HC Deb 27 June 2000 vol 352 cc846-50
Mr. Wicks

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 27, line 11, after "teachers" insert "or lecturers".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 77, in clause 67, page 30, line 40, at end add— '(6) The Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector, acting together, shall publish at least annually a report on the operation of the framework.'. Government amendments Nos. 23 to 25.

Government new clause 5—Annual Plan of the Chief Inspector for Wales.

Government amendment No. 19.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 75, page 34, line 16, at end insert— '(3A) In conducting inspections of any training providers the Chief Inspector must have regard to the terms of the providers' contract.'. Government amendments Nos. 20 to 22, 26 and 27.

Mr. Wicks

In essence, the provisions for the annual plan of the chief inspector for Wales are the subject of the amendments. New clause 5 places a duty on the chief inspector for Wales to prepare an annual plan for the forthcoming financial year and submit it to the National Assembly. The plan must set out the chief inspector's proposals for the way in which she intends to use the funds made available to her to carry out her inspection and other functions. Amendment No. 26 would place the Assembly under a duty to approve the chief inspector's annual plan for the forthcoming financial year, which she will be required to submit under new clause 5.

The other Government amendments are minor corrections and technical adjustments, with which I shall not try the patience of the House.

Mr. Boswell

First, I shall deal briefly with Government amendment No. 17, to which the Minister referred somewhat perfunctorily as part of a clutch of Government amendments. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance; I therefore mention it before considering amendment No. 77.

Government amendment No. 17 would include in the chief inspector's remit the ability to consider functions with respect to the training of or for teachers "or lecturers". Has that remit previously extended to further education lecturers and their training? That is an important question. The Government are moving forward on the further education national training organisation, and we would support any improvement in professional standards. However, it is worth considering whether there is a substantive point to be examined or whether the amendment simply corrects an inadvertent omission.

I should also value the Minister's comments on instructors, who are important staff in further education colleges. They are not lecturers; they often instruct in specific technical skills. I am not clear whether the remit of Ofsted and the chief inspector would extend to them. If not, why not? How will the matter be resolved?

Amendment No. 77 reflects our continuing anxieties about the incoherence—to put it charitably—of the Government's provisions for inspection in England. I did not try to join in the Welsh debate, but, as some hon. Members know, my wife is from Wales and she is involved in education. Many members of her family before her have been involved in education in Wales. I take the Welsh analogy seriously. Even if the Welsh model of a single inspection is not the right template for England, it is perhaps more coherent than that for England.

Whatever would have been right for England, the Government have devised a messy structure, including a framework for the collaboration of the chief inspector of schools and the chief inspector of adult learning. We debated that extensively in Committee. I do not wish to reproduce those debates. We hope that the relationship will work well and harmoniously. That is more likely than not. I was reassured by a presentation that Her Majesty's chief inspector for 16 to 19 education gave in the House. That is an important relationship, and, in Committee, we rehearsed what would happen if it broke down or was not as harmonious as it should be. We also discussed, and the Government introduced, provision for revising the framework as time, circumstances and experience dictate.

I realise that, at this late stage, Ministers may not be inclined to rewrite the Bill, but they should have it in mind that one way to deal with potential tension would be to get the two chief inspectors to sit down at least once a year and write an account of how the framework was going. They could—one hopes that they would do it jointly—draw attention to any difficulties in the framework. For example, they might want to float proposals for changes to the framework. If nothing else, that would provide us with an opportunity, perhaps through an Adjournment debate in the House or in Westminster Hall, to raise concerns about the framework.

My points about Government amendment No. 17 are probing, and my remarks about amendment No. 77 relate to the need to run past the House, or the general public, how the framework is going. We hope that it will be harmonious and that the two chief inspectors will work together and not find themselves in constructive tension.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)

The idea of an annual report is worthy of consideration because it will help to tell us whether the common inspection framework is working. Getting it to work may be harder than we think. I say that not because I do not support the joint inspection process—I do—but because I have evidence of a joint inspection in Lowestoft college in my constituency in March, which took place under the transitional arrangements.

That joint inspection, with a common framework, was described by the college as a shambolic process. There was supposed to be a single team from the Further Education Funding Council and the Training Standards Council, but my discussions with the college lead me to believe that there was not a single programme of meetings or lesson observations and that the common evidence base was not effectively used.

Inspectors from both organisations turned up to observe the same class. There was clear evidence that they were failing to share the base of information that had been provided by the college. The staff felt that two separate inspections were taking place. They were asked to participate in feedback sessions, and the two organisations held their sessions at the same time, so it was impossible for staff to attend both. It was felt that the designated lead inspector took no notice of what the inspectors from the other organisation said.

I give that example to make the point that we must ensure that the procedures witnessed at Lowestoft college are not repeated as the new inspection framework is developed and comes into being from 2001. The annual report may help in that process.

The process at Lowestoft failed to provide the opportunity for colleagues to seek redress in respect of ineffective planning procedures. It is worrying that we are, perhaps, trying to join two diverse groups who are reluctant to come together, and, if we shuffle the same individuals as a pack, the process may not work. A common set of principles must be established, as clause 67 requires. The irony is that, at the moment, both inspectorates demand separate evaluations, yet no single body appears to be evaluating the joint process.

I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and he gave the commitment that it would be investigated. I am sure that it will be, but that has not happened yet. Will he assure me that the matter will be investigated, not only out of fairness to Lowestoft college, but—and this is my point about the amendment—to learn valuable lessons that will help with the establishment of the joint inspection process, which I want to happen?

11.30 pm
Mr. Rowlands

As I understand it, the inspectorate in Wales will cover not only schools and further education, but the whole gamut of training. Indeed, it is already inspecting training providers; some inspections have already taken place.

Following that experience, I should draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two points. One is to do with some of the comments on and criticisms of the training providers' work and programmes. The inspector has been saying, "You should do this, this and this" although those things are not part of the training providers' contract. I cannot see how such an inspection could take place. Surely, there can be inspection only of what the training provider is contracted to do.

The position should at least be clarified. It is perfectly right for the chief inspector to say to the body that has issued the contract—it has been the TEC—"You shall now do something else. Offer a wider contract to training providers," but it is not right to criticise training providers for not doing something that is not part of their contract. There have already been such criticisms during some of the inspections of training providers.

The second point is to do with the nature of the inspections themselves and the inspectors. I know of one case where the inspectors who turned up had experience as ex-principals, or experience in further or higher education, but had no experience of training, including industrial training, employment and the other world to which training is linked.

In Wales—it is the right and proper decision—we are to have one umbrella inspectorate. We will not have ALI: the adult learning inspectorate. We will have one inspectorate to cover the whole of Welsh provision, including training and training providers. We must ensure that the inspectorate is equipped and has people with experience and knowledge of the world of industrial and employment training. They should not come just from schools and further and higher education traditionally.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that, in Wales, we will bestow on the chief inspector those wide and broad powers; that inspectors will have regard to the contracts that training providers are given; and that the personnel who carry out the inspection will be much more broadly based. They should have a wider range of experience than was part and parcel of the old schools inspectorate, as we all called it.

Mr. Wicks

Amendment No. 17 concerns a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It is a very minor amendment. Clause 58(1)(d), which describes the extended remit of the chief inspector, contains the expression training of or for teachers or lecturers. The amendment therefore adds the words "or lecturers" to clause 59(3), which describes the additional functions of the chief inspector. The hon. Gentleman asked about instructors. We regard them as teachers for the purposes of the clause. I hope that that satisfies him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised some important points. Although it is not the intention of the legislation to provide for the chief inspector of Wales to inspect the service specification of the new National Council for Education and Training in Wales, the provisions in clauses 76 and 84 enable the chief inspector to draw the attention of the Assembly to any shortcomings in the council's specification, as appropriate. That is a sensible longstop in addition to the Assembly's arrangements for the monitoring and oversight of the council's functions. I hope that that explanation reassures my hon. Friend, but we are happy to discuss the matter in greater detail with him.

In discussing amendment No. 77. the hon. Member for Daventry raised some interesting points about the nature of the new inspections. In order to satisfy public accountability on the operation of the framework, there is a clear opportunity in each inspector's annual report to describe the previous year's experiences. That will be an on-going process. If there is a case for a joint report—I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's point—we will want to explore it. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I promise that we and the new inspectors will think again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) drew on the experience of one joint inspection. That proves the value of our reforms, as my hon. Friend was describing the status quo and not the new system. The problem was that the two inspectorates were working to separate frameworks. Under the common framework, a single team would work with more harmony. We are persuaded by the first area inspection that joint inspectorates can work very well. If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of that experience, I will make sure that we properly consider the matter. I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will support the Government amendments and not press theirs.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to