Programme motion, Consideration of Lords amendments in the Commons
- Speaker
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- 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?
- Time
- 16:32
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight)Labour- Quote
- The motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is necessary in order to take forward the purpose of clause 97, which is to allow inspection fees to be paid annually and in advance of inspections carried out by the chief inspector. It carries forward and extends provisions already in place in the existing legislation. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, amendment No. 81 will enable the Government to carry out their stated policy aims in relation to fees for the inspection of independent educational institutions. I think that this is the explanation that he is after. We propose that an annual inspection fee will be paid by all independent educational institutions, which will spread the cost of an inspection every three years, and that fees may be charged in advance of the inspection. One or more fees may be charged in relation to an individual inspection. That will allow for a fee to be paid each year where an inspection takes place every three years. This approach replaces the inspection fee system whereby schools were expected to pay their fee either in a lump sum immediately after inspection or in two instalments. Allowing institutions to spread the cost will help small institutions and those with limited budgets who may struggle to pay under the current system. The annual fee, which we expect to be paid in October each year, will be calculated on the basis of the head count contained in the preceding annual return. Pupil numbers may fluctuate upwards or downwards, which means that in some cases the cost of the inspection may not reflect the fee paid. However, fees will be recalculated every October to take account of the latest available pupil numbers taken from the January annual return. That will minimise any under-charging or over-charging. In effect, the explanatory notes are right, but there is that small margin for error. It would not be practical to look at pupil numbers more than once a year for the purposes of setting that year’s annual fee, as the January annual return is the only source of pupil numbers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great champion of reducing burdens on independent schools.
- Time
- 16:35
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)Independent- Quote
- Does my right hon. Friend agree that independent schools already get a very generous subsidy from the taxpayer through tax benefits arising from their charitable status?
- Time
- 16:35
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Jim KnightLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend must be careful to be fully cognisant of the whole range of independent schools, not only those that might be members of the Independent Schools Council, for example. The Charity Commission is ensuring that independent schools that have charitable status are earning it, and I am happy to see the difference that the new head of the commission is making in that regard. There may also be a very small number of cases in which an institution, having paid fees in advance, closes before the periodic inspection takes place. Amendment No. 81 contains a power that will allow fees paid in such cases not to be refunded. This policy is to prevent institutions from exploiting the system by temporarily closing before an inspection is due. If refunds were made, institutions could then apply to re-register and pay only the initial registration fee, which we propose would be £500. In the majority of cases, that sum would be considerably lower than the fees refunded. There would be nothing to stop an institution continuing to exploit the system indefinitely if refunds were allowed. I should reiterate that overall we intend to use the powers in order to set fees that are no higher than is necessary to recover some or all of the costs associated with inspections. I hope that with that clarification the House will be happy to approve the motion. Question put and agreed to. Education and Skills Bill (Programme) (No. 3) Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), That the following provisions shall apply to the Education and Skills Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 14th January and 13th May 2008 (Education and Skills Bill (Programme) and Education and Skills Bill (Programme) (No. 2)): Consideration of Lords Amendments 1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption at this day’s sitting. Subsequent stages 2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. 3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Steve McCabe.] Question agreed to.
- Time
- 16:35
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗