---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, enables me to pay tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years. He was the distinguished first head of Ofsted and it has done exemplary work in the school system and beyond during that period. I know that it is late, but this is our only opportunity to discuss inspection or report. It may be of interest to the House to learn that recent research conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Ofsted to obtain parents' views of inspections in schools found that 92 per cent of parents said that they were in favour of school inspections, against only 4 per cent who were not; 82 per cent of parents said that they believed that inspections had helped their child’s or children’s schools to improve, with 90 per cent of that group considering the inspection or report to be helpful. It is very unusual in the educational world to have such near-unanimity on any aspect of policy. It is a tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years that it has managed to achieve that status. I know that the reports by Ofsted in general and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector in particular—especially his annual reports, which have become a sort of state-of-the-nation report on the quality of the school system—are immensely valued by parents and policy makers. On Amendment No. 132, I completely agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. We believe that creating an adult learning inspector in the Bill is unnecessary. As I made clear in Committee, there is no question of any part of the adult skills remit being lost in the new framework. We have put in place safeguards, such as a new board with statutory duties to have regard to the views of users such as employers, who are defined as one such user. I recognise that some groups, particularly those that were not part of Ofsted as it was before the Bill, were initially suspicious of the move to Ofsted. However, we believe that these concerns have been diminished as the proposals have become better developed. The strategy board overseeing the creation of the new Ofsted demonstrated the priority that it gives to this area of Ofsted’s functions. Its first meeting with external stakeholders was with the CBI, the TUC and a sector skills council, and I understand that this dialogue demonstrated the benefits that could be brought by the cross-fertilisation of the qualities of the two inspectorates. The amendment would require a senior member of Ofsted’s staff to have responsibility for adult learning. It may reassure the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and the noble Baroness who spoke to hers to know that Christine Gilbert, the new HMCI, has indicated there will be a director of skills in the new Ofsted, who will report directly to the chief inspector at exactly the same level as the directors for education and children’s services, which are also planned. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, stated in Committee: "““Surely the existence of a head of inspection for schools but no position for adult learning will create a division of attention in the inspectorate that all but ignores adult learning””.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1710.]" I should clarify that the Bill does not propose a head of inspection of schools, so a director of adult learning to mirror this is, by definition, unnecessary. Furthermore, defining in legislation separate heads of inspection runs the risk of embedding in statute a federal system in Ofsted that is contrary to the underlying principle of integration and that would tie Ofsted’s hands in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, it should be Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector who takes operational decisions on the organisational structure, rather than it being dictated through legislation. The amendment might also undo the core principle of Ofsted, which has been a key part of its success over the years, that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is solely and personally responsible for inspection judgments and does not have to arbitrate those judgments, either through a board or through management dialogue in Ofsted. We would risk damaging the credibility, simplicity and success of Ofsted if we were to weaken the accountability system of the office of the chief inspector. On Amendments Nos. 133 and 134, as I said in Committee, since 2005 Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection have arrived at a local authority’s performance rating for its children’s services functions by discussing and agreeing one rating to cover both education and children’s social care. Clause 134 provides for a single performance rating, to be awarded by the chief inspector following the transfer of functions. The Government believe that tracking year-on-year progress is a key element in driving up performance. This is especially true when local authorities and their partners are integrating services to deliver the Every Child Matters agenda. In assessing the performance of local authorities, inspectors will assess how they interact with their partners and will focus on how they contribute to the well-being of children. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about self-assessment on behalf of the Local Government Association. I emphasise that self-assessment is at the heart of the annual performance assessment. The local authority produces its self-assessment, and Ofsted evaluates this against other evidence. That process produces the performance rating, so we accept the importance of self-assessment and do not believe that it is diminished by these arrangements. Government Amendments Nos. 134A to 134E, 145A and 145B are technical government amendments. They are consequential on recent amendments to the Police and Justice Bill, which were announced by the Government and approved by the House last week. The amendments that I have tabled will ensure that the reciprocal arrangements for co-operation between all inspectorates apply between the new Ofsted and each of the criminal justice inspectorates.