The
Chairman: This time in accordance with precedent, I give
my vote to the
Ayes. Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 125
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
126General
duties Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 554, in
clause 126, page 72, line 3, at
end insert— ‘(A1) The
principal duty of Ofqual in performing its functions is to promote the
interests of learners.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 558, in clause 126, page 72, line 10, leave out
paragraph (a) and
insert— ‘(a) the need to
ensure that there is a reasonable level of choice for learners, in
terms of both the number of different types of regulated qualifications
and the number of regulated qualifications of each
type;’. Amendment
413, in
clause 126, page 72, line 10, leave
out paragraph
(a). Amendment
66, in
clause 126, page 72, line 11, at
end insert ‘and
maximizes choice for pupils and learning
providers;’. Amendment
519, in
clause 126, page 72, line 16, at
end insert— ‘( ) the
reasonable additional requirements of persons in whose home a language
is spoken which differs from that language in which the person is or
will be
taught.’. Amendment
9, in
clause 126, page 72, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(i) the timing
of the exam cycle, and the need to allow awarding bodies sufficient
time to develop
qualifications.’. Amendment
220, in
clause 126, page 72, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(i) information
provided by recognised awarding
bodies.’. Amendment
414, in
clause 126, page 72, line 27, leave
out subsection
(3). Amendment
67, in
clause 126, page 72, line 32, leave
out from ‘type’ to end of line
34. Amendment
140, in
clause 126, page 72, line 40, at
end insert— ‘(d) persons
whom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests
of employers or institutions within the higher education
sector.’.
Mr.
Laws: We have had an interesting start to the day and a
demonstration of why the Government’s truancy strategy needs to
be rolled out to some of their Back Benchers, who need to be personally
turned up on Thursday mornings by the
teacher. We
come now to clause 126, which is important and deals with some of the
general duties of the new Ofqual. I will speak to a number of
amendments that I have tabled with my hon.
Friends. 9.15
am Amendment
554 is in part inspired by a determination to ensure that Ofqual gives
primary consideration to the needs of learners and to ensuring the
availability of qualifications that serve their needs. In discharging
its duties, Ofqual should not place a Government-driven concern to
restrict the availability of qualifications above allowing
qualifications—possibly quite a lot of qualifications—to
come forward to serve the needs of individual learners.
Over the
years, the market in qualifications has determined that there should be
a fairly full range of qualifications, and many have proven to be of
great value to learners. However, it is always a temptation
for a Government to seek to rationalise the available qualifications,
and sometimes to eliminate prudent
qualifications that are valued by learners and institutions. We see that
risk in relation to the development of the diploma, and there is a lot
of concern among educational institutions about the possibility of
students’ access to existing proven vocational qualifications
being removed. The Bill
provides the Secretary of State with powers to change the kinds of
qualifications available to learners and, specifically, to direct
Skills Funding Agency funding to appropriate qualifications. We are
concerned that that might open the door to political interference, and
that concern is shared by many outside this place, including the
awarding bodies. We are also concerned that future Secretaries of State
might be tempted to select and promote the qualifications that they
think are best, even though they might not put the needs of the learner
first.
Amendment 66
is complementary to amendment 554, because it requires that Ofqual
should maximise choice for pupils and learning providers. It would
ensure, therefore, that Ofqual had regard to allowing a choice of
regulated qualifications and that their availability should be driven
by the needs of the learner, rather than by Government diktat. The
clause says that Ofqual must have regard to
“the need to
ensure that the number of regulated qualifications available...is
appropriate”. What
the word “appropriate” means is unclear. It is also
unclear what the role of choice is going to be in determining which
qualifications are available. I hope that we will have clarification
from the Minister on that point
today. Amendments
67 and 555 are complementary. They remove Ofqual’s
responsibility to ensure that there is not an excessive number of
regulated qualifications in any one area. Our concern, following my
comments about amendments 554 and 66, is that the Government might seek
unnecessarily to restrict the number of qualifications, and to pursue
an obsession with the number available rather than putting the needs of
learners first.
Amendment 519
seeks to clarify the Government’s thinking on how young people
who have English as a second language will be dealt with. What support
will be available to them for examinations, compared with children with
special educational needs? The Bill is already clear about how
youngsters with learning needs will be dealt with. There is a reference
in the clause to young people with other needs, including English as a
second language, but we are seeking to address a lack of clarification
on how youngsters who have English as a second language will be dealt
with. We want to ensure that the Bill is consistent on Ofqual’s
consideration of the needs of pupils for whom English is an additional
language.
The Minister
will be aware that guidance on key stage tests is already issued to
staff on how pupils who have English as a second language can be
supported. Specifically, it states:
“Language
staff may support pupils who are learning English as an additional
language. The instructions and questions may be translated, and pupils
may respond in a language other than
English.” Within
those guidelines, it is important that no additional interpretation of,
for example, the mathematics that are being assessed in a task is
provided during the process of translation. It would therefore be
helpful to find out how the Minister anticipates those needs being
protected
by Ofqual, and what role she expects Ofqual to play
in supporting students who have English as a second
language. Amendment
9 was tabled following discussions between the Liberal Democrats and
one of the external boards, Cambridge Assessment. It would allow exam
boards time to create new qualifications and ensure
that “the
timing of the exam cycle, and the need to allow awarding bodies
sufficient time to develop
qualifications” would
be taken into account by Ofqual in pursuing its duties. In particular,
it would add a new factor to subsection(2) to which Ofqual would have
to have regard.
The context
for this proposal is that many of the examination boards felt that the
amount of time given to develop, for example, the new diplomas, was
restricted. There is always a difference between the
political cycle, in which there is a great pressure to make new
announcements and to demonstrate that new qualifications and changes to
Government policy are being introduced, and the cycle of schools,
colleges and awarding bodies. In the latter, if teaching is to be done
sensibly and if qualifications are to be developed sensibly, proper
time must be given for that work, and thought must be given to how the
timing of the exam cycle will require additional time for development
work.
Finally,
amendment 220 would add a requirement for Ofqual to have regard
to
“information
provided by the recognised awarding
bodies” to
subsection (2). The amendment was inspired by discussions with AQA. Its
view and ours is that it is important for Ofqual to have regard to the
expertise and practical knowledge of the awarding bodies. In some
cases, that knowledge and expertise has been developed over more than a
century. Arguably, the credibility and experience in many of the bodies
is greater than that within the Department, and certainly within a new
body of this type. We hope that the Minister will indicate either that
she is willing to accept the amendment, or that it will be clearly
understood that Ofqual will have a responsibility to take into account
such information provided by awarding
bodies.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): We have
just had a Division that was all about competence and the fact that the
Government have tabled more than 200 amendments to their own Bill. It
was about Labour Back Benchers not bothering to turn up—even
now, I can see that only four Labour Back Benchers have turned up to
support Government Ministers. It was also about Ministers not being
alert to the procedures of the Committee, which we saw in earlier
sittings, when they failed to vote the right way on one of their own
clauses. Jeff
Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): If the hon.
Gentleman looks behind him, he will see one Conservative Member, which
is only 25 per cent. of Conservative Back
Benchers.
Mr.
Gibb: I will not delay the Committee by responding at
length to that, except to say that we have two Back Benchers in this
Committee, one of whom is here. The other Conservative members of the
Committee are Front Benchers. We have also agreed not to have
one Back Bencher here for compassionate reasons on the part of
a Member on the Government side of the Committee.
Amendment 413
would remove paragraph (a) from subsection (2), which states
that “Ofqual
must have regard to...the need to ensure that the number of
regulated qualifications available for award or authentication is
appropriate”.
Why does that have to
be in the Bill? Surely the role of Ofqual is to safeguard standards in
the qualifications that it accredits, and not to limit the number of
qualifications. Which qualifications prove popular with employers and
universities should be up to them and to students. If we want a genuine
market in qualifications, we need to let that market flourish and
innovate.
The tardiness
of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in accrediting the
international GCSE has enabled the QCA to continue with changes to the
GCSE exam, which were not demanded or desirable, but which have been
allowed to go ahead as there has been no more rigorous competitor exam
to which schools that value rigour can turn. Amendment 414 similarly
removes subsection (3) from the clause. That subsection defines the
appropriate number of qualifications for the purpose of subsection
(2)(a) as providing a reasonable choice, but does not allow the number
to become excessive. It should not be the role of Ofqual to have a view
about the number of qualifications, and that provision should therefore
be removed from the
Bill. Amendment
140 seeks to amend the definition of the people that Ofqual
must have regard to if they supply information to Ofqual. At the
moment, only information provided by the Qualifications and Curriculum
Development Agency and Ofsted is specifically mentioned. There should
be a specific reference to representatives of employers or higher
education institutions. Employers, universities and colleges are the
principal users of qualifications, and their concerns should be
paramount in assessing the rigour or standards of the qualifications.
Although there is reference to having regard to the reasonable demands
or requirements of employers and higher education in clause 126(2)(d)
and (e), there is no requirement for Ofqual to have regard to the
information that those bodies supply to Ofqual. Given the access that
the bodies will have to important information about standards emanating
from the success of the holders of those qualifications at university
and college or in industry, not to include such a duty is a major
omission from the
Bill. Finally,
amendment 558 would alter the general duties of Ofqual. At present,
clause 126(2)(a) requires Ofqual to have regard to the need to ensure
that the number of regulated qualifications is appropriate. Amendment
558 would replace that duty with
“the need to
ensure that there is a reasonable level of choice for
learners”. We
agree that Ofqual should look into the number of qualifications
available in a given area, but it seems better to construct the
legislation with a view to preserving a reasonable degree of choice for
students. If the duty were phrased in that way, it would offer
reassurance to those who fear that Ofqual’s duty in this area
could lead to a loss of diversity in the market for qualifications. It
would also offer greater protection to innovation than the current
wording. In its briefing to the Committee, Edexcel stated that it
wanted Ofqual’s creation to lead to
a “qualification
system that promotes diversity and choice”.
We
agree with that and believe that the amendment, with its specific focus
on the student, or learner, would help to ensure
that.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: All the amendments that have been tabled
today relate to Ofqual’s general duties, as set out in clause
126. Those duties cover a range of considerations, including the
following, which are relevant to these amendments. Ofqual is required
to have regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and higher
education institutions, the reasonable requirements of relevant
learners, and information provided to them by “other relevant
persons” as the Secretary of State may direct. In this instance,
“relevant persons” means those with knowledge of, or
expertise in, the needs of employers, by which we mean sector skills
councils, the employer-led bodies which are responsible for assessing
and determining the skills requirements of their sector of the economy.
Because of their constitution we cannot name them in the Bill. Ofqual
is also required to try and ensure that the number of regulated
qualifications gives learners a reasonable level of choice without
being unnecessary duplication—not too many qualifications in
similar subjects or serving similar
functions. 9.30
am Institutional
change and simplification of the adult qualifications market was one of
the key recommendations of the Leitch report on skills. Now more than
ever adults must have easy access to the economically valuable skills
and qualifications demanded by employers. Ofqual’s duty to avoid
unnecessary duplication of qualifications will help to simplify the
qualifications market in support of that
imperative. I
shall start with amendment 554, which would alter Ofqual’s
general duties to make it have regard principally to the interests of
learners. Learners are hugely important to what Ofqual is doing, but so
are employers and higher education institutions, which will be key
audiences for many of the qualifications that Ofqual regulates. As a
regulator, it will be part of Ofqual’s role to balance competing
interests. In general, I would not expect big conflicts between those
interests. However, if Ofqual faced such a conflict, it
would need to be able to consider which to prioritise on the facts of
the case—it should not be forced by the legislation to
prioritise learners, even if there were good reasons for doing
otherwise. Amendments
413, 414, 558, 66 and 67 are all aimed at removing Ofqual’s duty
to tackle unnecessary duplication of qualifications. I am worried that
the amendments would allow a free-for-all of all regulated
qualifications, but that is not what learners or employers need.
Fundamental to the success of a qualification is that its purpose is
understood by those who need to use it. An employer faced with
applicants for a job who, between them, had qualifications in plumbing,
applied plumbing, practical plumbing, creative plumbing and commercial
plumbing would be bewildered. The employer would not know what each
qualification meant or how they related to each
other. We
need qualifications that are easily understood. Equally, we want to
encourage a market in qualifications, promoting choice, responsiveness,
innovation and value. We want different bodies to be offering
that—plumbing qualifications that are clearly understood and
meet the needs of those who employ plumbers, for
example. Learners need a real choice between quality qualifications,
not a spurious choice between qualifications with a
confusing range of labels hiding the fact that they are pretty much the
same
thing. Awarding
bodies have had some success in voluntarily rationalising the
qualifications titles on offer, but the regulator has a responsibility
too. The amendments, by removing the requirement on Ofqual to have
regard to that balance between choice and proliferation, would damage
the effectiveness of the qualifications system for employers and,
therefore, hinder our ability to meet the skills challenges we face as
a
nation. I
was asked what was meant by “appropriate” in subsection
126(3), and that would be something for Ofqual to consider and consult
on. Too few qualifications and there would not be enough choice, too
many and we have the confusion about which many employers and
institutions are complaining. Ofqual will need to come to a judgment on
the balance, although I expect them to consult on what that balance
is. Amendment
519 would require Ofqual to have regard to the reasonable additional
requirements of persons with English as an additional language.
Subsection 126(9) specifically—rightly—says
that learners with English as an additional language should not
automatically be taken to have a learning disability. The amendment is
not necessary, because the Bill specifies in subsection
(2)(b) that Ofqual should have the regard
to “the...reasonable
requirements of relevant
learners”— that
means all relevant learners, regardless of what language they speak at
home. If
we were to single out a group of learners for mention over and above
that, we would have to be confident that that could be
justified—that there were good reasons, given Ofqual’s
functions and objectives, to require it to have regard to that group.
That test is clearly passed in relation to learners with learning
disabilities. They form a large group who can present some particular
issues for the qualifications and assessments systems, and we need to
make sure that Ofqual is focused on meeting their
needs. However,
I can see no reason to single out the needs of learners with English as
an additional language, any more than, say, the needs of learners from
Traveller communities, the needs of young offenders or the needs of
learners who are in care. Each group may present its own challenges for
Ofqual, and it will have to consider how to meet those challenges as
part of its duty to have regard to the needs of all learners. By
prioritising one group, we de-prioritise others and I worry that that
is a bit dangerous. Unless the case is compelling, and I am not
convinced that it is, we should not prioritise that
group. Amendment
9 would require Ofqual to have regard to the timing of the exam cycle
and the time that awarding bodies need to develop qualifications. We do
not need to write that into legislation. Throughout part 7
there are requirements on Ofqual to consult on the decisions it takes
and to consider the needs of learners and potential learners. There can
be no question but that it will be a listening regulator. There are
many people it will need to listen to and issues it will need to bear
in mind as it works out how best to do its job. Having regard to the
exam cycle and how long it takes to develop the qualifications it
regulates is just one of the issues that it will
have to take on board and I do not think there is a reason to single it
out. Making sure that
awarding bodies have the time they need to prepare
high-quality qualifications and that schools, colleges and the like can
adequately prepare to teach for those qualifications will all be part
of Ofqual performing its functions effectively—and performing
its functions effectively is a duty on it under subsection
(7). Amendment 220
would require Ofqual to have regard to information provided by
recognised awarding bodies. Ofqual will, of course, consult awarding
bodies regularly, as I said earlier, but if the legislation required
Ofqual to have regard to information provided by recognised awarding
bodies this would skew the relationship between Ofqual and the bodies
it is there to regulate. Of course Ofqual needs to be a fully, visibly
independent regulator. As part of that, Ofqual will have to consult
awarding bodies but it also needs to be detached enough from the
awarding bodies to regulate them objectively, fairly and, where
necessary, robustly. In any case—and this is not just true of
amendment 220 but of amendment 9—we should restrict
Ofqual’s general duties to the reasons for which Ofqual is
regulating and what it must bear in mind in going about its functions,
rather than the specific things it must do when regulating. It would
undermine the independence and effectiveness of the regulator if the
legislation is too prescriptive about how it should do its job rather
than what it should be aiming to achieve. Amendment 140 would require
Ofqual to have regard to information provided by employers and higher
education institutions. We do not think that necessary. As I explained
earlier, Ofqual is already under an obligation to be tuned into the
needs of employers, directly and through sector skills councils, and to
the needs of higher education.
To sum up, in
the light of the explanations I have given, I hope the hon. Members
will consider withdrawing their
amendments.
| 
