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554, by leave, withdrawn.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]
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] 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.
|
