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

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 30, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in page 30, line 35, at end insert—

‘(da)must post a copy of the report on the Ofsted website.’.

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

The amendment raises a “may” or “must” issue. I was surprised to see the word “may” in the clause, which states that

“the Chief Inspector may make a report in writing”

following an inspection. That contrasts with the requirement that a report must be produced following inspections of early years provision. It is logical that if Ofsted carries out an inspection of a child minding provider, a report ought to follow. Will the Minister explain why a different approach is taken following an inspection of later years provision from that following early years provision?

I should add that amendment No. 43 would require any report written by Ofsted to be published on its website. We debated that point early in the Committee stage.

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

As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I have given the Committee an assurance that it is practice to post published reports on the website. I hope that that deals with his concern.

On amendment No. 42, the chief inspector should have flexibility to decide the right way to publish whatever is produced as a result of an inspection. An inspection visit may arise because of a complaint or concern expressed by a parent. In those circumstances, it is right that the chief inspector has flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to document the outcome of that inspection. For example, if the inspector found no cause for concern, producing a full inspection report in response would not be the right thing to do.

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

But that argument could be applied to inspections for early years provision, or indeed to any inspection initiated by a complaint or a specific concern.

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

An automatic cycle applies to situations in which the inspection regime is different, and we have said that reports arising from that cycle must be published. Such circumstances will always lead to inspection reports. In the situation that we are discussing, it might be more appropriate for the chief inspector to respond with a letter to a parent. If concerns were shown to be unfounded, I think that the inspector would take the view that it probably would not be right to post that on a website. We ought to give the chief inspector the flexibility to decide what is and is not appropriate to put in the public domain in response to different kinds of visits.

Ofsted and the chief inspector take their reputations very seriously. The chief inspector will make judgments about what parents and the general public ought to see. The presumption will be that things should generally be published, but in certain circumstances it might be more appropriate to provide the inspection results in a different form. It is right that we should allow the chief inspector that flexibility. That is the reason for the use of “may” instead of “must”.

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

I accept the Minister’s assurances on amendment No. 43 in relation to the publication of reports on the website. I am still slightly concerned   about the absence of written reports on ad hoc inspections. That ties in with the lack of cyclical inspections, which we discussed earlier. The two are connected, so my disappointment about cyclical inspections leads to my disappointment about the lack of written reports. However, we live in a transparent era. The age in which Government bodies could conduct their activities without transparency or publication of their conclusions is gone, thank goodness.

I am persuaded by what the Minister said about responding to the concerns of particular parents. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate not to publish a full report and to deal with the complaint by correspondence. I am also reassured by her statement that there will be a presumption to publish. That is an important statement to put on the record. Ofsted must conduct itself with that presumption in mind. Given her reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.