Mr.
Laws: I am sorry that I am not able to recall the exact
words that the Minister used when she discussed the first of those
examples that she helpfully gave to the Committee, but I think that she
was talking about qualifications that might be particularly suitable
for disadvantaged young people. Can she indicate how Ofqual, as a
regulator, would use those powers, since the encouragement for those
types of qualifications to be made available must surely come from
somewhere else within the system, rather than coming from the
regulator? Why would the regulator have a particular role in this
respect?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Because the regulator would be looking at
those qualifications to assess whether or not they met particular
needs. For example, we might say that the regulator should have regard
to the needs of people who we refer to as NEETs—people who are
not in education, employment or training and who are in
danger of dropping out. The regulator would have to make sure that the
criteria allowed for that. That would be part of the regulator’s
role. As I say, I do not envisage that the Secretary of State would
have to make a direction to do that.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
She is not suggesting therefore that Ofqual would seek to bring forth
particular new qualifications that would meet the needs of that group
of youngsters. Is she saying that Ofqual might want to use powers to
direct or encourage the awarding bodies to adjust their qualifications
to take into account the needs of that group in some
way?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It is not the role of Ofqual to deliver the
qualifications. It is the role of the awarding bodies to do that. It
would be up to Ofqual to decide how it would use the power that we have
given it to have regard to certain aspects of Government policy. The
essential point that comes out of this is the one I made earlier: I do
not believe that this provision undermines Ofqual’s independence
in any
way.
Mr.
Laws: I still do not understand what the Minister is
saying that Ofqual will do in relation to qualifications to meet the
needs of that group of students. What will Ofqual say to the awarding
bodies to ensure that the considerations that the Minister described
are met as a consequence of the Secretary of State’s
intervention? What will happen and what difference will it make to the
nature of the qualifications that are coming
forward?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: That would be for Ofqual to decide. It may
decide that, in having regard to that direction from the Secretary of
State, it does not need to do anything. It just means that it has to
have regard to
it. Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): While
the Minister is having some thinking time could I ask her to comment on
the publication yesterday of the Government’s response to the
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee report,
“Re-skilling for recovery” where they acknowledge that
the landscape can be confusing
“particularly
given the number of bodies with different
responsibilities”? Excitingly,
they suggest that they are going to set up a special body to oversee
this transition to these new bodies. Will that special body look at
this part of the Bill as well as some of the issues that the hon.
Gentleman has
raised?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I have not read the response to the
report yet, I cannot answer that question at the
moment.
Mr.
Hayes: The Government say that the matter is being
considered by Ministers so I am a bit surprised that the hon. Lady does
not know about it. They
state: “we
have an overarching Joint Programme Board (comprised of senior
officials from DCSF, DIUS, the LSC and local authorities) overseeing
the transition work and reporting to Ministers”.
I should have thought
that it was fairly straightforward whether that board—I do not
think her bureaucracy committee will be too pleased about another
board—will look at this part of the
Bill.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I do not
have the details to hand. I will be more than happy to write to him on
that
point. Amendment
520 would remove subsection (7), which requires Ofqual to perform its
functions efficiently and effectively. As the hon. Gentleman said, no
one expects it to perform its duties inefficiently and ineffectively.
As I said on the previous amendment, Ofsted has the same provision. I
would prefer to leave it in there. I think there is a difference. It is
efficiently and effectively between the timeliness. That was the point
that we debated on the previous amendment, which we did not think was
necessary. I think that the phrase “efficiently and
effectively” is broad enough and so should remain in the
Bill.
Amendment 6
would require Ofqual to establish specific and measurable success
criteria for each of its objectives. I can readily agree that Ofqual
will need to measure and report on the achievement of its objectives.
This is a key feature of its accountability. I know that Ofqual, in its
interim form, agrees with this, and is planning to identify measurable
success criteria and report on them, including in its annual report.
However, I do not think that we need to put it into the legislation.
Ofqual will be accountable to Parliament. The Select Committees, on
Parliament’s behalf, will no doubt implement procedures for
scrutinising Ofqual’s work and assessing what it has achieved.
Ofqual is bound to put in place exacting success measures by which its
performance can be assessed, and I am sure that the Select Committee
will pull it up if it does not. I do not think that that needs to be
put on the face of the Bill. If it were, it would open up questions
about why other things were not. I agreed with the hon. Member for
Yeovil on Tuesday that Ofqual would write to him about its specific
objectives. Plenty of organisations operate quite effectively without
such
requirements. Amendment
200 would require Ofqual to carry out its functions in a timely manner.
We do not need to make that explicit in the Bill either. Public bodies
are under an implicit duty to exercise their functions reasonably,
which includes acting in a timely manner and avoiding unjustified
delay. The fact that we also require Ofqual to perform its functions
efficiently and effectively—a requirement that the amendment
would remove—can only strengthen the expectations that Ofqual
must act in a timely way when making
decisions. However,
Ofqual will not be obliged to hurry inappropriately in making
decisions. Nobody—neither the Government nor the awarding
bodies—should be able to bounce it into decisions with which it
is not comfortable. If time is needed to get something right, Ofqual
will be able to allow for that under the Bill. On that basis, I invite
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw their
amendments.
10
am
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed
response to the amendments. I welcome her comments about amendment 6,
which give us some reassurance that Ofqual will establish specific and
measurable success criteria. I am a little
disappointed that she did not agree to remove clause 126(7), which I
think is redundant. There seems to be an inconsistency between what is
and is not considered important enough to be prescribed in the Bill,
following our discussion of quite a number of amendments in the past
few sittings.
On amendments
521 and 522, I was genuinely confused by some of the examples given by
the Minister, particularly the one about how Ofqual might be directed
on discharging its responsibilities relating to youngsters with
particularly high needs. This is an important aspect of the Bill,
because Ofqual’s independence is crucial if the new organisation
is to work. Subsection (6) of the clause gives a potentially open-ended
commitment to the Secretary of State to interfere in how Ofqual
discharges its duties. Although I accept that the Minister said that
she intended it to be comparable to the power relating to Ofsted, which
has not often been used, who knows what some future Government might
seek to do with subsection (6)?
I appreciate
that the Minister was trying to be helpful by giving us a number of
examples that were not in the explanatory note circulated by the
Government the other day. Given that the issue is important and may
feature in our future proceedings, is she willing to write to Committee
members fleshing out the two or three examples that she
gave?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I would be more than happy to write to the
hon. Gentleman with that information, but I would like to make the
point that the Secretary of State will direct Ofqual to consider an
issue as far as it is relevant. They cannot force Ofqual to do
anything.
Mr.
Laws: Yes. However, subsection (6)
states: “In
performing its functions Ofqual must also have regard to such aspects
of government policy as the Secretary of State may
direct.” That
still implies that there is quite a power, potentially, for the
Secretary of State to interfere or meddle with, or to lean on, Ofqual.
We all know, particularly from how the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority is perceived to have operated during the past decade or so,
that even bodies with a notional independence can be regarded as being
quite close to the Government and influenced by them in
circumstances in which there are proximity and
powers.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that Ofqual
is a totally different body from the QCA? Ofqual will be an independent
regulator and totally
separate.
Mr.
Laws: I accept that that is the intention, but my point
centres on whether the powers that the Government are giving themselves
will actually ensure that independence. My concern about the last few
clauses that we have debated is that Ofqual will not be independent
enough. I am, however, pleased with the Minister’s reassurance
that she is willing to write to members of the Committee to explain the
way in which the Secretary of State might intervene to direct or
encourage Ofqual in relation to the needs of deprived youngsters. I
genuinely do not understand how Ofqual would then be expected to
interact with the awarding bodies, who would themselves be interested
in hearing a little bit more about the types
of examples that the Minister has given.
Nevertheless, in view of the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
126, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
127Meaning
of “regulated qualifications”
etc.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 436, in
clause 127, page 73, line 33, leave
out ‘or will’ and insert
‘, will be or may reasonably be
expected to’. This
technical amendment ensures that the relevant definition is complete in
so far as it relates to qualifications which persons may reasonably be
expected to seek to obtain. See also amendments 457 and 505 which
achieve the same purpose in relation to similar
definitions.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 457 and
505.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: These technical amendments ensure that
particular definitions are consistent in so far as they relate to
qualifications that persons may reasonably be expected to obtain. On
that basis, I hope that members of the Committee will agreed to
them. Amendment
436 agreed to.
Clause
127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
128Meaning
of “regulated assessment arrangements”
etc. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: We have now reached the halfway stage of the Bill,
not including the 200 or so Government amendments. To celebrate that
milestone and to help members of the Committee before we get to clause
153 and amendments 380 to 384, which relate to Ofqual’s duty to
review regulated assessment arrangements, will the Minister explain the
meaning of such arrangements as defined by clause
128?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Ofqual will monitor national curriculum
assessment arrangements in England in respect of each key stage of the
national curriculum and the early years foundation stage. The
arrangements are set out in orders made by the Secretary of State under
the relevant Acts, and currently involve teacher assessments at the end
of key stage 1 and exams at the end of key stage 2 to assess
pupils’ progress and attainment. The Bill will give Ofqual a
role in whatever arrangements are in force, and it will be able to
monitor and report with the aim of improving confidence in the
standards and delivery of the
arrangements. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
128 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
129Recognition Amendments
made: 437, in clause 129, page 74, line 26, leave out
‘(but only
if)’. This technical
drafting amendment, when taken together with amendment 438, clarifies
that Ofqual must recognise an awarding body when it meets the
requirements set out in clause 129(1), but cannot recognise an awarding
body in any other
circumstances. Amendment
438, in
clause 129, page 74, line 30, at
end insert— ‘( ) Ofqual may
not recognise an awarding body if the requirements set out in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are not met by the
body.’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
437. Amendment
439, in
clause 129, page 74, line 31, at
end insert— ‘( ) has effect
from such date as Ofqual may
specify,’. This
amendment makes it clear that the date on which a recognition comes
into force will be specified by Ofqual (and may be different to the
date on which it decides to recognise the awarding
body). Amendment
440, in
clause 129, page 74, line 39, leave
out subsection (4) and
insert— ‘(4) An
accreditation condition in respect of a qualification subject to the
accreditation requirement is a condition requiring that the recognised
body may award or authenticate a particular form of the qualification
only if, at the time of the award or authentication, that form of the
qualification is accredited under section
136.’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) This
amendment ensures that, where a qualification is subject to the
accreditation requirement, a recognised body must obtain accreditation
for each particular form of the qualification that it wants to award
before it can award that form of the qualification within the terms of
its
recognition.
| 
