---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 132. I have two or three points to make—I hope, succinctly. First, it is clearly important that, under the very significant changes taking place, both Ofsted and HMCI remain alive to their responsibilities. That is a given and, I think, is shared. I am not convinced that legislation is the best way to ensure that or to encourage it, for two reasons. First, to specify a post in the Bill verges on being disproportionate. There are many other areas of work in Ofsted where we do not specify appointments on which there should be legislative instruction. People might well feel that creating such a post through legislation might accord it disproportionate significance within the new organisation. My second point follows that one very closely. I am inclined to oppose anything that diminishes the professional and operational independence of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. That principle was won and has been defended vigorously. I suspect that creating a post such as this through legislation would cause uncertainty in the ranks about where responsibility lies, to whom responsibility should be given and by whom. At the moment, there is a clear relationship: the Secretary of State reports to Parliament and the Chief Inspector of Schools is responsible through that route. Now, to my regret, as I have made plain during earlier stages of the Bill, the chief inspector also has a board, so there is already significant responsibility, and the need to accentuate the responsibility for this area through a specific post is a step too far. Hence, I am unable to support the amendment.