[back to previous text]

Mr. Laws: I am grateful for the Minister’s response, though disappointed she has not been willing to accept some of the amendments; on others she has given some assurances. I am particularly concerned about the issue of learner choice and, with your permission, Mrs. Humble, I seek to divide the Committee on amendment 66.
Mr. Gibb: I would like indicate to you, Mrs. Humble, through an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, that I would like to support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66 and also press for amendment 413 to be put to a vote when the time comes.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, as his amendment 413 has a similar and complementary effect to mine, I obviously would support it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 554.
Amendment 554, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 413, in clause 126, page 72, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).—(Mr. Gibb.)
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.
Division No. 28]
AYES
Brooke, Annette
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Laws, Mr. David
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Stephen
NOES
Blackman, Liz
Butler, Ms Dawn
Creagh, Mary
Ennis, Jeff
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Knight, rh Jim
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Thornberry, Emily
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: 66, in clause 126, page 72, line 11, at end insert
‘and maximizes choice for pupils and learning providers;’.—(Mr. Laws.)
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.
Division No. 29]
AYES
Brooke, Annette
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Laws, Mr. David
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Stephen
NOES
Blackman, Liz
Butler, Ms Dawn
Creagh, Mary
Ennis, Jeff
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Knight, rh Jim
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Thornberry, Emily
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: 433, in clause 126, page 72, line 31, leave out ‘types of’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 429. The purpose of this amendment is the same as that given for that amendment.
Amendment 434, in clause 126, page 72, line 32, leave out ‘regulated qualifications of each type’ and insert ‘different forms of such qualifications’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 429. The purpose of this amendment is the same as that given for that amendment.
Amendment 435, in clause 126, page 72, line 33, leave out ‘types of’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 429. The purpose of this amendment is the same as that given for that amendment.
Mr. Laws: I beg to move amendment 521, in clause 126, page 72, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 520, in clause 126, page 72, line 46, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 6, in clause 126, page 72, line 46, at end insert
‘and establish specific and measurable success criteria for each of its objectives.’.
Amendment 200, in clause 126, page 72, line 46, at end insert ‘and in a timely manner.’.
Amendment 522, in clause 153, page 85, line 38, at end add—
‘(3) In reporting its conclusions on reviews conducted under this section, Ofqual shall not be bound to have regard to government policies in relation to assessment arrangements.’.
Mr. Laws: Can I take this opportunity to welcome all those Labour Members who have just go out of bed and arrived here? I am sure that members of the Government Front Bench are enormously grateful to see them. We now come to quite an important part of Clause 126—subsection (6), which contains the following statement:
“In performing its functions Ofqual must...have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct.”
We are concerned about this subsection, and amendment 521 deletes it. The Bill gives rather excessive and ill-defined powers to the Secretary of State to interfere in how Ofqual pursues its responsibilities. Therefore, the amendment helps to ensure that Ofqual has proper independence from the Government in relation to assessment arrangements. Ofqual needs to be a genuinely independent authority regulating public exams and maintaining public confidence. Its ability to do those jobs and to validate examinations should not be constrained by the Government being able to refuse to fund any new, approved examinations or to give other directions.
A few days ago, the Government issued some indicative regulations to set out and define how the powers in subsection (6) will be used. The regulations state:
“It may sometimes be appropriate for the Government formally to ask Ofqual to have regard to certain aspects of government policy.”
Although they do go on to state:
“In practice the existence of this clause in legislation may be sufficient to ensure that Ofqual has sufficient regard to government policy, without the need for the Secretary of State to act”.
9.45 am
They then give some examples of how and under what circumstances the Government might seek to use that power. They state that it might be used, for example, to specify that the Government wish to ensure that assessment is not unduly burdensome for schools. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that assessment can be unduly burdensome for schools, because it certainly has been for much of the past decade or more, and it seems that the Government have only recently become aware of how burdensome and unnecessary some of the assessment is. We recently saw the Government make an announcement in relation to key stage 3 tests that was designed to reduce the burden of testing on schools.
We question whether it is necessary to have that power and whether the example given is a good one. After all, the Government already have a lot of potential control over how the testing regime is established, through the national curriculum and the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, which we will talk about later. They have the ability to frame most of the assessment through other regulations and legislation. Does the Minister have any other examples of occasions in when Ministers would wish to use the powers given in subsection (6)? Clearly the fear is that the Government have selected something with which everyone would be expected to have sympathy, in relation to ensuring that the burden of assessment is not excessive, but the powers the Government are seeking to secure today, based on concerns that many people share, could be used in more draconian ways to interfere with Ofqual’s job and undermine its independence? I would like to hear a little more from the Minister on why they seek that power, and I would like her to flesh that out with other examples of occasions when she would wish the Government to have that power to direct Ofqual.
Amendment 520 would remove subsection (7), which states:
“Ofqual must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.”
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but my question is really in the light of the Minister’s comments on the last group of amendments, in which she indicated that it was not necessary to put in a whole load of requirements in relation to timeliness and other things that, she explained to the Committee, ought to be perfectly obvious. If she is right, does not that fall precisely into that category, and is not it obvious that any body of this type would be expected to behave in an efficient and effective way? Is not it clear from the debates we have had that Ofqual will have general duties and responsibilities in that regard and that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene where Ofqual appears not to be doing its job? Is not this really, therefore, a litigant’s paradise, rather than a statutory duty that ought to be in the Bill?
Amendment 6 was suggested to us by another of the awarding bodies. The obligations on Ofqual to meet its objectives are not clear, robust or specific, and as a consequence the public might not have confidence in Ofqual’s ability to do its job properly. The amendment would require specific and measurable success criteria for each of the objectives set out for Ofqual so that Parliament, including Select Committees, can assess Ofqual’s job properly, hold it to account and ensure that there are at least some useful ways of ensuring what are otherwise rather general objectives are met. That amendment is the final one of our amendments in this group. The others are all linked amendments.
Mr. Gibb: I shall speak very briefly, since we have had a debate elsewhere on the content of this amendment, which is the importance of timeliness. This amendment seeks to add to clause 126 a duty that Ofqual should not only perform its functions efficiently and effectively but in a timely manner.
That is really at the behest of the awarding bodies, which are concerned that delays in delivering the qualification can cause problems further down the line in schools and elsewhere, if there is too much haste at the end of the process, caused, as I say, by delays earlier on in the delivery of the qualification.
I want to quote briefly from Cambridge Assessment. It said:
“The timeliness of the delivery of a qualification, its accreditation and critical decisions, is one of the most basic but important factors in the development process. It is crucial for teachers, colleges and schools to be able to prepare properly for new qualifications. Nobody wants to see a reoccurrence of the introduction of Curriculum 2000, which due to compressed timetables, saw courses starting before text books were printed.”
On that point, I await the Minister’s response to these important amendments.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendment 521 proposes removing the whole of subsection (6) from clause 126, as the hon. Gentleman explained. I ought to point out that the wording of the provision is identical to the wording in the legislation for another independent body, Ofsted. In both cases, for Ofqual and Ofsted, the reason why the wording is there is that the organisations are responsible for activities that are at the heart of the delivery of education policy.
The parallel with Ofsted is important here, because Ofsted is widely recognised as an independent body able to speak out without fear or favour. In Ofqual’s case, it will be regulating qualifications that are central to Government policy and assessments that are statutory, which will be delivered by another public body, the QCDA.
Mr. Laws: I think that the note that was circulated about indicative regulations showed that Ofsted has never used those powers. Is that correct?
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Secretary of State has never used the powers in relation to Ofsted. Yes, that is absolutely true and we envisage that it would only be on very rare occasions that the Secretary of State would use the power in this case. However, we still believe that in both cases the power should be there.
The thinking behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil seems to be a fear that this provision—subsection (6) of the clause—might undermine Ofqual’s independence, but I do not agree with that assessment. Ofqual will not be required to endorse Government policy; it will not be required to consult the Government on its decisions, and it will not be required to temper its judgments to reflect Government policy. I would like to put that on the record.
The explanatory notes are helpful and the hon. Member for Yeovil referred to one example. He also asked if I had any other examples of a situation where we might wish to use this direction if required. There are other examples. We may wish to ensure that there is a range of qualifications that engage young people who are at risk of disengaging from education and dropping out; that is Government policy. To take an earlier example, concerns were expressed about the needs of people for whom English is an additional language, which the Government wanted Ofqual to have regard for. We may also wish to ensure that skills that employers want are embedded in particular qualifications. Those are examples of how there may be particular requirements.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 27 March 2009