Education and Skills Bill [Ways and Means]

The Minister for Schools and Learners gave a disappointingly short introduction to the motion. I hope that he will have a chance to explain the motion to the House. It relates to the fee-charging provisions in what is now clause 97, which enables Ofsted to charge fees for inspections of schools in the independent sector. The explanatory note to the Bill as originally drafted says:"““The Government intends to use the power…to set fees for inspections that are no higher than is necessary to recover some or all of the costs associated with the inspections.””" As the fee recovers costs and no more, there was no need for a Ways and Means motion to be passed by the House. The memorandum of delegated powers, which the Government published at the same time as the Bill, said that the clause"““extends the power currently contained in s164(9) of the Education Act 2002 to require payment of inspection fees.””" The aim of the power is to limit the burden of inspection of independent education institutions on the public purse. Lords amendments Nos. 81 and 151, passed in another place, went further than that: they changed the wording of the clause so that it is now possible for the fees charged to exceed the cost of the inspection. That potentially changes the nature of the fee so that it is closer to a tax. That, of course, is why a Ways and Means motion is now necessary. Lord Adonis was uncharacteristically opaque about the reasons for these changes when he introduced the amendments in another place, saying merely that they"““ensure that the Government's policy in relation to the setting of inspection fees…can be implemented.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 1600.]" Can the Minister confirm whether the statement in the original explanatory notes that the fees will be"““no higher than is necessary to recover some or all of the costs associated with the inspections””" is still true? If it is no longer true, why is he using these fee-charging provisions as a way of raising revenue or cross-subsidising other aspects of Ofsted's work? If, in his view, it is still true, why does he think that this Ways and Means motion is necessary?