Education Bill

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 18.

Lords amendment 19, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 20 to 22.

Lords amendment 23, and amendment (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 24, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 25 and 26.

Lords amendment 27, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendments 30 to 35, 37, 38, 40 to 42, 44 to 46 and 72 to 98.

[Mr Gibb]

It is with great pleasure that I bring the Education Bill back before the House. It received detailed scrutiny here in the spring, in the course of 22 Committee sittings, before it went off to the other place. Their lordships have given it the full benefit of their diligence and expertise and I am pleased to say that its core content is as it was when it left this House. Before I address the amendments, it might be helpful if I briefly remind the House of the core content. Its main purpose is to give legislative effect to the proposals in the education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, published last November. It also contains some measures from the Department for Business Innovations and Skills, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will discuss in due course.

The Bill has four main themes. First, it seeks to give teachers and head teachers greater freedom and flexibility to use their judgment and expertise to get the best results for their pupils. International evidence shows that greater school autonomy characterises the best performing education systems. The Bill seeks to remove unnecessary legislative duties from schools and extends the benefits of the academies programme to 16 to 19-year-old pupils and vulnerable pupils in need of alternative provision.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to strengthen the powers and authority of teachers in relation to classroom discipline. We want all children to be educated in a safe environment that is free from disruption and we want all teachers and prospective teachers to feel confident that they have society’s backing in tackling poor behaviour. The Bill will allow same-day after-school detentions and will provide a power to search pupils for any item likely to cause harm or injury. It will also give teachers pre-charge anonymity when faced with an allegation by a pupil that they have committed an offence.

Thirdly, the Bill matches the increased autonomy it seeks to introduce with sharpened accountability and seeks to focus Ofsted inspections on the four most important aspects of a school’s work. It will require Ofqual, the independent regulator, to secure that the standards of English qualifications are comparable with the best in the world, and it will strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in poorly performing schools. It will abolish five arm’s length bodies to reduce wasteful duplication and will ensure that there is accountability to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, for functions that need to be carried out nationally.

Fourthly, the Bill seeks to promote greater fairness in the context of current fiscal constraints. It will give disadvantaged two-year-olds an entitlement to free early-years provision, and for new higher education students it will enable the new student finance arrangements to come into force.

There have been a relatively small number of technical and drafting amendments, but their Lordships have also made a number of substantive amendments to improve the Bill, and I shall now explain them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Were the Government able to provide any further evidence in the Lords as to the prevalence of such allegations and what proportion of them were found to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

I thought the hon. Gentleman supported these proposals. He will be aware that the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT have compiled figures on such allegations against teachers. The NUT estimates there are about 200 a year, and we gave evidence to the Lords of at least 15 cases in the last few years where there were damaging local reports and publicity about the allegations before charges were brought.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is right that the Opposition have supported these proposals, but they must also be carefully scrutinised for any possible unforeseen consequences. That has been done very effectively in the Commons in Committee and also in the Lords. Is it correct that in the Lords the Government accepted that about 2% of such allegations had turned out to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, of course, but we are talking about the effect on individuals, and if there is just one case of someone suffering such publicity about what turns out to be a false allegation, that is one case too many, as such allegations can have devastating consequences on teachers both socially and career-wise. The publicity that just one such case receives also reverberates throughout the teaching profession, undermining teachers’ morale and making them unduly cautious about maintaining discipline in our classrooms. If we are interested in the welfare of pupils in our schools, we have to make sure they are taught in ordered and safe environments, free from bullying and other disruptive activities.

I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman was concerned in Committee less about the prevalence of such allegations and more about the question of whether these provisions should be extended to other sectors of the workforce. We have proceeded extremely cautiously, taking into account the fact that we must preserve press freedom as well as the integrity of teachers and their being innocent until proven otherwise.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic to the Government’s intentions in this regard as well, but I am concerned about press freedom and I would be grateful if he could set out the case for teachers alone being given this exemption from publicity. Such allegations could be equally devastating to members of a different profession. Might this provision prove to be the thin end of the wedge in that there could be a great deal more press censorship and the public will not be able to know about allegations made against people in their local community?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education Committee, makes a good point, but teachers are very much on the front line of maintaining discipline in the classroom. We conducted a survey of 116 local authority designated officers—LADOs—and its findings support the view that teachers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations. Some 23% of allegations against staff in all sectors were made against teachers, and almost half of those were found to be unsubstantiated, malicious or unfounded. The proportion that related to other staff in schools was significantly low: from recollection I think that it was about 14%, compared with the 23% that applied to teachers.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may recall that in the previous Parliament the Committee looked intensively at that very area, and I support much of what he says, but in that context we made a range of recommendations to ensure that teachers were protected from false allegations, and that head teachers knew what they were doing. Few head teachers confront the situation very often, but very often they suspend people unnecessarily and start the problem running in the first place. We recommended that a code of conduct should be at the heart of the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the excellent work that he carried out when he was the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee and the Children, Schools and Families Committee in the previous Parliament. We have looked at the whole process of investigating teachers when they are subject to such allegations, and we are changing the guidance so that there is not a default position of automatic suspension once an accusation is made. We have also been speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers about the speed of investigations, because we cannot have teachers waiting months or years before allegations are investigated and settled. We want to speed up the process, to remove the automatic and default position of suspension and to enable teachers to continue to have a connection with the school during the course of any allegation, so that they do not feel isolated while the process is under way.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is it not a fact, however, that the current Chairman of the Education Committee might have a much rosier view of the British press than I do? Anyone who listened to Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning will have heard one of The Sun newspaper’s most senior journalists say that there should be no reform of British press regulation. If the hon. Gentleman has that rosy view of the press, I certainly want to put it on the record that I do not share it.

[Mr Gibb]

I really do not want to intervene or interfere in this debate between two such august hon. Gentlemen, but we have been careful to tread warily between the two interests: the interest of protecting teachers from the full force of false allegations before they are proven or charges are brought, and from the publicity that might accompany them, and the important interest of protecting press freedom. We are treading cautiously, and that is why we have not extended the measure to other parts of the children’s work force. We want to see how it works in the first instance before making any further decisions.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) made the case for providing protection to groups other than teachers, but he accepted our cautious and targeted approach and suspected that the clause, even in its narrow form, might attract the close attention of, as he put it,

“people more erudite and noble than ourselves”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 557.]

He has been proven correct, but I am pleased to say that the substance of the provision returns to the House intact and with three important improvements. First, through amendment 5, the clause now makes it clear that tentative allegations that a teacher may be guilty of an offence should be treated in the same way as firmer allegations that they are guilty. That was always our intention because even—or, indeed, especially—tentative allegations can have a damaging effect on the teachers involved.

Secondly, through amendment 7, the clause now makes it clear that a judge who is considering an application for reporting restrictions to be lifted should take account of the welfare of both the teacher who is the subject of the allegation and the pupil or pupils who are the alleged victims. We will ensure through amendment 11 that where a teacher decides to identify himself or herself publicly as the subject of an allegation, reporting restrictions are lifted altogether. It is right that if a teacher effectively waives their right to anonymity by, for instance, writing in a newspaper about an allegation, others can also join the public debate.

The noble Lords echoed this House’s concern about clause 30, which would have removed schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate with local partners. My noble Friend Lord Hill met a number of peers during the summer to discuss the matter further and he then discussed the outcome of those conversations with me and the Secretary of State. We accept that retaining the duty would provide continuity while we implement the proposals of the Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability.” That point was made forcefully in Committee. In another place, Lord Hill introduced amendments 18, 19 and 42 to remove from the Bill clause 30 and the related clause 31.

[Kevin Brennan]

When we were in Committee, I recall the Minister saying that he regarded the duty to co-operate as an “unnecessary prescription” on schools—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is the Secretary of State ringing up his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to give him the answer. In Committee, the Minister also said:

“It is not appropriate to delay removing that burden”—

that unnecessary prescription—

from schools.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 29 March 2011; c. 729.]

What points did Lord Hill make in the Lords that were different from those made in the Commons and how did that persuade the Minister to change his mind? Secondly, is this a temporary conversion or does he intend to remove the duty to co-operate at some further stage?

[Mr Gibb]

We were never against co-operation. It is very important that schools, academies and free schools continue to co-operate with other state bodies, locally and nationally, that affect children. That was our reason for removing the prescriptive duty. A number of changes are happening in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill and the SEN Green Paper and, having considered the matter further and reflected upon it, it is better to maintain the duty until deliberations over those measures are complete and until decisions about the SEN Green Paper have been taken.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Although some of us are very focused on the duty of schools to co-operate with the local authority, some of us are focused on local authorities’ duty to co-operate with academies and free schools. Will my hon. Friend advise me what in the Bill will enable us to be sure that local authorities provide the same extent of co-operation to free schools and academies as they do to maintained schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Co-operation is important, whether it is with children’s trust boards or from local authorities with other elements of the education world, such as free schools and academies. Local authorities that undermine or try to undermine the establishment of new schools that are demanded by parents in that local authority will find their opinions and actions challenged at election time. For a school to be approved by the Secretary of State as a new free school, it has to demonstrate parental demand. It is not in the interests of a local authority not to co-operate when a group of parents, a group of teachers or others are seeking to establish a free school in its area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

In the light of what the Prime Minister has said today about the dangers of schools coasting, is the Minister content, prior to the discussion of our amendment, that the Government’s position on this will not make matters worse, given the potential for schools that have been found to be outstanding to coast and then not to be inspected, with it being difficult to trigger an inspection for them in future?

[Mr Gibb]

The Prime Minister made some very important points about coasting schools in his article in The Daily Telegraph today. We want to see standards rise throughout the education system. There has been a concentration on failing schools, but we must also concentrate on the schools in the leafy suburbs that are not challenging their pupils as well as they should. All schools will now be subject to our scrutiny to make sure that they raise standards. The new performance tables will identify how schools perform in relation to children of high academic ability, as well as how they perform in relation to children of a lower academic ability. We will reflect on some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but outstanding schools are, by their nature, not necessarily to be regarded as coasting if they have been graded by Ofsted as outstanding. The arrangements I talked about are to do with using risk assessment strategies to pick up on problems, even in outstanding schools. Those risk assessments are what will trigger Ofsted to carry out an inspection in an outstanding school.

[Kevin Brennan]

My concern is that the exemption from inspection is almost an invitation to coast. There is a danger of that. Does the Minister not accept that it might be worth cogitating on that a little further in the light of what the Prime Minister has said?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to think further about those issues. However, the point of the proposal is that it is difficult for schools to achieve from Ofsted the accolade of outstanding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) have visited schools that are categorised by Ofsted as outstanding. It is clear why those schools have been so categorised. I was at a school last week in Wiltshire that had been categorised by Ofsted as outstanding in all 27 categories. I believe that it was the first school to be given such a grading.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Minister is absolutely right to have proportionate inspection. We need to be careful to ensure that outstanding schools that may end up coasting or dropping their standards are picked up. If the shadow Minister is suggesting that it would be a better policy to inspect every school, however outstanding, all the time, he is completely wrong. A proportionate approach with the right safeguards and triggers in place and with constant review of those triggers is the right way to go. The Government are right on this issue.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right that one has to be proportionate in these issues. Ultimately, this is a matter for the chief inspector of schools. If the results of an outstanding school start to decline, as was hinted at by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, it will be picked up in the risk assessment. He has made important points and we will, of course, reflect on them in the usual way.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will intervene one final time on this issue because I do not want to detain the House. The Chairman of the Select Committee knows that what he described was not what the Opposition proposed in Committee. We proposed triggers for inspection that would be appropriate for schools that had been ruled outstanding but may have slipped. Is that not exactly what the new chief inspector of schools, who was just appointed by the Government, has said in relation to checking whether outstanding schools remain outstanding? After all, when outstanding leaders leave outstanding schools, that can often lead to a big change in the performance of those institutions.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. When a new head teacher comes into a school it can have important effects, and not necessarily beneficial ones if the school has been led by a very effective leader. That would be a risk assessment issue. I know that it is an issue that the new chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is concerned about. We will reflect on those points in due course. The principle of having proportionate inspection and targeting the limited resources on schools that have the most pressing need is important. However, we must take it into account if a school that is graded as outstanding is not graded as outstanding in teaching, for instance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I agree with what the Minister and the shadow Minister say about proportionality in inspection. However, it is important that outstanding schools are inspected by Ofsted as part of the ongoing learning of other schools. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Ofsted continues to do that to spread good practice in the system.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Ofsted inspectors need to learn what an outstanding school looks like. That always was the case. Even when schools are exempted from inspection, inspectors will still see outstanding schools in themed inspections, which might look at how religious education or maths is taught. On those occasions, inspectors will still experience outstanding schools.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to deal with coasting schools is not so much through the inspection process, but through the publication of contextual value added evidence from schools?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Performance tables are an important piece of the jigsaw of measures that holds publicly funded schools to account. We are not going to pursue the contextual value added measure, because of its flaws, not least of which is the fact that it tends to entrench low expectations for certain sections of society, which we do not believe is right. All children, from all backgrounds, should be expected to reach the best of their academic ability at school, and schools should deliver a high quality of education to all young people. However, there are other important progress measures, such as how a child performs at the end of key stage 2 compared with how they perform in their GCSEs.

As I said earlier, in the performance tables to be published in January, we intend to have separate columns indicating how well a school performs in relation to children who enter secondary school with a level 5 at key stage 2 and those who enter with a level 3.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the Minister that I know he is making full efforts to satisfy his audience, and in one sense that is appreciated—if this were a seminar it would be an extremely therapeutic and informative one—but it is important that we tend to the specifics of the amendments with which we are dealing. For the benefit of colleagues who might labour under a misapprehension to the contrary, this is not a Second Reading debate on coasting schools. We are attending to narrow and particular amendments, to the consideration of which I know the Minister will now return.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and I will press on by turning to academies.

The Bill retains important measures to facilitate the Government’s ambitious plan to extend the proven benefits of the academy programme to a much greater number of pupils. One of those measures is the extension of the academy model to alternative provision and the 16-to-19 sector. Lords amendments 72 to 81 are consequential on the creation of those new types of academy, and the Government tabled them in line with a commitment that I gave in Committee to put more such consequential amendments into the Bill. In addition, Lords amendment 89 reduces the reach of the powers given to the Secretary of State by schedule 14 in the case of private land leased to new academies.

In addition, three new clauses were added to the Bill in the other place, the first of which is in Lords amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority must cease to maintain—that is, cover all the costs of—a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making payments under private finance initiative or other contracts in relation to schools that have converted into academies.

Local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies, and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that their continuing to do those things would not have been prevented by the wording of section 6(2) of the Academies Act, and that was not the intention behind the Act. All academies are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of that Act. Any assistance that local authorities provide to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense of running an academy. Lords amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

[Richard Fuller]

This is a slightly specific question, Mr Speaker, but it does relate to the Lords amendments.

In circumstances in which a local authority had already made an undertaking for capital provision to a federation of schools, and a school that was part of the federation wished to become an academy, would the local authority be able to advise that school’s governors that they would no longer be entitled to the capital aid expenditure promised for schools in that pyramid? Could the local authority make that funding consequential upon a school staying maintained or moving to academy status, or do the Lords amendments prohibit that possibility?

[Mr Gibb]

I know what my hon. Friend refers to, but I would prefer to get the technical answer to his question absolutely right and will therefore write to him, so that he can be clear when he raises this issue with his local authority that he has a proper analysis of the legal position and not something that I have spoken from memory.

In response to concerns raised in Committee in the House of Lords, the Government introduced an amendment to give Ofqual the power to fine awarding organisations in certain circumstances. Our intention is to ensure that Ofqual has a full range of effective and proportionate powers to use to carry out its duties and responsibilities.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

In the Lords, the Government accepted various amendments to limit the impact of such fines on global companies, which is welcome, but the measure was introduced with very little consultation. What is the evidence that we need fines to get awarding bodies to comply with Ofqual? What is the evidence that there is a problem to which fines provide an answer?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will have seen over the summer some of the errors in the exams. They are unacceptable. We believe that the awarding organisations should not make the quantum and seriousness of those errors again. Other regulators have such powers, and if he bears with me, I will try to set out why we introduced those provisions.

The provisions in Lords amendments 16 and 17 are broadly consistent with the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. As many hon. Members will know, including my hon. Friend, the Act provides many other regulators with a toolkit of sanctions that are risk based, consistent, proportionate and effective. Ofqual currently has only two types of sanction available to it: the power to direct an awarding organisation; and the dramatic, nuclear option of partial or full withdrawal of recognition. In addition, before Ofqual can use its current enforcement powers, it must be the case that an awarding organisation’s failure to comply with a condition has prejudiced, or is likely to prejudice, either the proper award of a qualification or students who might reasonably be expected to seek to obtain such a qualification awarded by that organisation.

The Government believe that those tests unnecessarily limit Ofqual’s powers and could reduce its capacity to take timely and proportionate enforcement action. Removing the tests and giving Ofqual a power to fine will help to prevent the kind of mistakes in exam papers that we saw last summer, which undermine the hard work of the pupils who sat them. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 16, and Lords amendment 17 confers similar powers on Welsh Ministers as the regulators of Welsh qualifications.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s thinking, but I am not entirely persuaded. The currency on which awarding bodies trade is their reputation. Notwithstanding the problems this summer, they needed no fine or massive regulatory hammer to bring them to book. All awarding bodies would immediately seek to improve their systems following such errors—I believe they did so. It feels as if we are introducing sanctions that are unnecessary for the workings of that market. The Government have pledged to eschew unnecessary regulations unless there is an overwhelming case, but I am not sure that the errors last summer make that overwhelming case.

[Mr Gibb]

I must disagree with my hon. Friend, because the seriousness of the errors was not just in their number—I believe there were 13 errors in exam papers this summer. What was particularly serious was the fact that when we asked awarding bodies to check that there were no further errors, they affirmed that they had done so or that they would do so, but then new errors appeared. That is why what happened this summer was so serious rather than the initial errors in the papers.

On reputation and the market, all the main awarding bodies had errors, so there is no market mechanism—no one of them could say, “We had no errors but the others did.” My third argument is that all regulators have such powers. We cannot rely on the nuclear option of ending accreditation.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There are considerable costs for schools when they switch from one awarding body to another. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the idea of a market operating in the normal way does not quite apply?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. All kinds of other factors will determine which awarding organisations schools use and why, and there is a “stickiness” compared with the fluidity that might exist in another market situation.

Lords amendment 37 would give the Secretary of State the power to pilot the use of direct payments in education for children with special educational needs. In the Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, we committed to give every child with a statement of SEN or a new education, health and care plan the option of a personal budget by 2014. One element of a personal budget can be a direct payment to a family to buy support for their child. Direct payments are already being used in health and social care, and we want to test how the greater choice and control they give to families can be effectively achieved in education too.

With those brief remarks, I commend the Bill and these amendments to the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

In this debate on Lords amendment 1 and all the amendments that it is highly convenient—for the Government, anyway—to group with it, I note that the Bill returns to us from the Lords without any non-Government amendments. Perhaps that is a reflection of changing times and the new, rigid hegemony in the other place, whereby amendments are rarely passed there without the Government’s say-so.

[Mr Gibb]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be a little more generous about the powers of persuasion of my hon. Friend Lord Hill.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was indeed going to be generous—about the powers of persuasion of our Front Benchers in the House of Lords. They persuaded the Government—more effectively than my hon. Friends and I in the Commons did—to change their mind on one or two issues, which I shall come to in a moment.

The Minister has taken the trouble to talk us through the Lords amendments, as he said he would, but some questions emerge from what he said that, if he has the leave of the House to speak later in the debate, I hope he will answer. Lords amendments 1 to 4 relate to clause 8 and the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to teachers. The Bill abolishes the General Teaching Council for England. I note that some criticisms have been made of its operations. One year after the publication of the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, in which the Secretary of State said—I agree with him about this—that there was

“no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important than teaching,”

it is significant that he has taken the opportunity to abolish the professional body.

The Bill transfers some of the General Teaching Council’s functions to the Secretary of State, among which is the power to prohibit a teacher from teaching. In Committee in this House, we debated an Opposition amendment—which, surprisingly, was not successful—that would have required the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons prohibited from teaching. I note that Lord Hill confirmed in the other place that the Government believe that a database of teachers prohibited from teaching will be established. We tabled amendments here and in the other place to require the Secretary of State to keep a register of qualified teachers—again, to our surprise, without success—but Lord Hill indicated that he would consider the matter, saying,

“we have been persuaded by concerns raised in this House and elsewhere that there is a genuine need for the Government to help schools to know who has qualified teacher status and who has passed induction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 257.]

That is welcome. He went on to confirm that there would be an online database from 2012.

Another concern is the proposal to give employers discretion over which cases of misconduct—those that might lead to the prohibition of a teacher—to refer to the Secretary of State. Again, colleagues in both Houses raised concerns about transparency and consistency. I welcome Lord Hill’s notification to Baroness Jones that the Government are developing advice on the new system to help professional conduct hearing panels determine when a teacher should be prohibited from the profession and that such advice will be available publicly.

Lords amendments 1 to 4 would enable the Secretary of State to issue interim prohibition orders—quickly imposed orders that prevent a teacher from undertaking work while the Secretary of State is considering their case—where he considers it in the public interest to do so, and they must be reviewed every six months. The amendments were tabled in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, but I do not think they were debated there. Their rationale was not given, so when the Minister replies he might like to emphasise what the rationale was, what the amendments will achieve, why they are so important and perhaps why they were not included in the first draft.

Lords amendments 5 to 15 relate to restrictions on the reporting of alleged offences by teachers, about which we had an exchange earlier. We have supported the Government’s intention to help protect teachers from malicious allegations, but we have also been keen to ensure that the provisions are properly scrutinised, as there is a possibility of unintended consequences.

The Lords amendments would extend the reach of clause 13 to cover tentative allegations against teachers. As the Minister rightly pointed out, following advice from the trade unions and others, we argued that the clause’s reach could be extended so that the restrictions apply not only to teachers in schools but to other school staff. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—I am sure it is only a matter of time before he becomes a right hon. Gentleman—mentioned this earlier. In our view, other school staff and staff in further education colleges should be included. The impact of a publicly reported unproven allegation, which the Minister eloquently described, applies to those people, too, and is potentially equally damaging. I understand the Government’s general desire to limit the number of people on whom the provisions will have an impact, but I do not understand why teachers in FE colleges should not be covered when teachers dealing with young people of the same age group in sixth forms—quite possibly teaching exactly the same subjects—are covered. This seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill.

I note what the Minister said about extending the provisions to cover tentative allegations. I make it clear that we do not object to that, but we ask him to be absolutely clear about his motives for including the amendments at this stage. Does he have any further thoughts on the desirability of extending the scope to include non-teaching staff and all staff in FE colleges? If he has any compelling reasons why those staff should be excluded, we would like to hear them. Having listened to him earlier, I am not sure what his evidence is for excluding these staff from the scope of the provisions. I understand why he might want to limit the number of people covered—perhaps that is why he has put a ring fence around teachers—but I do not understand the rationale for failing to include the other staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Administration, of which he was part, considered extending the fining power to Ofqual. Indeed, Kathleen Tattersall lobbied Members of Parliament for it to be introduced during the Committee stage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill before the election. Ofqual will launch a consultation when it begins to set out the circumstances in which the new power will be used, and the consultation will last 12 weeks in the normal way.

[Kevin Brennan]

Not only am I aware of that, but I actually said about two minutes ago that it had originally been in the White Paper that the Labour Government introduced. That does not alter the fact that had the Government intended to do this, they could have consulted on it originally, rather than hang it as a bauble on a Christmas tree Bill and react to newspaper headlines. It seems that these proposals have been rushed. I welcome the fact that there is to be a proper consultation, but consultations should happen before proposals are enacted rather than after.

Lords amendments 18 and 19 remove clauses 30 and 31, which repeal the duties to co-operate with a local authority and to have regard to the children and young people’s plans. We welcome the Government’s support for reinstating the duty to co-operate by removing clauses 30 and 31. Labour Members on the Public Bill Committee voted that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill, but Government Members defeated us. Baroness Hughes co-signed the amendments to leave out clauses 30 and 31, so we strongly support their removal. Had they remained part of the Bill, the Government would be putting the reduction of alleged bureaucracy ahead of the safeguarding needs of some of our most vulnerable children. In their professed zeal for cutting as many processes, systems and guidance as possible, the Government were in danger of throwing out things that raise standards and improve safeguards for our children. These duties are examples of the latter.

As I said in an intervention, in Committee the Minister characterised the duty to co-operate as an unnecessary prescription and went on to say that it was not appropriate to delay the removal of that burden on schools. In the Lords, Lord Laming spoke eloquently and convincingly to expose the irresponsibility of the Government’s position:

“In every inquiry that has followed a tragedy to a child with which I am familiar, two key messages have permeated every report like the lettering through a stick of rock. The first is that in future each service, including education, must greatly fulfil its particular responsibilities to promote the safety and well-being of each child. The second is that each service must develop the skills to work successfully across organisational boundaries and share information at an early stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268.]

I can understand why the Government might have listened to Lord Laming more readily than they listened to us in the Commons, but they were fully aware of the views of Lord Laming and others on these matters.

Lord Laming went on to say:

“The development of children’s plans and children’s trusts under the Children Act 2004 were designed specifically to place the well-being and the promotion of care of children in this wider context. In the letter which the Minister sent to me, he said that the Bill simply reverts to the earlier position.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268-269.]

So that was what the Government wanted to do: to revert to the earlier position—the one pre-Laming—using this Bill. By including these clauses, they originally showed their disdain for the services and processes that have since been put in place to keep our children safe. It is abhorrent that any Government, not least one who said at one time that they wanted to be the most family friendly ever, should be willing to risk the safety of our vulnerable children just so that they can reduce prescription.

I am glad that the Government have got it, albeit late in the day, but I am concerned that this is a temporary change of mind. I was not assured by what the Minister said in reply to my intervention, because Lord Hill’s letter to Baroness Hughes on 12 October said:

“We are persuaded that the duty in itself provides schools, colleges and others with sufficient freedom to determine the arrangements that work best for them”.

In a letter of 6 October 2011 to Baroness Hughes, he said that the reason for the Government’s change of mind was that this was a temporary measure while they worked through how to achieve better collaboration in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services.

I welcome the Lords amendments, but we want to strengthen them slightly. We have tabled an amendment that would ensure that schools must in all cases have regard to children and young people’s plans created by children’s trust boards, whether or not they are made under section 17 of the Children Act 2004. I should like an assurance from the Minister. Are the Government committed long term to a wide-ranging, overarching duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities and other local partners, which include health and police bodies, to promote the well-being of children? Is that a long-term commitment of the Government, or do they intend to water down or attempt once again to abolish the duty in the future?

[Mr Gibb]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by quoting my noble Friend Lord Hill, who said in another place that he accepted the point made by our noble Friend Lady Walmsley that

“at a time when the Government have recently announced pathfinders to test and work through our SEN Green Paper proposals, which seek to encourage greater partnership working, we should not risk sending…any confusing messages about the importance of partnerships. I took their advice and decided that the simplest thing to do was to delete the relevant clauses.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 634.]

[Kevin Brennan]

The interesting thing is that one reason why the Government became confused or were in danger of sending out confusing messages was the interminable delay in the publication of the Green Paper on SEN, which we were promised well before the consideration of the Bill in Committee and which finally turned up extremely late. Had it been published on time, perhaps the Government would not have been in danger of sending out confused messages, but I simply reiterate that we are concerned that the Government do not appear to have a long-term commitment to give schools an overarching duty to co-operate. We await confirmation from the Government that they believe that such an overarching duty to co-operate is important and should be retained in the long term.

Labour’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 19 would require maintained schools to have regard to children and young people’s plans produced by children’s trust boards whether or not that is prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We voted in the Commons that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill. Our amendment to delete clause 31 and insert another clause is intended to extend that opportunity for that omission to be retained.

The Government’s suggested changes to the law on the arrangements to admit pupils to school have been debated throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament. On two occasions—on Report in the Commons and Lords—the Government have introduced amendments that have responded to some if not all the points made by the Opposition. The whole point about admissions is fairness and how we can have a system that gives children fair access to local schools in accordance with their parents’ wishes. In the centrally managed schools system that the Government are creating, it is regrettable that the Government have resisted placing a clear and unequivocal duty on the Secretary of State to work towards fair access to education.

We welcome the reinstatement of the duty on local authorities to send reports to the adjudicator, which is the effect of amendments 21 and 22. The fact that the reports will not now receive the special treatment for such reports, which is removed by amendment 20, is regrettable, although I hope that it does not lessen their importance and that the contents will still receive the full attention of the adjudicator. I trust that that is what will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government made it clear during the Commons stage that they wished the academies to be subject to the admissions code. We welcomed that at the time and I am happy to welcome it now, because any state school should have a fair admissions policy. Any school funded by the taxpayer should admit pupils on a fair basis in accordance with the code. We therefore welcome the extension of the code to academies and the clarification of that by the Government, rather than relying on funding agreements in order to achieve that.

One of the innovations of the Bill that we debated is the change to the powers of the schools adjudicator. Currently, when an admissions authority is found to be in breach of the code, the adjudicator can rectify any flaws with immediate effect, but following the passage of the Bill, the adjudicator will be able to make only “binding” decisions, which the admissions authority will be obliged to implement. Ministers have already made it clear that the purpose of that change is to emphasise the importance of schools taking responsibility for their own actions, but it should not allow them the scope to avoid those responsibilities or to frustrate parents who have made a successful complaint and have a legitimate expectation that matters will be put right promptly.

The draft version of the admissions code was pretty clear. Paragraph 3.1 stated:

“The admission authority must revise their admission arrangements immediately to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

That was the original version of the code issued by the Minister, which was pretty clear and unambiguous, as it should be. However, I was dismayed to read in the revised version of the draft code, published 10 days ago, that paragraph 3.1 has been changed. It now states:

“The admission authority must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible and no later than 15 April following the decisions (i.e. the deadline for determination of admission arrangements) to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

It is not clear from reading out those two sentences, but there is an important difference in their visual presentation. In the first sentence the word “must” is rendered in bold, whereas in the second sentence it is in plain text and “15 April” appears in bold. The proper sense of urgency and compulsion seems to have been replaced by one of contingency and delay. Although the second sentence states “as quickly as possible”, which is a weaker statement, the eye is drawn to “15 April”. Bearing in mind that the deadline for objections has been brought forward by a month to 30 June—a sensible change that we support—that means that there could be a delay of 10 months or more before a decision is implemented, which is simply unacceptable.

It is not necessarily for the legislation or the new code to undermine the effectiveness of the office of the adjudicator in a wholly unnecessary attempt to provide for circumstances that have not proved problematic under previous arrangements, so our amendment would put it beyond doubt that, where changes are required in response to valid objections, they must be implemented in time to benefit those who made them.

On constituting governing bodies, to which the Minister referred, it might be helpful if he offered some clarification. Our amendment was intended to make it absolutely clear what the Government’s amendments mean in relation to staff on governing bodies. In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am cautious about prescribing centrally the basis on which governing bodies should appoint people.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 811.]

Having had time to consider the matter, the Government and the Minister appear to have changed their minds completely. If that is the case, we welcome it. Will the Minister confirm that he now thinks that more than one member of staff could be a member of a governing body, which might help us in relation to our amendment? If he does so now, he might not need to later.

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to confirm that we want to reduce the amount of prescription on how to constitute a governing body. After deliberation and discussions with Members of this House and in another place, we have said that we will prescribe one staff member and one local authority representative, but that does not remove the discretion of governing bodies to appoint others; it is merely stating that there should be one staff member and one local authority member.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is extremely helpful. The Minister’s words will probably satisfy us so that we need not press that amendment to a vote later.

The chief inspector and the question of whether schools can be exempted from inspection were the subject of our earlier debate and of some interventions by me, the Chair of the Education Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place—I almost said Grimsby, but it is important to get the right part of Lincolnshire. Those remarks, and what the Prime Minister said earlier today about coasting schools, bring the issue more clearly into focus. As it stands, the clause removes the requirement for Ofsted—in other words, the chief inspector—to inspect and issue a report on each school in England, at a frequency set out in regulations, that rates the overall quality of the school and sets out its areas for improvement. Clause 41 will have a similar effect on further education institutions, which will be debated in the second group of amendments.

In effect, the provisions would exempt certain schools from section 5 inspections. Furthermore, the exemption would not be for a fixed number of years, and neither would a school be exempt only until something indicated that standards needed to be re-checked, such as a complaint from parents or pupils, a change of head, or concern being expressed by the local authority. It is possible that, under the clause, some schools could be exempt from inspections almost in perpetuity unless they wanted to pay for one.

It was pointed out earlier that a school could still be inspected under the chief inspector’s programme of surveys of curriculum subjects and thematic reviews, during which time the chief inspector may elect to treat the inspection as a partial section 5 inspection. However, that does not mean that every school would be inspected—far from it. In the case of the curriculum and thematic reviews, only parts of the school’s performance would be looked at.

The Prime Minister said earlier today that he was concerned that comprehensives in wealthy villages and market towns were sometimes coasting, although I do not know why he picked out comprehensives; that could apply equally to grammar schools in some parts of the country. He said that the fact that their

“respectable results and a decent local reputation”

hid the fact that their pupils could be performing much better. We know how quickly schools can move, for a variety of reasons, from being outstanding to what the Prime Minister describes as “coasting”. The Opposition’s proposals to provide more triggers for inspections when real concerns arise should have been accepted by the Government.

When Sir Michael Wilshaw gave evidence to the Select Committee on 1 November 2011, during his pre-appointment hearing before taking on his role as the new chief inspector of Ofsted, he said:

“Ofsted is about raising standards and it seems to me that there are only two levers for raising standards; one is Government and regulation, and the other is Ofsted.”

He later went on to correct himself, saying that he meant “two main levers”, stating:

“In terms of accountability, Government and Ofsted are the two main levers.”

In relation to the amendments, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the new chief inspector of schools in that regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, and Alison Wolf suggested in her report that more 14 to 16-year-olds should attend FE colleges, so this provision would affect them as well as 17 to 18-year-olds, for whom the provision might be less relevant. I hope Ministers will think about this anomaly and find a way of equalising the situation.

The Government make what seems like a very reasonable case on strengthening Ofqual’s enforcement powers. Ofqual does not have as wide-ranging powers as other regulators, and there is a very quick step from its making requirements on awarding bodies to the nuclear option of removing their ability to provide awards at all. It therefore seems reasonable to have more moderate powers in the middle, such as the power to make fines, but this Government are committed not to following such easy logic unless there is a very strong—nay, an overwhelming—case for giving new powers to some non-governmental, unelected quango, such as Ofqual, so in an intervention I asked the Minister to make the case. He made a brave effort, as he always does, being a highly esteemed colleague and an excellent schools Minister, but he really did not make the case.

We did not hear about the number of times that awarding bodies have deliberately flouted Ofqual’s requirements—that OCR, when required to do something by Ofqual, just ignored it, left it as long as possible and did it only if it felt like it; or that the lack of anything other than a nuclear button meant that OCR did not want to comply.

Following this summer’s examination paper errors fiasco, no one was more embarrassed and determined to put it right than the awarding bodies. They collectively and individually felt that it was embarrassing, and they wanted to put it right as quickly as they could. The numbers were somewhat higher than in previous years, but the attention paid to them this year was rather greater than the increase in problems, and I know at least one case in which there was only one error in 100,000 questions.

I want to see all such errors eliminated and to know that those bodies are straining every sinew to put the situation right, but I am not yet convinced that a fining regime, however conveniently it may fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to do something about the situation, is the right approach.

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[Mr Stuart]

I give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gibb]

The measure is about incentives. If a not-for-profit or commercial operation seeks to ensure that there are no errors, the exponential cost of ensuring that there are zero errors is a cost to that organisation, so the fining powers provide an equal and opposite cost to the organisations that do not incur those costs to do their best to eliminate errors. That is the purpose of the fining provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. As Chairman of the Select Committee, he is very knowledgeable in this area, and I look forward to discussing the issue with him further. Let me add a couple of additional concerns. Although we agree on the overall direction of travel, we might also reach some concordance over concerns.

The proposal in Lords amendment 37 is to deal with this issue through setting up pilot schemes in some areas. I am in favour of that. What will be the benefit for children with special educational needs? Their parents already put an enormous amount of effort into supporting their children. We call on them not only to go out and work hard, but to provide that support at home and that takes up an enormous amount of time. To place on top of that the burden of an individual budget—however it is implemented—places significant additional burdens. Let me explain a couple of them.

I have spoken to parents of children with special educational needs in my constituency. Overall, they are enthusiastic about some of the proposals in the Government’s Green Paper, but they strongly voiced their concern about the complexity of placing additional burdens on parents. They want these responsibilities, but the complexity involved is significant.

[Mr Gibb]

It will not be compulsory to have a direct payment. It will be an option that parents can take up if they wish. The fears that my hon. Friend expresses should not come to pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right to quote the Prime Minister, who in turn is right to identify this issue. What practical steps can be taken under the current regime to target those schools that are above the floor targets for five good GCSEs and that have limited resources for Ofsted? How will it be possible to ensure that they get the focus that the Prime Minister, the Minister and I would like to see?

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that his response is relevant to the amendments that we are discussing.

[Mr Gibb]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of your ruling, I will make just one point to my hon. Friend which is relevant to the amendments. The performance tables will identify the results and show how well children did at primary school. There will be a column for children who achieve level 5 at key stage 2, and another column for those who achieve level 3 at key stage 2. There will also be columns for those with special educational needs and those with disabilities. That will help to identify those schools that are coasting, and we will then take action against those schools or help them to improve their results.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West also talked about triggers for inspections. That is a matter for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, but I can confirm that there will be annual risk assessment for outstanding schools, which will normally commence three years after the last inspection. Where there is a change of head teacher before that point, however, the chief inspector has agreed to bring forward the risk assessment, including an HMI review. Ultimately, however, we have to leave it to the professional judgment of the inspector to determine whether an inspection should be triggered. Factors to be taken into account might include: the performance data of a school that had previously been judged to be less than outstanding in achievement or teaching not showing signs of improvement since its last inspection; progress measures showing that pupils or students were not making good progress in comparison with similar groups nationally; or below-average attendances showing little sign of improvement. Many factors can act as a trigger for an inspection.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of admissions. I thank him for his attention to detail in scrutinising the codes, but I can assure him that they are statutory. “Must” means “must” in those codes; they have the full force of the law. On his wider point, the vast majority of the changes can be implemented quickly, but there are cases in which they might take longer than 14 days, at which point 15 April will form an ultimate backstop. The key point in paragraph 3.1 of the code states that the adjudicator’s direction should be implemented as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Would he be prepared to put it on the record that going right up to 15 April should happen only on very rare occasions, rather than in the majority or a large minority of cases?

[Mr Gibb]

What I will put on the record are the words used in paragraph 3.1 of the code, which states that admission authorities must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible, and no later than 15 April, following the decisions to give effect to the adjudicator’s decision. It goes on:

“An Adjudicator’s determination is binding and enforceable.”

I will come back to that point when I address the hon. Gentleman’s amendments in more detail.

On Ofqual, the power to fine would be used only where that was the most proportionate response to an incident of non-compliance with its conditions. As I have said, Ofqual will consult on the use of its power and will publish a full statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework setting out how and under what circumstances the power will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectation that only serious or persistent breaches will lead to a fine. Of course, it will allow 12 weeks for responses to that consultation.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Can my hon. Friend give examples of instances in which such a measure might have been triggered in the past?

[Mr Gibb]

The incidents I would cite are those from this summer when there were persistent errors. The persistence came, in particular, after we had asked the awarding organisations to check that there were no further errors. They did those checks and confirmed that there were none, but then further errors were discovered and damage was caused. That is an example of persistence in the errors we are trying to eliminate from the system.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked for an explanation regarding Lords amendments 89 to 91 about land. The Bill introduces new powers to transfer the publicly funded land of foundation and voluntary schools and academies to free schools and academies when those schools close or the land is to be otherwise disposed of. Lords amendments 89 to 91 reduce the reach of those new powers so that they do not apply to land that is leased to a new academy by a private landlord. Where we are engaging in commercial negotiations with private landlords for the lease of land to new free schools, we think it is more appropriate to protect any public investment in that land by contractual means rather than in statute.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the PFI issue and I am happy to restate the purpose of amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority “must cease to maintain” a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making a payment under PFI or other contracts. Our view is that local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that section 6(2) of the Academies Act does not prevent the continuation of those activities. All academies are and will continue to be maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of the Academies Act, and any assistance provided by local authorities to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense. Amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Cardiff West raised the issue of direct payment pilots. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, wrote to peers in the other place explaining the importance of introducing this new clause and consulted on the text of the draft clause, including in relation to special educational needs and disability organisations as well as local government interests. The principles behind the clause—greater choice and control for the families of children with SEN—are shared across the House. Indeed, the clause is modelled on legislation on the direct payment health pilots that were introduced by the previous Government. Let me reassure hon. Members that the orders needed to give practical effect to the clauses are subject to the affirmative procedure. These are, after all, powers concerning pilots rather than a national scheme and the clause has a sunset provision of four years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness asked about anyone being able to refer complaints to the adjudicator. We do not believe this change will lead to many more complaints. The regulations on which we are currently consulting will ensure that repetitive, vexatious or anonymous complaints cannot be made. I hope that will provide him with some reassurance. On the issue of spite, which he also raised, “anyone” does mean anyone, so it could be a school or a charity. The only proviso is that they must be willing to put their name to objections and to refer matters that are new or substantially new to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend asked about consistency in the referral of misconduct cases by schools to the regulator. Evidence suggests that there is already variation in referrals despite the blanket duty on employers to refer all cases, and this duty has not been affected. Employers will know when a case of misconduct is serious enough potentially to require a referral from the profession, and they can use the draft prohibition guidance, which I can send to my hon. Friend, to help them make this decision. If a member of the public is not happy with the decision, they can refer a complaint to the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend also asked about Ofsted’s capacity to deliver more rigorous assessments. We have discussed and agreed the more rigorous risk assessment, and Ofsted has the resources necessary within its budget to achieve this. Every organisation has to prioritise its resources in the current economic climate and Ofsted is no different.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford for his continued and vocal support for academies and free schools. I assure him that it is right that admissions at academies and free schools must comply with the admissions code as set out in their funding agreements. As with all other state-funded schools, complaints about admissions will now go to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend also raised concerns about particular families who do not adopt personal budgets—one third is the figure he cited—and the support they require. He argues for having pilots, and that is what the new clause does. I share his concerns about the possible burdens on families. That is why the pilots will look at the support available to families and how the system can be as straightforward as possible to use, as well as at which families take up those payments and which do not. On the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West made, cost-cutting is not a driver for this policy—it is about having greater choice and control.

On the issue of Ofqual and how the Conservatives could support a regime of fining by a regulator, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire set out the reasons why the qualifications market needs to be regulated. I should like to make it clear that turnover will be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State and that Ofqual will consult on how the fining regime is to operate.

I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford and for Stevenage about primary schools. Primary national offer day will be 16 April. The idea is to co-ordinate the date rather than to put any new pressure on parents to get their children into certain primary schools. It merely makes things easier and less stressful for parents rather than more stressful.

Let me deal briefly with some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. He will know that we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and in the other place in response to our original intention to withdraw schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate. The evidence of that engagement is clear in these Lords amendments. We have removed the “duty to co-operate” clause as well as the clause that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend regarding the children and young people’s plan.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 relates to our plans to allow anyone to refer an objection to the schools adjudicator about the admissions arrangements at any state-funded school in the country. The amendment would require admissions authorities and others to comply with the adjudicator’s decision within 14 days of receiving written notice of that decision. Current legislation in this area, which was introduced by the Labour party, requires compliance to be forthwith. Let me assure the House once more that our changes to admissions do not affect the adjudicator’s power to consider and decide on the matter put to him and other matters as he sees fit, or to make binding decisions as a consequence. The amendment would impose a stringent national timetable for the implementation of such decisions. It is based on two false assumptions—first that schools do not wish to put things right, which they do, and secondly that all situations are the same, which they are not. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a Division.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but can he firm up what he has said by making it clear from the Dispatch Box that he sees no reason why, in the vast majority of cases, the schools adjudicator’s ruling should not be implemented if not forthwith, then within a very short period of time and certainly not at the last possible moment?

[Mr Gibb]

I have already responded to the hon. Gentleman’s point by quoting paragraph 3.1 of the admissions code. That makes it very clear that these changes should be made as soon as possible and that they are binding.

On school governing bodies, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for speaking up for the key role governors play in schools and for the important work he is undertaking in establishing the all-party group on school governors. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his helpful intervention on staff and local authority governors and for his welcome for the amendments he has inspired. We have made concessions on staff and local authority governors, and I therefore hope the amendment in question will not be pressed.

Lords amendment 27 on the regulations specifying which schools are to be exempt from routine inspection was made because of a specific concern raised by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: that regulations made through the negative procedure could be extended beyond outstanding schools to whole categories of school—such as all academies or all faith schools—regardless of their inspection history, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. To provide reassurance on that, the Government propose that any subsequent changes to the first set of regulations, which have been made available to Members as indicative regulations since March, would require approval through the affirmative procedure. The amendment made in the other place will allow for appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is not necessary for the first set of regulations to be subject to that because it has been fully consulted on. We shall reflect on the points raised both in this debate and elsewhere before finalising those regulations.

I hope the amendments to the Lords amendments will not be pressed to a Division, and I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 26 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 16 and 23.

Clause 39

School inspections: exempt schools

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 27.—(Kevin Brennan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.