Member

On Amendment 436ZZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, I want to make a point about proposed subsection (2). It says, “must prioritise MATs”. I warn against putting that in primary legislation, because I remember sitting on the other side of the Chamber, when the previous Conservative Government tried to do something similar on the inspection of schools. They tried to prioritise those schools that were struggling. They did not inspect schools that were good or outstanding for six years, and it was an utter disaster. By the time the inspection came around again, a huge number of those schools were in special measures, really failing and letting down children. So I think we have learned the lesson: you cannot prioritise like that, other than within one inspection cycle. To put that in primary legislation implies that good MATs will not get inspected. I would be absolutely against that. We have to inspect them, because schools improve and then decline: that is the nature of the beast. But we have to inspect them also because we need to look at outstanding institutions as a means and a yardstick for looking at all institutions. If you only inspect institutions that are not good, that becomes the norm and you forget to inspect them against outstanding institutions. For all those reasons, I very much favour Amendment 435, moved by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, and would ward against putting too much detail into the Bill.