Clause 99
Education and Inspections Bill
1:00 pm
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 519, in clause 99, page 74, line 19, after ‘Office', insert
‘and an HMI as defined by section 100(1) and (2)'.
The clause allows for the appointment of Her Majesty’ chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills. The chief inspector is to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council for a renewable five-year term. The amendment would ensure that the chief inspector is an HMI—Her Majesty’s inspector. That would ensure that he had a background in inspection when he was appointed. If the Government are unable to accept the amendment, will the Under-Secretary explain what he regards as the minimum qualifications necessary to become the chief inspector?
Amendment No. 520, which was not selected, was intended to correct the drafting of clause 99(9). I shall not speak to that amendment, but I will address the matter of clause 99(9) in a clause stand part debate, and ask whether it is proper drafting to begin a sentence—
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
Order. It would be quite out of order to discuss that on this amendment. The opportunity will come later.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Adult Skills), Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I can understand the hon. Gentleman wishing to clarify the type of person whom we might expect to take the post of chief inspector. Interestingly, being an HMI has never been a prerequisite of holding the office of chief inspector. Lord Sutherland, the first Ofsted chief inspector, was not one of Her Majesty’s inspectors; neither was Chris Woodhead nor, more recently, David Bell. What matters is that the chief inspector has the necessary skills and knowledge to discharge the responsibilities of the office. Experience has shown that such attributes are not confined to those with HMI status. Heading up the inspectorate requires strong leadership, political awareness, sound judgment, strategic vision and the ability to represent the work of Ofsted to Parliament, the public and the media and to run a non-ministerial Government Department in accordance with expectations of such a public office.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment, but to limit appointments to candidates who are inspectors would be a move away from a full, transparent and open competition with selection on merit to a more limited competition with a severely restricted pool of applicants for what we all agree is a key position. In future, HMIs will come from an education, skills or social care background. Any HMI who can demonstrate the experience, skills and competence for the office of chief inspector will be given the opportunity to apply for the post, but in competition with other suitable applicants. On the basis of the evidence and arguments that I have put, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said. Given the effectiveness of the chief inspectors whom he listed, who were not qualified HMIs, in their role as leaders of Ofsted, his point is valid. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Adult Skills), Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
We discussed grammar and morphology in earlier clauses. It could be argued whether we should start a subsection with the word “But”. It is like starting a sentence with the word “And,” with a capital A for emphasis, is it not? There may be a question of grammar, but the clause achieves the outcomes that we want it to achieve. Although I accept that the hon. Gentleman may wish to push the point about a sensible sentence structure—we could get into parsing and everything else—as long as the clause achieves what it is set out to achieve, we should leave well alone.