Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5)Regulations may confer further functions on the Chief Inspector relating to early years provision or later years provision in England.’.

I will not detain the Committee long given the hour and that it is dark outside. The amendment goes back to the debate about regulation and the powers of the executive order. It merely tries to replace subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the number of functions for Ofsted and replaces that with a regulation that can be prayed against or debated under the affirmative procedure. That will mean we have a chance to debate whether we extend the remit of Ofsted. There will be serious concerns if Ofsted’s role extends too far beyond the educational sphere.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is to ensure that significant additional functions are not added to those of the chief inspector without first being subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, I understand that. I reassure him straight away that the provision is not intended to be used for any substantive change to the functions of the chief inspector. It is important that the Secretary of State can act in response to issues or concerns that may arise. It is difficult by definition to predetermine when that might be. Regulations governing such requirements could be prepared only once a particular issue had emerged. Obviously, the amendment would place considerable constraint on our ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances.

The main argument is that the provision is not new. It replicates the provisions of section 2 of the Education Act 2005, which were carried forward from previous legislation, which was the School Inspections Act 1996, from a Conservative Administration. The arrangements are long standing and have been used well and proportionately under different Administrations. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I am sure that Labour Members raised such points at the time of the original Act. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, but her reassurance is on the record, which is helpful. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.