Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 221, in
clause 129, page 75, line 3, at
end insert ‘and must
establish, at the request of the applicant, arrangements for the review
of that
decision.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 223, in
clause 136, page 77, line 39, at
end add ‘and must
establish, at the request of the applicant, arrangements for the review
of that
decision.’.
Mr.
Laws: As we have seen this morning and on Tuesday,
Opposition Members are not always successful in getting their
amendments accepted, but I rise with some hope on this important
amendment, because I think that the Government might accept it, or at
least say something helpful about it.
Clause 129
centres on the recognition of awarding bodies, and subsection (6)
states: “If
Ofqual refuses an application for recognition it must provide the
awarding body with a statement setting out the reasons for its
decision.” That
seems fair enough, but we want the Government to go further and insert
at the end of that
sentence: “and
must establish, at the request of the applicant, arrangements for the
review of that
decision.” It
seems appropriate, reasonable and in the interests of natural justice
that there should be provision for such a review when a decision of
such significance—Ofqual refusing an application for
recognition—is made. Such a decision could
have serious consequences for the awarding bodies, given all the time
and resources that
might have been invested in a particular
qualification, and given that some of the qualifications might have
been in place for some
time. The
addition to subsection (6) would ensure consistency with the review
arrangements, for example over the imposition of fee-capping
conditions, and that the views of the awarding bodies were properly
considered before the final decision, thus giving an opportunity for
reflection. Given the importance of both subsection (6) and the power
to refuse an application for recognition, it is reasonable for the
awarding bodies to request that there be a formal review mechanism
rather than a simple requirement for a statement of the reasons for the
decision. I hope that the Minister will give that serious
consideration.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As the hon. Gentleman said, if Ofqual
refuses an application for recognition, it must provide the awarding
body with a statement of the reasons for the decision, but there is no
requirement for a formal review process. In contrast, if
Ofqual withdraws recognition, it must, under clause 145, establish
arrangements for a review. That additional safeguard regarding the
withdrawal of recognition reflects the fact that in that context there
are more serious commercial considerations. Withdrawing a body’s
recognised status could have a significant impact on its ability to
conduct its business, and it would have far more serious consequences
than not letting the body become recognised, or its qualification be
accredited, in the first
place. I
have some sympathy with the sentiments of both the hon. Gentleman and
the awarding bodies, but Ofqual should have the flexibility to provide
what review procedures it judges to be right. In practice, I am sure
that Ofqual would want to put in place review arrangements to prevent
any dispute going straight to the courts. On that basis, I am not
prepared to accept the amendment. It is important that the review
process is there for when recognition is withdrawn, because withdrawal
has much more serious commercial
consequences.
Mr.
Laws: I am a bit confused. The Minister seemed to say that
a review was not as important in these circumstances as in some of the
other circumstances dealt with in the Bill, and that it was not
reasonable for Ofqual to have a duty to have such a review in such
circumstances. However, she also appeared to indicate that she thought
that some kind of review mechanism would be appropriate and that she
anticipated that Ofqual would be expected to have such a mechanism, so
there is ambiguity. I would have thought that it was obvious that this
requirement should be in the Bill. However, if the Minister is prepared
to put on record that she expects that Ofqual would want a review
mechanism, even though she does not want the details in the Bill, that
would change my
view.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am more than happy to put that on record.
I expect that Ofqual would review, but I want it to have the
flexibility to consider each case individually. There is always the
opportunity for an awarding body to resubmit a rejected
application. 10.15
am
Mr.
Laws: This is about not so much the resubmission, which
carries an expectation of a change, potentially, to the contents of the
application, but the assurance that there is some review mechanism when
the awarding
bodies feel that they have been dealt with unfairly. I think the
Minister is indicating that she expects that Ofqual will ensure that
there will be that mechanism in such
circumstances.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry indicated
assent.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister is
nodding.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am happy to confirm that, in those
circumstances, I would expect Ofqual to have a mechanism of
review.
Mr.
Laws: I am extremely grateful to the Minister—her
words are even more valuable than her nods—and with that
reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 441, in
clause 129, page 75, line 5, leave
out ‘published’ and insert ‘in
force’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) This
amendment makes it clear that the date on which general conditions come
into force, and so need to be complied with, may be different from that
on which they are
published. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments 506, 508 and
512. Government
new clause 23—Surrender of
recognition.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: New clause 23 will allow awarding bodies to
surrender their recognition for specific qualifications. It also
contains provisions that will allow Ofqual to manage the fallout from a
recognised body wanting to surrender its recognition for a
qualification. If an awarding body wants to do that, Ofqual must then
determine, as soon as reasonably practical, when that recognition
should cease, and make saving or transitional provision to help
eliminate or minimise any harm to people who are studying for that
qualification. The new clause will also require Ofqual to think about
the needs of learners and potential learners when deciding the
surrender date, and it is intended to give the learner greater
protection than they would otherwise have against qualifications being
taken off the market before their studies are completed. On that basis,
I hope that the Committee will agree to the new
clause. Amendment
512 will mirror, for Wales, the new surrender of recognition provision
that I have just outlined. It is consistent with our general position
of maintaining the three-country approach to qualification regulation
by ensuring that there is a consistent approach to qualification
regulation and development across Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Amendments 506 and 508 are consequential amendments, and I hope that we
will agree to those amendments,
too. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
129, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause
130Criteria
for
recognition
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 442, in
clause 130, page 75, line 19, at
end insert— ‘(c) recognition
in respect of credits in respect of different
components of qualifications or different
descriptions of components of
qualifications.’. This
amendment ensures Ofqual’s powers to set criteria for
recognition enable it to set different criteria for recognition in
respect of credits for different components of a qualification or
different descriptions of component. Amendment 443 makes the same
change in relation to Ofqual’s powers to set general
conditions.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendment
443.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The amendments are technical. They ensure
that Ofqual’s powers to set criteria for recognitions and
general conditions will apply to components in the same way as they do
to full qualifications.
We need
flexible ways for people to learn and obtain qualifications.
Increasingly, we are seeing learners, particularly adult learners,
developing their skills and knowledge through building up a portfolio
of components of qualifications, which can then be put together to make
full qualifications. The amendments will ensure that all achievements
are properly recognised. The Bill will allow Ofqual to recognise
employers as awarding bodies so that an even greater variety of
learning can be recognised and valued. The amendments complement those
powers by ensuring that Ofqual is as much the regulator of components
of qualifications as of full
qualifications.
Mr.
Hayes: As the Minister helpfully said, the amendments
allow Ofqual to set up criteria for recognition that will not just
depend on qualifications or descriptions of qualifications, and we
welcome that move. Essentially, they enable Ofqual to do what it says
on the tin, as it were. We must ensure that Ofqual is a valid and
independent body with a robust ability to accredit a range of
qualifications and awarding bodies. The amendments, in those terms, are
welcome—they move in the right direction, ensuring that all
aspects of qualifications are accredited.
We would be
churlish to oppose the amendments, but a couple of questions come to
mind, and it would be wrong if they were not shared with the Committee.
First, how small a set of credits can Ofqual accredit? Does the
Minister have an optimum, notional idea of that—I assume that
she must? While we want to ensure that there are such regulations, we
do not want Ofqual to get bogged down in accrediting every single piece
of work. Secondly, is there a clear plan for what qualifications will
be involved and a timetable for their accreditation? It would be little
use if qualifications were accredited and the acquisition of credits
took some time to
accredit. I
was going to ask further questions about the Government’s
response to the report of the Select Committee on Innovation,
Universities, Science and Skills to which I referred earlier,
particularly in respect of the comments made by that Committee on
Ofqual and the Government response. In fairness to the Minister, she
has already admitted that she has not read it. I read
it after a very good dinner in Chinatown last night, but clearly she did
not have a good dinner in Chinatown or read the
report. The
report is relevant, however, as the Select Committee made several
recommendations, particularly in respect of giving consideration to
qualifications, the reform process, and the accreditation of prior
learning to accommodate non-traditional courses leading to the
acquisition of skills at an appropriate level. It was referring to
“bite-size courses”, part-time courses and formal
training. Notwithstanding that, the easiest way for me to conclude my
remarks would be once again to advise the Minister to prepare better in
the future—home-study preparation is seldom wasted—and,
more graciously perhaps, to suggest that I would be happy to receive a
written response on that particular aspect of the response to the
Select
Committee.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly
was not wasting my time last night. I was at an event for the London
leadership strategy with head teachers and deputy head teachers of our
London schools. I was congratulating them on the excellent progress and
improvement that they have made since the London Challenge was put in
place.
Mr.
Laws: Until what
time?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: After that I went home and read my papers
for this Committee. I can assure hon. Members that at no time was I in
Chinatown enjoying a good
dinner. In
response to the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings, those matters will be up to Ofqual. The timing will
be up to Ofqual, which will have an overarching duty to ensure
standards and comparability. It will be a risk-based regulator. I am
sure that I will spend the time between the end of this sitting and the
next one perusing the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred and
not having a good lunch, as I am sure that he will.
Amendment
442 agreed
to. Amendment
made: 294, in clause 130, page 75, line 20, leave out
‘from time to time’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) See
Member’s explanatory note for amendment
290.
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 130,
page 75, line 22, after
‘consult’, insert ‘recognised awarding bodies
and’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 224, in clause 137, page 78, line 8, after
‘consult’, insert ‘relevant recognised awarding
bodies
and’. Amendment
199, in
clause 137, page 78, line 9, at
end add ‘and must
include in such consultations representatives of the higher education
sector and representatives of
business.’. Amendment
225, in
clause 140, page 80, line 7, after
‘consult’, insert ‘relevant recognised awarding
bodies
and’.
Mr.
Laws: I hope that we can deal with the amendment briefly
and that the Minister may be able to give me the type of
reassurances that she could about amendments 221 and
223. All
the amendments are complementary and deal with the issue of the need
for Ofqual to consult before setting or revising the criteria for
recognition. Clause 130(5)
states: “Before
setting or revising the criteria Ofqual must consult such persons as it
considers
appropriate.” We
hope that that consultation would include the recognised awarding
bodies, which is what the amendments seek to achieve. It is important
for Ofqual to take into account the expertise and practical knowledge
of the awarding
bodies. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
