 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 7 February 2008(Morning)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Education and Skills BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseE&S 15 Independent
Schools Council
Clause 5Full-time
occupation
Amendment
proposed [5 February]: No. 10, in
clause 5, page 2, line 41, leave
out ‘20’ and insert
‘16’.—[Mr.
Gibb.]
9
am
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
What a
pleasure it is to be here this morning at this fine hour, with you in
the Chair, Mr.
Bayley.
To remind the
Committee, the amendment is intended to draw out the
Government’s reasoning for setting the level for full-time
occupation at 20 hours a week. I hope that the Committee would agree
that the level should be set such that, taken together with one day a
week in training, it would occupy the young person for a significant
period. Crucially, it should also be set above the level that would
reasonably be seen to constitute part-time employment, which young
people should legitimately be able to do in conjunction with full-time
education or training, without additional duties falling on either them
or their employers. I know that the duties that fall on employers are a
particular concern of the Committee’s, and we have discussed
them at some length in previous sittings and with the
witnesses.
We are
confident that 20 hours a week is the right threshold to set for
allowing part-time participation. It is a level that, at the moment,
would capture most young people who work as their main activity,
without catching most of those who work part time. Well over 90 per
cent. of those young people who say that they work full time as their
main activity work for more than 20 hours a week. Some 93 per cent. of
those who say that they work part time while studying full time work
for 20 hours a week or fewer. In contrast, if we drew the line at 16
hours a week, we would catch about 15 per cent. of those who study full
time and work part time. We believe that that indicates that we have
found the correct balance, with the proposed level being consistent
with most young people’s experience. With one day a week in
training, work plus training would occupy at least four days of a young
person’s week,
meeting our test of a significant period of time. A lower threshold
would increase the potential burden on
employers.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): As the Minister was speaking,
it occurred to me how young people on incapacity benefit might be
affected. The maximum they are allowed to work in a week without
affecting their benefit is 16 hours. Perhaps some provision should be
made for
that.
Jim
Knight:
I am aware that there is some logic to proposing a
threshold of 16 hours’ work a week, for consistency with
benefits arrangements. That is why we tested it to see whether there
would be a significant extra potential burden on young people and
employers for those people who legitimately study part time while in
employment full time. As I do not have a detailed answer to whether we
need to make an adjustment with regard to incapacity benefit, I will
reflect on the
question.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): While
the Minister is in a reflective mode, further to the intervention made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, it might be useful if the
Committee had a feel for the number of young people with that benefits
interface. Presumably, that was taken into account in the modelling. He
has given us the numbers who will be affected if the level is changed
to 16 hours, which is helpful, but we are not certain what proportion
would have the interface with benefits, with the considerations that
spring from that, that my hon. Friend
highlighted.
Jim
Knight:
I shall think about that matter further. If it was
later in the day and I was not full of cold, I might be able instantly
to work out the logic in relation to the benefits system, but sadly it
eludes me at the
moment.
The principle
is clear that we need to set the level so that it is not too burdensome
for either young people or employers. As we have set it, we do not
believe that there will be a significant impact on the youth labour
market. If it were set lower, we would be less confident that that
would be the case. I know that this is a subject of some concern to the
Committee.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I want
to clarify one point regarding the burden. If I understand the
Minister’s argument correctly, he is saying that if we set the
number of hours that constituted full-time work at 16 hours a week, 15
per cent. of young people who work part time would still be considered
to be working part time, but 85 per cent. would be considered to be
working full time. The consequence of being regarded as working full
time is that it would be less burdensome for the individual because he
would be required to engage in education or training for only one day a
week, whereas if he were regarded as working part time, he would be
under a requirement to engage in full-time
education.
Jim
Knight:
That may be so, but many more
employers would have to go through what I do not regard as being
exceptionally onerous duties in checking the arrangements
for their employees to fulfil their duties. Those burdens would be put
on them, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is exercised about that.
[
Interruption.
] Unless significant information
comes to me—no, it has not—in the light of my reasoning,
I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am reassured by the Minister’s argument. I
would be interested if he were in due course to respond to the
questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for South
Holland and The Deepings about the interface between the duties in the
Bill and the incapacity benefit
system.
The Minister
has made some very persuasive arguments about the fact that, if the
amendment were accepted, 85 per cent. of young people engaged in
part-time work would find themselves categorised as working full time,
which would have consequences for the employer and for the availability
of part-time work for young people. That is a valuable and necessary
income source for many young people who are engaged in full-time
education.
I mentioned
in another debate that I sat in on a Teach First interview session at
Canary Wharf. One of the young graduates who were being interviewed
mentioned in passing—not as a selling point—that she was
holding down four part-time jobs while studying for her postgraduate
certificate in education. That makes one realise the efforts that some
young people go to in order to gain qualifications. In the light of the
Minister’s very persuasive arguments, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Jim
Knight:
I beg to move amendment No. 132, in
clause 5, page 3, line 19, leave
out from ‘week’ to ‘and’ in line
20.
Jim
Knight:
These are technical amendments that make clearer
the interpretation of “normal weekly working hours” in
the clause, removing potential legal
ambiguity.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 133, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, at end
insert—
‘( ) Section 234 of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (construction of
references to normal working hours where employee entitled to overtime
pay) applies for the purposes of the definition of “normal
weekly working hours” in subsection (4) as it applies for the
purposes of that Act.’.—[Jim
Knight.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
I ask the Minister to confirm that the clause will
allow volunteering and that under clause 5(2)(b), which refers to
working
“otherwise than
for
reward”,
will
ensure that those engaged in full-time volunteering will be regarded as
fully employed for purposes of the Bill. V, the charity that was set up
in 2006 following the Russell commission report into volunteering, has
raised
the issue. V believes that the provision enables volunteering to take
place, but will the Minister confirm that for the avoidance of doubt?
The charity
states:
“It
goes without saying that volunteering must be a freely chosen activity
and the system must therefore be flexible so that young people can move
between options as appropriate (for example, leave a volunteering
placement and enter into full-time employment without
penalty).”
Will he also
confirm that young people who are engaged in volunteering will have to
fulfil the training obligations under the Bill at the same time? Is it
correct, as was said in a previous debate that, as a volunteer overseas
would be a non-resident, he or she would not be covered by the duties
in the
Bill?
Jim
Knight:
I am happy to confirm that the hon.
Gentleman’s understanding of our intention is entirely correct,
as is his understanding of the provision’s effect. We will, by
regulation, define that it is entirely appropriate for young people
affected by the duties under the Bill to be engaged in full-time
volunteering as long as they are also engaged in relevant training or
education. It is undoubtedly the case, by virtue of clause 1
whereby
“This
Part applies to any person who is resident in
England”,
that someone
who is not resident in England is not affected by the Bill. On that
basis, I hope that members of the Committee will accept the
clause.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 5,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 6Relevant
training or
education
Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 162,
in
clause 6, page 3, line 45, leave
out from ‘Part’ to end of line 46 and insert
‘training or education in relation
to any person to whom this Part applies shall be regarded as
“relevant” if and only if, it is
either—
(a) training or education
towards an accredited qualification provided by a course or courses,
or
(b) training or education
which, if the person concerned were participating in full time
education or training, would be considered appropriate having regard to
the person’s age, ability and aptitude and any learning
difficulties which the person may
have.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 12, in
clause 6, page 3, line 46, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In-house
training provided by employers is regarded as “relevant training
or education” for the purposes of this
Part’.
No.
13, in
clause 6, page 3, line 46, at
end insert—
‘( ) The
Secretary of State may specify by order other non-formal education or
training that will be regarded as “relevant training or
education” for the purposes of this
Part.’.
No.
32, in
clause 21, page 11, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In
subsection (1) “appropriate arrangements” may include
training provided directly by the employer which can lead to an
accredited
qualification.’.
Mr.
Laws:
Good morning, Mr. Bayley, and welcome
back to the Chair. We have already made rapid progress today, but I
hope that the Minister, who looks in particularly perky form, does not
expect us to get through all the clauses and amendments with the speed
that he dealt with Government amendments Nos. 132 and
133.
The
clauses that we are about to debate are not ones that we support
passionately. Indeed, we have tabled amendments to delete clauses 6, 7,
8 and 9 from the Bill. We gave our reasons for that when we discussed
clause 5, and I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear me
say that I do not need to repeat the arguments now. Some of our
forthcoming debates will be about dealing with the problems in the
Government’s approach, accepting that we have already discussed
whether the overall approach is the right one to
take.
Clause 6 defines
relevant training or education for people who, under the Bill, will be
obliged to engage in training or education while in employment. It
specifies that that must consist of “a course or courses”
leading to a qualification accredited by the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority. Amendment No. 162 and, to some extent, amendments
Nos. 12, 13 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton and his colleagues, deal with two concerns about the
clause. The first is about the definition and meaning of
“relevant” in respect of the qualifications and the
extent to which that will restrict the qualifications that young people
can obtain. The second concerns the nature of the qualifications to
which people will be restricted—whether they must be
QCA-approved qualifications—and whether that restriction is
sensible and gives the desirable flexibility. We have received
representations from outside bodies that are worried about whether it
is sensible for the clause to be so
restrictive.
9.15
am
Amendment
No. 162 was suggested to us by the National Union of Teachers to
address its concerns about relevance, which was the first issue that I
raised today. In a briefing note that it prepared for the Committee,
which other hon. Members may have seen, it
states:
“It
seems that those in full-time education are able to undertake
appropriate learning opportunities which do not necessarily lead to a
qualification. Those in full-time occupation, however, must undergo
training or education that is ‘relevant’ i.e. leads to a
relevant qualification or a course of study that is of use to the
employer and not necessarily of interest to the young
person.”
I had not
originally registered that point. I had assumed that there would be a
large degree of flexibility in how those obligations were applied. It
will be interesting to know whether the intention of the Bill is to be
restricted in the way that the NUT is concerned about, or whether, in
fact, it will allow for greater latitude. The NUT in its briefing note
cites the example of a young person who might be working as a car
mechanic and asks whether they would be able to take a course in
something like accountancy, which might be seen to have no relevance to
being a car mechanic but might be very useful for their future
educational needs.
We
just want some clarity from the Minister about whether the word
“relevant” implies that the education and training taken
up by young people should relate to
the employment, or whether it could be unrelated to the employment but
of use to the young person later in life. That is incredibly important.
If we are placing this duty on employers to ensure that 16 and
17-year-olds are in education and training, their attitude to those
young people might be different if the education and training is
directly relevant to the employment or if it is not. We want to be
absolutely clear about
that.
The
second issue, which the NUT and other bodies such as the Association of
Colleges raise, is whether it is sensible to restrict the
qualifications to those that are recognised by the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority. That is touched on, in part, by amendments Nos.
12, 13 and 32, which seek to impart greater flexibility to the Bill and
which we therefore also support. On that point, the NUT states that
there is a concern that the Bill
“will mean that
‘relevant’ training and education has to always result in
a nationally recognised qualification. If this means that locally
developed courses are therefore ineligible under the legislation the
opportunities for young people and the benefits to local employers may
be limited.”
The
Association of Colleges says something similar in its briefing to the
Committee, which was issued in January. It
stated:
“We
have some concerns over the position of young people with learning
difficulties which prevent them from taking an external
qualification.”
Accepting
that we do not want those obligations to be placed on young people in
the first place—because we think that being in full-time
employment is important enough in itself and, in part, useful to
education and skills—we want to hear from the Minister about the
degree of flexibility in relation to the relevance of qualifications.
Is he prepared to extend the same flexibility that appears to exist for
young people who are purely in education and training in educational
settings to those people who are in work-based settings in relation to
whether or not the qualifications that they achieve must be QCA
approved?
Mr.
Hayes:
It is good to be back under your chairmanship,
Mr. Bayley, and engaged in our important work. I have some
good news and some bad news this morning. The bad news is that, in
relation to this Bill at least, I have come to disagree with Cardinal
Newman, who
wrote:
“Ten
thousand difficulties do not make one
doubt”.
The difficulties
that we are beginning to explore in relation to the Bill are causing
doubt. The good news is that my hearing problem has improved. Like the
young man in Matthew 17, my affliction has been
lifted.
The
points made in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Yeovil require amplification. The difference between appropriate
learning and relevant learning is an issue, because
“relevance” is a loaded word. The hon. Gentleman
understated his case, with typical humility. The use of the word
“relevant” means that the study must lead to accredited
qualifications. The Government have a prejudice against non-accredited
learning, as demonstrated by the savage cuts in adult and community
learning over the past few years. Although I do not want to contradict
the general mood of the Committee that one of the tests of vocational
learning is employability, the first route back to employability may
not be through the pursuit of an accredited course.
The hon. Gentleman is right to
suggest that it would be more appropriate to use the word
“appropriate”. Appropriate learning would be better than
relevant learning in that regard. I shall come on to deal with the
amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, but it
is worth mentioning that the hon. Gentleman makes a good case about the
word “relevant”. It is a much more significant word in
this context than it might first
appear.
The hon.
Gentleman’s second point, which was also persuasive, was that
there must be no disparity between young people in the workplace who
are engaged in training and young people in further education colleges
or other places of learning. There is a question mark over that. I say
no more than that. It is clearly the business of members of the
Committee to probe the Minister on such matters. I therefore seek his
reassurance in that
regard.
The Bill does
not take sufficient account of the huge amount of training that already
takes place in the workplace. That brings us back to the issue of
relevance. The explanatory notes, which reinforce the hon.
Gentleman’s point, say that such
training
“must consist of
a course or courses leading towards a qualification accredited by the
QCA.”
The Committee will
know that young people are already engaged in a large amount of
training provided by employers.
On the subject of training, the
British Chambers of Commerce in its briefing on the Bill
says:
“SMEs in
particular conduct a huge amount of this and its place in helping young
people attain a Level 2 qualification should be recognised within the
policy of raising the compulsory participation
age.”
That brings us back
to the fundamental difference between us and the Government. The
determination to increase participation is a common cause. We can agree
about that, but the route to that end is the subject of our discussions
in Committee and points to the difference in emphasis between the two
sides of the Committee. My hon. Friends and I would not wish to
discourage any of the existing valuable work that is being done with
young people by making provisions that were insufficiently flexible to
embrace that work. That is purpose of our
amendment.
The YWCA
has also
argued:
“Compulsory
participation in formal education does not necessarily lead to
learning. Non-formal education and youth work awards, accredited by QCA
or appropriate bodies, should be recognized as valid forms of training
for those most disengaged and
disadvantaged.”
That
points to a matter that has been raised in the Committee repeatedly: it
might be difficult to reach the young people whom we most want to
re-engage—namely, those least likely to take up training or
educational places post-16—unless we retain sufficient
flexibility at the points of access to learning. That argument has been
made convincingly by a number of hon. Members in their considerations
thus far, and it is directly relevant to the amendments that I am
speaking to.
Surely, there
is a strong case that in-house training should fall under the relevant
training or education category as worded in the Bill, or that those
words should be changed. Either we change the word
“relevant”
to something that is implicitly more flexible, or we include the kind of
training that I have described under the banner of relevance. In other
words, we would amend the Bill to create a capacity for more
flexibility. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are therefore designed to assist
the Government by improving the Bill to take account of in-house
training.
I make one final point. We have
spoken at length on our personal experiences of employing people. My
experience is that precisely that kind of in-house training is the
first opportunity that young people of 16, who have left school perhaps
without the strongest academic record, have to be both involved in and
committed to, and I am concerned that the Bill’s inflexibility
will make that altogether more
difficult.
Jim
Knight:
We see full-time employment
alongside educational training as an important route for young people
to be able to follow. The training could be provided by either the
employer or an external learning provider and could be an entry-level
course, a vocational course in a specific sector, GCSEs or one of the
new diplomas, for example. It could involve the young person being
released for one day a week to participate, or it could be fitted
around their normal working hours, as we have discussed. We have
purposefully made that duty as flexible as possible so that
personalised arrangements can be agreed that are suitable to both the
young person and the employer.
We have had the discussion
about relevance. Clause 6(1) states
that
“‘relevant
training of education’ means training or educational towards an
accredited qualification provided by a course or
courses.”
Therefore, we
are clearly not defining relevant as being tied to the particular
occupation that the young person is engaged in through their
employment. The hon. Member for Yeovil referred to a scenario in which
a car mechanic might be able to do an accountancy course. The young car
mechanic could certainly do an accountancy course that might not be
seen to be directly relevant to their employment, as long as it is
accredited. It does not have to be relevant to the employment. A good
employer might want to discuss with the young person what they are
doing, but it is the young person’s choice. They might also want
to do a foreign language or train for a different career, and there is
a whole set of accredited qualifications that would allow them to
fulfil their obligations in
law.
9.30
am
Obviously,
on one point we are clear. We have tried to frame the clause as
flexibly as possible, but we are clear that the work must be towards an
accredited qualification. There are currently more than 6,000
qualifications at entry level and levels 1, 2 and 3 that are accredited
by the QCA for young people. We will consult shortly on a
qualifications strategy that will set out over the next few years, as
we move towards the implementation of the legislation, how we can
rationalise that range of qualifications into something more
comprehensible by the outside world. The fundamental part of that
strategy will be to ensure that the qualifications available to young
people are valuable to them and their employers, and we will address
some of the concerns raised by, for example, Professor Alison Wolf,
about the value of some vocational
qualifications.
Angela
Watkinson:
May I take the Minister back to the entitlement
of a young person to study for a course that is unrelated to the
employment in which they are involved? Does that mean—I am
thinking particularly of small employers—that there would be an
obligation on employers to subsidise the training of an employee in an
area that may be of no benefit to the
company?
Jim
Knight:
No, there is certainly no obligation on employers
to fund training. Clearly, employers that provide training would fund
it. However, with regard to asking the person commencing employment how
they plan to fulfil the duty and allowing them reasonable time to do
that, we have set out the requirements in the relevant chapter on the
duties of employers. As I have said, most types of employment in which
young people are engaged—retail, for example—would allow
a young person to work the maximum of 40 hours that they are allowed in
law and still be able to access training. The provision would operate
with a huge amount of flexibility. Employers would not end up taking on
extra costs by having a young person that they employ undertake
training in something that is not directly related to their
work.
Mr.
Hayes:
There are two points to make
here. One is the point raised by my hon. Friend about parallel
education and training, which does not have to be directly linked in
the way that she described. The second point is about what I have
called in the amendment non-formal training or education. We emphasise
that that will be specified by order. We do not suggest that
“any old training” will do; of course there should be
proper constraints. However, surely getting a disengaged young person
involved in meaningful training, is a more significant and important
first step than adhering to a rather narrow view about accredited
qualifications.
Jim
Knight:
I shall talk a little about
informal training, but it is important to stress the importance of
accreditation to ensure that it is not “any old
training”, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase. I draw his
attention to, for example, the ASDAN awards mentioned by the
Prince’s Trust. Those are accredited but are an effective way of
engaging someone in employment. Equally, we are introducing the
foundation learning tier to ensure that within the qualifications
framework we have a range of qualifications to deal with those special
educational needs mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
We are
developing more forms of accreditation of employer training because we
recognise the importance of in-house training. Now, employers can have
their training accredited as part of a national system, but to do so
they must work in partnership with an awarding body. We are concerned
that that is unnecessarily restrictive, particularly on the full range
of employers. That is why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
is conducting a number of pilots with employers to establish how, from
a number of options, they might have their training accredited in
future in the qualifications and credit framework. The options include
passing the same scrutiny of standards as other awarding bodies,
becoming recognised as awarding bodies themselves—we have had
examples of that in the past couple of weeks—or being recognised
as a body that can submit units, but not award full vocational
qualifications. Thus, an aspect of in-house
training could become an accredited unit and lead to a qualification
that is awarded elsewhere, or employers could work with other employers
who have become recognised as awarding bodies, perhaps in their supply
chain. I mentioned a notional scenario when I gave evidence to the
Committee and during a discussion of the matter on, I think, 31
January.
Mr.
Laws:
In relation to amendment No. 162, what is the
Government’s objection to allowing young people to be
in
“training or education
which, if the person concerned were participating in full time
education or training, would be considered
appropriate”.
Taking
into account those others factors, what is it about being in employment
that means there should not be the same degree of
flexibility?
Jim
Knight:
I was just about to deal with that point. I will
do so in summary. There is an important role for informal training in
re-engaging a young person, but once they are sufficiently engaged and
are in full-time employment, they have moved on from disengagement,
when informal training had a powerful role to play. It is therefore
important to ensure that training contributes towards an accredited
qualification.
Jim
Knight:
I would like to address the detail of that point
and, if my response is still inadequate, the hon. Gentleman may wish to
intervene later.
The
hon. Gentleman referred to non-formal and in-house training. It has
been suggested that informal and unaccredited training provided by an
employer for their employees should count. We strongly believe that it
should not count for the purposes of part-time education or training
alongside employment. That does not mean that non-formal education does
not have an important role, as we have made clear in response to
previous amendments. It does have an important role, and that is
provided for in the reference to full-time education and training in
clause 4.
Some young
people may not be ready for full-time employment; they may be engaged
in an entry to employment programme or one of the “get
into” programmes described by Martina Milburn in an evidence
session. It is right that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to
encompass those and other re-engagement programmes. Clause 4 covers
those arrangements and amendment No. 13 is therefore unnecessary. Young
people who are in full-time employment have already been engaged and
gained sufficient skills for an employer to want to offer them a job.
It is right to treat those young people differently, and that is why we
do not accept amendment No. 162, which adds the clause 4 definition of
full-time education and training to the definition in clause 6 of
part-time education and training alongside
employment.
We
recognise the value of in-house training. If such training leads to an
accredited qualification, it will count towards young people fulfilling
their duty to participate. Crucially, it will count towards their being
able to take that training onto their next job. We all
know that the reality of the notion of a job for life is extremely rare,
particularly if someone has started a job at 16. Employers who provide
their own accredited training will be under no further duties with
regard to a young person’s participation—there is no duty
to check or to release a young person for training elsewhere. There are
some incentives for employers in that regard.
I
was heartened by the comment of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton on the new employer-led qualifications that were
announced last week. I think that I repeated his memorable quote to the
Committee last time. He clearly recognises the value of employers
offering their own accredited qualifications, and I hope he will also
recognise that the proposed amendment to clause 21 is therefore
unnecessary.
I
have already set out in debate on earlier clauses, particularly clause
2, why we consider accredited training to be important for those in
employment. Young people will of course be learning continually as they
do their day-to-day job, but by also giving them the opportunity to
participate in good-quality accredited training, we can ensure that
they get recognition for their achievements and are able to demonstrate
what they have learnt to others. Amendment No. 12 would have the effect
of removing the requirement for accreditation, which would reduce the
benefits of the legislation for those young people who choose to
participate through part-time training alongside employment.
I hope that that more detailed
response has been sufficient to persuade hon. Members not to press
their amendments—
Mr.
Hayes:
I managed to restrain myself for a considerable
time as the Minister fleshed out his argument, however, there is
another aspect that is relevant to our discussion. My experience in
business suggests that much training that is accredited by reputable
bodies would not necessarily fall within the compass of the Bill as
drafted. Would that training be disregarded? In-house training is often
accredited by other bodies. In the IT industry, for example, companies
such as Microsoft, Novell and Oracle put in place training that they
accredit and it is highly valued. A young person might get involved in
that, but it might not fall within the orbit of the
Bill.
Jim
Knight:
As I set out when describing the
pilots that the QCA is engaged in with employers, we have some work to
do over the intervening period between now and when the duties come
into effect to maximise the potential for employer-based, in-house
training to be accredited. I have been on one or two of those Microsoft
courses, to learn the ins and outs of Microsoft Access, which was
obviously a deeply fulfilling and fascinating experience. I can see the
value of those courses in a small business context, which is the
context in which I undertook that training. We will be working with
those sorts of organisations and the QCA to ensure that we maximise the
number of courses in the
qualifications and credit framework, which will be used when judging
whether they are relevant training or
education.
Angela
Watkinson:
Has the Minister considered
occupations such as working on a market stall? I am thinking, for
example, of a young boy who has been a chronic non-attender and has not
succeeded in a classroom setting but who, if taken on in a job working
for a market trader, would learn skills such as being reliable, getting
up early in the morning, carrying out instructions and interfacing with
the general public. Does he envisage those sorts of skills leading to
accreditation?
Jim
Knight:
Being taken on at a market stall can be highly
appropriate and engaging for young people and can be of significant
value. They will acquire skills in their work, such as numeracy skills.
The sort of individual that the hon. Lady describes may have been
disengaged and may not have the level 1, level 2 or level 3
qualifications that reflect the numeracy skills that they acquire
through working as a trader. It would seem highly appropriate that
alongside all the fun of getting up early in the morning, setting up
their stall and selling their wares in an engaging way, those people
also find time to ensure that the skills that they have acquired, such
as numeracy skills, have accreditation. That way, if they tire of
getting up so early in the morning and assembling their stall, even
though they might be acquiring huge wealth in the process, and they
want to move on to something else, they will have something that is
portable to future employers.
Given the reasoning that I have
set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their
amendments.
9.45
am
Mr.
Laws:
We are grateful to the Minister for his response,
but are only moderately reassured. We made a little progress in
clarifying the intent behind the word “relevant”. The
Minister has put it on the record that there is no intention to
restrict the courses that a youngster can take while in employment.
There is therefore no reason, to take the hon. Lady’s example,
that somebody working on a market stall should not also take a course
in car mechanics, nuclear physics or anything else. It is useful to
have that on the
record.
Mr.
Hayes:
The hon. Gentleman overestimates the degree to
which the Minister conceded to the argument. With respect, what he
actually said was that the QCA will work with bodies and try to bring
into its network a range of the in-house training provided. A much
easier way to achieve that end would be to amend the Bill to change the
word “relevant” to “appropriate” or
“meaningful”. That would be a shorter journey, and
perhaps a more fruitful
one.
Mr.
Laws:
I agree, and I said that I was only moderately
reassured. I will come to the larger area of non-reassurance. However,
unless the Minister wants to intervene, I think that we have clarified
the relevant point that it will be quite possible, in the example that
the NUT gave, for somebody working in a car workshop to do an
accountancy programme and the employer will not be able to object to
it.
Jim
Knight:
I am glad that the hon.
Gentleman believes that I have clarified the notion of
“relevant”. On the intervention of the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings, I think that it is best to have a
framework for the accreditation of qualifications so that the court
does not have to interpret the sorts of words that he has set out. That
is the danger of the approach that he is
suggesting.
Mr.
Laws:
I think we have clarified the first point about the
word “relevant”. However, I am concerned about the wider
problem of the distinction that is apparent in the Bill between those
in formal education and training, and those in work. I was not entirely
convinced by the Minister’s explanation for insisting on
accreditation in the workplace but allowing greater flexibility in
educational settings. His argument was that in educational settings
there are likely to be more of the very high-need and vulnerable
youngsters, whom we have discussed on earlier occasions. They might
find the accreditation option too challenging initially and might need
time to adapt on courses that are not
accredited.
The
indication from the Association of Colleges and others is that we will
find in employment not only people for whom non-accredited courses are
providing a high level of skills and training, but people with learning
difficulties and special needs. From my constituency experience, such
people are often in job placements and, as the Association of Colleges
indicated, they might find it difficult to get accredited
qualifications.
Jim
Knight:
I referred to the foundation learning tier. That
has been designed specifically to offer those sorts of young people
accredited qualifications that they are capable of achieving. Too often
at the moment, we undervalue their achievements because we cannot
accredit them. That is why we are developing that
framework.
Mr.
Laws:
I understand that point, but I
still do not see the logic of dealing with these two groups in
different ways. I still think that there is not a sufficiently
persuasive case for allowing a large degree of flexibility for those in
formal educational settings, but insisting on a more rigorous and
stringent approach to accreditation for those in work-based settings. I
think that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was
hinting at this point, but I too fear that the Government have
something of an obsession with accreditation for its own sake and will
not acknowledge that many non-accredited qualifications can be
extremely valuable.
I
do not want to go back too much to the wonderful Alison Wolf research,
but in one of her previous books on the subject—not the analysis
of the Bill that she published recently—there is a long record,
both pre-dating and post-dating 1997, of Governments inventing
accredited qualifications that have often proved to be not very
valuable. In some case they appear to have negative value and they
often appear to have far less value than non-accredited
qualifications.
Mr.
Hayes:
I agree about the less formal qualifications that
the hon. Gentleman cites, which is why I hope that we might press
amendment No. 13—he may wish to do what he will—for
exactly the reasons that he made clear.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman. As I indicated, we support amendment No. 13 and think that
it is helpful. But I would also, Mr. Bayley, like to press
amendment No. 162 to a Division because I still feel that it deals with
an issue that has not been resolved satisfactorily as a consequence of
the Minister’s
comments.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
7
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment
proposed: No. 13, in
clause 6, page 3, line 46, at
end insert—
‘( ) The
Secretary of State may specify by order other non-formal education or
training that will be regarded as “relevant training or
education” for the purposes of this
Part.’.—[Mr.
Hayes.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
8
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly
negatived.
‘(a) the iGCSE and
Cambridge Assessment Pre-U qualifications;
and
(b)
’.
The
purpose of clause 6 is to define the meaning of “accredited
qualification” for the purpose of defining “relevant
training or education”. The definition says that it should lead
to a qualification recognised by the QCA under section 24(2)(g) of the
Education Act 1997.
The QCA lists
hundreds of qualifications, including an NVQ in leakage detection, a
City and Guilds certificate in professional cooking, GCSEs in geography
or physics, and an NOCN level 2 award in drawing and graphics for
garden design. Literally hundreds of qualifications, academic and
vocational, are included in the list, but no
iGCSEs, despite the exam being a well-established qualification. In the
UK, around half of all independent schools are using the iGCSE. The
“i” stands for “international”, and the
Cambridge version is in use in 2,000 schools in 125 countries around
the world. In 2007 there was 10 per cent. growth in the use of the exam
internationally. Edexcel also has an iGCSE exam, which is in use in 100
countries with some 350,000 entries per year. It reports the use of its
exam in 200 independent
schools.
CIE
has also reported a keen interest in using the exam from schools in the
state sector, something I have also noted in my visits to schools
around the country. CIE says that some 50 maintained schools have
applied to CIE to enter students for the iGCSE. The head of maths at
Norton Knatchbull school in Kent was quoted in The
Daily
Telegraph in June 2006 as
saying:
“It is
really unfair, particularly when the qualification best suits the needs
of our pupils, and ministers are always telling schools to tailor
courses to suit individual children. Half of my pupils go on to do
Maths A-level and the specification offered by the IGCSE would be much
better for them. If Oundle can do it, why can't
we?”
CIE has said that it
believes that the iGCSE should be available for use in the state
sector, and has applied to the QCA for accreditation. Ann Puntis,
CIE’s chief executive, has
said:
“The
scale of independent schools’ use of the iGCSE risks causing an
increasingly distorting effect on reporting of UK
performance.”
She is
referring to the fact that, because the iGCSE is not accredited by the
QCA, if an independent school enters its students for the exam, the
results do not count towards the five or more GCSE figure. This can
result in a score of zero for the five or more figure, including
English and Maths. Large independent schools, such as Eton or the Perse
school in Cambridge are prepared
to
“carry their zeros
with
pride”,
but
less well-known schools need to have their results reported accurately,
and may be deterred from using the exam for this reason alone, despite
believing the iGCSE to be the most appropriate qualification and
syllabus for their pupils. The most iniquitous fact is that state
schools cannot use the exam. In clause 6, this means in effect that a
student studying for iGCSEs will not be considered to be in relevant
training or education, which is of course absurd. CIE on its website
says:
“Failure
to approve IGCSE under Section 96 funding has the potential to create a
two-tier education system, in which pupils in independent schools can
access curriculum opportunities denied to pupils in maintained
schools...Much good practice currently exists in terms of
partnerships between the independent and maintained sectors. Such
beneficial collaborations may be risked by a curriculum divide along
IGCSE/GCSE
lines.”
Some
people have complained that the iGCSE is too tough. This is not the
view of CIE. It points out that all around the world young people in
state schools take iGCSEs. Their teachers find it a motivating and
rigorous programme, which provides an excellent platform for future
study. The CIE goes on to cite an example in the United States of
pupils at an underperforming school who flourished so much when they
studied for the iGCSE that the school and its teachers receive a
presidential award under the “No child left behind”
legislation. The CIE states that the iGCSE provides
“a highly valuable educational
experience consistent with the aims and values underpinning the
national curriculum.”
10
am
The
amendment also refers to the Cambridge Assessment pre-U qualification,
which has been developed over the last few years in response to growing
dissatisfaction with the A-level, particularly following the curriculum
2000 reforms. The headmaster of Eton, Tony Little,
said:
“We
want the best courses that challenge our students and, if that means
doing the Pre-U instead of A-levels then we will do
it”.
Graham Able, the
headmaster of Dulwich college,
said:
“I expect
that more than 50 independent schools will offer the Pre-U, mostly
instead of current
A-levels”.
As the Bill is
drafted, of course, the pre-U would not count as a level 3
qualification. I raised these arguments in moving amendment No. 5 to
clause 3, so I will not rehearse them again
today.
The pre-U is
expected to be worth more than four A-levels, comprising three subjects
and an extended research project. All the exams are taken at the end of
two years, instead of in stages throughout each module. Therefore, less
time will be spent preparing for tests, giving more time for teaching:
400 hours, instead of 360 hours for A-levels. It was reported in
January that the QCA was expected to approve the pre-U imminently. I
will try again to get an indication on the matter from the Minister;
any would be
appreciated.
Mr.
Hayes:
My hon. Friend will understand my particular
interest in universities and university entrance. Perhaps the Minister
will confirm this, but as I understand it, universities are pressing
hard for acceptance of this qualification. If they are satisfied, it
would seem perverse for it not to be included in the Bill and
acknowledged by the
QCA.
Mr.
Gibb:
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
A number of top universities in the country have already confirmed
their acceptance of the qualification. My concern is that, if they come
to regard the pre-U as a preferable qualification to the A-level, they
may give preference to candidates with the pre-U, feeling that they are
better prepared for university life. That would create an unfair
advantage for independent school students, as the state sector cannot
use that
qualification.
It was
reported that the pre-U’s introduction was imminent, so I hope
that the Minister will comment on that. At the moment, neither the
iGCSE nor the pre-U will count as accredited qualifications for the
purposes of the legislation, and the amendments seek to put that
right.
Mr.
Laws:
I have mixed feelings on the amendment. I am
concerned that, in the future, there may be a great fragmentation of
qualifications across the education system, instead of the greater
coherence that the Government aspire to; a coherence whereby youngsters
feel that they can take qualifications that are regarded as broadly
equivalent, but that offer different routes forward, either through a
more traditionally academic or a more classically vocational
route.
There
is a risk that we will end up with three or four different higher
levels of qualification, of the type that the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton referred to, because of the concerns in parts
of the
education system about the credibility and effectiveness of the existing
A-levels and GCSEs. There will then be a middle tier of people
potentially taking A-levels and GCSEs, and a quite unpredictable group
of youngsters who will be taking the diplomas. We do not yet know
whether those will be a success, or will be regarded as second-rate
qualifications. We know that the Government are trying to deal with
that question, not through the content of diplomas, but by trying to
tilt the qualification value of diplomas in relation to GCSEs and
A-levels.
It would be
damaging to many young people’s future prospects, particularly
those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, if we were to end up with a
multi-tiered system of qualifications. Some schools with more
challenging catchments could find that their young people are
encouraged to take up qualifications that are seen to lead purely to
vocational routes, and do not open up the potential to go on to any
level within the traditionally academic
system.
Mr.
Gibb:
We already have a two-tier system. The amendment and
recognition of the iGCSE and the pre-U by the QCA would extend the
availability of that qualification beyond the independent sector,
making it a fairer system, not a less fair
one.
Mr.
Laws:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and
I am coming to some comments that he may prefer to my former remarks.
However, I wish to put on the record our concern that the increase in
the number of high-tier—if I can put it that
way—qualifications, seems to be a manifestation of a lack of
confidence and credibility in the existing examination system, and a
feeling among some universities and schools that there is no longer
sufficient stretch within the traditional qualification
system.
Mr.
Tomlinson was very passionate about that in his report. His arguments
for changing the qualification system in the country were not simply to
open up more vocational qualifications and to deal with people who
traditionally were not well served by GCSEs and A-levels. He was also
concerned about the lack of stretch at the top end of the system and
the fact that many schools find a huge proportion of their candidates
being graded at the top level. They feel that qualifications such as
A-levels do not stretch the abilities of their pupils enough. If that
is a major concern, the Government should look to adapt some of the
existing qualifications to provide that degree of stretch.
I hope that I
do not sound too old-fashioned if I say that the Government should look
at measures such as the S-level qualification that we used to have in
my day. That was a good way of providing a stretch at the top of the
system, without requiring youngsters to go through a system of
force-feeding that would give advantage to a youngster from one
particular educational setting over another.
However, if
there are institutions that are concerned about the existing
qualifications, want to do the best by their young people and are able
to offer qualifications that have real status and credibility, not to
acknowledge that within the educational system, the Bill and the league
tables would be wrong and foolish. I have schools
in my constituency that would fall into the category mentioned by the
hon. Gentleman. They are not necessarily the Etons of the educational
establishment—who probably are not too worried about being
included in the league tables, as they are generally regarded as
performing at a high level—but schools such as the Park school
in Yeovil. That is an independent school that this year had a zero in
the relevant category for GSCE examinations because it takes the iGCSE
that is not presently permitted to have the same status as other
qualifications within the system.
If the
Government are as concerned about the proliferation of these
qualifications as I am, it would be wrong for them to deal with the
problem by trying to throttle the qualifications that schools see as
providing stretch. The answer must be to deal with the underlying
problems within the existing qualification system. If the
Government’s assessments show that these qualifications have
credibility and meet the requirements for this level, I hope that
notwithstanding their concerns—which may be similar to
mine—they will move in the direction suggested by the hon.
Gentleman. We look forward to clarification from the Minister, who is
smiling in a knowing way.
Jim
Knight:
It is tempting to engage in a wide-ranging debate
about the iGCSE, the pre-U and the A-level. We could discuss whether
the iGSCE should be accredited or whether it is compatible with the
national curriculum, given that it does not include compulsory study of
Shakespeare, or any other author that is prescribed for the programme
of study for the GCSE in English, or whether there is a non-calculator
paper for iGCSE maths. We could debate all these things at length, but
I do not think it is
appropriate—
Mr.
Gibb:
Is the Minister intimating that the iGCSE is a less
rigorous exam in English and maths than the
GCSE?
Jim
Knight:
Not necessarily—I am just saying that we
could debate all these things at some length. Similarly, as regards the
measures that were taken to strengthen A-levels, it would be very
tempting to compare the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition
yesterday, when he wanted to see the A-level flourish, with the notion
that we should weaken it by having competing qualifications such as the
pre-U.
Mr.
Laws:
I thought that the Government’s view was very
much in favour of competition in qualifications, which was why they set
up the competition between the diplomas and A-levels and
GCSEs.
Mr.
Knight:
We certainly are in favour of a
strong range of qualifications for young people to study, however the
amendment is unnecessary. If the qualifications referred to in it are
accredited, they will come under the definition of an accredited
qualification in any case, without the need to specify them separately.
If they are accredited, my Department will make a decision then on
whether to approve them for funding in maintained institutions under
section 96 in the usual
way.
I
should not comment further in advance of that decision. Independent
schools are free to offer whatever qualifications they like, and young
people doing iGCSE or, in due course, the pre-U full time in those
schools, will meet the terms of this legislation whether those
qualifications are accredited or not.
The clause is about part-time
training, alongside full-time employment. It is very unlikely that a
young person will, for example, be doing the pre-U part time alongside
employment. But if those qualifications are accredited, that would meet
the requirements of the legislation. I would therefore ask the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I was interested in the
Minister’s response, and we will await the decision of the QCA
on these qualifications. I hope that it makes the right decision,
because if it is appraising hundreds and hundreds of exams, it will
seem perverse and somewhat ideologically driven not to accredit two
very well-established, credible and rigorous exams that Cambridge
university—one of the top universities in this
country—has created through Cambridge Assessment.
The Minister
made the odd point that competition would weaken matters. That may show
a difference of philosophy between Labour and Opposition Members, but
Conservative Members strongly believe that competition strengthens all
participants in the market place and that competition between exams
will strengthen the A-level. One of my motives behind wanting to see
the iGCSE accredited is that it will focus the minds of people at the
QCA, when they bring in curriculum changes, to understand that they
have to look at the popularity of the GCSE. They should not engage in
further reforms that weaken the exams, as has happened over the last
several
years.
It
will be beneficial to our exam system, making it more cohesive and less
fragmented, if we allow the iGCSE, because in the long run it will
strengthen A-level and GCSE exams. I was interested in the
Minister’s comments that full-time students at school, taking
exclusively iGCSEs or pre-Us, will be fulfilling the duty in this Bill.
It is a pity that he will not relent in allowing these exams to
constitute the relevant education and training for the purpose of the
Bill, because since the QCA has not recognised these qualifications, a
student who was in work and taking these exams would fall foul of the
duties of this Bill, which would be absurd. However, as this was a
probing amendment to draw out some response from the Ministers, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 8 February 2008 |