Education and Skills Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2008.

Clause 70

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 70, page 40, line 14, after ‘their’, insert ‘aspirations and’.

It is nice to be in the final run, on the last lap of our marathon, which has been enjoyable and, we hope, valuable. The amendment that I tabled with my hon. Friends deals with the duty of the Learning and Skills Council to provide facilities for training adults at only basic levels. The explanatory notes on clause 70 state:

“New section 4A places a new duty on the LSC to make proper (rather than reasonable) provision for facilities to enable adults who lack particular vocational skills to obtain relevant qualifications. The qualifications will typically be those at relatively low levels of learning, which are designed to equip people with basic and intermediate skills for work and everyday living.”

Our concern is that the Government are implicitly encouraging the LSC to provide facilities for training at a too basic level, which is not in line with the findings of the Leitch review, on which we touched earlier in our considerations. The review explicitly spoke of the importance of upskilling and reskilling the work force to deliver what it called “world-class skills” because if we are to meet the skills challenge we need to deal with the demographic imperative. Even if we are highly successful with very young people, we need to upskill the existing workforce to meet the demands of an increasingly competitive world economy.

According to the Leitch review, we need

“a step change in skills investment if we are to meet those economic challenges.”

The review estimates that there will be 3 million fewer low-skilled jobs by 2020, and a demand for another 5 million highly skilled workers. We cannot rely only on improving on the skills of young people to meet this challenge. Demographic change means that more than 70 per cent. of the 2020 workforce will be over the age of 16. Leitch concludes:

“There is a pressing need to raise the rates of skill improvements among adults. The UK cannot reach a world class ambition by 2020 without this.”

We have a mountain to climb if we are to equip people with the skills they need to prosper. More than a third of British adults do not have basic school-leaving qualifications—double the proportion in Germany and Canada. One in six do not have the literacy levels expected of an 11-year-old, and half do not have that level of functional numeracy. Just 28 per cent. of Britons are qualified to apprentice-skilled craft and technician level, as opposed to 51 per cent. in France and 65 per cent. in Germany.

There is evidence, however, that people do not have sufficient access to opportunities to raise their skills level. British workers spend less time in job-related training than workers in key competitor countries. Consequently, many workers below management level have relatively poor skill levels and little prospect of advancement. Participation in education and training can help to enhance prospects for employment and career advancement, and can also lead to wider benefits for the community and the individual concerned. Research suggests that participation in learning can have benefits for health, help to reduce crime and lead to greater social cohesion.

There is an entitlement to free tuition for any adult who has not achieved a full level 2 qualification. As I suggested to the Minister in departmental questions last week, the evidence suggests that there may be a declining rate of participation for those who are not already trained to level 2 standards. We tabled the amendment, because we are anxious that the offer to the people concerned should be appropriate to meet the skills targets outlined by Lord Leitch. There would be a real risk that we would not do so if we set the bar too low.

It is essential that we raise Britain’s intermediate and higher-level skills. As the Minister will tell us, it is a prerequisite to get people on the ladder in the first place so that they can subsequently climb to the top of it. However, I feel that there is a risk in the Bill as drafted that we will set the standards below where they should be, and that the Learning and Skills Council may set a common denominator that is insufficiently demanding to meet the Leitch challenge.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Order. I say this to help the hon. Gentleman. We have 30 or 40 pages of amendments to get through in one day. This amendment is very narrow, as it deals with the question of whether the training provided by the council should meet someone’s aspirations as well as their requirements. On one level, it is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman how he uses his time, but if we have a very detailed debate on each of the first 20 amendments, we will have no debate on the remaining 50 or so.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let me assure you, Mr. Bayley, that that fear will not be realised. On looking at the amendments on the selection list, I passed a note to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. In respect of amendment No. 52, I wrote “longish”, referring to my speech, but in respect of subsequent amendments, I wrote “v. short”.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied, he may make progress.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I assure you, Mr. Bayley, that we will make rapid progress following this extensive peroration. I think it important that we fill the Bill with aspiration. As you suggested in your reference to the amendment, Mr. Bayley, that is precisely the term that we have used. If we set individual and national aspirations at insufficiently demanding levels, we will not only short-change those individuals but we will not face up to the realities identified in Leitch regarding the need to raise skills levels to maintain economic competitiveness. If we are to upskill and reskill to meet the skills challenges outlined by Leitch, adults will need access to education and training at various stages of their working lives and at various levels. We need a mechanism to ensure that the resources are there to provide support, when required, through a lifetime of learning. It is in that aspirational spirit that I have tabled the amendment.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. It is because we want to help adult learners meet their aspirations and aid the least skilled in achieving their potential that we are introducing, for the first time, the right to free training towards Skills for Life. That training would cover a person’s first full level 2—GCSE level—qualifications and, for those aged between 19 and 25, their first level 3—A-level standard—qualification. All the stakeholders I have met, from college principals to organisations representing adult learners, providers and employers, have indicated their support for the new duties on the Learning and Skills Council in clause 70. College principals indicated that support in the Committee’s oral evidence sessions.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right to point to the Leitch review of skills, which is the backdrop to the provisions. Our stretching ambition is to have world-class skills by 2020, and that means that we need to go further in creating a system that responds to learners’ individual requirements to improve aspirations and increase demand for learning. To pick up on the language used in the Committee, clause 70 does much to “galvanise”—or as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings prefers to say, “catalyse”—the system so that it can respond to individual learner needs and aspirations. Ensuring that people have the opportunity to obtain a wide range of skills at basic and intermediate levels is the most effective way both to improve the life chances of those with fewer skills and to support social justice.

They key change in clause 70 is that, for the first time, we have placed a new duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure the provision of “proper”, rather than “reasonable”, facilities for specified adult qualifications. To fulfil that duty, the Learning and Skills Council must secure the provision of facilities for education and training which are of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the reasonable needs of individuals and be suitable to their requirements. In practice, the new duty on the LSC means that adults have a right to expect free and appropriate provision for specified Skills for Life qualifications. In future, learners can expect a wide variety of courses on offer to suit their requirements: those courses should be made available within a reasonable time period and should be free.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Minister for welcoming the spirit of the amendment. He will know that work-based training has declined over the past 20 years. What element of work-based training does he anticipate will form part of the range of products offered as a result of the Bill, and how does he explain that decline?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The hon. Gentleman and I have had disagreements, ever since I took up my post, on the numbers behind work-based training, and I have continually tried to reassure him. I am beginning to think that he is the only person left in the country who believes that work-based training has declined. It has not. It continues to be something of which we can be proud, and the Government’s aspirations are to take work-based training further.

When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, he must concentrate his attention, particularly in relation to apprenticeships, on the number of young people who start work-based training and the number who complete it. He will see that on both accounts the figures have gone up and are moving in the right direction. If he concentrates on the number of young people as a snapshot, or as an average of young people in learning, there appears to be a decline. He has written to me in the past and told me not to do that in relation to the figures when his Administration were in power—that is where we have got the figure of 75,000 from. We want young people coming on, and coming off, work-based training—not staying on it and failing to complete it. If completions go up, the average number in learning at any one time appears to be lower—it is about starts and completions. That is the statistical difference. The hon. Gentleman might be using statistics to meet his argument, but he has also challenged me on statistics, when I have used them in that way. Work-based learning is not in decline, but going in the right direction.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is always generous in accepting interventions. I do not want to prolong this too much. First, perhaps we can look at figures on work-based training later in the day and satisfy ourselves as to who is right.

Secondly—I raised this issue in a ministerial question last week, but I have not yet received an answer—what about the Learning and Skills Council data, which suggest that the number of adults without a level 2 qualification who are now participating is less than it previously was.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Over the comprehensive spending review period, the Department will spend £1.5 billion per annum on learning below level 2, to get people up to level 2, precisely because that is the direction of travel and we want to see people moving in the right direction. That is what the clause is about.

Learner choice is paramount, so the Bill requires the Learning and Skills Council both to increase opportunities for learners to exercise choice and to encourage a wider range of education and training opportunities. That includes the provision of more part-time courses and ensuring a closer fit with the local, regional and national job market. Effective operation of our information, advice and guidance services under the guise of the adult advancement and careers service, too, will support learners, helping them to identify the right courses for them up front and, if necessary, to find a range of suitable alternatives to meet their needs and aspirations. Those services will proactively market the opportunities open to people, and ensure that they have information about courses and financial support. We envisage that the advancement service will work with the LSC to address any gaps in provision. From what I have said so far, the Committee will see that I support the intention of the amendment, but believe that the provisions in clause 20 go a long way towards achieving what the amendment desires.

The inclusion of the word, “aspirations”, is inappropriate on two levels. First, on a practical level, the LSC is necessarily a high-level funding body, which must make strategic decisions on the funding of facilities and training across the country while acting to increase opportunities for learners to exercise choice. We might reasonably expect it to reach a view on whether facilities are suitable to the requirements of persons falling within subsection (3) of new section 4A. However, the LSC is not the body that will deal day to day with individuals and assess their needs according to their future goals. In other words, the LSC is not in a position to meet something as subjective as a learner’s aspiration. That would require it to engage at too deep a level with every individual in the bracket, because learners’ aspirations are highly subjective.

We consider that nextstep, learndirect and the future adult advancement and careers service are best placed to engage directly with learners to define their aspirations and access courses best suited to them. The legislation must be seen as an essential building block in the wider context of delivering commitments set out in the “World-class Skills” reforms, which, over the course of the next few years, will ensure that all adults have access to the learning opportunities and wider support that they need to achieve those skills, find work and establish careers in line with their aspirations.

Linked to that point is the fact that aspirations are subjective. The clause uses the word, “requirements”, which is much more easily defined in law through assessment of needs and can be costed. Aspirations are potentially unlimited and difficult to determine. The amendment would put the LSC in the position of being required to make provision to satisfy ambiguous aims. The clauses as drafted are carefully balanced to ensure that the duties of the Learning and Skills Council enable it to operate in practice, while enabling learners’ needs to be met. That is why it uses the word, “requirements”.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that part of the intention of the clause is to signal to the system that adult skills are as important as improving the skill levels of young people. We have had much discussion about the skills needs and participation of young people, but we should remember that, if we are to meet that Leitch ambition, two thirds of the 2020 work force are already in work and are adults. Indeed, it is at that cohort of people—and there are many of them—who have jobs that will stop being part of the British economy in this century, who never got an O-level standard qualification, and who do not have the appropriate literacy and numeracy levels, at which the provisions in clause 17 are aimed. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This has been a useful opportunity to speak about skills and their significance, and how the Bill affects the ambitions that we share for raising skills levels. One might argue that learning detached from aspirational intent is an impoverished affair. However, the Minister makes a plausible argument that the amendment would make the practical job of constructing learning very difficult, because aspirations are as various as the individuals in the system.

We hope, however, that the Government will be absolutely committed to ensuring that the learning put in place as a result of the Bill is progressive and aspires to allow people to achieve their potential. That is the spirit of the amendment, but, given what the Minister has said and his shared determination to bring about that aim, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have had a wide debate on the amendment, and I should tell the Committee that I am minded not to have a stand part debate when we reach that stage.

We now come to amendment No. 115. Seeing the text of the amendment, I am sure that I should call Mr. Gibb.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Yes, I am moving the amendment, Mr. Bayley, although it could easily have been my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deeping.

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in clause 70, page 43, line 33, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purpose of paragraph (4) a level 1 literacy qualification must ensure that students can effortlessly decode any word using the principles of synthetic phonics.’.

In view of the time remaining for the Committee stage of the Bill, I will keep my remarks succinct. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce into the new definition of level 1 literacy that will be inserted into the Learning and Skills Act in new subsection (4A), the requirement that students must be able to

“effortlessly decode any word, using the principles of synthetic phonics.”

I wanted to make the point that in Britain and America, but particularly in Britain, we have a long tale of underachievement. That is a defining characteristic of the British education system in comparison with other OECD countries. According to the National Audit Office, 23 per cent. of adults cannot read the dosage on an aspirin bottle. The same figure applies in the United States. That is one of the highest levels of illiteracy in the OECD. Britain and the United States have one thing in common: since the 1950s, they have both gone down the route of using “look and say” as a method of teaching children to read.

The idea behind that method is that children will be able to sight read instantly, in the way that adults can when they read words. Bright or average children can pick up decoding techniques using that method. However, less able children do not grasp it. That bottom 25 per cent. of children have suffered for 50 years in this country and the United States from the “look and say” method of teaching children to read. That is an appalling tragedy, yet many people in the education establishment still advocate that method.

In the Clackmannanshire study, which was conducted over seven years, a synthetic phonics method was used to teach children the 44 sounds of the alphabet and how to blend them together into words within the first 16 weeks of school. It was so successful that, after seven years, those children had a reading age of fourteen and a half at the age of 11. That is three and a half years above what was expected of their age group, and above the level that they would have attained, had they stuck to the previous system. The National Reading Panel in the United States is a multi-million dollar research project, and it shows unequivocally that synthetic phonics is how children should be taught to read.

When teachers say, “Yes we use phonics, but we need a range of measures as well”, it means that they are not using synthetic phonics. Synthetic phonics has to be an exclusive scheme. One cannot shift between schemes. The main characteristic is that children’s reading books should not include words that go beyond the child’s phonic knowledge. If children are taught to guess a word from the picture, the story or grammar context, they are not developing and honing their decoding skills. If they are not doing that, they are not learning to read.

People complain that it is “read and bark” and does not develop vocabulary, but we are only talking about the first few weeks of schooling. Of course, one can help children to understand words with comprehension too, but there must be a focus on teaching children how to decode the alphabet in the same way that a piano teacher teaches a child how to transfer notes from the written stave on to the keys of a piano and to practise their fingering.

I am delighted that the Government have commissioned the Rose review to implement the scheme. It is not a right-left issue—it is a right-wrong issue, and we have to work together to ensure that it is rolled out in all schools. It is the fundamental building block of education. I have seen many examples of schools around the country that have adopted synthetic phonics, which has transformed the life chances of children from very deprived backgrounds. We must ensure that synthetic phonics is used in every state primary school in this country, just as it is used in every independent primary school. That, more than any other single measure, will raise educational achievement in this country.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on succeeding in having his amendment selected and his hobby horse debated. He has had more luck than my hon. Friends had in the Chamber on Tuesday when we were tried to have our amendment on Europe selected. While we were debating the Education and Skills Bill in Committee, we missed all the fun that was going on in the Chamber.

I, too, visit many primary schools, just like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I always ask teachers how they teach children to read, and there is real enthusiasm for, and commitment to, synthetic phonics as a valuable tool. Indeed, I sat in on a lesson, and by the end, I was able to pronounce several words quite differently from how I would normally do. I cannot remember whether it was Lord Lamont or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who said that he did not want to be a “one-club” Chancellor, with only one club in his bag: in other words, using interest rates as the only policy to bear down on inflation.

There are many ways of teaching children to read. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to “look and say”. If there is just one method in the Bill, there is a danger that it will be promoted over and above all the others. Synthetic phonics undoubtedly works for all children, which is what the hon. Gentleman argued, but “look and say” and other methods are necessary to bring on other children who may get bored quite quickly with synthetic phonics.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This is an important point. There are no children for whom “look and say” is more appropriate. What teachers tell me is that some children simply do not get phonics. They are the least able children, and so the least likely to get on with “look and say”. If children cannot get the synthetic phonics and the phonics approach, they have to get it, which means taking them aside and giving them extra lessons to ensure that they can decode words using phonics.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I do not think we disagree. I am just saying that there is more than one way of teaching children to read.

The Bill is primarily concerned with 16 and 17-year-olds, but the clause that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton seeks to amend sets a literacy target for those aged 19 and over. By the time someone is 19 and over, the ability to pronounce or decode a word in a phonics style is not necessarily an adult skill to which we would aspire or wish to visit upon our fellow countrymen. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman genuinely desires the literal interpretation of his amendment: that everyone aged 19 and over should be able to decode phonics. I would have thought that success with phonics meant that children, by the age of seven or eight, would be able to read in what we would describe as the normal way and would have forgotten that phonics was the method by which they learned to read. To suggest that those aged 19 and over should be able to speak in a phonics style seems rather bizarre, so I will not support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

In special schools, where there are children with real barriers to learning, synthetic phonics is used, and it succeeds in teaching those children to read. It brings shame on our nation that 40,000 youngsters leave school each year unable to read, write and add up properly. The Minister for Schools and Learners puts his head in his hands, but the standard that those youngsters fail to achieve means that they cannot write to their bank to tell it they have moved.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We are talking about adult skills, and many of the people whom we are talking about in relation to the Bill were educated under a previous Government. I think that it would be worth while for the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, who seems to have forgotten that his lot have been in office for 10 years, so we are talking about many youngsters who have been educated under the Labour Government. It is not a party political issue to say, as a country, that our youngsters ought to be able to read and write. If we use synthetic phonics to teach children who face real barriers to learning, it is our duty to teach those who do not face such barriers. To have so many people leaving school unable to read, write and add up properly is wrong, and is an unacceptable scar on the nation. When one can read and write, one can of course educate oneself. In the great history of socialism, the Labour party had the Labour book club, and people educated themselves because they could read and write.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

They had to do so.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

They did not necessarily get the right answer. The truth is that the ability to read and write is such a huge engine for education and achievement that we need to do better as a country.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I have often wondered what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would sell if he were a salesman, and I think that the Committee has been provided with the answer. The new duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure provision for proper facilities for learners includes the basic literacy skill level—literacy at level 1—that was identified in the independent report by Sandy Leitch as essential to changing people’s lives and upskilling the work force.

The amendment would add an additional level of complexity to the learning aims of learners undertaking a level 1 literacy qualification, as it would ensure that students can effortlessly—I am having literacy problems, as I cannot pronounce that word—decode any word using the principles of synthetic phonics. I should emphasise that these are adult skills courses aimed at people over the age of 19, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton directed his remarks primarily at children’s education.

The relevant clauses are aimed, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners indicated, at people who were in education prior to 1989. Learning to decode words using the principles of synthetic phonics involves a particular approach to the teaching of reading. Synthetic phonics is a particular branch of phonics, and is by no means the only method of teaching reading. I believe that it should be up to institutions, working with teachers and partner organisations such as Lifelong Learning UK and the Quality Improvement Agency, to decide exactly which teaching methods are appropriate for use with individual adult learners.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I counsel the Minister to be cautious about the notes that have been prepared for him. The amendment is a probing amendment, and I accept that he is talking about adult skills. However, if we apply the principle to children, the law that was passed by his Government says that primary schools should use one exclusive method—synthetic phonics.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I acknowledge the progress made since the Rose review in relation to this subject. However, we should remember that the clause will affect adults from communities in which English is a second language, adults who have had a bad experience at school but are able to read and get the gist, and adults with special needs. A whole range of adults are in that cohort, and we therefore believe it is right to give institutions the choice and flexibility to apply the pedagogy that they believe is appropriate. Some, indeed, will use synthetic phonics where it is appropriate; others will not. I suspect that is why the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton focused on children.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Perhaps I can be helpful. Is this not really an issue about the different levels of competence of those adults? We know that literacy and numeracy, in their functional forms are very different from literacy and numeracy per se. People can be illiterate—literally unable to read or write a word—or they can be functionally illiterate. Perhaps the Minister could be helpful to the Committee, to my hon. Friend and to me by giving us a feel for how those groups break down. Roughly 40,000 young people leave school at 16 each year functionally illiterate and innumerate. That total includes many people who are wholly illiterate. The methodology will apply differently to different people. What is the breakdown, and how many adults lack those very basic skills?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The hon. Gentleman is right in relation to literacy and numeracy. If, like him, one is in church every Sunday morning, it is possible to learn a hymn by singing it every week for six weeks, and yet still have serious problems with basic literacy. In the same way, it is possible to buy a round of drinks in the pub and to give friends the appearance of knowing what change to expect from a £20 note, while lacking the numeracy skills to know the cost of that round of drinks. Adults adapt and adjust in many ways to the numeracy and literacy challenges they face.

As for the figures, he will know that our ambition is that 95 per cent. of working adults will have functional level 1 literacy and entry level 3 numeracy skills by 2020. I do not have the figures for those who are completely illiterate to hand, but if I obtain them, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It would help if the Minister provided the Committee with a breakdown of the levels of competence—the paucity of skills—among different groups of individuals. That would give us a better opportunity to make a judgment about the application of different approaches—methods—to helping those people. If he cannot do that now—I accept that it is a tall order—it would be helpful if he could commit to coming back to the Committee with the breakdown.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I think that the breakdown is in the Leitch review, which the hon. Gentleman has at his side. It goes into these issues in some depth. I am happy to come back him as to where those are contained within the report. The clause is directly aimed at meeting the 2020 ambition in Leitch.

We would question whether requiring students to be able to decode words—I do not like this word—effortlessly would set an unrealistic threshold for all adult learners gaining a level 1 literacy qualification. On the contrary, I would suggest that for these learners, even at the conclusion of their literacy course, reading is likely to require some effort. It also begs the question how we would assess someone if he had performed a task effortlessly. That is ambiguous and difficult to apply. For that reason, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The “toe by toe” reading scheme is used in prisons to teach children to read. That is a synthetic phonics programme. I do not agree that it is not a skill that all adults need, even at the age of 19. If you read the latest Michael Chabon book, for example, it is full of words I have never come across before. To say them to myself, I used the synthetic phonics approach of sounding them out. Whenever a person comes across a new word, it is possible to use that approach. It is a skill that people need. If someone was taught under the “look and say” method and had not encountered a word before, it would not be possible to ask someone else what it meant. It is a very important point, therefore. I was disappointed by the Minister’s notion that somehow the threshold is too high for some people. Again, that is the education of low expectations and low aspiration.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

To correct the record, I did not suggest that the threshold was too high. I was simply making the point that it cannot and should not be something that is directed by the Government and Whitehall. We cannot have it both ways. We are talking about adults and professionals, and many of those professionals gave evidence to the Committee. They must determine whether, at this level, phonics and the pedagogy that they wish to use is useful. There will be many who choose that option. There are others, however, who will rightly choose other options. The amendment would require them to go down one route. We should be more flexible than that.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

As I said, this is a probing amendment so we could have a debate on the deep-seated causes of illiteracy in this country which causes a problem to 19-year-olds in the workplace and older young adults in the workplace who do not have these skills. The Government, the Opposition and some members of the Liberal party are all saying that there is one method of teaching children to read in primary school and it is synthetic phonics. This is not because we know better but because the evidence is unequivocal. There is no question when you read the evidence that it is the method to teach children to read, and those that do not do it are not using their professional skills according to best practice. The Government agree with that and we agree with the Government.

The way dyslexic children are taught to read is with an intensive synthetic phonics programme. Even for children with special needs, therefore, it is also the right approach. I do not care which Government were in power because the approach was not driven by Ministers until recently when, in a welcome way, the Government intervened to require synthetic phonics to be taught. That was driven by the education establishment. The academics and the colleges of education have peddled a “look and say” approach under our Conservative Government, the previous Government to that and under this Government as well until the Rose review. “Look and say” reached its peak in the mid-1980s under Margaret Thatcher’s Government. I do not care, therefore, under which Government it occurred—it was wrong. I am delighted that we have now seen sense and that we are requiring primary schools to use the method that all the evidence in the United States, the UK and elsewhere says is the most effective method of teaching children to read. Indeed, it is now used in Australia as well.

We have had a brief but interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in clause 70, page 44, line 4, after ‘Education’ insert

‘, or the International General Certificate of Secondary Education,’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 118, in clause 70, page 44, line 10, at end insert

‘or the Cambridge Assessment Pre-U qualification.’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Having pleased my hon. Friend by not speaking on the previous amendment about my affection for “Janet and John” books and the “look and say” method of learning to read, I shall now please him and you, Mr. Bayley, by being very brief in speaking to these amendments.

They relate to part 3, which deals with adult skills. In particular, they would amend part 2 of proposed new schedule 1A that clause 70 would insert into the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which relates specific qualifications to the learning aims for persons aged 19 and over. The amendments would add to the list of qualifications the international general certificate of secondary education and the Cambridge Assessment pre-U qualification. We have debated both of them before, and do not need to do so again. The amendments speak for themselves and we look forward to the Minister’s equally pithy response.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

As has been said, we have already debated the IGCSE and pre-U qualifications at some length in relation to part 1, so I do not propose to go over the same ground, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not either.

Clause 70 is drafted so as to define the new duties on the Learning and Skills Council against generic and widely recognised descriptions of qualifications. As I have already said, for level 2 that is five good GCSEs or above, and for level 3 it is two A-levels. As they stand, the descriptions of the relevant level of attainment at levels 2 and 3 are appropriate and well understood by the Learning and Skills Council, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the further education sector. They are also easily understood by learners and employers. That is not an insignificant point when one of the aims of the clause is to signal the Government’s commitment to adult learning to the sector and to eligible learners.

Amendment No. 117 would insert IGCSEs in the description of level 2 qualifications in paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 1A. We have used GCSEs as a generic description and a reference point for level 2 qualifications because they provide a widely recognised standard of education. That, I am afraid, does not apply to the IGCSE, which is not so generally known.

As a descriptor for a level 2 qualification for adults, the IGCSE is wholly inappropriate. Paragraph 1(c) of new schedule 1A makes it clear that only vocational qualifications at level 2 will fall under the duties in the clause. We simply use GCSEs as a benchmark in our description of level 2 because they provide a generally recognised measure of the level of attainment.

Amendment No. 118 concerns the description of level 3 and would insert a reference to a specific qualification, designed by an individual awarding body, into primary legislation. Again, the addition would not be helpful, because the pre-U qualification is not widely recognised among learners. Nor would it be right to single out qualifications of particular organisations in that way at level 3. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendments are, almost by definition, probing amendments. We hear what the Minister says. We remain convinced that the qualifications that we have identified need to be considered carefully, because there is widespread support for them in the higher education community. There will come a point when the universities will want to accept them and will come to value them as at least equivalent to the existing qualifications that provide the entry route clarification, and their acceptance will become inevitable. However, this is not the time to vote on the matter, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 71

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in clause 71, page 44, leave out line 37.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 120, in clause 71, page 44, leave out line 40.

No. 121, in clause 71, page 44, leave out line 41.

No. 122, in clause 71, page 45, leave out line 1.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The clause allows for the sharing of information by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be included in the “information gateway”. It would allow information to be shared with devolved authorities. Put simply, our amendments would specifically prevent the disclosure of information relating to income tax and tax credits.

Again, earlier we spoke at some length about the sensitivity that is abroad about data and information sharing, not least because of some of the scandalous errors that have taken place over recent months. It would be unkind and unnecessary to speak at length about the Government’s embarrassment or to blame the Under-Secretary personally for the profound incompetence shown by the Government, although of course he accepts collective responsibility. With those few words, and not wanting to exaggerate that point, I await the Minister’s no doubt ready response.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Sandy Leitch, as has been said, correctly identified the need to improve the integration of employment and skills as an important policy agenda. That would serve the goal with which the Committee has been occupied over the past few weeks, of moving more people who are out of work into learning and then into long-term employment.

Clauses 71 to 75 will provide an all-important means for us to assess, in a joined-up way, whether we are delivering on that goal. The intention behind the clauses is simple: to enable data to be made available to researchers in Government and beyond, and in the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, so that that assessment can be made. The data will be used for two forms of analysis: first, to determine whether low-skilled individuals are moving into sustainable employment and then progressing in work, rather than falling back on to benefits; and, secondly, to explore the economic returns on the qualifications and skills that individuals achieve. Current legislation puts a duty of confidentiality on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the data that they handle. Unless the disclosure is lawful for other reasons, or the information is in the public domain, an express legal provision is required to enable data to be shared outside HMRC. That takes the form of information gateways, which the Bill creates.

All of us as constituency MPs have come across people who might be in employment for a month or two, but then fall out of employment simply because they do not have the skills to progress in and hold on to their jobs. The clause provides a means by which we can analyse those data to see whether our qualifications and the routes set out by Sandy Leitch are working, and whether we are getting the progression we want. We all share those aims. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

These are sensitive issues. People’s tax affairs are private matters, which one would expect to be handled with appropriate discretion—hence our amendments. We do not have time, nor would it be appropriate, to debate the tax credits system now, but we all know from our constituency casework that it is a nightmare. In the light of what has occurred in recent months, there is fear in every hearth and home in Britain that the Government are about to spread personal data far and wide.

Having said that, this is not the time to press the amendments. Our case has been made; the sensitivities that I have described will no doubt ring loudly in the ears of Ministers and, one hopes, these matters will be handled with greater discretion in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 72 stand part.

Clause 73 stand part.

Government amendments Nos. 201 to 205.

Government new clause 7—Benefit and training information.

Government new clause 8—Revenue and Customs information.

Government new clause 9—Use of information.

If no one wishes to speak, I will put the Question that clause 71 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say “Aye”.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

It is not for me to direct the Committee, but the Government Members may have misheard what I said. The Question is that clause 71 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say “Aye”. To the contrary, “No.” I think the Noes have it.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Clause 71? Aye.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

My understanding, having read the amendment paper, is the Government want to delete clause 71. May I proceed?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Yes, Mr. Bayley. Aye.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Mr. Bayley, can I move my amendment?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

No.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

We have just had a debate on clause 70.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Clause 71.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

For clarity, let me say to the Committee that we have just had a debate on amendments to clause 71, which the Committee decided to give leave to be withdrawn. I made it clear to the Committee that the next Question for debate was that clause 71 stand part of the Bill, and I read out a list of other measures to be debated at the same time, which are listed on the Chairman’s selection list. My understanding is that the Government wish to replace clause 71 with a new clause; therefore, unless I misunderstand their intention, when I put the Question that clause 71 stand part of the Bill, the Government Members would say “No.”

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. We voted on clause 71 stand part and, as far as I could tell, it was passed.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

My fear was that Government Members misunderstood on what clause I had put the Question, which is why I made it clear that we were dealing with clause 71. I shall put the Question again.

Clause 74

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have already had the opportunity to debate amendment No. 201. I therefore ask the Minister to move it formally—

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I would have liked to hear the Under-Secretary’s explanation of Government amendment No. 201 before the Committee moved on to a new clause.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I called the amendment, but no one rose to speak.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

If the Government have tabled an amendment or new clause, do they not have an obligation to explain its purpose to the Committee?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I have to say that that is what normally happens. However, I read out the group on the selection list that includes Government amendment No. 201. I paused for quite some time, but no Member on either side of the Committee rose to speak. We therefore proceeded to votes. The opportunity to debate the measures has now passed.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. My understanding of what has happened here is that clause 71 was voted on and was passed. You sensibly took the view that the Government Members had misunderstood what was happening, so you put the Question again. My point is that that was the Government’s opportunity to move their amendments, but they failed to do so because again, I believe, they misunderstood what was happening.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned that we have not fully debated this part of the Bill. Committee procedure when amendments are grouped is that we have a debate on the group, and amendments to later clauses are moved formally when we reach the relevant clause. The opportunity to debate the Government amendments to this clause has now passed. Of course, it is possible for hon. Members to debate the matter further on Report, but the opportunity to do so in Committee has passed.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

In this case, I do not agree with your ruling. I clearly heard you put the Question to the Committee, and clause 71 was passed. We all know what happened—the Under-Secretary of State misunderstood what was going on, so you sensibly allowed the matter to be reopened. I do not see why you allowed that, but did not allow the Government to properly explain their new clauses and amendments.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Mr. Gibb, I am trying to be fair to all members of the Committee. Normally when the Chairman puts a Question, he says, “As many as are of that opinion say ‘Aye’; to the contrary ‘No’” After the Chairman has heard the “Ayes” and “Noes”, if the outcome is clear to him, he says, “The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it,” or, “The Noes have it, the Noes have it.” On this occasion, for reasons we both understand, the outcome was not clear to me, because it appeared to me that some members of the Committee had misheard the Question I put. I therefore put it again.

I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the opportunity for the Committee to debate these amendments has gone, but I am constrained by the rules of procedure, which require me to deal formally with the Government amendments and new clauses when we reach them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I am sorry to drag the matter out, and I intend no discourtesy to you, but during the exchanges that you described, in which there was some confusion, the Minister clearly asked, from a sedentary position, “Can I move my amendment?”

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

He can move them, but he has to do so formally.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Before I take any further points of order, let me say that I understand hon. Members’ frustration, but if there is fault on the part of members of the Committee, it is on both sides, because when I called the group for debate, there was a pregnant pause; I waited, but no Member on either side of the Committee rose either to speak to amendments or to ask the Minister to comment on them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I had no intention of taking part in that debate. I wanted to hear a Minister explain why the Government had tabled the new clauses.

Further to my original point of order, the Question was put and Government Members voted “Aye”. It was only someone outside the Committee who said “No”, drawing attention to the fact that these matters were not properly ordered. I contend that that expression of “No” from outside the Committee was not in order, that clause 71 has therefore been passed, and that the best approach now would be to return to the matter on Report, where the Minister can explain why the new clauses are needed.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bayley.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Order. I must answer the points of order that Mr. Gibb has raised.

First, if Opposition Members want the Minister to speak in favour of his amendments but the Minister has decided not to do so, it is incumbent on them to challenge the Minister to explain. That is why I paused. No challenge was made.

Secondly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision was made that clause 71 should stand part of the Bill. If I had felt that that was the decision of the Committee, I would have made it clear by saying, “The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.” Because there was clearly confusion in the Committee, I waited until members of the Committee were clear on what clause I was putting the Question. When I was satisfied that all members of the Committee were clear, I took the vote.

On the final part of his point of order, the hon. Gentleman is correct: there is the opportunity to pursue these matters on Report. From what I have heard today, I am sure that that will happen. I am certain that Ministers are aware that they will need to make statements and give explanations. They might even want to discuss with Opposition Front Benchers how to structure the debate on Report.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I just want to remind the Committee that on 22 February I wrote to hon. Members explaining the nature of these technical amendments. Of course, I am happy to discuss them in detail on Report.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We will now move on to decision on the amendments. I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that the discussion that is necessary will take place on Report.

Clause 75

Clause 76

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We now come to part 4 of the Bill which presents a case study in how not to legislate. I think we have just had such a case study—when Ministers are not focused on what is happening in the Committee, it makes it very difficult for the Opposition to express a view when it is not clear precisely whether or not the Minister is in favour of a clause.

We come to another example of poor legislation: a series of proposals that is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and that has an accompanying impact assessment that is factually wrong; a consultation document that contains errors of materiality that go to the root of the proposals; and a consultation process that involved no genuine consultation prior to the proposals being formulated with the organisations directly affected by the measures. We had a consultation process affecting 1,300 schools that took place between 27 July 2007 and 19 October 2007—the majority of that period was during the school summer holidays—and the result of the consultation process was entirely ignored except for one tiny concession about delaying the transfer until Ofsted was more able to cope with the extra work.

We will come to each of these issues, and more, when we address the appropriate amendment; for now, I will confine my remarks to clause 76. The clause introduces an additional definition of an independent school to include part-time education. The proposal goes back to a Department for Education and Skills—as the Department was then—consultation in November 2006 on guidance regarding what constitutes full-time education in independent schools. The reason given by the Department for needing such a definition was that:

“patterns of schooling are changing, and there is a greater diversity of approach to education, with some parents opting for home education which includes part time tuition at tutorial colleges or schools.”

The consultation document went on to say:

“Parents must ensure that their child receives an education suitable to his/her age, needs and attitudes, either at school or otherwise. In cases where this is achieved by a mix of part time attendance at school and part time education at home, this must be agreed with the school, with both parents and schools having a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Both should be able to describe and evidence the part each plays in contributing to a broad and balanced curriculum meeting the needs of the individual child.”

It therefore appears that the initial reason for embarking on this consultation and revision to the definition of an independent school was to ensure that home educators were able to demonstrate that their children were receiving an adequate education. However, the consultation document goes on to say that the proposals

“will ensure that any settings providing all, or a major part, of children’s education will be registered, and required to meet the minimum regulatory standards.”

My first question for the Minister is, which of those two reasons is the prime reason for launching the policy revision?

The response to the November 2006 consultation document was overwhelming opposition—72 per cent. disagreed with the proposal that any setting that provided more than 20 hours of education a week should be treated as an independent school and thus subject to registration. According to the Government’s summary of responses,

“The majority of those opposed were home educators, who believed that it was the responsibility of parents to provide and educate their child rather than the responsibility of the state. They were concerned about what was meant by a ‘school’ in this context, and wanted clarification about whether the DfES was planning on changing the legal definition of a school.”

In the light of this overwhelming opposition the Government consulted in August last year on revised proposals which were meant to take on board the concerns of home educators. The revised consultation says:

“We have now had time to consider these points and have concluded that the best approach is to adjust the definition of an independent school so as to specify that an independent school is the main organiser of a programme of education for children of compulsory school age, unless provision is excluded through regulations.”

The consultation document goes on to say:

“We would propose that regulations exclude: schools maintained by a local authority; non-maintained special schools; temporary provision e.g. summer schools; any institutions providing less than 12.5 hours per week tuition (primary) and 15 hours (secondary) for individual children; further education colleges; hospital schools; home tutorial services organised by a local authority; education supervised or delivered by parents”

Those proposals, too, were overwhelmingly opposed by respondents: 79 per cent. disagreed with the main proposal that settings that are the main organisers of education for children of compulsory school age should be regulated, subject to the list of exceptions that I have read out, and 74 per cent. opposed the list of exceptions.

The main concern of Education Otherwise, as summarised in the Government’s summary of responses, was that

“the proposals would have an undesirable impact on home educating families, compromising their educational freedoms.”

The Home Education Advisory Service also disagreed with the proposal. The summary of responses reports:

“They believe that some of the highly individual arrangements that are made by home educating parents should not be subject to the same registration procedures as independent schools which have premises, teaching staff and a specific curriculum.”

Despite the opposition to the proposals from respondents to the consultation process, the Government have decided to proceed with the revised definition, as contained in the clause. They say:

“We will consult further on draft regulations in the coming months, but are committed to providing examples in relation to those institutions to be excluded from the requirement to register, eg: home education, including part time teaching in the home by tutors, home education through correspondence courses, and collaborative arrangements where home educators come together for part of the week to jointly educate groups of children; sports clubs, and language colleges, which offer specialist coaching in limited subjects; local authority organised home tuition; temporary provision; summer schools.”

In responding, will the Minister tell the Committee what is his estimate of the number of compulsory school age children who are currently home educated, whether that figure is rising or falling, and why? Clause 76(3)(a) states that regulations may

“provide that a specified institution or an institution of a specified description is not an independent educational institution by virtue of subsection (1)(b)”.

Will he say whether those regulations will include all the types of education listed in the Government’s summary of responses to the consultation process, including home education or groups of parents collaborating together on the education of their children?

In its response to the consultation, Education Otherwise said that its main concern with the proposal to broaden the definition was that many home education families could end up being affected. The Government’s policy statement on the clause, circulated by e-mail to members of the Committee on Tuesday says:

“It is not the intention of the proposals to remove parents’ right to educate their children at home. However, we believe that it is essential that institutions which are the main provider of a child’s education are subject to the regulation and inspection which the independent school legislative framework provides.”

That statement of policy is highly ambiguous, given the word “however”. An explicit and unequivocal assurance by the Minister on this point would go a long way towards assuring the tens of thousands of home educators that the underlying purpose of the clause is not to undermine the growing trend towards home education.

I am sure that the Minister will say that these proposals were never meant to affect home education, despite the initial consultation document of November 2006, which made explicit reference to home educators. I am sure that he will say that this measure is all about dealing with a small number of independent schools that are part time, but are none the less the main providers of a child’s education. My understanding is that the matter relates to four institutions. The Minister’s answer to my parliamentary question of 16 January said that there were four unregistered settings:

“The four unregistered settings are as follows: a small tuition group which provides a curriculum based on Christian principles for children aged 4 to 11 and operates for five hours a day for up to 20 children; a support centre for home educators”—

so there we are, some home educators—

“which provides academic lessons for 18 hours from Monday to Thursday and optional recreational based activities for three hours on Fridays; an establishment providing 16 and a half hours of education from Monday to Friday for three to six-year-olds as part of a home education programme where parents also provide five hours 15 minutes a week; a centre educating both pupils placed by local authorities and others. Pupils attend for a total of 20 hours from Monday to Friday.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1269-70W.]

Will the Minister let the Committee know the names of these four institutions and his assessment of the quality of provision in those four institutions? The more open and transparent the Minister can be, the better for the functioning of this Committee. In particular, will he confirm whether or not Tyndale Academy is one of the four schools?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is a pleasure to be able to make a contribution this morning and to have been able to move on to part 4 at such an early stage in the Committee’s proceedings.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton started with a series of allegations, which I could reject one by one, but for the sake of the efficiency of the Committee, it is probably better that I do that when we reach the appropriate amendments rather than in the context of clause 76, to which the allegations were not really specific.

Clause 76 introduces a new definition of independent educational institutions. The new definition includes independent schools which provide full-time education for pupils of compulsory school age. It also includes part-time institutions which are the main provider of a child’s education, as defined by the number of hours of operation per week over a period of weeks in one year.

I do not have the names of all four institutions to hand—in response to his last set of questions—but I can confirm that Tyndale Academy is one of the four and, from memory, Kids Company is another. I cannot remember off the top of my head what the other two are, but it may come to me in the course of my response.

Independent schools are already required to register and are inspected against the regulatory framework introduced in September 2003 following the Education Act 2002. Independent schools, incidentally, are defined in statute by section 463 of the Education Act 1996. It is worth noting, in relation to what I will go on to say regarding home educators, that an independent school has more than five pupils, unless they have one pupil who has special educational needs or who is in public care. A home is also not defined as an institution, which is part of the protection to home educators in the way the clause is drafted.

Incidentally, the other two of those four institutions are the Headstart Learning Centre and The Children’s Garden.

The framework that I have referred to, introduced in September 2003 under the 2002 Act, ensures that all children in these schools have suitable learning opportunities in a safe and secure learning environment. The requirement to register part-time institutions, which are not currently subject to any regulatory or monitoring framework, will ensure that these same safeguards are put in place for children in those settings. I am sure the Committee agrees on the importance of ensuring that every child who is being taught in a school, full time or part time, should be safe and secure in their learning environment.

The clause applies to institutions that make 12 and a half hours’ provision for primary age children and 15 hours for secondary age children for 28 weeks a year or more—that equates to more than half of a typical school week for more than half of a school year. These institutions are, in our opinion, providing the majority of a child’s education, so it is right that they should meet minimum standards. We strongly believe that, where parents delegate the education of their children to others, the state has a responsibility to ensure that children have appropriate learning opportunities and learn in a safe and secure environment. On the inclusion of part-time institutions, although they are limited in number at this stage, patterns of education are changing and we want to ensure that we have the regulation in place before they change further.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Before we resume consideration, I would like to remind everybody present in the strongest possible terms that civil servants and members of the public seated in the Public Gallery must remain silent while the Committee is sitting. If they do not remain silent, I shall have to direct that they be removed. I strongly deprecate the events of this morning, when I understand that voices were heard from the Public Gallery while I was collecting the voices on the question that clause 71 stand part of the Bill. Such misconduct by members of the public is disorderly.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I am grateful for that ruling, which relates to my point of order and which I anticipated to some degree. I would like to add, however—and I seek your guidance on this—that a member of this Committee was apparently engaged in dialogue with someone in the Public Gallery during that sitting, which I would guess is as reprehensible as a member of the Public Gallery intervening in our affairs.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

As I was sitting at this end of the room when the voice from the gallery was heard this morning, I did not personally hear it and neither did the Clerk, who was sitting at this Table. I understand, however, from two hon. Members—one from each side—that this event did happen, which is why I made my statement to the Committee. Had I heard it myself in the middle of the morning session, I would have made a similar statement then. I obviously cannot comment on what I have not heard, but the Committee will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

We should make progress now.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I trust that we are all refreshed and invigorated. By way of recap, Mr. Bayley, clause 76 introduces a new definition of independent educational institutions. The new definition includes independent schools providing full-time education for pupils of compulsory school age. It also includes part-time institutions that are the main provider of a child’s education, as defined by the number of hours of operation per week over a period of weeks in one year.

It might be helpful if I took this opportunity to respond to some of the points made when we opened the debate this morning, which were mainly about home education and comments made by home educators in response to our consultation. I will explain how current education law and proposed changes in the Bill affect home educators.

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 requires the parents of every child of compulsory school age to cause their child to receive—by regular attendance at school or otherwise—efficient, full-time education suitable to that child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs they may have. “Otherwise” in this context may be education at home or in an institution that is not registered as a school.

During 2007, we commissioned research to assess the number of children educated at home. The researchers estimated that around 20,000 were known to local authorities, but that there could be a further 20,000 or more who had not identified themselves to their local authorities. A home is not an institution, and our policy is clear. When parents deliver or supervise education that takes place in the home, they are not conducting an independent educational institution.

We clarified arrangements for monitoring home education in November 2007, publishing the document the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to, “Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities.” That underwent extensive consultation, generating over 900 responses, most of them from home educators who have a keen interest in legislation that could affect their freedoms. I am pleased to say that home educators broadly welcomed the guidelines. Only 4 per cent. of respondents to the consultation thought the guidelines unhelpful.

A small number of parents opt to educate otherwise than at school, using unregistered settings where children are supervised and taught by adults who are not their parents. Tyndale Academy—which I mentioned in response to questioning from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—is one such institution. Tyndale has varied its hours over the years, but its website currently states that it is a tuition group that operates from 9 am to 2 pm, five days per week. Earlier I named the other three institutions, which we have referred to in parliamentary questions and elsewhere.

In all four cases, children attend for a substantial part of the school day and are not supervised by their parents. If the institutions were registered independent schools, they would be registered and inspected against the regulatory framework introduced in September 2003, following the Education Act 2002. That framework ensures that all children in registered schools have suitable learning opportunities in a safe and secure learning environment. The requirement to register part-time institutions, which are not currently subject to any regulatory or monitoring framework, will ensure that the same safeguards are in place for children in those settings. Should such a part-time institution use corporal punishment, for example, that would then be regulated and the law outlawing corporal punishment applied. The clause applies to institutions that provide 12.5 hours for primary-age children and 15 hours for secondary-age children, for 28 weeks a year or more. That equates to more than half of a typical school week for more than half of the school year. The institutions are providing the majority of a child’s education, and it is therefore right that they meet the minimum standards.

The independent school standards are flexible and are adapted successfully to a wide range of settings, including Steiner schools, schools following the curriculum of other countries, pupil-referral-type provision and schools that cater for children with severe learning difficulties. There is no question of independent schools having to follow the national curriculum or employ teachers with specific qualifications, and therefore no reputable institution should have difficulty complying with the statutory requirements.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to opposition from consultees to extending the scope of regulation to part-time education institutions. I agree that there was opposition, but it came mainly from home educators who thought—wrongly—that the proposals would affect home education. In our first consultation in November 2006, 156 of the 175 respondents identified themselves as home educators, individuals or “others”. Local authorities and registered independent schools were in favour of our proposals. Respondents who disagreed with the consultation proposals were worried about how we would define “a major part” of a child’s education. My Department responded to those concerns by issuing a second consultation in August 2007, which made it clear—we thought—that home education was to be excluded from the proposed changes. However, 50 per cent. of the responses were from home educators who opposed the proposed changes because they thought that the changes might restrict their freedom to come together to deliver group activities as part of a home education programme. There were also objections from sporting bodies which thought that sport or other supplementary provision might be caught by the new definition. Therefore, in drawing up the legislation we paid close attention to those representations. The Committee will see that we no longer attempt to define the main provider on the face of the Bill, because that would be open to misinterpretation. Rather, the definition works by reference to a lower bound of hours, as I have set out.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis referred to the policy statement on clause 76. It is not the intention of the proposals to remove parents’ rights to educate their children at home. Home education, supervised or delivered by parents, either in the family home or elsewhere, and any arrangements used by parents to supplement home education which do not exceed the thresholds, will not be included in the regulatory regime. Some parents supplement home education with provision that includes group tuition by private tutors employed by parents, or tuition by groups of home educators themselves, for drama, sport or music. Only where a parent is delegating responsibility that exceeds the minimum hours thresholds will that provision be subject to the regulatory regime.

Further, to ensure that no provision is unintentionally caught by the new definition of independent educational institutions, clause 76 provides for certain settings to be excluded. Those exclusions will definitely apply to hospital schools, to home tutorial services organised by a local authority, and to home education—a point I reinforce because some people involved in that activity clearly find it difficult to believe what we say. More detail is given in the policy statement that I circulated this week to the Committee.

Other settings that either do not meet the proposed threshold or are not the main provider will remain outside the definition of an independent educational institution. Examples are summer schools, sports clubs, music tuition, and revision and study support groups undertaken in support of a child’s main education. I say yet again, to be absolutely clear, that we do not believe home education is affected by the definition.

I believe that the proposals strike the right balance between protecting children and ensuring that they receive a good education, and allowing parents to make arrangements that they believe are in the best interests of their child. They leave a parent’s right to home educate intact and ensure regulation for all settings in which a material part of a child’s education is delegated to others. On the basis of those many reassurances and answers to the hon. Gentleman’s many and varied questions, I hope that he will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We may not think people are listening to our debate, but during the lunch break I had a couple of e-mails from people who were listening, regarding our proceedings just before lunch. There is a concern among home educators that, if they form a group of parents to educate their children collectively, and exceed 12.5 hours of primary education or 15 hours of secondary education, they will constitute an independent institution and will therefore require to be inspected. The Minister confirmed that in his response. That is a concern to home educators, because they do group together and provide education on a collective basis, and they do not believe that that should be considered a school.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

This Government have been responsible for the parent-promoted Elmgreen school. It is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party also to encourage parent-promoted schools. Does he think that they should be regulated?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Yes, because they are schools. Parents who get together because they want to home educate their children—which they are entitled to do under the law—do not wish those institutions to become schools with all the expense that that would entail.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

How then would the hon. Gentleman differentiate between a parent-promoted school and one where parents have come together to form an institution for home education?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It need not be an institution—just parents getting together to home educate their children. It is difficult to be an expert in maths, geography and science. A group of parents may well get together and collectively educate those children in one of their homes, and this provision will mean that that will constitute an independent educational institution. That is why home educators are concerned, and the Minister has done nothing to alleviate that concern. As for health and safety, as one of my e-mail correspondents this morning said, there is already plenty of legislation under which local authorities can intervene if they feel there are safety issues affecting children.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I hope that it will help those listening if I say that the regulation will exclude those arrangements where parents are, collectively, as a sort of mutual organisation, educating each other’s children, and the parents themselves are present. However, if it starts to look like an institution, I think it fair and reasonable that it should be regulated as an institution.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not think that that will alleviate concerns either, because parents may well wish to employ specialist teachers—a music or piano teacher, for example—to assist with their tasks. When there are legislative changes, I like to know what problem the regulation is seeking to solve. What problems has the Minister become aware of that have led him to propose the clause? If he can reply, I have a number of other questions on that point.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

To give an example, I am aware of one institution, currently unregulated, that practises corporal punishment. That is illegal and it should be regulated.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That brings me to the real purpose of the clause, which is to deal with one particular institution: the Tyndale Academy. Because of that, it is dragging into these provisions 20,000 or 40,000 or—according to some estimates, 50,000—home-school educators in this country. I do not have a view one way or the other. I have not visited the Tyndale Academy. I have just received submissions from it that I think ought to be aired. The principal of Tyndale Academy, Ferris Lindsay, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) stating that the Department’s first step was to write to Tyndale in an officious manner, and that the academy was threatened with criminal prosecution if it failed to register within 30 days. After that threat was withdrawn, the Department started consulting on the measures.

The principal says that the academy believes that it is being victimised by the Department in an officious, over-zealous way and that that has led to this clause, which is designed to deal with only that one institution. He states:

“The reason for such single-minded resolution on the part of the DCSF has, we believe, been because of an unstated aversion to the discipline policy at Tyndale.”

He further states:

“With parental permission, tutors at Tyndale are able to use a smack on the hand to correct a persistently disobedient child. This sanction was used about a dozen times during the academic year 2005-06. The Department recognises the legality of the situation and, rather than prosecute the proprietor, it has sought to embrace the provision at Tyndale under a framework that would render the policy illegal.”

The academy believes that that is a misuse of departmental power and resources. There have been several hundred pieces of correspondence between the Department, the school, the local authority and the Member of Parliament for that area.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Can my hon. Friend offer the Minister any idea of what the literacy and numeracy levels are like at that academy?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

An Ofsted inspection has judged it a good school, with good behaviour and academic standards.

Will the Minister respond to the point that the institution can use minor corporal punishment if it has parental permission, but that it will no longer be able to do so if it becomes an educational institution, because it will be subject to the rule that corporal punishment cannot be used in schools? At the moment, as a collective of parents, it can do that with their permission. Is that not the drive behind the clause?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not propose to get drawn into a specific discussion on the Tyndale Academy because we are not proposing the legislation merely to deal with one institution. As we have already set out, it would currently apply to four institutions.

As I have set out previously to the Committee, our intention is to ensure that, if a child is receiving the majority of their education somewhere that could be defined as an institution, it is safe and secure. If any one of those institutions were to operate at fewer than the number of hours that we have specified, I have set out the circumstances in which that would become unregulated activity. It is then up to those parents what goes on there, as long as it is within the law with respect to safeguarding the children.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is not the view of Ferris Lindsay, who has e-mailed me this afternoon to say:

“This chapter of the Bill was specifically drafted with one aim in mind. It was added to the Bill very late and prejudged the findings of the Consultation, which supposedly “justifies” it. We have letters from Jacqui Smith (2004) and Lord Adonis (2007) to our own MP Stephen Timms stating that Tyndale was the only establishment that the Department has come across which has not registered as an independent school when asked to.”

I feel that there is some persecution of that school. I have not seen it and I do not know what it is like. However, I wanted to air the strongly held views expressed to me and others by the academy about the clause and the activities of the Department over the last couple of years, which seem to have been over-zealous and officious towards the school. It is in a deprived part of London and is providing a much higher quality of education in that area than is being provided currently by the state system.

Clause 77

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 77, page 47, line 39, leave out from beginning of line 39 to ‘Chapter’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 143, in clause 77, page 47, line 40, at end add

‘shall cease to apply to independent educational institutions in England.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The purpose of the amendment is to enable me to raise a minor drafting concern brought to the attention of members of the Committee by a supplementary briefing prepared by the Independent Schools Council on 21 January. It made the following point:

“Much of Part 4 Chapter 1 of the Bill restates Part 10 Chapter 1 of the Education Act 2002, with consequential changes made to reflect the proposed transfer of regulatory functions from the Secretary of State to Ofsted. However, we note that Part 10 Chapter 1 of the former Act does not appear to be expressly repealed”.

I tried to find the repeal but could not find it either. The briefing went on to say that that is what it

“would expect since independent schools should clearly not be expected to comply with two contrary systems of registration and regulation. We recommend consultation with Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that, should Part 4 Chapter 1 of the Bill become law (as we hope it will not), any lack of clarity over the status of the existing registration provision be removed on the face of the Bill.”

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 77 applies chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill to independent educational institutions in England. Chapter 1 of part 10 of the Education Act 2002, which sets out the current statutory framework for independent schools in England and Wales, will be amended by the Bill so that it no longer applies to independent schools in England. In its place, the provisions in part 4 of the Bill will come into force, subject to the will of Parliament. Those are the substantive issues that we will come on to discuss in detail.

The current regulatory regime set out in the 2002 Act will continue to apply to independent schools in Wales, but hon. Members might have noticed that the Government have tabled an amendment to provide a framework power for the National Assembly for Wales—I think that it is contained in a new clause to replace clause 132. That will provide the legislative competence for the Assembly to make legislation relating to the regulation and inspection of schools in the independent sector. The framework power will allow the Assembly to develop an approach to monitoring the education provided in Welsh independent schools in a manner that meets the needs of Wales. It will also enable the Assembly to make changes comparable to those made for England if it decides after further consideration and consultation to do so.

The amendments would have no substantive impact on the operation of the clause and, indeed, would not assist readers because they would remove the helpful reference to the legislative framework for Wales. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that partial explanation, but I still do not understand how it is that chapter 1 of part 10 of the Education Act 2002 will be removed, since clause 77 merely states that references in chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill are to apply only to England. It does not take out the references in chapter 1 of part 10 of the 2002 Act, so those provisions will still apply.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I always seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not planned to say anything else, but I refer him to paragraph 13 of schedule 1— [ Interruption. ] After that musical accompaniment, that is all that I need to say.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I will ponder the Minister’s words after the Committee to see whether he is correct, but on the basis of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 78

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in clause 78, page 48, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Clause 78 introduces an additional standard to those already legislated for in section 157 of the Education Act 2002, which apply to independent schools. The additional standard set out in subsection (1)(h) relates to the quality of the leadership and management of independent educational institutions. Paragraph 2.38 of the Government’s consultation paper states that the proposal is to

“introduce a new management standard to ensure that independent schools have good quality leadership that enables the school to meet the standards required for registration, and continued registration.”

It is extraordinary that the Department should want to legislate over that. The independent sector in this country is not just excellent but world class. It represents the benchmark against which we should be assessing all schools in the country.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I would not argue that many or even the majority of independent schools are excellent. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that every single independent school, however large or small, however traditional or modern, is of the excellence he described?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course not, but I will argue, if the Minister holds his horses for a moment, that there are no problems in the independent sector with management and leadership so far as the Independent Schools Inspectorate is concerned.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As far as the Independent Schools Inspectorate is concerned.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Absolutely. It represents 80 per cent. of children who are educated in the independent sector. The independent sector has very good management. Despite educating only 7 per cent. of children in this country, rising to about 12 per cent. at sixth form, it achieves 62.8 per cent. of all A grades in A-level physics. There are similar figures for biology and chemistry. As Christine Ryan, the Chief Inspector of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, said in her evidence to this Committee on 24 January 2008,

“None of the schools that we inspected were found to have unsatisfactory leadership and management.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 92, Q215.]

The Independent Schools Inspectorate is a very demanding and high quality inspectorate. It is itself inspected by Ofsted, which found all its inspections to be of high quality.

The maintained sector, by contrast, has been heavily criticised by Ofsted, which complains that 49 per cent. of secondary schools are not good enough, to use the words of the Government. Why the Government, therefore, feel it necessary to legislate on standards of management and leadership in the independent sector is baffling, unless it is in some way intended to homogenise their leadership or to extend state control into the way they manage their schools.

As the Independent Schools Council says in its detailed written response to the consultation document:

“Of a sample of 412”-

independent

“schools inspected since January 2006, leadership was judged to be excellent in 19%. of schools, good in 64%. and satisfactory in 17%. In no school was leadership considered unsatisfactory.”

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is doing full justice to the Government’s intentions. Perhaps what they are after is to lower the quality of the independent sector to their standards so that there is no proper literacy and numeracy and the thing becomes a shambles.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is a suspicion that the most cynical would have. When there are statistics available that show that, while educating only about 10 per cent. of the population, independent schools achieve 65 per cent. of the A-level A grades in the sciences, there could be a view that the way to remove those benchmark comparisons is to lower the standards in the independent sector. That is if the people who oppose private education cannot abolish it altogether, which is the view of a minority.

The ISC document goes on to say at paragraph 79,

“we do question why it is necessary for there to be a standard to this effect and the way in which this proposal has been presented has particularly caused concern amongst member schools.”

To quote from paragraph 81, the ISC’s particular concern is that if the standard

“is being introduced to cope with poor management in a minority of non-ISC schools, it might be argued that any standard aimed at this problem would be far lower than the standard already being applied in ISC schools.”

It adds:

“it would be disappointing if, because of the reason for its introduction, the Government was to set a standard far lower than that.”

The other main concern expressed by the ISC about the new management standard is that of homogenisation—the point my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire was alluding to. It says:

“ISC would have a fundamental objection to any standard which sought to impose particular styles of leadership or a framework or criteria which required schools to conform to one organisation’s view of how schools should be managed. The RIA, for example, refers to schools being required under the new standard to appoint particular teachers.”

The Independent Schools Inspectorate itself therefore opposes this new management standard. Page 9 of its written response says:

“We do not agree with the proposal as drafted.

The ISI framework for inspection already includes a requirement to make judgements and report on the quality of a school’s leadership and management. Evidence from inspections shows that the management of most ISC schools is of good quality, much of it excellent...Clear mechanisms are already in place under the ISI/ISC system for ensuring that any required improvements are made by the school following an inspection.”

As the ISI goes on to say:

“If no other mechanism can be found for dealing with the small number of schools needing improvement then the management standard would need to be written in such a way that it did not weaken the expectation of high standards already required in ISC schools.”

Finally, it makes the important point that

“The standard should not require schools to operate a particular style of management, and care should be taken to reflect the very diverse nature of schools within the sector.”

The concern of the independent sector about this new management standard is best summed up by Jonathan Shephard, the chief executive of the ISC, who, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Yeovil, said:

“There is a concern about creeping regulation and Ofsted-isation... if you have Ofsted imposing a management standard on all independent schools, then the way in which the schools are run will tend to conform with that standard. You may or may not like independent schools... but they do educate children at all levels of ability in a very good, effective and workmanlike way. They do that because they are able to be flexible and responsive and they have to answer to... parents, children and universities. If you get a one-size-fits-all, increasingly prescriptive manner from Ofsted...you may lose that flexibility and independence and that is a very serious worry.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 86, Q195.]

I am astonished by the hostile reaction to this proposal from the very respectable and statutory body, the ISI. It is very surprising that the Minister and the Department are proceeding with this measure, given the opposition to it from the ISI, the very body that will be charged with implementing and enforcing it. I wonder whether this reflects the hostility to the independent sector from the Minister or the Department or whether old Labour is simply exerting its influence in the dying months of this Government. Amendment No. 123 seeks to delete the new standard from the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will give it his support.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

At earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton introduced amendments on behalf of the National Union of Teachers. He has now returned to a more natural bedfellow in advocating so strongly for the Independent Schools Council. He has been a passionate and consistent advocate of independent schools in this House. I have no criticism of the standards of members of the ISC. I have no wish to be vindictive, or any of the other adjectives that he may have used, towards him. My Department has considerable experience of the operation of the current regulatory regime for all independent schools, not just those inspected by the ISI or members of the ISC.

The regulatory regime was put in place through the 2002 Education Act. Standards have contributed to raising standards across the board in the independent sector and that is carried forward in the Bill. Inspections against the standards have found that in poor schools sustained failure to meet the minimum requirements is generally a result of weak and ineffective leadership. To address that, clause 78 introduces an additional standard, relating to the quality of leadership and management in an institution. The Thomas Francis Academy, which is not a member of the ISC, I hasten to add, had a case that went to the Care Standards Tribunal recently. It was ordered that that institution should be removed from the register and closed. There was discussion at the tribunal in that case about weak management and leadership having caused the problems.

Putting a new standard on the face of primary legislation will send a clear message across the whole sector that effective leadership and management are crucial to an institution’s successful operation. Inspection evidence shows that there is a need for transparent standards that secure effective strategic management and leadership, enabling institutions to meet the other required standards. The new standard should also ensure that institutions introduce management systems and other mechanisms to make and sustain improvements where standards are not met.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to the ISC’s argument in oral evidence that it is a low minimum standard and that it will encourage schools with high standards to lower the bar, effectively coming down to a lowest common denominator—to the minimum required by regulation. I simply do not accept that argument. Many independent schools are rightly proud of their high standards of education, welfare and premises, which are well above the minimum specified in regulation and in other standards.

As Mr. Shephard intimated when giving evidence, the best independent schools are not driven by the basic standards currently regulated for, and set out in legislation. Rather, he said, they

“have to respond to three demanding constituencies: parents, children and universities.”

I am absolutely confident that the high standards of management and leadership currently enjoyed by those schools will continue, irrespective of any change in legislation.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I entirely agree with the position that my hon. Friend takes. As it happens, I also agree with the overall consensus of comments on independent schools. Does he agree that, in the current economic climate, a proportion of independent schools, albeit a small proportion, whether or not they are members of the ISC, face considerable economic pressure? In those circumstances, it is important for the reputation of the sector as a whole as well as for the protection of parents that minimum standards should apply across the piece.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have minimum standards, so that parents can be sure of that minimum. However, it is not a standard that everyone has to fall to. In responding effectively to the market, which is what they generally want to do, independent schools will seek to out-compete each other on the basis of their standards.

We also heard, in the words of the witness and of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that the new standards are a further sign of “Ofstedisation”—a slightly ugly word—and the “creeping regulation” of independent schools; the word “homogenised” was used. For ISC-affiliated schools, it will usually be the Independent Schools Inspectorate and not Ofsted that considers the ongoing quality of leadership and management standards in an institution. If necessary, it will be for Ofsted to act on the basis of the evidence provided in these reports. That is extremely unlikely for the 50 per cent. or so ISI-inspected independent schools because, as we have heard, they all do an extremely good job.

The new standard is designed to address the failings of smaller, poor-quality institutions, which are inspected by Ofsted. Unless we introduce the new standard, Ofsted will be prevented from reporting on leadership and management failings in those institutions, leading to the prolonged regulatory action that we see now.

I am not optimistic, but I hope that my reassurances will have persuaded the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am sure that the Minister could have drafted the Bill to confine the provisions to schools inspected by Ofsted. That would have alleviated all the concerns of the ISC, which represents those independent schools that educate 80 per cent. of Britain’s independently educated children.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some independent schools are inspected by other inspectorates—the School Improvement Service, the Bridge Schools Inspectorate and other independent inspectorates. We are making provision in the Bill to allow others to be approved and regulated to allow quality assurance. Does he not see the merit in having a minimum standard that will have no impact on Independent School Council members but which will give reassurance across the whole sector?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The purpose of having an independent inspectorate is that it can apply its own standards. We therefore have Ofsted inspecting the inspectorate to ensure that inspections are carried out in accordance with those standards. Provided we are happy with the standards of the independent inspectorates, it should be left alone.

The real concern is the phrasing in the regulatory impact assessment that schools should be “required” to appoint particular teachers. For example, a school may not employ many qualified teachers, but instead employ very well-educated people with first-class degrees from Britain’s top universities who are trained to teach in the way that the school prefers. They would not have a PGCE or qualified teacher status, but Ofsted may come along and say, “I’m sorry, you have to have that.” The whole ethos of the school, which is designed to attract academically gifted people to teach, could be destroyed by a specified requirement that they conform.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Would it help if I said that there is no suggestion that we should require qualified teacher status in the independent schools?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The response to that is “Yet”. Our concern is what comes down the line, once the legislation is in place. The Minister accused me—I do not regard what he framed as an accusation in that way—of being an advocate of independent education. Yes, I am an advocate of independent education—of high-quality education wherever it is. I am an advocate of knowledge-based education, wherever it is in the country. I am afraid that in this country we have too little of that high-quality education, which is part of the problem my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire alluded to and part of the problem affecting so many aspects of life in this country. I spend a lot of my time advocating high-quality state education, such as that at the Mossbourne academy, which educates children from a very deprived part of London but achieves results that are better than 95 per cent. of comprehensive schools.

The issue has been aired widely. I am not happy with the response, but I am sure that in weeks ahead the Independent Schools Council will continue to lobby the Minister about how the measure—if it gets through the other place—will be implemented. However, on the basis of the issues that have been aired, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 79

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 79, page 48, line 36, leave out ‘Chief Inspector’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 125, in clause 79, page 48, line 40, leave out ‘Chief Inspector’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.

No. 126, in clause 79, page 48, line 41, leave out ‘Chief Inspector’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause is the provision at the heart of part 4, which transfers the registration of independent schools from the Department to Ofsted. The amendments replace “Chief Inspector” with “Secretary of State” in order to maintain the current position, under which the registration and regulation of independent schools lies with the Department. Schools in the Independent Schools Council are inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, while those that are not members are inspected by Ofsted. In addition to opposition to the proposal from the bodies to which it applies, there is also concern about the quality of the work carried out by the Department in preparing and researching the policy.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am assuming that in talking about schools that are inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate or, if not, by Ofsted, that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that he does not support the moves to inform the Bridge Schools’ Inspectorate or the Schools Inspectorate Service.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

No, I am not saying that at all. For shorthand, I was saying the ISC and Ofsted, but of course the Minister is right and I should have mentioned the other inspection bodies, and the Focus Learning Trust as well.

In addition to opposition to the proposal, there is concern about the process leading up to the legislation. Jonathan Shephard said, in his evidence to the Committee, at question 191:

“If you look at the regulatory impact assessment, page 14, under the title ‘Analysis and Evidence’, it says,

‘Independent schools will benefit from only dealing with Ofsted.’

But that is untrue in respect of more than 80 per cent. of the children in independent education in England who will deal not only with Ofsted but with the ISI.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 83-84.]

The consultation document was incorrect too, in a material way, when the original version was published on 27 July, at the beginning of the consultation process. It said at paragraph 2.23 that the rationale for moving registration from the Department to Ofsted

“has been prompted by the transfer of boarding school and children’s home registration and regulation to Ofsted from CSCI from April 2007.”

However, that is not correct. Ofsted does not register or regulate boarding accommodation. That remains with the Secretary of State. What transferred from CSCI to Ofsted was the inspection of boarding provision. That is not a minor drafting error, but goes to the root of the rationale for the whole policy, which, according to the consultation document, is to rationalise the registration and monitoring of the sector prompted by the transfer of

“boarding school...registration and regulation to Ofsted from CSCI from April 2007.”

Had the paragraph been worded correctly, that this was prompted by the transfer of inspection from the Commission for Social Care Inspection to Ofsted, it would not make sense and would not justify the rationalisation of regulation and monitoring.

The Government changed the wording in the consultation document on 5 September 2007, but now the paragraph is clear that the reason given for the policy does not make sense. There are two errors of fact——the one that I have just explained and the fact that there will not be a unified strand of regulation, registration and inspection. They are fundamental to the whole explanation and thrust of the policy in the clause and undermine it completely.

As Christine Ryan, the chief inspector of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, said in her evidence to the Committee:

“One of the thrusts of these proposals reflects the desire to create a unified body, but that will not occur”.

However, there are problems with the policy, too. It is important to keep the functions of regulation and inspection separate. As Christine Ryan said:

“One of the very important functions that we carry out is to check on regulatory compliance of independent schools. The regulations—as is the nature of the beast—are often open to some interpretation. If a school challenges whether or not regulatory compliance is there or not and we want to be sure, we can go to the Department and we agree a decision on interpretation”.——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 85, Q193.]

Jonathan Shephard, the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, said:

“As a matter of principle, it is very important that inspection and regulation should be separated. Inspections can be wrong. Inspectors can make mistakes. It is important that when they go to a regulator to say that there is a problem ... that is a necessary check and balance. If the inspector goes to itself, that check and balance is not there.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 84, Q191.]

The policy to transfer registration and regulation from the Secretary of State to Ofsted is not driven by the need to create a unified point of contact for all registration, regulation and inspection procedures. It is not driven by the transfer of functions relating to boarding schools from the Commission for Social Care Inspection to Ofsted, because that relates to inspection, not regulation. It is not good policy, because it will remove an important separation of functions and instead set up conflicts of interest.

Once those things are taken out of the equation, the only reason that is left is efficiency savings. Paragraph 2.1 of the consultation document says:

“We believe that it would be more efficient to transfer the registration and monitoring functions for education provision from DCSF to Ofsted thereby creating a single regulatory body for independent schools.”

Leaving aside the obvious point that the measure will not create a single regulatory body for independent schools, because Ofsted does not register or regulate boarding, welfare and independent schools, let us look at the simple efficiency argument from the point of view of the Government and of tax payers.

The registration and regulation of independent schools are carried out by the independent education and boarding team in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. On 9 January, the Minister responded to a parliamentary question I had tabled, and said:

“There are currently 18.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) posts in the Department’s independent education and boarding team.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 655W.]

I do not know whether Miriam Rosen, the director of education of Ofsted, or Roger Shippam, the deputy director, knew about that answer. When she gave evidence to the Committee on 24 January, she was asked:

“How many members of staff would you need to run the registration and monitoring of the independent sector?”

She replied:

“We are still working on the exact numbers. I am not quite sure exactly what numbers we will need to transfer to us, to do that work.”

She then suddenly said:

“We think it will be about 10.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 95, Q225.]

In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Yeovil, she replied:

“I do not know the exact costs because we are still working on them with the Department.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 96, Q228.]

I am not sure where the figure of 10 came from if they are still working on the costs. It is all very odd, but I will say nothing stronger than that, Mr. Bayley.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ofsted has been asked to achieve some very challenging expenditure reduction targets? When representatives of Ofsted last appeared before the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, of which I was then a member, it was some way off meeting those targets. That may explain the confusion over the head count and the budgets.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

If that function was transferred to Ofsted, I would very surprised if it were carried out by 10 people. I look forward to monitoring that matter as an Opposition Member through parliamentary questions, or by asking Ofsted directly as a Government Member.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

When replying to a question that I put to her in that evidence session, Ms Rosen agreed that we would need a procedure for dealing with the sort of disputes that my hon. Friend has outlined. That procedure would not be the responsibility of the part of Ofsted that we are discussing. There would have to be a separate organisation, so there would clearly be staffing demands for that as well.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would be expensive, too, because the people involved would have to get up to speed with the matter, as they would not have dealt with it regularly as part of the independent schools team in the Department.

The existing arrangements work well. Christine Ryan said in her evidence:

“That link and that contact with the Department works very smoothly—it has a dedicated team who know our system very well. Ofsted is already having to cope with a very large number of changes from the other duties it has taken on. If this transfer happens now, we are concerned about the loss of that communication.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 85, Q193.]

This is one of the management issues that the Government do not understand. They fail to understand human frailty. They created a tax credit system that is too complex to be administered smoothly, and they took responsibility for the monitoring and supervision of banking away from the Bank of England, with which it had been for centuries, and gave it to a new bureaucracy, the Financial Services Authority. The FSA flunked its first test by merging Customs and Excise with the Inland Revenue, not understanding that the academic disciplines of the tax code are very different from VAT and excise duties, to create the administrative shambles that is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I am sure that the same will happen under this provision.

In paragraph 36 of its written response to the consultation, the Independent Schools Council stated:

“There is an implication in the proposals that the Department wishes to transfer responsibility for regulation and registration as part of the process to remove its operational responsibilities. However, ISC would argue that this is not a reason in itself: administrative convenience should feature low in any list of factors justifying reform of a statutory regulator. We recognise that other functions of the Secretary of State may have been transferred over the last few years—student loans, pensions, IT advice etc.—but these are, we submit, wholly different functions from those of a regulator. As a matter of principle”—

I agree strongly with this point—

“ISC believes that, as in the maintained sector, responsibility for overseeing the regulation of the independent sector should rest with the Secretary of State, accountable in and to Parliament, rather than a non-governmental public body such as Ofsted whose officers report to the Education and Skills Committee only twice a year.”

In addition to those arguments of substance, there are genuine concerns about the consultation process as a whole. Jonathan Shephard said in his evidence to us:

“It is quite clear that the consultation did not follow Cabinet office guidelines in that ISI, an important stakeholder, was not consulted as it should have been, in advance of the consultation going out.”

Christine Ryan said:

“The simple answer to your...question about whether we were consulted prior to the formal consultation is, no.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 85, Q194.]

In his response, the Minister cited a letter dated 9 May 2006, from Penny Jones. Since then Jonathan Shephard has written to the Committee. He wrote on 4 February that the letter to which the Minister referred stated that the transfer of regulation would be

“subject to a full consultation with all independent schools”.

He said that the consultation

“was expected to be in autumn 2006. It never happened. There is no record of any ISC school being consulted, and we are not aware of any non-ISC school being consulted. The Committee should note that the letter specifically asks me not to share the contents of the letter with member schools, and therefore I could not have consulted them on the basis of the letter.

For the Minister to imply that this letter was (or even approached) adequate consultation is unsound. The reality is that there was no effective consultation with ISC or with its member schools.”

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that when that letter was written, the ISI was part of the ISC?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am not addressing that point. Jonathan Shephard did not mention whether the ISI was different from the ISC, but the organisations were very different bodies based in different premises, even though they were legally part of the same body. His point was that the schools were not consulted, and that he was not allowed to consult them. Although he had received the letter, was happy to read it and could discuss it with Christine Ryan of the ISI, he was not allowed to discuss it with ISC schools, which is how a representative body should conduct itself. He could not just come up with an opinion of his own; he needed to discuss the matter with the schools but could not do so, because of the contents of the letter. A real consultation did not happen.

If the Government introduces legislation and there is hostility and concern from the bodies to which the legislation directly relates, the Minister has a duty to reflect on that. I hope that in his response he will indicate that he intends to give further consideration to the valid points raised in the very detailed briefings given to members of the Committee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman has raised all sorts of points, and I will respond to them as briefly as I can. This clause proposes that responsibility for the registration and regulation of independent educational institutions be transferred from the Secretary of State to Ofsted. In doing so, the chief inspector will have responsibility for the registration of new institutions. Applications for registration will be made to her, she will determine those applications and enter successful institutions on the register.

The chief inspector will also be responsible for approving certain changes to provision in independent educational institutions. She will have broader monitoring and enforcement powers under this clause, including powers to remove institutions from the register. It will be the chief inspector who has day-to-day contact with independent educational institutions. Concentrating registration and regulation in one organisation will reduce red tape, particularly for the 1,180 smaller independent schools not in the Independent Schools Council or the Focus Learning Trust. Under current arrangements, non-affiliated schools have to deal directly with Ofsted and DCSF. Many ISC schools already have a relationship with Ofsted, as well as with DCSF, either because Ofsted inspects boarding provision in ISC schools or because it registers or inspects their child care provision.

Overall, 2,019 out of 2,359 independent schools will see a reduction in bureaucracy as a result of these changes. That is because, in future, they will deal with an independent inspectorate and Ofsted rather than with an independent inspectorate, Ofsted and DCSF, or because they will have to deal only with Ofsted, rather than with Ofsted and DCSF. Importantly, the remaining schools will see no increase in burdens and therefore will not be disadvantaged. It will also be a more efficient way for the Department and Ofsted to operate. Unlike at present, there will be no need for paperwork and reports to be shuttled backwards and forwards between the organisations, and Ofsted will be able to draw on the significant body of expertise it has built up in this area. We have not reflected that in the impact assessment, because the estimate of cost savings has not been made. It is a benefit, and the impact assessment tends to focus more on costs than on benefits.

It is worth my saying, however, in response to the exchanges we have just had, that I anticipate significant savings. I cannot predict whether we will move from 18.2 members of staff to approximately 10, but savings will be made, because Ofsted has well-established and substantial computer and other systems to deal with its existing regulatory functions. Those systems can be extended to cover independent schools work, and there will no longer be the need for DCSF to retain separate systems.

Staff at Ofsted can be deployed flexibly to cover peaks and troughs across the full range of its operations. It will no longer need to pass information to DCSF for consideration. All deliberative and administrative work can be done within the same organisation, and they can combine regulation of boarding, child care and education in individual schools, cutting down on duplication in cases where different inspectors check broadly similar requirements for different regulators.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The Minister has given the impression that this is an act of kindness for the independent school sector, reducing their red tape and the necessary number of engagements with officials in his Department and at Ofsted. If such a neat arrangement is appropriate for the independent sector, why does he not consider legislating to streamline the regulation of the state sector along the same lines?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Regulation of state-maintained schools is carried out largely by local authorities. There is a separate inspection by Ofsted, which is an important part of regulation, maintenance of standards and accountability in the maintained school system. I do not, however, think that the two are directly comparable, because of the important role of local authorities and their accountability to local communities. I have no reason to doubt Miriam Rosen’s statement to the Committee that the transfer will result in the efficiencies that I have set out. Ofsted has already put in place processes to deal with the regulation of almost 100,000 child care providers and 2,000 children’s homes. Setting aside the strong arguments for reducing bureaucracy, which provide support for the proposals, I will touch briefly on some of the other misplaced concerns that we have heard.

One such concern is that the transfer of registration to Ofsted and the other provisions in part 4 of the Bill are part of a wider process of “Ofsted-isation”—a horrible word—in the independent sector. I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, I do not see Ofsted-isation in the negative way that the term was meant or in the negative way that it sounds. Ofsted has an outstanding reputation. One need only look at the statistics: last year, about 30,000 inspections were conducted, and there were only 26 complaints to the independent adjudicator. That is the crux of the discussion on part 4. I am striving to put in place a system that will provide a better service to the majority of institutions in the sector. Ofsted will be able to do that, even for ISC schools, whose concerns were fully represented by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.

Secondly, I would not want Members to take from my arguments for Ofsted-isation the belief that there are plans afoot to introduce greater regulatory strictures for the independent sector. Part 4 is deregulatory, concentrating operations in bodies that are best placed to deal with them. The Secretary of State will continue to set the standards against which independent educational institutions are judged. I agree that flexibility and choice are important in the independent sector, and that is why clause 90 provides for the Secretary of State to appoint independent inspectorates for groups of independent educational institutions. I am sure that we will discuss that later. The fact that we are willing to let other inspectorates emerge does not smack of Ofsted-isation.

Other arguments against the transfer have intimated that some ambiguous or misleading wording in the consultation documents renders the whole legislation and its rationale invalid. I recognise that some of the wording could be seen as misleading. As soon as the wording—to which there has been reference—on the regulation of the welfare provision was brought to the attention of officials in my Department, the consultation document was altered on the website. However, the whole consultation was not rendered invalid by a few sentences.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In a minute. May I get my argument out first? The consultation, when read in its entirety, made clear exactly what the proposals were. The Committee will also be reassured to hear that none of the organisations from which we heard evidence missed the consultation. Of the 337 responses received during the consultation on the transfer of registration, 257 were from ISC member schools. To say that those schools were not consulted or that they did not hear about the consultation is palpable nonsense. On 6 July 2007, Mr. Shephard was offered the chance to go through the consultation document with departmental officials. He never took up that offer. As 257 of the 337 responses, many of them in a standard campaign format, were from ISC member schools, I would say that we have had full consultation with that sector. The Independent Schools Inspectorate also responded in full to the consultation.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We are talking about the pre-consultation process, not the consultation itself. If the wording in the consultation is wrong, but is given as justification for creating a unified body, when it will not do so, does the Minister not accept that that is not simply a drafting error to be corrected, but exposes a fundamental flaw in the whole thrust of the policy?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What we were suggesting in the whole consultation was perfectly clear, despite that inaccuracy, which was corrected. I do not accept that the argument stands or falls on that. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I simply disagree.

One further objection to part 4 has been put forward, based on the so-called principle that registration and inspection should be kept in separate bodies. It is not clear to me where that principle is set down. It is certainly not borne out by other examples across the public sector. In the health sector, for example, the Healthcare Commission regulates and inspects private hospitals and independent clinics against national minimum standards set by the Department of Health. To use the ISC’s word, if it is a “referee” that the independent sector is looking for, the sector can, I hope, be reassured.

Part 4 introduces new appeal rights to the Care Standards Tribunal. We plan to extend the role of Ofsted’s independent adjudicator to cover complaints about the quality assurance of independent inspectorates. Ultimately, the Secretary of State, by laying regulations in this House, retains overall responsibility for setting the regulatory regime in the independent sector.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister will recall that I asked Ms Rosen about that. How will he accomplish the extension of the role of the adjudicator? Will it be in legislation or is it an administrative act? When will it happen, because it is clearly important that there should be a referee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have just said that the Secretary of State, by laying regulations in the House, retains overall responsibility for setting the regulatory regime. Unless it suddenly occurs to me otherwise, I would answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that we will do that by regulation. The new appeal rights to the Care Standards Tribunal against Ofsted decisions are set out in the Bill. In my view, none of the arguments that have been advanced stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not need to regulate to extend the remit of the independent adjudicator. It is something that we can do with Ofsted without having to legislate.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Why then does the Minister not transfer the registration regulation of the whole maintained sector, as well as independent schools, to Ofsted, if it is going to be so efficient and excellent?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

My response would be similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, West earlier. Most of the regulation of the maintained sector is carried out by local authorities. The arrangements for the independent sector and for the maintained sector are not comparable.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Would not the savings be likely to be even larger? Registration and regulation is taking place in 150 local authorities of varying degrees of efficiency, from efficient Conservative to less efficient Labour ones—I say that tongue in cheek, but the point is that there are 150 local authorities around the country. The argument must apply tenfold to the efficiency of transferring that requirement to Ofsted in comparison with the transfer of responsibilities from 18 officials in the Department.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we move registration into local authorities or into Ofsted. We are debating the registration of independent schools by Ofsted.

As a Government, we are committed to rationalising the complex pattern of multiple scrutiny that service providers and some inspectors experience, and reducing the inspection burden and the variety of approaches that are a feature of a system in which many bodies perform similar tasks. The proposals in this part of the Bill achieve that goal. Ofsted will be able to provide a better, more responsive, more cost-effective service to many schools and independent institutions, integrating the different strands of its activity to provide the proverbial one-stop shop that we are so keen to talk about in a variety of settings. In the light of the benefits to the sector that part 4 will bring, I optimistically ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

You will not be surprised to know, Mr. Bayley, that I am not impressed by the Minister’s answer. In particular, I am not impressed by his responses on the consultation process. We are talking about very respectable people: the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, and Christine Ryan, the chief inspector of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Both those individuals, and the bodies they represent, are deeply unhappy about the consultation and how it was carried out. The Minister should reflect on that unhappiness. Whether or not those bodies were unified at the time or legally separate is irrelevant. They are unhappy, and the Minister should reflected on that.

According to the transcript of Miriam Rosen’s evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Committee on 12 December on Ofsted’s work, Ofsted was

“surprised by the opposition to these proposals.”

It is that surprise that alarms me. There should not be surprises in Government proposals at this level. Having worked at KPMG for 13 years before coming to the House of Commons, I can say that the one thing that was frowned upon was surprises. It is always a sign of poor management when people are surprised by reaction to a policy. They should have been aware in advance that there would be problems. Had a proper pre-consultation process been in place, there would not have been surprises.

I am not convinced, either, by the Minister’s explanation of the policy. He said that there will be no more regulatory strictures, and that there this will be a more cost-effective service. He said that the Government were integrating the strands of regulation, and that there will be a one-stop shop. If that is the case, it applies most to the maintained sector, which is inspected by Ofsted. I see no reason, on the basis of what the Minister has said, why that should not be the case under the Bill, and why he has not proposed moving the registration and regulation of all 23,000 schools in the maintained sector from local authorities to Ofsted. That system is bound to be more efficient if what he said about transferring the process from the DCSF to Ofsted is as efficient as he said. Perhaps it is the Minister’s view that the DCSF is deeply inefficient, particularly while he is there.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is uncharacteristically unkind.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is, and I withdraw the remark. It was an unfair comment.

The thrust of his argument is that DCSF is inefficient in its handling of regulation and registration compared with the way in which that is done in local authorities around the country. That is inconsistent, and does not make sense. None of the policy makes sense. The people who use the current regime think it works marvellously and I do not think we should change things when they are working well. It is extraordinary, and I wonder, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, what the driver is behind this policy. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of what it is. I do not think it is good policy, and it will not lead to efficiencies. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the Committee on amendment No. 124, which simply removes the words “Chief Inspector” from clause 79, and replaces it with the “Secretary of State”.

Clause 80

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in clause 80, page 49, line 7, leave out ‘51 weeks’ and insert ‘six months’.

A number of the provisions in part 4 repeat provisions from the Education Act 2002. Clause 80 essentially replicates section 159 of the 2002 Act but with changes to reflect the new term “educational institution”. Clause 80, however, prescribes a punishment for conducting an unregulated educational institution as up to 51 weeks in prison. The 2002 Act, even with amendments subsequent to 2002, carries a maximum sentence of six months. Will the Minister explain the reason for the change of policy? Is it to get more people into our jails, which appear to be lacking in customers, or is there a more specific reason?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause provides that anyone who runs an independent educational institution is committing an offence if he operates without registering the institution. It carries over the existing offence from the 2002 Act, in relation to independent schools, and extends it according to this part. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is questioning the principle of enforcement of registration; as we have just heard, he is merely questioning the reason for the change.

The clause sets out the maximum penalties that can be imposed on conviction for an offence of operating an unregistered independent educational institution. The 51 weeks maximum sentence increases the sentence of six months. That change simply reflects wider amendments to sentencing law that are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which extended the maximum sentence available to magistrates courts because short sentences have proved to be ineffective and inefficient in certain circumstances. This is not the right place to debate the sentencing requirements of the 2003 Act. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is important to put that explanation on the record, as the Minister has done. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 85

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 85, page 51, line 12, at end insert ‘one or more’.

Clause 86 requires an independent educational institution to apply to Ofsted for approval for any change that is material. “Material” is defined as a change involving any of the items listed in clause 82(3),

“(e) whether the institution provides accommodation for students;

(f) whether the institution is specially organised to make special educational provision for students with special educational needs”

If an institution changes to provide one of those two things, that is regarded as material.

The purpose of this probing amendment is to ascertain whether it would be material change, as specified in subsection (f), if a school catered for just one student with those needs, or whether the school would have to become wholly or mainly involved in special educational needs for it to be regarded as such. My question relates to the definition of what constitutes “material” in subsection (f).

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will be brief, to help the Committee, and will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question simply. In legal terms, the use of the word “students” in the plural in this context includes institutions specially organised for just one student with special educational needs. The amendment would clarify unnecessarily matters that are covered by the existing drafting. On the basis of that direct, short answer to his direct question, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 87

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 87, page 51, line 24, at end insert

‘if he regards the change to be of such significance as to warrant an inspection,

‘(1A) In determining whether the change is of such significance, the Chief Inspector shall have regard to precedents.’.

The purpose of the amendment is to probe the issue of material change and what would constitute a change that was significant enough to warrant an inspection. The size of Ofsted necessitates that it is a somewhat bureaucratic organisation, so the fear is whether any change reported to Ofsted as the new registration body for independent schools would trigger an inspection, and that relates to the debate that we had about Ofsted-isation.

The purpose of the amendment is to try to get on the record the Minister’s opinion on the degree of change that would need to take place for something to be material, because there is a fear that, once responsibility is transferred to Ofsted, simply reporting a change could trigger an inspection—at the moment such a change would be reported to one of the 18.2 officials in his Department who would record it and the school would just carry on. That is not to say that those schools are frightened of inspection, as they welcome it. They are concerned, however, about the bureaucratic driver of that. If the Minster could give them some reassurance, that would be welcome.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 87 allows the chief inspector to conduct inspections when considering applications from independent educational institutions for prior approval of material changes. In most institutions, a material change will be the introduction of boarding or a change to become specially organised to make provision for students with special educational needs. Where institutions are specially organised to make provision for students with special educational needs, a material change will be any significant change in their provision, as recorded in the institution’s registered details.

It is particularly important that safeguards are in place to ensure that new boarding provision and any changes to provision for students with special educational needs will not endanger the welfare, health and safety of students. The thrust of the amendment would remove the chief inspector’s discretion to decide whether an institution proposing a significant change should be inspected. It would restrict the chief inspector by requiring her to refer to past cases that may or may not be relevant when considering the merits of a specific proposal.

I get the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman seeks reassurance on, which is that the clause might allow the chief inspector too much latitude to inspect schools for all sorts of minor changes. I can reassure him that approval of a change is required only where the change is material—in other words, in significant cases. Not all changes will require approval, and a large number of changes will not require prior approval. Indeed, for those institutions that are not specially organised to make provision for students with special educational needs, the Bill reduces the number of changes that count as material and so require approval by the chief inspector. They will no longer have to get approval from the chief inspector for a change in proprietor, address, the age range of pupils, the maximum number of pupils or whether the school is for male or female pupils or both. That is further deregulation for us to celebrate.

The only changes that will require approval are the introduction of boarding provision and the change to become specially organised for students with special educational needs. Where a material change is proposed, the chief inspector should have a free hand to inspect when she considers it appropriate to do so, and she should not be restricted in the way that the amendment sets out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is sensible, will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that helpful response, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 88

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 128, in clause 88, page 52, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) Any such other evidence referred to in subsection (2)(B) must be made available to the independent educational institution.’.

Clause 88(2) contains a phrase that is of concern. Paragraph (a) states that in coming to a decision the inspector must take into account

“the findings of any inspection carried out under section 87”,

but paragraph (b) then states that the inspector must also take into account

“any other evidence relating to the independent educational institution standards.”

The amendment would ensure transparency because Ofsted would have to make such evidence available to the school. Again, it is a probing amendment, and if the Minister could provide a little more light on the meaning of that phrase, to alleviate any concerns that might exist in the independent sector, that would be very helpful.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In deciding whether or not to approve a material change, the chief inspector must take account of the findings of any inspection carried out to consider the institution’s readiness to make the change, and any other evidence available. To help reassure the hon. Gentleman, the evidence may include previous inspection reports, information from fire and rescue authorities about fire safety, information from the Health and Safety Executive and the environmental health authority about the suitability of the premises, confidential information received from parents or others, matters referred to in a criminal background check on the proprietor of the institution, and any other evidence received from police or social services departments relating to the unsuitability of any person working at the institution.

Where the chief inspector is satisfied that the institution is likely to continue to meet the regulatory standards once the changes are made, she must approve the change. If she is not satisfied, she must refuse approval for the change to be made. The chief inspector must inform the proprietor of her decision. Information received from bodies such as the fire and rescue service, the HSE and the environmental health agency would routinely be shared with institutions. The amendment would not change current procedures, which would then reasonably allow those institutions to make the necessary changes to conform. However, confidential information from parents, the Criminal Records Bureau, social services or the police would not routinely be shared for obvious reasons. Disclosure to the relevant institution would be determined according to the circumstances of the case. In some cases it would appropriate; in others, it would not.

I do not think we should fetter the discretion of the chief inspector by requiring her to disclose all the available evidence, regardless of the circumstance. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This was a probing amendment and the Minister has been very helpful in his response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 92

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in clause 92, page 53, line 26, at end insert—

‘(2A) For the purpose of subsection (2) the Independent Schools Inspectorate shall inspect independent educational institutions that are—

(a) members of Independent Schools Council associations, and

(b) all other registered independent educational institutions other than schools belonging to the Focus Learning Trust.’.

The amendment would enable the Government to achieve a more unified approach than their proposal to transfer regulation monitoring of independent schools to Ofsted. Its purpose is to keep the registration and monitoring with the Department and instead to unify the inspection by having all non-Independent Schools Council schools other than those which will be inspected by the Focus Learning Trust or the other new inspectorates that the Minister is to authorise inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. That would achieve a unified effect more swiftly than his proposals.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It will not surprise the Committee that I want to resist this amendment. The debates on part 4 have used the language of choice and flexibility. The argument goes that independent schools should have the flexibility within the basic regulatory regime to operate as their name suggests—that is, independently. Indeed, one witness described a parent’s choice to educate their child outside the control of the state as a human right. I do not fundamentally disagree with the sentiment about choice and flexibility, and that is why I am intrigued by the purpose and effect of the amendment.

Ofsted is the principal inspection body in England. The breadth of institutions that it covers, including a significant number of independent schools, gives it a unique perspective on the English education system. Moreover, public confidence in Ofsted is high. The Government recognise that choice and diversity are important in the independent sector, precisely because it is independent. Parents of children in the independent sector often desire a more tailored and detailed analysis of their school than Ofsted can provide through inspections that focus solely on regulatory standards. That is why the Education Act 2002 enabled the Secretary of State to approve bodies other than Ofsted to inspect educational provision in independent schools.

The Independent Schools Inspectorate has inspected independent schools belonging to the Independent Schools Council for several years. Since 2002, two further inspectorates have been approved. The amendment would exclude one of those. The Schools Inspection Service inspects schools affiliated to the Focus Learning Trust and the Bridge Schools Inspectorate has just been approved to inspect schools belonging to the Christian Schools Trust and the Association of Muslim Schools.

On the other hand, there are a considerable number of schools that choose not to be affiliated to any particular group or organisation and who are not inspected by an independent inspectorate. Such schools are inspected by Ofsted and the Government believe that the option to have Ofsted as the inspection body should be open to all independent schools. The amendment would close off that possibility, replacing Ofsted and the Bridge Schools Inspectorate with one organisation: the Independent Schools Inspectorate. That would remove the choice that independent educational institutions desire. In the light of my compelling reasoning, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister’s compelling reasoning is that he does not want to create a unified body, which undermines the thrust of the policy behind part 4. However, we have aired this debate at great length and I do not propose to do so again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 94

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 94, page 54, line 29, at end insert

‘, or any other standard considered to be relevant by the independent inspectorate.’.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Independent Schools Inspectorate can look beyond what is specified by the chief inspector. That concern was raised by the ISI in its comments on the clause. It said:

“We would want to look at more than an area which may be specified, if it was appropriate.”

The concern is that this provision might restrict that.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause aims to strike a balance. It will not impose any requirement on the inspectorate to report on standards additional to those specified by the chief inspector. Equally, it will not restrict the freedom of the independent inspectorate to inspect against a wider range of standards than those specified by the chief inspector, if the independent inspectorate thinks it appropriate. The amendment would remove that flexibility by requiring the independent inspectorate to report on additional standards.

Given that the clause does not restrict the freedom of independent inspectorates and that if the Independent Schools Inspectorate wants to add additional standards and inspect against them, it is perfectly at liberty to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On the basis of that response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 98

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in clause 98, page 55, line 41, at end insert

‘except for reports of inspections carried out in response to a specific complaint.’.

This is a probing amendment to ascertain the implications of the clause and what happens if a specific complaint against a school led to an inspection and the complaint derived from a confidential matter, perhaps relating to something that happened to a pupil in the school. Will the Minister address that point?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Inspection reports on all educational institutions are published regularly, so that parents and other interested parties have access to objective judgments about the quality of education provided. Indeed, the provisions of the Bill will add to that information by having Ofsted report on registration of a school, which it currently does not have to do.

Clause 98 follows the established practice in allowing the chief inspector to arrange for the publication of any inspection report she prepares following inspections of independent educational institutions. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will continue to be able to prescribe the manner in which the chief inspector’s reports are published. The clause does not require, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the chief inspector automatically to publish inspection reports carried out in response to a specific complaint, but it gives her the power to do so. That is an important distinction, because it is easy to see a situation where inspectors find no evidence to substantiate a complaint, which may have been made maliciously. In such cases it is unlikely that publishing the report would be appropriate, and the clause gives the chief inspector the discretion to decide not to publish.

On the other hand, there are circumstances in which the chief inspector may decide that it is in the public interest to publish a report, even though it has been prompted by a complaint. For instance, if an inspection stemming from a complaint identified serious regulatory failings, the chief inspector might decide that it would be appropriate to publish the report so that parents were aware of the shortcomings of the institution.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Am I correct in thinking that children would not be named in the course of the report—that it would be anonymised, so that the public reading the report would not be aware of embarrassing details about particular youngsters?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am confident that safeguards will be in place, as in the normal course of operations—how we report court proceedings and so on—to protect children. I do not have the specific information with me now, but if it is any different to the common-sense arrangement that the hon. Gentleman and I envisage, I will write to the Committee to inform Members of what the situation will be.

On the basis that we have a flexible system, which allows discretion according to individual circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On the basis of those words, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 100

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause relates to the power of the chief inspector to take enforcement action. Subsection (4) says that:

“the Chief Inspector has, during the period of three years before the enforcement action is taken, required the...institution to submit”

an action plan. The comment of the Independent Schools Inspectorate is that, for such a school, that seems like a long period in which to require an action plan and to allow the school to languish in that condition. Will the Minister say why the figure of three years was put into the clause?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause sets out the circumstances in which the chief inspector may take enforcement action—under clause 101, which we are about to come on to—against the proprietor of a failing independent educational institution. In order to take enforcement action, the chief inspector must be satisfied that the institution is failing to meet one or more of the regulatory standards. However, to take enforcement action, one of two conditions must first be met.

First, the proprietor must, as we heard, in the previous three years have been required to submit at least one action plan, setting out how the regulatory failings would be dealt with. Where that action plan was not submitted by the required date, was rejected by the chief inspector, or was approved but later not complied with, the first condition is met. Alternatively, where the proprietor was required to submit an action plan at least two years previously, and at least one inspection has taken place since then and the chief inspector is satisfied that at no time in the two-year period has the institution met all the standards, the second condition is met.

The problems identified would not necessarily be allowed to go on for three years, but it is important that schools be given time to put an action plan in place. Three years is the period in current practice, but it would be extremely unusual for Ofsted to allow a situation to carry on for that long. I will reflect on whether three years bears my scrutiny. If I do not raise the matter on Report and the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, I will come back with the answer as to why three years is right. Indeed, I might even write to him and to the Committee if I believe we need to set things out in more detail. As I understand it, however, the clause simply reflects the present situation.

The clause carries forward provisions in existing legislation, but amends them to allow enforcement action to be taken where institutions do not sustain previous improvements or fail to meet all the regulatory standards. It is essential that action be taken, and I hope we can agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The provision contradicts the very welcome policy in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that brings about closure of a poorly performing school within 12 months. I welcome the fact that the Minister will reflect further.

Clause 115

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 207, in clause 115, page 64, line 29, leave out ‘in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions’.

Mr. Bayley, listening to you read the numbers of the preceding series of clauses made me think that if you need another job, bingo calling might be the one for you.

Clause 115 carries forward provisions already in place in existing legislation. It enables the sharing of information between relevant authorities to prevent an unsuitable person from working with children by participating in the management of an independent educational institution. Relevant authorities are the chief inspector, the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Independent Barring Board and the General Teaching Councils for both England and Wales. This will assist relevant authorities to discharge effectively their statutory functions to protect children and vulnerable adults from those who might cause them harm.

The amendment allows the Secretary of State to share with the authority responsible for making the direction under clause 113 any information which may be relevant to consideration of a direction to prohibit a person from participating in the management of an independent educational institution. It will bring consistency between England and Wales and allow the Secretary of State to share any information that may be relevant.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I did not want to interrupt the Minister in full flow, but as an accomplished and experienced part-time bingo caller, I should remind him that numbers above 100 do not appear on the bingo card.

Clause 117

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I felt it was important to say a word about this clause on the grounds that we have not said anything on clause stand part for a long time. We do not want it to be thought that the Committee is not scrutinising the Bill with appropriate diligence.

According to the explanatory notes, clause 117

“enables regulations to be made allowing for any part of this Chapter to apply to this particular group of learning providers”—

the learning providers in question being independent providers of education or training for 16 to 18-year-olds. Clauses 117 and 118 deal only with those organisations. However, the explanatory notes go on to explain that this group of providers

“do not receive any state funding from the LSC.”

Is it really necessary to regulate the sector further? Is there any evidence that those providers are failing to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of young people? If not, and the current regulatory regime works for them, why do we need to change it? We should never legislate unless there is a proven need to do so. I look to the Minister to establish that proven need in the mind of the Committee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Those who have been listening and who might have wondered why we did not talk about previous clauses may be reassured to know that in large part they repeat what was in previous legislation, but in respect of the transfer of functions.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about why we should worry about standards or requirements beyond ordinary health and safety law for those providers of education for 16 to 18-year-olds. There are important minimum regulatory standards that we should put in place beyond health and safety, particularly in respect of child welfare and child protection. This is a good opportunity to do so.

In placing a new duty on all young people to continue to participate in education or training until they are 18, it is right that we take the power to set standards to ensure that they are healthy, safe and supported wherever they choose to fulfil the duty that we discussed at such length under part 1. In many ways the provision is not a response to any specific evidence that there is a failure on the part of those providers. It is much more a consequence of raising the participation age through part 1. I hope, on that basis, that the Committee will support the clause.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I simply say to the Minister that it would perhaps be useful if he could give us some idea of the history in this area—not now because I would not expect him to have this sort of information at his fingertips. If no concerns have been expressed about the way the system operates now and if there is no record of problems relating to child protection, health and safety and welfare, the only grounds I can see for introducing the clause is to establish consistency. That may be sufficient of itself, but it is important to know whether that is the only basis on which the proposal is being made.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is about slightly more than consistency. As we have discussed, new forms of provision will be developed by various organisations from the third sector and elsewhere to engage people who are particularly difficult to engage. There will be an expansion of provision in an area where there are no statutory duties in respect of safety and well-being. Consequential to raising the participation age and to all the extra provision, it is also important—beyond the need for consistency—to lay down statutory duties to safeguard the well-being of the especially vulnerable people we want to engage. Any regulations laid, however, will be dealt with through the affirmative procedure, after consultation, as set out in clause 118(2). We might go on to discuss that if anyone is minded to do so. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman—and the rest of the Committee—reassurance.

Clause 125

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 125, page 69, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 155, in clause 127, page 69, line 33, after ‘Inspector’, insert ‘or the Secretary of State’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We now have an inordinate length of time to discuss the amendments. The clock is only at 10 to 3.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have only one hour and eight minutes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Indeed, Mr. Bayley. I would not want the whole of it, but an hour or so might be reasonable. The Minister might feel that that is appropriate when he hears the gist of my proposal.

Clause 125 amends section 342 of the Education Act 1996 and transfers the function of approving non-maintained special schools in England from the Secretary of State to the chief inspector. The amendment would remove the transfer effected by clause 125(1).

According to the latest departmental figures that I have, there are 70 non-maintained special schools in England. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of pupils at those schools declined from 5,000 in 2003 to about 4,720 in 2007.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman says that, according to departmental statistics, there are 70 non-maintained special schools. In response to an intervention in, I think, the Committee’s third sitting, I said that there are 74. My aim is to ensure that the facts are correct, and it may help the Committee to know that I am now reliably informed—after considerable checking—that the figure is between the two, at 72. I apologise if the Committee feels that it was misled at any point.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As that is halfway between the Minister’s original assertion and my figure, that seems a pretty good deal. It is a balanced figure, and it is reassuring to know that, with all the resources available to them, Ministers can get such figures wrong by two, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I, with limited resources, were only two out as well.

Conservative Members have long had an interest in special educational needs provision and we have a strong commitment to the principle of special schools. I first became involved when, as a county councillor in Nottinghamshire in the 1980s, I was a fierce opponent of the Warnock report and the Act that followed it—passed by a Conservative Government I hasten to add. That Act encouraged the wholesale integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools. I understand that the present Government remain committed to a policy of including as many children as possible in mainstream schools. Partly as a result of that, about 93 special schools have closed since 1997.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall not rehearse the statistics that show that more special schools closed under the previous Government than under the present one. Such decisions are made by local authorities. It is not our policy to ensure that as many children as possible are educated in maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman must understand that we are opening new special schools all the time and that we want to ensure that pupils get the provision that is appropriate to their needs.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister might be right to say that there has been something of a change of heart in recent years. However, when I held the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton as the shadow Schools Minister, I remember fighting a very fierce battle to ensure that children with special educational needs were adequately dealt with in the mainstream. Too often, in the specifics and the quantum of the provision made there, education for such children is found wanting. I remain concerned that in particular parts of the country there is an erosion of special educational provision, which is critical for those children. In some areas there is a mix of provision and parents can chose between placing their child in a special school or integrating them into mainstream education; but that option does not exist in many places in Britain.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Something I gleaned from the many years that I worked in a special school is that there needs to be flexibility between mainstream schools and special schools. Some pupils who fail in mainstream schools will flourish in a special school and there are children in special schools who would like to try to survive in a mainstream school. There must be flexibility in the system to provide for those circumstances.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Even mindful of your generosity, Mr. Bayley, I do not want to stray too far from the specifics before us. However, my hon. Friend is right because there is often a misconception that special educational needs are static. In fact, they are dynamic because of the changing educational circumstances of the child and because of their difficulties. Their disability may be a dynamic one and their learning difficulties may change over time. It is therefore important that there is a lot of fluidity in the system. For some children, mainstream provision will be more appropriate some of the time and at other times in their educational life special provision will be more appropriate. That point is not often made and certainly not made as well as it was by my hon. Friend.

I remain concerned about the erosion of special education. Even Baroness Warnock, whom I mentioned earlier and whose report in 1978 started the process of inclusion, said that her policy has backfired, leaving, in her words, “a disastrous legacy”. According to a survey for The Times Educational Supplement in 2005, teachers believe that up to 25,000 children in mainstream education in England and Wales would be better off in special schools. The survey also found that four out of five teachers and head teachers favour an end to special school closures.

That survey and others also reveal the paucity of training for most teachers in mainstream schools, although they may well have an interface with children with special needs. Too frequently, teachers are ill equipped to deal with the challenges that we offer them.

I have three excellent special schools in my constituency: the Garth school, the Priory school and Gosberton House school, of which I am immensely proud. I make no apologies for, once again, through the amendment, elevating the importance of special schools and championing the case of special needs children. I hope that the Minister will say a word to reassure those of us who believe that the education of children with special needs must be and deserves to be a high priority for the Government and this House, and should play a central part in the provisions of the Bill.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Although, in moving the amendment, Mr. Hayes made a fairly broad speech, I remind members of the Committee that the clause relates to the approval of non-maintained special schools. We cannot have a wide-ranging debate about the Government’s policy on special schools as a whole.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am mindful of your words, Mr. Bayley. I am mildly frustrated that that constrains me in responding properly to the hon. Gentleman and reminding him, for example, that funding for all pupils has increased by £1,440 per pupil since 1997 and that there has been a real-terms increase in funding for special educational needs pupils of 66 per cent., or of other such facts such as that 18,000 children are taught in specially resourced provision within or attached to mainstream schools, and that we have built or re-built more than 100 new special schools in the past 10 years. However, I shall address myself to the amendment to stay within the advice that you have given us, Mr. Bayley, and resist any interventions that might divert me further into responding generally on special educational needs provision.

It may help to explain to the Committee why we are proposing to transfer the responsibility for the approval of non-maintained special schools to the chief inspector. Non-maintained special schools are inspected on an ongoing basis, under exactly the same arrangements that apply to maintained special schools. The chief inspector is responsible for the ongoing inspection of all maintained and non-maintained special schools. She is also responsible for determining whether a school meets the required standards for notifying the Department where intervention action is required, and for monitoring schools requiring intervention to ensure that improvements are made and required standards are met. Given the wide and expert role that Ofsted has built up in relation to special schools, it is entirely sensible that she should also have responsibility for the approval of non-maintained special schools under section 342 of the 1996 Act.

Our consultation shows that the main organisation representing non-maintained special schools agrees with our proposals. The National Association of Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools states:

“Given that it is current DCSF practice to refer most decisions on registration and monitoring to Ofsted, the proposal does make logical sense.”

Amendment No. 154 would reject the transfer of the general approval function to the chief inspector, but continue with the transfer of approving school-specific arrangements. It would split approvals between the Secretary of State and the chief inspector, creating a much more complicated system than either that currently in place or that proposed in this chapter of the Bill. The intention is that the chief inspector will have responsibility for the general approval where a school meets the required standards and responsibility for approving the school-specific arrangements. Those arrangements will put functions where the expertise exists and ensure that institutions need only deal with one body.

Amendment No. 155 would allow regulations made under clause 127 to provide for the Secretary of State, in addition to the chief inspector, to apply to a justice of the peace for an order to close a school in an urgent case. As I have said, the aim of the chapter is to simplify the regulatory regime, concentrating the powers of intervention, monitoring and inspection of non-maintained special schools where the expertise lies.

The amendment would confuse that process and would be counter-productive for two reasons. First, a two-tier approach may delay proceedings. The rationale for having the provision to make emergency orders is to act quickly. Providing for the Secretary of State to apply for an order would dilute the clarity of functions that the Bill introduces and potentially delay an order being made because of confusion as to which body should act. Secondly, it would be the chief inspector who possesses the necessary evidence to support an application to the justice of the peace, and it is therefore logical that she should have that power on her own.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Clearly, the point of amendment No. 155, which I did not speak to because I felt it spoke for itself, is that it provides a degree of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. How will that be provided if it is not added to the Bill?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The chief inspector and Ofsted are accountable to Parliament through the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. The chief inspector also responds to parliamentary questions through me, in writing, and I have never received any complaints, given that I look at those responses as they go out, as to how that system operates. I think that there is sufficient accountability for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has given a plausible explanation for the policy, and I was able—with your indulgence, Mr. Bayley, for which I am grateful—to make another appeal for special needs education and special schools. With regard to amendment No. 155, I think that there is an issue about parliamentary accountability, which the Minister might reflect on and perhaps consider making some kind of report on to Parliament. On balance, given what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 126

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The explanatory note in relation to clause 126 makes it clear that

“The 1998 Act as amended by the 2006 Act provides for a sixth-form pupil in a maintained school to withdraw from religious worship. This clause obliges the Secretary of State to make regulations to afford the same rights to sixth-form pupils in non-maintained special schools.”

Like the Government, we support the right of someone, post-16, to withdraw from religious study. After all, it is compatible with other decisions made by this House on the rights that young people have and are competent to enjoy at the age of 16.

However, is it not ironic that the Government believe that a person at 16 or 17 should be empowered to withdraw from religious study because they are competent to make that decision, yet do not believe that someone is competent, at that age, to make a decision on whether they should participate in education per se? It is the Government’s contention that it is okay for someone at the age of 16 to say that they do not want to study religion, but not okay to say that they do not want to study everything else.

That seems to me at best paradoxical and at worst something altogether less desirable. Surely, it is a contradiction which strikes at the very heart of the purpose of the Bill. As the issue of compulsion has informed our discussions from their beginning until now—almost the end—I could not resist the temptation to raise the issue again. We all want the ideal life for young people, do we not? We want a life that is both “full and reasonable”—

“a life to which the perception and creation of beauty, the enjoyment of real pleasure that is, shall be felt to be as necessary”

to young people “as their daily bread.” I finish in those words of William Morris and I am sure that the Minister will respond in kind.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Mr Jim Knight, to respond in his own words or those of William Morris, as he pleases.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I think I will use my own words on this occasion and I apologise to those who were wanting more excerpts from the “Dictionary of Quotations”, or even the original source, because we all know that the hon. Gentleman is fond of bringing the original tomes into Committee and referring to them, as we have seen throughout our proceedings.

The current regulations for non-maintained special schools require religious worship and religious education to be provided for pupils in those schools unless their parents express a wish that they not do so. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 amended legislation for maintained special schools so that sixth-form pupils in those schools have the right to withdraw from religious worship. All we are seeking to do in this clause is to afford those same rights to sixth-form pupils in non-maintained special schools as exist in maintained special schools. There is no justification for treating sixth-form pupils differently just because they attend a different type of special school.

In making this change, we are not only achieving consistency but, in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s point, being consistent in saying that young people have a duty, that they are of sufficient maturity to be able to understand and fulfil that duty, and that we therefore similarly believe that they are of sufficient maturity to make up their own minds as to whether they want to participate in religious education and worship. I hope the Committee will support this clause.

Clause 129

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Independent Schools Council has raised concern about the clause, which abolishes the concept of approved independent schools under section 347 of the Education Act 1996. The ISC points out that approved status

“provides parents with the assurance that a section-347 school can meet the needs for which it is approved and in which it specialises.”

In the July 2007 consultation document, the Government say:

“Section 347 of the 1996 Education Act created two categories of independent schools, approved and non-approved schools. Approved schools cater wholly or mainly for pupils with SEN, and are required to meet additional standards. For this reason, local authorities are able to place pupils in these schools without seeking consent from the Secretary of State. The standards were originally needed because independent school standards were not in the past set out in a way that was helpful for special schools.”

They go on to say:

“Since the Education Act 2002, higher standards have been set for the independent sector as a whole ... We believe these new standards, together with an improved inspection framework ... remove the need for a separate category of approved independent schools.”

It will then be for the local authorities to assure themselves of the quality of independent special schools that they use to provide education for children with special needs.

In its briefing to the Committee, the ISC points out:

“We are concerned that most local authorities will not have sufficient resources to enable them to take on the responsibility, effectively, for assessing and monitoring the school as well as the individual placement. At the moment, if a school is approved, the local authority need not concern itself with...the organisation or standards at the school: it simply needs to consider whether it can meet the child’s needs...Should local authorities have the resources to carry out this new responsibility, they may seek to impose further burdens on schools”—

that is, of course, if they have the capacity to carry out their individual assessments. It goes on:

“If local authorities believe that they have additional duties to vet such schools, there is a danger that they will impose additional checks (quasi-inspections) and requirements on these schools which could adversely affect their independence and increase the costs”.

The ISC also points out in its written submission that

“none of the schools approved under”

section 347 which are part of the ISC’s membership,

“or, indeed, any other s. 347 schools”

which are not ISC members

“has requested any change to the existing system of approving schools or individual placements...ISC would therefore question the need to make any changes to a system which is functioning well—our schools believe that the Department’s team dealing with s 347 approvals provides an excellent service—and has not experienced any significant problems.”

That is praise indeed, again, for the Minister’s Department. Paragraph 59 of the written submission says:

“Schools see their s 347 approval as a quality standard or kite mark which assures everyone”.

Therefore, removing

“this approval mechanism, takes away this quality assurance”.

The ISC makes clear that the approval regime was introduced in the Education Act 1981, in response to recommendations in the Warnock report, to which my hon. Friend alluded. That report was critical of the unregulated nature of local authority placements in independent schools. The ISC goes on:

“There is, therefore, a serious concern that by removing the s 347 approval mechanism, there may be a return to the previous system, which was found to be in need of reform.”

There is a wider debate to be had about the tendency of many local authorities, for reasons of cost and sometimes of ideology, not to place children with special needs in special schools, or at least to put barriers in the way and make it difficult for all but the most persistent parents to obtain an assessment or statement of special educational need and to get the placement that they seek. Therefore,

“In one respect, ISC recognises that the proposals may enable local authorities to place children with statements of SEN in a wider range of independent schools...However ISC would...fear that...local authorities in practice would take the opportunity presented to reduce the number of placements in the independent sector...or there could be an increase in the number of students placed inappropriately at schools which...may not offer the safeguards of specialism and quality present under the current s 347 approval mechanism.”

That is a real danger, given that there is already a tendency in local authorities to resist sending or allowing parents to send their children to special schools, whether in the independent or the maintained sector.

The ISC makes the further important point that the special educational needs and disability tribunal

“can only name the school if it is approved or if the Secretary of State gives consent for the individual child to attend...If, in the future, the local authority will be solely responsible for deciding whether a school is suitable for a particular child, we would argue that this creates a significant conflict of interest and places in the Tribunal in an impossible position. It would seem inequitable for an authority to, in effect, defeat an appeal against its decision by saying that it does not consider the parent’s preferred school as suitable and that the Tribunal, therefore, could not place a child there in any event. On the other hand, the tribunal is unlikely to have sufficient evidence to allow it to assess whether the local authority’s judgment about the school is sound”.

There are multiple concerns expressed by the ISC which I have had the pleasure of conveying to the Committee. The Minister needs to think again about whether something that is working well should be removed and abolished for whatever reasons he has for making this proposal in the first place. I look forward to hearing his response to the ISC’s genuine concerns.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his praise of my Department’s officials, who indeed do a fine job. The proposals to transfer this function are no reflection on their professionalism or capability.

The requirement for independent schools to meet additional conditions of approval when local authorities are considering placing children with statements of special educational needs was carried forward in the Education Act 1996. At the time, that was intended as a means of protecting the most vulnerable children with SEN. The introduction of the independent schools standards in 2003, which all independent schools have to meet, has seen a marked improvement in the standards that apply across the board in the independent schools sector. Indeed, the standards against which all independent schools are judged—this is the significant issue—are now higher than those set out for approved schools. The requirement to seek approval which marks out the separate category of school is therefore simply legal and bureaucratic. It fulfils no function whatsoever in providing additional safeguards for children with special educational needs.

In respect of burdens on local authorities, under current legislation, a local authority has to decide whether an independent school is a suitable placement. The fact that an independent school is approved under section 347 does not reduce an authority’s work in determining whether it is a suitable placement for that individual. That duty on local authorities will not change with the proposed changes in the Bill. They will still be able to access lists of independent schools that are specially organised for pupils with SEN, describing what type of SEN the schools cater for. They will then have to determine whether a school can meet the individual needs of the child.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I accept that point, but assessing whether the school is a suitable institution for the child to attend is different from having to assess the quality of a school. That places a whole new burden on local authorities. They do not just have to ask whether a particular type of school is right for a child with these particular special educational needs. They now have an additional burden placed upon them to assess whether that school is a good-quality school per se.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I know is assiduous, missed my point that all independent schools will have met the standard for all independent schools, which is higher than that required for an approved school. The local authority therefore does not need to concern itself about the standard but simply about whether the school is appropriate for the individual child. The proposed changes will, however, remove the need for a local authority to seek consent from the Secretary of State to place a child with special educational needs in an independent school. Under current legislation, around 700 requests are received from local authorities seeking consent from the Secretary of State for placements. The changes proposed in clause 129 will remove this burden on local authorities and we estimate that the documentation to support a request for consent takes 350 days a year of local authorities’ SEN officers’ time. This equates to a monetary saving to local authorities of approximately £120,000 per year.

The requirement for a local education authority to seek consent from the Secretary of State to place a child with a statement of special educational needs in an non-approved independent school is an unnecessary administrative burden.

There are safeguards in place for parents of children with statements of special educational needs. Where there are disagreements between parents and local authorities about provision and placements of children with SEN, parents have the right of appeal to the special educational needs and disability tribunal. Decisions of the tribunal are binding on both parties. The tribunal would still need to be satisfied that an independent school was appropriate for the child. SENDIST already considers that and does not rely on the mere fact of approval, for all the reasons I set out. The tribunal stands in the shoes—to adopt a colloquialism—of the local authority for that purpose.

I am confident that the existing statutory duties of local education authorities for children with SEN, together with the strengthened guidance and improved standards for the independent sector as a whole, remove the requirement for a separate category of independent school and for local authorities to seek consent for a child to be placed in an independent school. I hope that the Committee supports the clause.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

It is my job to do what I can from the Chair to protect the rights of all Members. I notice that there are still five groups of Government amendments on the Order Paper for discussion. These will be put to a vote, whether or not we have a debate on them. There is also one further group of Conservative amendments, Liberal Democrat amendments and four groupings of Liberal Democrat new clauses. We have just over half an hour to go, so if colleagues want to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to put proposals, we must make progress as quickly as we can.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

On a point of order, Mr. Bailey, I seek your guidance on clause 133. Some weeks ago, I tabled amendment No. 161, which would omit clause 133. If my memory serves me correctly, it originally turned up as an amendment on the selection list. It is not there now so I seek your guidance on how you plan to deal with that.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

The amendment was to leave out clause 133. Amendments to leave out a clause are ruled out of order because the mechanism for a Member to achieve that aim would be to speak against the clause standing part of the Bill. With the leave of the Committee,

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Given the confusion this morning, it might be convenient for Members on both sides of the Committee if I say that my reading of amendment No. 186, which is out of order, is that it is the Government’s intention to oppose the motion that clause 132 stand part of the Bill because they intend, at a later point, to move that a replacement clause, new clause 6, is opposed.

Clause 132

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 6—Powers of National Assembly for Wales.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.