of those receivingit”.

Reading that as alayperson, the near downgrading of what further education is doingsounds almost patronising. However, I accept that a special phrasemight be beingused.

The Governmenthave given a warm reception to the Foster report, which points out thatthe majority of FE colleges are performing very well, although someneed to raise their game. That does not go far enough to address thepoints that Foster made. Nor does it go far enough in considering thewide variety of courses that FE provides—from the highlyvocational, such as plumbing, through to those dealing with thespecific needs of local employers, who themselves would demand a higherstandard than that. With that, I await the Under-Secretary telling methat the wording is absolutelyperfect.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I am slightly worried about spending most of my lifein the Chamber with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings,debating a variety of measures that the Government have introduced. Thehon. Gentleman mentioned Foster, but failed to mention our recentfurther education White Paper, “Raising Skills, Improving LifeChances”, which drew on the excellent Foster report. Indeed, wehave agreed to implement all but six of the 80 or so recommendations inthat report.

BeingMinister responsible for FE while being married to a senior FE managermakes for lively pillow talk when we get home on a Friday night, so Iam mindful of concerns within the FE sector over the importance ofraising its performance. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that,unlike the picture he describes, there has been a significantimprovement in standards and the quality of provision within FE in thelast few years.

Wehave seen FE standards rise, while the cycle of inspection shows a bigimprovement in the quality of teaching and learning within our FEsector. We are taking new measures in the FE White Paper—I ammindful, Mr. Cook, of the fact that this is not an opportunity to debate it—to ensure thatcoasting colleges are challenged, that where there is failure there canbe intervention to ensure that it is swiftly dealt with, and that weraise standards across the board.

The picture is of an FE sectorthat is, as we see it, at the core of the Government’s drive forraising productivity and generating the skills that our country needsfor long-term economic success. Indeed, we place that economic missionat the core of FE’s purpose. That, along with various detailedmeasures on specialisation and quality improvement, is clearly speltout in our White Paper. Indeed, the newly established QualityImprovement Agency, which is the result of merging a variety of bodieswith such responsibilities, will provide the FE sector with advice andsupport on deliveringthat.

A final driverfor quality is the point raised by the hon. Gentleman on the demands ofemployers. We are thus developing and changing the funding system sothat it is much more demand led. In particular, we are rolling out anambitious programme called train to gain. Formerly known as theemployer training programme, train to gain is a demanding systemwhereby employers are offered free training for a full level 2qualification for their staff. It offers the FE sector an opportunityto be responsive to employers and their needs in theworkplace.

Making FEcolleges more responsive to the needs of individual learners and ofemployers is a crucial part of the quality improvement that the hon.Gentleman and other Opposition Members would like tosee.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Under-Secretary will know that the Associationof Colleges has made this argument on the new Government trainingscheme:

“Trainto Gain will increase publicly supported workplace training but may notincrease overall skillslevels.”

Will he commentonthat?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Yes. Having addressed the Association of Collegesonly yesterday during its consultation meeting on the FE White Paper, Iam greatly encouraged by the widespread support among colleges for theproposals in that document. The association sees that train to gainwill provide additional resources that it will be able to bidfor.

The key aspect oftrain to gain is that there will be brokers whom employers can talk to.Employers with a staff training need will be able to go to a broker andsay, “Which is the best provider of training in my area todeliver the quality of training where I want it, when I want it and atthe price I want it?” The broker will know those providers andtheir locality.

Alocal college might be one of those providers, but that will not beautomatic, which will drive up the quality of service provided by thoseFE colleges, because they will find themselves in a competitivesituation where they need to attract that resource. That I know frompersonal experience. It is having an enormous impact on how colleges goabout their business, how they employ staff and how they managethemselves.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am sorry to press the Under-Secretary, but he hasraised that important issue in respect of train to gain and the qualitythat is implicit in our amendment. The Association of Colleges, whichhe spoke to yesterday, argues in its briefing that

“the Government’s ownresearch on the pilot phase suggests as much as 85 per cent.deadweight—employers are using Train to Gain funds to trainemployees they would have trained using their ownfunds.”

How much of aproblem is that and how does he intend to deal withit?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

That is just slightly off the focus of theamendment, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the pilots we heldwith the national employer training programme, and the findings of thefirst year of the pilot programme, enabled us to ensure that in anational roll-out, which is happening this year, we have reduced thedeadweight to an absolute minimum. One way that we are doing that is toprovide specific guidance to the brokers, whose job it is to reach outand find those employers who do not train their staff—thehard-to-reach employer who does not undertaketraining.

The brokerwill persuade those employers of the benefits of training for theirstaff, and inform them that is free up to a full level 2 qualificationand that good-quality training can be provided. A policy of wagecompensation for employers with under 50 employees also helps to ensurethat the small employers will benefit from their staff undertaking thattraining.

By givingguidance to those brokers to reach out to those employers who do nototherwise train, or indeed to employers who train overall but do nottrain some parts of their work force, we are ensuring that we minimisethe risks that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. These measures are alldesigned to raise the quality and the volume of training in thiscountry to meet the real skills needs that he hasdescribed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for hiscomprehensive response to my point. But is adequate good enough in thatrespect? The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole makes apowerful point that when employers are looking at the programme theGovernment are putting in place, they are going to want something morethan adequate if they are really going to engage in a way that theyhave not done thusfar.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Let me turn to the amendment, which is seeking to substitute the words “high quality” for “adequate”. We share the ambition of wanting high quality. I havespoken at length about the new funding regime through “train togain”, the new quality improvement agency and the new measuresto do with coasting or failing colleges. We are demonstrating throughthe FE White Paper that we are indeed seeking to promote a highquality. I will just get the figures right: 18 per cent. of employersdo not use FE colleges; 28 per cent. of employers train already but donot use FE colleges as their provider of training. That is a hugemarket, offering an opportunity for the FE sector to capture those employers by providing them with training and receivingthe required funding.

We are putting in place a rangeof measures to improve quality and we share the ambition to achievethat. That is happening under current legislation, in which we use theword “adequate”. Inserting the term “highquality” would not have the intended effect of achievingquality, which we have been debating for a few minutes.

We have consulted extensivelywith the FE sector about the common inspection framework, including thecriteria for reaching judgments on standards and grading inspectionfindings. Key stakeholders within the sector are familiar with thatframework and understand the basis on which inspectors reach judgmentsand gradings about their provision. It is important to maintain acontinuity of approach and practice as part of transferring the FE andtraining remit to the new Ofsted. There is no case for changing theterm used in the Bill; instead, we are taking action on a range ofother fronts, a few of which I have mentioned, through our FE WhitePaper. That will ensure that we raise the quality of FE provisionacross thecountry.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am extremely pleased that we have had the chanceto have a short debate on this important subject, and theUnder-Secretary has illustrated, as ever, that he is a master of hisbrief. However, I am not sure that he has been persuasive on thecentral point of the amendment.

I have no doubt about the hon.Gentleman’s desire to inject new energy into the field or aboutour shared view that the quality must be the highest, but I am not surethat one can make a reasoned case that it is important to tell thosewho inspect colleges that that they need to look for the very highestquality, as he said, and not then use the same language in the Bill. Itwould be more consistent to use the words “high quality”,as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have suggested,and then support that by using the same terminology in the guidance,advice and all other documentation. That is what Opposition Memberswant, and it seems to have been sufficiently seductive to attract thesupport of the Liberal Democrats. I am surprised, therefore, that theUnder-Secretary did not race to agree with us. He may change his mindon reflection, and I hope that we might talk further about the matteronce he has re-examined it. To encourage him to do so with the kind ofseriousness that will be necessary to get this right, we shall pressthe amendment to a Division. We do so not to criticise theUnder-Secretary but to push him one stage further in the interests offurther education and those who enjoy itsbenefits.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

By leave of the Committee, I will put en blocclauses 111 to 120inclusive.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to say a word about clause120.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I hear the hon. Gentleman’spoint.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I want to raise a smallbut important point on clause 114, and it may well also relate toclause 112.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

In that case we will go on to clauses 111 to 113.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to ask a brief question on clause 112.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Domine da mihi patientiam.

Clause 112

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I should like to ask the Minister whether the inspection of hospital education comes within this provision. Does it merely refer to a local authority level and is there any way of carrying out a thematic inspection of hospital education across the country?

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

The point that I want to raise on this clause, which also relates to clause 114, is the inspection of federations of schools. The clause seems to give the chief inspector a wide brief and a significant amount of discretion. Clause 114 refers specifically to area inspections. The traditional definition of an area inspection is a geographical division related to the local authority boundaries or, within large local authorities, a distinct geographical sub-division of the local authority.

The increasing interest in the establishment of federations, the increasing number of federations across the country and the way the Bill itself promotes the concept of federated schools raises the important question of whether we will gradually move to a system in which the unit of inspection would normally be the federation and not the school. In view of the Secretary of State’s remarks in her speech of 26 April and the implications of the terms of reference for the Gilbert review, could the Minister give us some indication of the Government’s thinking on the inspection of federations?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The clause and related clauses deal with the inspection regime. It would be remiss not to point out that Sir Andrew Foster, who has already been mentioned in Committee, was quite clear that

“less centralisation and moves towards greater self-regulation”

were required. He said:

“We were very struck that several other effective systems that we studied do not have anything like the same large scale regulatory, inspection and advisory system.”

I appreciate that there are difficulties here. The Bill will merge the adult learning inspectorate with Ofsted, which we will talk about under clause 120, but it also proposes a new regulatory body, the Quality Improvement Agency, bringing the total number of bodies to 17.

We have to be clear about our intentions here. If they are to pursue the Hampton review and the Chancellor’s commitment to reduce the number of bodies involved, and if we see that as critical to clarifying FE’s role, we deserve from the Under-Secretary an explanation why those opportunities have not been taken to a greater degree in this Bill. One of the most difficult aspects of my job, and I imagine his job too, is getting to grips with all those organisations that are involved in funding, regulating, inspecting and advising the sector. If people of the hon. Gentleman’s insight cannot easily grasp this—I make no claims for myself—I wonder what the rest of the world must think. It was important to take the opportunity in this clause to test the Under-Secretary’s views on that subject.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I shall deal with the three points that have been raised. I apologise for not knowing the answer to the question about hospital education asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but I will write to her and circulate my reply to other members of the Committee. I hope that she is satisfied with that answer for now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked about area inspections. Clause 114 will enable the Secretary of State to continue to carry out 14-to-19 area inspections under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, because of the structural reorganisation of the inspection system. I reassure my hon. Friend that as part of those 14-to-19 area inspections or the joint area reviews, the inspectors will consider whether providers collaborate effectively to deliver the high-quality provision required for 14 to 19-year-old learners.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the partnerships, we are focusing on supporting them to enable them to evaluate the impact of their collaborative working for themselves, and to work together where it is shown that a clear partnership dividend results from that approach.

We are often asked, as was the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, if key stage results could be published as a whole. The difficulty in doing so is that accountability still rests with the individual institution. Although they can see the collaborative work, parents will want to know how their child’s school is performing. A single figure covering several institutions could mask potential underperformance by an individual institution.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I understand that point entirely, but is it not the case that as the flexibility of the 14-to-19 curriculum increases and also the number of pupils who may follow their curriculum choices at different sites—for example, at different schools, colleges or work-based training—the relevance of the individual school diminishes? The extent to which the individual school and the individual head teacher can be held accountable for the quality of teaching or training at other sites becomes problematic.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

That is an interesting conundrum, because that very problem may also be a driver for improvement in the system. A head teacher of the home institution may see a child for whom he or she is accountable receiving a less than perfect education at another institution that the child attends. That head teacher will be encouraged to have a good dialogue with the head of the other institution in the partnership to help the child’s performance, which will count in respect of the home institution. There is a mutual interest in the performance of the other institution in a partnership.

My hon. Friend’s argument cuts both ways. The answer is not straightforward, but the general point about being able to assess the collaborative arrangements and the extent to which they deliver is important. We will encourage partnerships to publicise good results and good ways of working, which might encourage parents to value that partnership as well as valuing the single institution.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Gilbert review of education for children from five to 16, which is looking at a range of issues and is due to report by the end of the year. I will consider what he said about 14-to-19 education, although I hope that he understands the dilemma involved in the choices to be made in respect of their intended and unintended consequences.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned the infrastructure of quality, improvement, regulation and inspection. We have made it clear, and I think the Committee agrees, that we need to separate the inspection function from the advice and support function. Ofsted inspects, and delivers a view, but it does not follow that up by providing advice and support to implement change. That job is done separately for a purpose, because the inspection would be compromised were the support function allied to it. At least two functions are needed, as well as the Government’s regulatory function.

In respect of the quality improvement function, we recognise that there has been a cluttered landscape of improvement agencies in the Department and elsewhere, which is why we created a single agency—the Quality Improvement Agency—to bring together the various advice and support functions.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, it is important that quality improvement becomes a self-improvement strategy, so that instead of continually relying on external support and advice, institutions are encouraged to develop a self-improvement system with its own managerial functions. That way, there is a self-perpetuating system of self-improvement rather than a relationship dependent on a more expensive system of advice.

In light of those brief responses I hope that hon. Members will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The clause deals with the abolition of the adult learning inspectorate. As I said a few moments ago, one understands the Government’s aim of trying to simplify the arrangements for advice and inspection in the field of further and continuing education. However, this proposed abolition has not been uncontentious. No less a body than the Institute of Directors has expressed strong views on it, and for the Committee’s benefit I shall enlighten Members on those views:

“Given the ALI’s successful contribution to improving the quality of adult learning and training, this is an is entirely unnecessary change. The process will be disruptive, as the organisations involved inexorably focus their attention on internal structural changes rather than on employers, training providers and learners. It puts in jeopardy the improvements that have been achieved in work-based learning provision. It also seems inevitable that, despite the Government’s protestations and soothing reassurances, the new inspectorate will concentrate on children and schools at the expense of adults.”

The Institute of Directors continued:

“Contrary to the wishes of many businesses, the Government has needlessly taken a wrecking ball to a successful organisation widely held in high esteem. If this exercise is to amount to more than senseless vandalism, it is absolutely vital that the new inspectorate pays due attention to adult learning and training.”

I do not necessarily argue that there should not be any change—there may well be a solid case for simplifying the structures for funding, advice and inspection—but I worry that the move will further undermine confidence in adult learning. There has been a series of cuts in relation to adult learning in colleges around the country, of which Members from all parties will be aware, and there have been protests about those cuts from people who consequently feel disfranchised.

I am most anxious to ensure that the Government’s understandable concentration on younger adult learners does not displace all concern for those older people who need to be trained and skilled. I am particularly mindful of the new core entitlements up to the age of 25. Of course it is right that people who have not gained core skills at school should have another chance to do so, but there are worries among those on the Opposition Benches and in colleges that the effect may be to focus the attention of colleges away from upskilling and reskilling older workers and enabling older learners to engage in education.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

As an east London Member, this matter concerns me greatly as well. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 250,000 over-50s in London who are able to work but unable to get jobs? There is a great need for a skills base in London, which is the powerhouse of the UK, although representing South Holland and the Deepings, the hon. Gentleman might not agree with that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Lady speaks with her usual mix of passion and knowledge. She is right that older potential workers, who are unable to learn new skills that would make them more employable, are a wasted resource. This is about the success of our economy—we desperately need to upskill and reskill, and we know that we have a schools crisis, which I do not think the Under-Secretary would deny—and personal fulfilment. Many people lead less fulfilled lives than they might, both in their employment and in terms of human happiness, as a result of not having had the opportunities that we on the Opposition Benches, and I am sure many on the Government Benches, feel that they should have had.

To probe the Government, I ask the Under-Secretary to say a little more on the matter. What are the Government’s intentions in respect of adult learning, how will the changes affect it and will he reassure us that it remains central to their ambitions for FE and continuing education? How does he answer the criticism from bodies such as the Institute of Directors?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

We are travelling across the broad landscape of my ministerial responsibilities this afternoon. I will try to be brief. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there have not been cuts in funding for FE, whose funding has gone up 48 per cent. in real terms since 1997.

There has been a major increase in investment in skills and adult learning since we came to office. We are seeking to prioritise our funding in a number of ways. The hon. Gentleman mentioned young people aged 16 to 19, and he was right to do so. It is vital that we do not have a flow of under-qualified or unqualified young people coming into the work force, thereby adding to the difficulties. It is absolutely right for us to seek to increase the number of young people staying in education, which is insufficient, and that they reach a full level 2 qualification, equivalent to five GCSEs, by the age of 19. We are putting in place a number of measures, including extra funding, to ensure that we achieve that outcome.

As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we introduced in the Budget this year a new entitlement to free education and training up to a full level 3 qualification for 19 to 25-year-olds, as part of the FE White Paper. We also introduced an adult learning grant to support the other costs that a young person might encounter in seeking to take such training. I am glad that we have his support on those measures.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

What estimate have the Government made of the effect of those measures on the resources, skills and plant of FE? If we are to make extra demands of colleges—I do not say that we should not—we must make absolutely clear the ramifications for the other work that they do. Have the Government measured those and what notional costs have they estimated?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

Yes, we have, and the estimated cost is £25 million. I am delighted that, through our representations to the Treasury on this year’s Budget, we managed to secure the full sum for the core budget to deliver that entitlement. Indeed, a major new capital investment is being made in the FE sector. Any Members going down to their constituencies nowadays will, I am sure, see an FE college there or nearby where some rebuilding, repair or renewal is going on to provide options. That is all part of our massive capital investment, including the building schools for the future initiative, but I will not stray down that path, Mr. Cook, or away from the point on clause stand part.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned adult learners, so I will mention to him again the train to gain proposals targeted on learners in the work force. They mean free training for adults at work up to a full level 2 qualification and include free basic skills training in the workplace for literacy, numeracy and language qualifications. So, employers can look to their employees getting a first full level 2 qualification, which would make a huge difference to those employers in competitiveness, productivity and profitability, and to the individual learner, who would become more employable, get higher wages and, indeed, go on to learning as well. In two regions of the country, we are rolling out level 3 pilots as the next stage up—the vocational equivalent of 3 GCSEs.

With particular regard to Londoners, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is right to raise the question of their skills needs and the challenge of the London Olympics. We are investing significant amounts to ensure that we can train not just the London work force, although they will be major beneficiaries, but those outside London, where the Olympics will drive up investment in skills and training so that we can deliver not just in construction, hospitality and tourism, but in all the other skills needed.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I am heartened by my hon. Friend’s passion for skilling up the Olympics. Now that London has the 2011 skills Olympics, does he agree that there is no excuse not to have Hackney and other London boroughs lifted out of high unemployment and aligned with the more natural employment levels in the rest of the country?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: by establishing new structures across and within London, the Olympic boroughs can work together with the Learning and Skills Council, the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that all agencies co-operate to deliver for people out of work—and, indeed, people in work. We want to make the opportunities of new jobs and employment real so that they come through for Londoners.

Lastly, on adult learning, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised the question of learning for leisure or personal development. He will be glad to know that we have ring-fenced some £210 million for personal community development learning, which the LSC spends across the country on such courses. We wish to see learning promoted for its own sake, or for the love of learning, and that is not a ceiling figure, but a floor.

I want the LSC to work with local authorities, health authorities and others, each bringing their local budgets to the table and saying, “What can we do to assess the need in our communities? Who is and is not taking part in these courses? Which areas are covered and which are not, or is there duplication?” This is patchy and difficult, but that is an area where I want to see a lot more happening, and—importantly, returning to clause stand part—the new inspectorate will play a key role in ensuring that we raise standards of delivery and keep raising them.

I have a few more points to make. It is true to say that a wide range of views were expressed in the consultation. A particular view was mentioned, but many respondents were prepared to support the proposed move to a single inspectorate if safeguards could be put in place to ensure that the best of the adult learning inspectorate’s work—in particular, the strong links with employers—was retained.

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Sir Andrew Foster’s report, which particularly suggested that the adult learning inspectorate should be part of an integrated, single inspectorate, and that that corporate knowledge and experience should be celebrated and embedded in the new organisation. That is why we are ensuring that there is a duty on the board of the new Ofsted to have regard to the views of users such as employers—a vital part of ensuring that the inspectorate does the job required.

The new inspectorate will need to make full use of the expertise of the ALI inspectors, who will form the bulk of the relevant post-16 inspection work force at Ofsted as they do at ALI. Different sectors will continue to have different inspection frameworks based on their specific needs.

I hope that I have dealt with the generality of the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that adult learning is, as ever, robustly supported and funded by the Government, as well as whether the inspection arrangements within these new arrangements will deliver the high quality that he and I both want.

Clause 121

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment No. 564, in clause 121, page 86, line 16, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

‘(e) (whether or not within paragraph (d)) functions conferred on or exercisable by the authority under the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 (c. 18) or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) and functions continuing to be exercisable by the authority under the Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36), and

(f) such other functions of the authority as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 565 to 569.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

These are rather complex amendments, but the intention is relatively straightforward. Clause 121 sets out the local authority functions that fall within the remit of the chief inspector. Amendment No. 564 adds to the chief inspector’s remit local authority social services functions that relate to adults only. The amendments then make consequential drafting changes. These functions particularly include services to adults affected by adoption or special guardianship, whether as natural or adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents or prospective or actual special guardians. An example is adoption support services for adults and special guardianship support services.

Amendment No. 566 has the effect that the chief inspector will inspect any related activity where the local authority has used the economic or social well-being powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Amendment No. 567 makes a consequential drafting change to the definition of related activities in clause 128. The definition applies to the whole of chapter 4, including the annual review under clause 124.

Amendments Nos. 568 and 569 make consequential amendments to section 148 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to exclude functions that are within the remit of the chief inspector from being within the remit of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The affect of the amendments is that the chief inspector will, for example, be able to look at a local authority’s adoption services in the round, thus avoiding an artificial division of responsibilities between the chief inspector and CSCI.

Clause 125

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 533, in clause 125, page 88, line 6, leave out ‘reasonable'. Clause 125 relates to the powers of the inspector to enter premises, and our amendment would leave out the word “reasonable”. That reflects the fact that we feel in the case of local authority inspections that there is no need for the inspector to enter premises at a “reasonable time”. As they are a branch of government we do not need to fear interfering with the private rights of such bodies, although we might wish to require a “reasonable time” in other cases. If the inspector wishes to ensure that the papers of a public body are in order, he should be permitted to arrive at any time of the day or night. This clause already explicitly prevents domestic premises from being searched. We also do not believe that the chief inspector would wish to inspect a local authority at an unreasonable time, unless he had a serious reason. We see no reason why the discretion of the chief inspector should be fettered in this case by the insertion of the word “reasonable”.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I do not think that any of us seriously believes that the chief inspector would act in anything but a reasonable way in exercising these powers. It could be argued that whether or not the Bill contains the word “reasonable”, the chief inspector will in any case have to act reasonably, in accordance with the general principles of administrative law. However, including this in the legislation sends an important signal as much to those inspected as to the chief inspector. In that respect, the Bill follows the approach taken in the current statutory provisions for the inspection of local authorities by Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which both require the powers to be exercised at reasonable times.

I understand the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I am happy to go away and think about them. However, I do not think that the change he seeks would help the chief inspector or those he inspects to act as we would want them to. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am reassured by the fact that the Under-Secretary said he will go away and think about the issue. It is important for an inspector who wishes to do so to be able to get to papers before an employee of an authority has a chance to remove or destroy them. We accept that those will be exceptional circumstances. Given the Under-Secretary’s assurance that he will take another quick look at this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 128

Clause 137

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment No. 463, in clause 137, page 93, line 25, leave out from ‘under' to ‘or' and insert ‘any enactment,'.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 464, 465, 485 and 500.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The chief inspector already has qualified privilege from the law of defamation in making some reports. A number of other inspectorates also enjoy that same protection. Subsections (1) and (2) extend that protection to all reports that the chief inspector makes. Through the amendments, the Government wish to provide that the protection applies to any report made by the chief inspector, under any enactment, whether it is made under existing legislation, under provisions in this Bill or through any future inspection powers placed upon him or her.

Amendments Nos. 463 to 465 seek to achieve that by replacing the “fill in the gaps” approach of the clause as drafted. Amendments Nos. 485 and 500 make consequential amendments to remove specific provision to that end in the Education Act 2005 in relation to school inspections, which will no longer be needed. Those two amendments also repeal the provision that enables Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools to publish his reports by electronic means, which is unnecessary to provide for expressly. He has power to publish in

“such manner he considers appropriate”,

which should cover publishing on a website.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the function of inspection is, above all, to report with complete independence—to tell it as the chief inspector sees it. It would not be right for the chief inspector to be afraid of making any report and pull his punches, fearing a future defamation claim. That is why we want to make it clear that the protection applies to all reports made, and commend the amendments to the Committee.

Clause 140

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I beg to move amendment No. 466, in clause 140, page 94, line 34, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Chief Inspector may make a scheme under subsection (2B) that is to have effect at a time when no regulations are in force under subsection (1).

(2B) A scheme under this subsection (“a scheme”) may provide for a local authority in England to be required to pay to the Chief Inspector an annual fee in respect of the discharge by the authority of any of their relevant functions specified in the scheme.

(2C) The amount of the fee payable by virtue of a scheme is to be such as may be specified in, or calculated or determined under, the scheme.

(2D) A scheme may include provision—

(a) for different fees to be paid in different cases or classes of case;

(b) for the amount of a fee to be determined by the Chief Inspector in accordance with specified factors;

(c) for the time by which a fee must be paid;

(d) for varying or revoking a previous scheme.

(2E) Before making a scheme the Chief Inspector must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.

(2F) The Chief Inspector must arrange for a scheme to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.

(2G) A local authority in England must provide the Chief Inspector with such information as he requires for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee payable by the authority by virtue of a scheme.'.

Clause 140 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations requiring a local authority in England to pay a fee to the chief inspector in respect of its adoption and fostering services. The clause re-enacts in the Bill a provision in section 51 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It aims to place local authority fostering and adoption services on the same footing as independent providers of those services. Independent providers are registered and regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and will in future be registered and regulated by the chief inspector. For that purpose they pay an annual fee to CSCI, and in future they will pay it to the inspector.

The amendment would enable the chief inspector to exercise the power to set fees instead of the Secretary of State. The clause will allow the chief inspector to create a scheme setting the fee level after consultation and where no regulations made by the Secretary of State are in force. It will place the fee-setting regime for the local authority and independent providers on the same footing.

The Bill already provides for the chief inspector to exercise the power to set fees for independent providers of adoption and fostering services. It mirrors the provision in relation to CSCI in section 113A of the Care Standards Act 2000, although that section is not in force in relation to CSCI, which will transfer to the chief inspector with the rest of those regulatory powers in relation to social care settings for children by virtue of clause 108.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

As the Under-Secretary explained, amendment No. 466 would give the chief inspector the power to set his own fees; under the Bill, the Secretary of State has to set the charging regime by regulation. I feel slightly uncomfortable about the whole approach behind the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said in an earlier debate, it gives no incentive to keep costs down.

All kinds of expensive costs—hotel visits and so on—could be run up. I thought that the practice was that the Department monitored the level of fees to ensure that there was no conflict of interest, with the bodies levying the fees benefiting from them in the spending that they incur in fulfilling their statutory duties. Will the Under-Secretary explain why the chief inspector, and no longer the Secretary of State, will oversee those fees?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

We wish to allow the flexibility that I described. The chief inspector will not be able to make a scheme without consultation. I might also add that the role of the new board is to ensure that the chief inspector conducts his business with due efficiency; there is a mechanism to hold the chief inspector accountable for the performance of his duties. Those twin safeguards—the necessity of consultation and the chief inspector’s accountability for the efficient conduct of his office—provide the necessary safeguards that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Schedule 14

‘Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14)

‘Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38)

Schedule 15

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Schedule 15 allows the Secretary of State to make provision for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the new office and allows for the continuity of exercise of the current functions of the merged inspectorates. The Government have given us a policy document on this which states that the Secretary of State, under paragraph 7, will be able to establish a shadow Ofsted following Royal Assent to ensure that it is functioning on 1 April 2007 when the new organisation comes into being. When does the Minister plan to advertise the positions for the office and what powers and duties does he intend to give the new office prior to the appointed day?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I am grateful for that question. Rather than answer it now and take up the Committee’s time, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am very happy with that reply.

New Clause 32

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

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

If foundation schools are to mean anything, they must be more independent than community schools. I therefore believe that it would be useful to their ethos if they were subject to the same regulations as apply to independent schools. They should not be subject to any direction from the Secretary of State as to the nature, scope or frequency of such inspections. Those inspections can be costly. For a smaller school it might be £6,000, and for a larger school it might be £20,000 or more.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The new clause would introduce different inspection regimes and standards for different categories of school within the local authority maintained sector. That would be inappropriate and potentially damaging to standards and to public confidence in our school system. We have always been clear that trust schools, in common with all publicly funded schools, including academies and local authority maintained schools, should be subject to the same Ofsted inspection regime and held accountable in that way for delivering high-quality education to their pupils.

It cannot benefit anybody if different regimes and different requirements apply within the maintained sector. We intend, of course, that the reforms in this Bill, including the possibility for schools to acquire trust status, will continue to drive up standards. We are aiming for greater choice and diversity within the system with greater freedom for schools to work with external partners and so on, but a strong and unified inspection regime is crucial for this. In view of our concerns about the impact of the new clause, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 42

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

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

New clause 42 would result in inspections being at eight-year intervals, unless there were special reasons for them to be otherwise. I believe that Ofsted should work more closely with schools on the necessity and timing of inspections. I do not believe that schools that are doing well need to be inspected more than once every eight years. I may be wrong, but I think that that used to be the pattern. Once every six is currently the norm, but it wastes a lot of time and money for good schools that are performing well. Could the Minister explain why it is necessary for schools to be inspected more frequently than once every eight years, unless there are special reasons?

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

An eight-year cycle for school inspections would go in the opposite direction to the one that we wish to take. We are moving from a six-year cycle to a three-year cycle, with more frequent inspections for schools that cause concern. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point—how to handle the burden of inspections.

The change, which follows extensive consultation by Ofsted, is part of a wider package of measures, including shorter inspection visits conducted with minimal notice. The aim is to reduce the burden of inspection yet increase its impact with a view to improvement.

The three-year cycle, which has been in place since last September, ensures that inspectors have regular contact with schools. That allows problems to be spotted earlier and rectified sooner, with recommendations and their implementation being tested and good practice being shared; and it gives parents, prospective parents and the community more up-to-date information about a school’s performance.

To inspect every eight years would greatly increase the risk of schools deteriorating or merely coasting without showing any evidence of continuous improvement. It could often result in a school never being inspected during a child’s time there, and the parents would never receive an independent report on the school’s performance. That would be unacceptable.

Underlying concern about the burden of inspection can be resolved through other means, as I have illustrated, rather than proceeding as suggested in the new clause.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I hear what the Minister says. The truth is that inspections used to be huge events in the lives of schools. An inspection by Her Majesty’s inspector was almost like the Queen turning up. It was a massive event. The trouble is that inspections have become more frequent, although I agree that they are less demanding, and a sense of complacency can creep into the system. I agree that because inspections are much more frequent they are less demanding; and there is more self-assessment, although there have been some worrying instances of self-assessment not being effective. I hear what the Minister says. We have had a short debate and we have aired the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 50

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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

We had a longish debate earlier about the changes in inspection that will result in adult learning being dealt with by Ofsted. The Minister said that that was in line with the Foster recommendations, and that the simplicity and clarity it would bring should lead to improvements.

The new clause would establish an adult learning director within Ofsted. The Minister said that much of the expertise and skills of the adult learning inspectorate would be incorporated into Ofsted in the form of the staff who previously worked for the ALI. The icing on the cake of appointing an adult learning director, in my judgment, would be that it gave leadership and focus, and once again it would send the important message to those who have doubts about the change that the Government take their concerns seriously.

I was disappointed earlier, but I hope that on this occasion the Minister will hear my argument and respond by accepting this measured and helpful new clause.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. I spoke at length in response to new clause 57 about why we do not want to create a federation of inspectorates within the new Ofsted, so I shall not repeat those arguments. New clause 50 would create a separate adult learning directorate within new Ofsted, and the same arguments apply.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wish to put on record the requirement to safeguard the needs of adult learners and employers within the new system. That is the reason for the duty on the new non-executive board to have regard to the views of users, one of whom is the employer. During the consultation, we decided to expand Ofsted’s remit to include inspection for all learners, but it is important that the relationships that the adult learning inspectorate had already created, its credibility with employers and its best practices should not be lost. The hon. Gentleman is right—I described earlier how that would be safeguarded. We must get the transfer of the inspection remit right, and I believe that we have done that on this occasion.

I have one other thought about the proposal. Would not having a head of schools and a head of adult learning place a dividing line between the academic and the vocational? The hon. Gentleman and I have debated in the past the importance of not creating such divides. We want pathways between the vocational and the academic, so his idea does not stand up to scrutiny. There are significant benefits to a single inspectorate that is able to understand and recognise that employers and businesses need high-quality academic and vocational learning. Consequently, the new Ofsted inspectorate will be able to speak for both.

We do not believe that we need to include a report by the adult learning director as a statutory responsibility in the Bill. Clause 107 does not list specific items, and we have had this sort of debate before. The hon. Member for Brent, East made that point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the chief inspector’s annual report will cover the full breadth of his remit. We have debated that.

Therefore, on the basis of the structural arguments that I have given, on the basis of an integrated inspection system that covers academic and vocational education for the benefit of employers and businesses, and on the basis of the board’s responsibility to take a user approach with employers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Under-Secretary made a convincing case on the structure and on lines of accountability, but I am not sure that his case on the perceptions of employers and others is as convincing. I cited the Institute of Directors earlier, but perhaps it is worth mentioning it again. The IOD argued that the change in the adult learning inspection was unconvincing. It stated:

“The operational benefits were unconvincing and the financial savings underwhelming.”

On perception, it stated that the new merged service will probably be seen as an inspectorate for education, not work-based or adult learning.

The perceptions of employers are critical for maintaining and growing employer engagement. The new clause, which would send out a powerful signal as well as add a level of co-ordination above and beyond what the Under-Secretary described, is of some importance, not because I think that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue or because I do not think that some of what he said is persuasive, but because I want to send out a loud and clear signal. Therefore, I am inclined to press the matter to a vote. We should not let Ministers off the hook, even when we come to the tail end of a Committee. Therefore, I invite Members from both sides of the Committee to join me in supporting the new clause.

Clause 145

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 534, in clause 145, page 96, line 27, at end insert—

‘(1A) Where the Chief Inspector receives 25 or more qualifying complaints in relation to a relevant school, he shall carry out an inspection under section 8.'.

Clause 145 gives Ofsted a new power to investigate parental complaints when the parents have exhausted the local complaints procedure. The action that Ofsted can take will be dependent on the circumstances; it may involve a meeting with parents, bringing forward the inspection of a school or other body, or using the information received to inform the next routine inspection of the school.

At present, Ofsted has no formal role in investigating parental complaints and although a small number do complain, Ofsted has no power to intervene other than its power to order an inspection. The objective of clause 145 is therefore to establish Ofsted as an accessible route for parents to take when local complaints procedures have been dealt with. I am sure the Minister will agree with that summary of the clause.

The amendment would ensure that the chief inspector used his power to inspect under the clause when large numbers of parents complained about a school. When 25 qualifying complaints are received in respect of a relevant school——

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.