Education Bill

Debate between Nick Gibb and Stephen McPartland

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, but I must stop myself agreeing with him. I believe that the reputational risk is only a very small part of the problem with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations. The problem is that Ofqual has only the nuclear option, to which the Minister referred, of saying, “You are either in or out.” I imagine that causes a great deal of conflict in Ofqual when it investigates an organisation. My hon. Friend knows from his vast business experience that the cost of doing business is often factored into every meeting, and I have no doubt that the cost of engaging with Ofqual is included in every meeting.

[Mr Gibb]

I want to put on the record the fact that Ofqual will consult on the definition of turnover it will use for the 10% figure. Other regulators have always defined turnover in relation to regulated activities and not beyond them.

[Stephen McPartland]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. One of the little-known problems with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations is that often when it requests information the organisations can ignore it—I am not saying they do so—because they know that Ofqual only really has the nuclear option; it can either engage with them or not engage. That becomes the organisations’ point of view on the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the view of the regulator in trying to regulate the industry. We referred to the industry earlier as a market, and it is worth almost £1 billion a year in the UK. There are 182 awarding organisations.

[Stephen McPartland]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, because reputational risk is very important. The problem is simply that it comes back to reputational risk and the nuclear option, as many awarding organisations can take a chance and build into their business models the number of mistakes they can make before they appear in national headlines. I am not saying that that is what they are doing, but with Ofqual’s current position there is a very odd situation in which the awarding organisations can identify the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the regulator regulating the industry.

Providing Ofqual with the ability to fine awarding organisations at 10% allows it to say, “If you don’t comply and engage with us, we can fine you up to 10%.” I agree with the Minister that there will no doubt be a sliding scale and that it will be introduced with consultation, but the key point, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) noted earlier, relates to the Japanese example of smashing one circuit in 1,000 to ensure that they comply. We do not want one mistake to ensure that Ofqual and the awarding organisations comply with one another; we want them to have a relationship based on trust and understanding and, as a last resort, for there to be the threat of fine if the awarding organisations do not engage with Ofqual. Reputational risk is important, but I think that we all understand that what affects people ultimately is the bottom line: what profit they are making and how they are engaging. That is what is important, because that is what they are employed to do. I broadly agree with the Ofqual situation. There is a bit of conflict, because it means giving a quango more powers, but in this situation I think that that is correct.

We also had a robust and prolonged debate on Ofsted, with many interventions. There was a suggestion that some schools would not be inspected for perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years, but in practice that is unrealistic. I was under the impression that when a new head teacher took over a school, particularly a primary school, traditionally that would trigger an Ofsted inspection within a couple of years. I understand that under the Bill’s provisions Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools will trial a new approach so that, when a new head teacher takes over, the inspector will contact the school to discuss the performance and the head teacher’s plans for the future, which I think is a much more effective way of working with outstanding schools.

Triggers have been mentioned. I understand that there will be a guaranteed minimum re-inspection rate of 5% and that governors, through the powers and freedoms we are allowing them—the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) spoke effectively about this in Committee on several occasions—will be able to say that they are losing confidence in how things are going. If parent governors in our constituencies believe that children are not getting access to the best education, they phone their MP or local authority straight away to demand the best for their children. That would also ensure that those schools will have the best from the new freedom to engage and not to be inspected every couple of years.

On a wider note, I am pleased that Ofsted will no longer give six or seven weeks’ notice of inspections. The notice period had meant that teaches would often work for 15 or 16 hours a day for six or seven weeks, including weekends, to try to ensure that their school is seen at its best. I do not believe that that is the best way of conducting inspections. What Ofsted is doing at the moment is giving a couple of days’ notice before turning up, which provides a much better reflection of the school. As the years go by, that will provide a much better snapshot of what is happening.

Also, the freedoms for academies in the Bill will lift education across every constituency and local education authority area. Competition is the wrong word to use in a debate on education, but those schools, head teachers and teachers will be seeking to attract the best children. It is important to focus on providing the children with the best schools. Many of the outstanding schools will not now be inspected as often as before, but they will be spending their time helping neighbouring schools that do not have the best procedures in place to move towards becoming outstanding. I welcome the Bill’s proposals in this area.

My final point relates to direct payments for special educational needs. The Minister said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that people would be able to opt into this process, and I am grateful to him for that, because I would have had great hesitation in supporting any kind of compulsory measure. Now that the Minister has clarified the position, however, I can support the proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to this interesting debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for their thoughtful contributions, and I shall respond to as many of their points as possible, in addition to speaking to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked me to say a little more about Lords amendments 1 to 4, which relate to interim prohibition orders. Since the Bill’s introduction, it has included a new power for the Secretary of State to make such orders. Many regulators have a power of that kind for use in the rare cases when it is in the public interest to bar an individual while an investigation is under way, prior to a final decision being made. When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee scrutinised the Bill, it asked about the safeguards that were going to be put in place. As a matter of policy, we intended the issue of interim suspension orders to be possible only when it was in the public interest, and subject to regular six-monthly reviews when requested. The Committee suggested that those quality safeguards be placed on the face of the Bill. The amendments were debated briefly in Grand Committee before being made in the other place.

On extending teacher anonymity, we have to proceed on the basis of evidence in restricting press freedom. I have already cited the findings of our survey. Teachers are much more likely to be the subject of allegations than other staff in schools. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the teachers of 16 to 19-year-olds in further education colleges, but the evidence from the survey shows that just 1% of allegations related to teachers in FE colleges, compared with 23% relating to school teachers. The NASUWT’s records show that, in the past 10 complete years, it has provided a solicitor in relation to 1,592 cases of allegations against teachers, of which 1,439 resulted in no further action being taken.

The survey related to local authority designated officers—LADOs—and the total number of allegations of abuse that were referred to LADOs in the 116 local authorities that responded to the survey was 12,086, of which 2,827, or 23%, related to teachers. Of those, allegations of abuse related to 0.6% of the teaching profession as a whole. That means that there are 1.5 times as many allegations against teachers as against support staff, which had a figure of 0.4% of the total non-teaching population.

On the basis of that survey, I believe that we have got this measure right. I say with all due respect to my hon. Friends that we must not let the best become the enemy of the good. I have heard Members on all sides of the debate today pushing to extend the measure to more staff, and not to extend it to teachers because of the effect that it has on them, but I think that we have got it just about right.

Academies (Funding)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Stephen McPartland

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I know and like the hon. Lady; I have known her for many years. She is trying to create a theme here, but there is no theme. The problem that was reported in the Financial Times today occurs every year. It arises from the complexity of the funding system, which we are trying to simplify. It is as simple as that, and we will sort it out.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on moving the focus on to the 200 worst-performing primary schools. Does he agree with Nick Pearce, the head of the Institute for Public Policy Research and Tony Blair’s former policy adviser, that this is something that the previous Government did not focus on enough?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, I do. When we were in opposition, we proposed extending academy status to primary schools. The schools Minister at the time thought it was an appalling idea. However, we have to do something about the 200 underperforming primary schools. Indeed, we have to do something about all the underperforming primary schools, because primary school is where children learn the basics of reading and arithmetic. If we do not get it right in those early years, the life chances of all those thousands of children attending those underperforming schools could be blighted. We intend to sort those schools out.