---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 248ZAA: "Page 212, line 25, leave out paragraph 5" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 248ZAA, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 248ZAB and 248ZH. This cluster of amendments is intended to probe the precise strategy for the new Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, which I see will retain its former acronym, Ofsted—as we have already said. Amendments Nos. 248ZAA and 248ZAB are probing amendments. It is not our intention to abolish the salary of the chairman and appointed members of Ofsted; neither is it our intention to abolish committees that may be set up. But in the absence of on-the-record information from the Minister in another place on the precise financial arrangements of Ofsted, I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on these issues. My honourable friend Nick Gibb MP asked in another place whether the Minister felt that the present arrangements lacked strategic direction. In response, the Minister said that he was, "““not here … to spell out those strategic directions””.—[Official Report, 11/5/06; col. 907.]" It seems to me that the answer to my honourable friend was, ““Yes””—the department’s present arrangements for Ofsted do lack strategic direction. It is right that Ofsted should function entirely independently; that is at the core of its great value for education in this country. There would be no point in having a government-run body to inspect schools and, by implication, the government education policy. Even so the department, which in the words of the Minister in another place has no strategic input into Ofsted, has implemented spending powers to be set by the Secretary of State and introduced new powers to create committees—all of which come with a generous civil servant pay and pension packet. What the Minister in another place failed to answer was the point concerning the structural reconfiguration and the accountability of levels of remuneration. The regulatory impact assessment quotes the Government's policy on inspection of public services, which states that it, "““supports inspection where it can be demonstrated that the benefit outweighs the cost””." But nowhere in the regulatory impact assessment is there mention of an advance audit of how effective Ofsted spending will be. The RIA states that at the time of publishing, cost estimates were based on an early assumption that, "““will be refined as the detail of the policy is developed””." I hope the Minister can fill us in on the detail of that policy, how much it is set to cost the taxpayer and, crucially, whether it will affect the independence of Ofsted. Further to the question of initial finances, there is also little to no incentive in the Bill for the office to keep costs in control. These expenses are easy to accumulate in hotel bills, travel and so on. My honourable friend in another place, Nadine Dorries MP, tabled an amendment that would have ensured that schools did not pay an unlimited fee for their own inspections. I should be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on what incentives exist or are planned to help the new office minimise costs. I am minded to await the Minister’s response today with the possibility of bring back a revised version of the amendment in the light of information about Ofsted’s strategy. The proposed inspectorate will incorporate a vast remit and not just in educational terms. It will stretch from nursery schools to adult education—also incorporating the children's services from the Commission for Social Care Inspection—to prison inspection work with juvenile estates. That is planned, I understand, to happen by 2008. That is a tight schedule. I fear that while these various different inspectorates jostle for their new roles under the Ofsted umbrella, roles will become confused and the vital component of our educational system, the head official body for holding schools to account, will suffer, resulting in literally immeasurable damage to standards in schools. Amendment No. 248ZH injects a duty to promote high standards into the office, which, in its title, stands to represent standards in education, children’s services and skills. I was extremely surprised to note that such a priority was not already included in the Bill, and even more surprised to note the Minister’s rejection of the amendment in another place, stating that the amendment was at odds with the general purpose of Ofsted, although the regulatory impact assessment states: "““Inspection has a key role to play in the reform and improvement of public services””," and—this is the most important thing of all, on which we have touched again and again, although maybe not enough in this Committee— "““helps to drive up standards””." I should be interested to know which of those statements is true. Why should not Ofsted focus on high standards? The key to the role of Ofsted must be to ensure that all schools are good. Both the White Paper and the RIA state repeatedly that, "““satisfactory is no longer good enough””." The educational goalposts shift ever upwards. However, that aim, which I read to mean that all children must achieve their best, must be tested. The Government’s policy is clear. Page 143 of the RIA states unequivocally: "““The Government challenges all schools to provide the best possible standards of education to all their pupils, so all children and young people can achieve their potential””." Yet in another place the Minister rejected the amendment from my honourable friend, retabled as Amendment No. 248ZH today, which would make it a key statutory aim for the chief inspector to exercise his functions with a view to promoting high standards. That is the essential bridge between the statement of intent that we can find on the first page of the Bill in new Clause 13A(l)(a), ““promoting high standards””, and the realisation of the success or failure of that ambition. I beg to move.