Education and Inspections Bill

I, too, support Amendments Nos. 33 and 35, because they are essential safeguards if we are to go ahead with the Bill as it is roughly constituted. There may, however, be a better way, suggested in the other amendments in this group, by giving to the governing body responsibility for appointing a SIP. That body will know what its needs are and will have to live with the consequences. That is important, also. I wish to ask a question about compulsion and the extent to which that might be moderated. If it is compulsory to have a SIP, one could envisage a situation where a head teacher who is about to retire, who is trained and accredited as a SIP, gets a letter on his last day saying, ““You are now an accredited SIP””. The next day, the new head teacher gets a letter saying, ““Your school requires a SIP, although your predecessor was good enough to run a very good school and be accredited as someone who can help other schools””. Even more improbable would be the possibility of a head teacher being accredited as a SIP and getting a letter appointing them with the PS: ““Someone will be in to help you and your school next week””. That is the logic of the compulsion laid out in the Bill.