Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Debate between Christopher Chope and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

The Council of Europe is different from the United Nations, and the statute spells out that it is separate from the United Nations. The Council of Europe covers only Europe—European values and principles. I would be concerned if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to be an apologist for the Russian Federation, although I do not believe that he does. Until now, cross-party concern has been expressed in the House about the behaviour of the Russian Federation. If we are prepared to take economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, why should we not take the sanctions that are available to us under the Council of Europe statute? The answer may be because certain other members of the Council of Europe are too frightened to want to join in, but my answer to them is that the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a lead in such things. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will say that we are taking a lead and explain what we will do.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about engaging with people. Does he agree that we should encourage engagement with the sections of Russian society that have taken a stand against Putin, and that we should ensure that they have a voice not only in the Council of Europe but across the globe?

[Mr Chope]

I agree, but how best can we do that? That is a question of judgment. I have heard it said, for example, that we must keep Russia in the Council of Europe because if we do not, it will reinstate the death penalty. In fact, however, we can see from recent events that the Russian Government exercise an extrajudicial death penalty by murdering enemies of the state in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Do we tolerate such behaviour because we are fearful that Russia might reintroduce a judicial death penalty instead of the extrajudicial death penalty that is currently handed out by the President?

The extent to which we should impose sanctions is an eternal dilemma. Just as public opinion in this country is influenced by international events, if we took a firmer line against Russia on its human rights record and its breaches of the rules of the Council of Europe, we would support those in Russia who are trying to fight against the system. I know from having had the privilege of talking to Bill Browder that he also believes that it is better to try to sanction the regime in Russia than to continue to indulge it.

Ofsted

Debate between Christopher Chope and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

Indeed, Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended that, and I assume that the only reason he has done so is because in his experience there has not been such consistency and quality assurance under the old regime. I support his judgment on that, but it is no consolation for a school that has fallen foul of the old and inconsistent regime. Future improvements may lead to more consistency; indeed, the purpose of this debate is to try to find out what can be done to ensure consistency. So much turns on Ofsted’s judgment of a particular school.

What happens if a school is dissatisfied with an inspection? All it can do is appeal. Under Ofsted’s internal appeals process, Ofsted inspectors judge the work of other Ofsted inspectors. In the case of Ferndown upper school, a more junior Ofsted inspector judged the work of a more senior inspector, which I would submit is quite an invidious position to be put in—it certainly lacks the transparency and objectivity that we should demand of such organisations.

The school then appealed to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which deals with appeals against Ofsted. Unfortunately, the ICASO is effectively toothless because it cannot adjudicate on the important issues. The school made what is called a stage 4 complaint, which said, for example, that the inspectors who went to the school made notes and said orally to the school that they found that the pupils’ behaviour was good and that there were no examples of bad behaviour, but that they changed their judgment at a later stage in the process and said that they were concerned that there had been examples of bad behaviour.

Not surprisingly, the school said, “Well, let’s see where those examples of bad behaviour were noted by the inspectors at the time.” The school was told, “That’s all confidential information and it’s not available under freedom of information.” The school raised that issue with ICASO. The response from ICASO, which came through in the summer, stated that the complainant’s concerns relating to the Freedom of Information Act lie entirely outside ICASO’s remit, so it was not able to look at that. ICASO also said that it is not within its remit to overturn Ofsted judgments or to scrutinise its inspection criteria. Indeed, the only thing ICASO can do is look at the process, which is not really what we want in an appeals system.

Once a school has gone through that stage and had its ICASO adjudication, what can it do next? All it can do is send the matter to the parliamentary ombudsman. If ever there was the long grass, it is the parliamentary ombudsman—I am not insulting him, but the parliamentary ombudsman, again, can only consider administrative processes. Because of his work load, a complaint referred to the parliamentary ombudsman is unlikely to be determined for a significant period of time, by when the school will have a completely different cohort of pupils. That does not seem to be an adequate process of accountability. I would be interested to know whether the Minister—whom I am delighted to see in his place—agrees and whether he has any proposals for change, because the more emphasis we put on the regulatory and inspection process, the more important it is that it should be seen to be objective and above reproach. The trouble is that the consequences of such judgments feed into the school’s morale and the esteem in which it is held by potential pupils. That in itself can result in it suffering to a greater extent.

The school has now shown, through its results in the July exams, a significant improvement in the quality of its education. That is surely good news, but when one looks at the inspector’s follow-up letter, one does not get the impression that he is as pleased as the school is with the progress made and the way in which it is now outperforming many other schools in Dorset in the exam league tables. That raises another issue: because the school has a grade 4 assessment from Ofsted, while comparable schools in Dorset have grade 2 assessments—that is, good—people immediately reach the conclusion that it is less good than the others. However, because of when those other schools had their inspections, we may well not be comparing like with like.

That is one of the problems, which we know is not unique to Dorset or to Ferndown upper school. Evidence from throughout the country shows that Ofsted will quite often fail to see things in a school that are going badly wrong. Just to show that the debate is not purely about the Christchurch constituency, I will refer briefly to what happened at Saltley school and specialist science college. The International New York Times had an exclusive interview with the former principal of that school who talked about “harassment” from the local board over courses. He referred to the “relentless criticism” that he faced from a “Muslim-dominated school board”—he being a Sikh—and spoke about how he was eventually forced to step down as principal.

We now know that that school was the subject of an emergency report, “Report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter”, which was published in July 2014 and made severe criticisms. In a statement issued to Parliament yesterday, the Government drew attention to the gross inadequacies of Birmingham city council in dealing with those and other issues and they have proceeded, as near as they can, to put Birmingham city council under special measures. At a time when the Government are talking about the importance of devolving even more power to local authorities, that finding shows that one of the largest local authorities—I think Birmingham has more children under its control than any other local education authority—is severely lacking.

One might ask, “What do Ofsted think about Saltley school and specialist science college?” It was inspected on 9 and 10 May 2013 and under every category—achievement of pupils, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety of pupils, and leadership and management—it was marked as good. The report said that the school was “good” and that:

“Students made good progress from their low starting points,”

and so on. It also said:

“The new head teacher and senior leaders have accurately identified strengths and weaknesses in the school and have continued to improve teaching and raise achievement.”

We now know that that was substantially wide of the mark, yet does anything in Ofsted’s annual report explain how it was able to produce that inspection for Saltley school on 9 and 10 May 2013, when just over a year later, in July 2014, it became clear that what was alleged to be a really good school was far from that?

I give that as another example of Ofsted’s inconsistency and lack of accountability. When parents who were thinking about sending their children to Saltley school and specialist science college looked at the Ofsted report, they must have thought, “This is brilliant; this is fantastic.” Yet just over a year later, they would have been ashamed about having made that judgment.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the increasing numbers of educational practitioners who it is hoped will be on Ofsted teams from now on will decrease the likelihood of his experience being repeated in the future?

[Mr Chope]

I certainly hope so, but whatever system is in place—this is the essence of the debate—there needs to be some means of appeal, if needs be, into the substance. In such situations, conciliation and discussion is much better than formal, adversarial appeals processes. Ultimately, there must be a way for a school head to engage with an inspector or a group of inspectors and say, “Sorry, you’ve got this wrong.”

One of the difficulties in the case of Ferndown upper was that the moderation process was not allowed to be developed early on. It was said that because the school had been assessed as grade 4, it needed to be dealt with first by the inspectorate before the concerns expressed could be moderated. We need a system that ensures that where schools feel they have been judged incorrectly, they can have that put right in a timely fashion, because there are implications for their viability. In this debate we are talking about publicly funded schools, but if we look at how inspection processes can affect commercial organisations, we can see that the consequences of an unjustly bad report may be disastrous for their viability.

I am delighted that other people have come along to participate in the debate. When we get to the conclusion, I hope that the Minister will set out exactly how we can improve Ofsted’s accountability to teachers, parents and pupils—everyone involved.

Nothing I have said is designed to detract from the importance of ensuring that we have the highest standards in our schools. Standards have been improving, and a lot of credit is due to the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who will respond to the debate, as well as the previous Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the current Secretary of State for being vigorous in saying that we must try to move away from a culture in which producer interests prevail to the disadvantage of the consumer. I am all in favour of these reforms, but they would be even better if we could get more objectivity into the way Ofsted is held accountable to the public, to the Secretary of State for Education and ultimately, through the Secretary of State, to this House.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Debate between Christopher Chope and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that demonstrates the inconsistency, and the feeling of unfairness, or even injustice, that it generates among parliamentary colleagues. That is why I hope for clarification on to what extent, if at all, the Government have altered the concept of collective ministerial responsibility. It seems to many, including from a number of comments made by Liberal Democrats, that notwithstanding what is said in the coalition agreement and the guidance for Ministers, there has been a change in the approach to collective ministerial responsibility.

One of the problems is that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot differentiate between collective ministerial responsibility and collective responsibility. He sees everything in terms of coalition, and thinks that Back-Bench Members of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats have responsibility equal to that of members of the coalition Government, which is palpably wrong.

At oral questions yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would

“make it a priority to introduce transparency into collective ministerial responsibility, which seems to be being set aside without any proper accountability to the public or the House”.

He replied:

“As the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, collective responsibility prevails where there is a collective agreement and a collective decision on which collective responsibility is based. It is not easy, and certainly not possible to enforce collective responsibility in the absence of a collective decision taken first.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 697.]

I think A-level English language students will in due course be asked to interpret that. By muddling up collective ministerial responsibility and collective party political responsibility, the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significance and importance of the concept of collective ministerial responsibility; its importance is that it gives certainty to people outside who want to know about Government policy.

The Liberal Democrats have a history of speaking with forked tongue. They often enunciate a different policy for different groups of potential electors, or electors in different parts of the country, because they think no one will check on the inconsistencies between policies. It seems as though their attitude towards speaking with forked tongue is tainting the whole Government.

I worry that a lack of intellectual rigour is being brought to the issue. That goes to the heart of the governance of our country. It is not just an academic topic to be discussed in essays; it bears on how the Government operate, the predictability with which they operate and, most importantly, the information available to people who rely on Government decisions. As I said at the outset, the situation today is that nobody knows the Government’s view on press regulation, because all that we had in response to the urgent question were statements in the House from party spokesmen. The issue will develop further in future, which is why we need proper accountability.

In a debate on 29 January, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to tell us who had set aside collective responsibility and, if it was the Prime Minister, why. He said:

“My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the ministerial code. Indeed, when ministerial collective responsibility is explicitly set aside, it is the Prime Minister who makes that decision”—

the Prime Minister alone, not the Deputy Prime Minister. The Leader of the House continued:

“He is clearly doing it, as the House will understand, in the context of coalition government.” —[Official Report, 29 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 807-8.]

When I asked the Prime Minister about that, all I got was a reference back to what the Leader of the House had said, even though according to the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister is solely responsible, and therefore accountable for the policy.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Cannot the entirety of what he is saying be summed up in one sentence? I speak with some experience from Northern Ireland. When political parties and philosophies in a coalition are diametrically opposed, inevitably we will end up with the problem that he is trying to rationalise.

[Mr Chope]

I submit that we should not necessarily end up with that problem. We know that one of the disadvantages of coalition government is that it leads to indecision, lowest common denominator decision-making and so on, but lowest common denominator decision-making does at least have a lowest common denominator. What we seem to have is a Government who take two parallel decisions at the same time and pick and mix.

That is evidenced further by the answer given yesterday to complaints about the change in the Government’s approach to inheritance tax. The answer, given by the Secretary of State for Health, was that there is an important difference between promises made by the Conservatives while in opposition and pledges made after the coalition agreement:

“That commitment on inheritance tax was a Conservative manifesto commitment. It’s not in the coalition agreement, so there is an important difference”.

It is not in the coalition agreement, but it is not specifically ruled out of the agreement either. Now the coalition and the agreement are being used as excuses for basically ripping up any policy that the Government do not like and replacing it with another. That is creating a lot of confusion among people outside, who are wondering where that leaves manifestos. We vote for parties on the basis of manifestos. If at the next general election a lot of people vote for the Conservative party on the basis that they will get an in/out referendum, and we then find that we do not have an overall majority and enter into some sort of coalition agreement, the manifesto pledge on which we got so many millions of votes will be torn up.