Education Bill

My Lords, I shall not trouble the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, with having to time me because I shall be very brief, and I always listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, with great respect. My noble friend Lady Hughes has a point in talking about the ““gaping void”” and in going back to the Every Child Matters agenda. I am interested in the later amendment, Amendment 114, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Lexden. This amendment talks about what she calls a ““visitor””. I do not want to go into that right now, but this has echoes of what used to be called ““school improvement partners””, who were in schools when I was a governor. The school improvement partners were incredibly useful people to have around because they helped with the business plan, the school ethos and the curriculum. I think that if I were a director of children’s services—and I am glad that I am not—I would welcome a local commissioner who would have a responsibility for schools, because a director of children’s services has enough to be getting on with anyway, with the safeguarding role in particular. How would the ““visitor”” envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, have some kind of influence on what is going on at that local level without some co-ordination? Perhaps visitors are not like the school improvement partners, but I suspect they might be. As I understand it, they would have responsibility over a number of schools. I think she is saying that they would then report to Ofsted or the skills and children’s services board. Is that right? They have to report to someone.