Education Bill

That is extremely helpful. The Minister's words will probably satisfy us so that we need not press that amendment to a vote later. The chief inspector and the question of whether schools can be exempted from inspection were the subject of our earlier debate and of some interventions by me, the Chair of the Education Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place—I almost said Grimsby, but it is important to get the right part of Lincolnshire. Those remarks, and what the Prime Minister said earlier today about coasting schools, bring the issue more clearly into focus. As it stands, the clause removes the requirement for Ofsted—in other words, the chief inspector—to inspect and issue a report on each school in England, at a frequency set out in regulations, that rates the overall quality of the school and sets out its areas for improvement. Clause 41 will have a similar effect on further education institutions, which will be debated in the second group of amendments. In effect, the provisions would exempt certain schools from section 5 inspections. Furthermore, the exemption would not be for a fixed number of years, and neither would a school be exempt only until something indicated that standards needed to be re-checked, such as a complaint from parents or pupils, a change of head, or concern being expressed by the local authority. It is possible that, under the clause, some schools could be exempt from inspections almost in perpetuity unless they wanted to pay for one. It was pointed out earlier that a school could still be inspected under the chief inspector's programme of surveys of curriculum subjects and thematic reviews, during which time the chief inspector may elect to treat the inspection as a partial section 5 inspection. However, that does not mean that every school would be inspected—far from it. In the case of the curriculum and thematic reviews, only parts of the school's performance would be looked at. The Prime Minister said earlier today that he was concerned that comprehensives in wealthy villages and market towns were sometimes coasting, although I do not know why he picked out comprehensives; that could apply equally to grammar schools in some parts of the country. He said that the fact that their"““respectable results and a decent local reputation””" hid the fact that their pupils could be performing much better. We know how quickly schools can move, for a variety of reasons, from being outstanding to what the Prime Minister describes as ““coasting””. The Opposition's proposals to provide more triggers for inspections when real concerns arise should have been accepted by the Government. When Sir Michael Wilshaw gave evidence to the Select Committee on 1 November 2011, during his pre-appointment hearing before taking on his role as the new chief inspector of Ofsted, he said:"““Ofsted is about raising standards and it seems to me that there are only two levers for raising standards; one is Government and regulation, and the other is Ofsted.””" He later went on to correct himself, saying that he meant ““two main levers””, stating:"““In terms of accountability, Government and Ofsted are the two main levers.””" In relation to the amendments, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the new chief inspector of schools in that regard?