House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2008 - 09
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Mr. Christopher Chope, Mrs. Joan Humble
Blackman, Liz (Erewash) (Lab)
Brooke, Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Butler, Ms Dawn (Brent, South) (Lab)
Creagh, Mary (Wakefield) (Lab)
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab)
Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Hayes, Mr. John (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab)
Knight, Jim (Minister for Schools and Learners)
Laws, Mr. David (Yeovil) (LD)
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families)
Miller, Mrs. Maria (Basingstoke) (Con)
Seabeck, Alison (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab)
Sharma, Mr. Virendra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Simon, Mr. Siôn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills)
Stuart, Mr. Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thornberry, Emily (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Walker, Mr. Charles (Broxbourne) (Con)
Wiggin, Bill (Leominster) (Con)
Williams, Stephen (Bristol, West) (LD)
Chris Shaw, James Davies, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 26 March 2009

(Afternoon)

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

Clause 130

Criteria for recognition
Amendment moved (this day): 222, in clause 130, page 75, line 22, after ‘consult’, insert ‘recognised awarding bodies and’.—(Mr. Laws.)
1 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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. David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I welcome you back to the Committee, Mrs. Humble, as I do members of the Committee—well, certainly Opposition members of the Committee; unfortunately, there are still only two hon. Members on the Labour Benches.
Sometimes it feels as though we are slaving away without any attention from the outside world being paid to our deliberations. I was therefore particularly pleased that our discussions this morning attracted widespread media attention under the headline “Labour Loses Key Committee Votes”, with a lovely photograph of the hon. Member for Brent, South at the top of the article.
I said this morning that there is every reason for the Government to accept amendment 222, to invite Ofqual to ensure that recognised awarding bodies are consulted as part of the processes laid down in the clause. However, if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, perhaps she will confirm and clarify that Ofqual will be expected to consult in such a way with the recognised awarding bodies.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Clause 137 is about the criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. With last week’s news that Cambridge university will now be looking to distinguish bright pupils by accepting the new A* A-level grade, it shows just how far school qualifications have gone awry. It seems that they are no longer used for businesses or universities. Only last year, Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial college, mooted the idea of an entrance exam, stating:
“We are doing this not because we don’t believe in A levels, but we can’t use the A level any more as a discriminator factor.”
He went on to say that he believes in many aspects of the current qualifications system but cannot ignore the weight of evidence that points to one fundamental truth—that A-levels are no longer created with the needs of business and higher education in mind.
The aim of the amendment is to halt the trend and reverse the situation in which a 2008 CBI survey found that 40 per cent. of companies had serious concerns about the literacy and numeracy of their employees. Through open and honest consultation with employers and those in higher education, we can begin to ensure that the criteria for accreditation prioritises literacy and numeracy as well as knowledge, concept and ideas in our qualifications. Currently, the qualifications system seems to be falling far short of that.
We have already heard about the worrying statistics from the Royal Society of Chemistry, which said that teenagers who get 35 per cent. of the answers correct when faced with today’s examination papers would only have got 15 per cent. correct if they were dealing with papers from the 1960s.
Universities and employers have a proper and very vital interest in driving up standards. A 2008 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey found that 90 per cent. of companies expected their skill needs to grow, with 36 per cent. requiring high-level skills. At a time when our economy is in deep peril, the development of higher skills is at an all-time premium. We cannot afford to fail our students, our employers or our universities. We must ensure that the qualifications that are the route out of our problems are a collaborative venture built with the best interests of all those parties at heart. It is the purpose of amendment 199 to ensure that there is consultation with the users of qualifications, higher education and employers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): Clauses 130, 137 and 140 give Ofqual the duties to publish criteria for the recognition of awarding bodies, the accreditation of qualifications and the assignment of guided learning hours to the relevant qualification. In each case, Ofqual must consult such persons as it considers appropriate before setting or revising the criteria. The amendments would change that by specifying certain persons whom Ofqual must consult. There is no need to specify that in the Bill because Ofqual will already have to do it.
Amendments 222, 224 and 225 would require Ofqual to consult recognised awarding bodies before changing their criteria for recognition, for accreditation and for guided learning hours. Of course Ofqual will do that. No regulator is going to ignore the community it regulates in a consultation exercise. If it helps the hon. Member for Yeovil, I will put it on the record that I expect Ofqual to consult those bodies. There is nothing to be gained by specifying that in legislation.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. She has given the clarification that we wanted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

General conditions of recognition
Amendments made: 443, in clause 131, page 75, line 30, at end insert—
‘(c) recognition in respect of credits in respect of different components of qualifications or different descriptions of components of qualifications.’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 442.
Amendment 295, in clause 131, page 75, line 31, leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 290.
Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133

Fee capping conditions: supplementary
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 444, in clause 133, page 76, line 31, leave out ‘a person’ and insert ‘—
(i) an individual’.
This amendment and amendment 445 clarify that review arrangements made under clause 133 may provide for decisions on a review to be made either by an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or its staff or by a body none of whose members is such a person.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 445, 483 and 484.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: These drafting amendments clarify that an independent review of Ofqual’s decision to cap fees or withdraw recognition may be carried out by an individual or a body. The wording in the Bill states that it must be
“a person other than a member of Ofqual or Ofqual’s staff”,
which suggests that only an individual can carry out the review. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendments.
Mr. Gibb: The explanatory statement on amendments 444 and 445 clarifies that
“review arrangements made under clause 133 may provide for decisions on a review to be made either by an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or its staff or by a body none of whose members is such a person.”
It appears that the essence of the amendment is to give bodies outside Ofqual the power to review. Will the Minister explain why that power is necessary?
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The intention of the amendment is merely to clarify that the review may be done by a body or an individual. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point?
Mr. Gibb: My concern is that it is a body or an individual who is not a member of Ofqual. It seems that that is the driver behind the amendment, rather than the distinction between a body and an individual.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The original clause says that it
“may require or permit that decision to be made by a person other than a member of Ofqual or Ofqual’s staff.”
The amendment merely adds that that could be a body rather than an individual person. The purpose of the original clause was to clarify the independence of Ofqual; the amendment merely states that it is either an individual or a body.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: 445, in clause 133, page 76, line 32, at end insert ‘, or
(ii) a body none of whose members is a member of Ofqual or Ofqual’s staff.’.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 444.
Amendment 296, in clause 133, page 76, line 39, leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 290.
Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134

Entry and inspection conditions: supplementary
Amendment made: 446, in clause 134, page 77, line 6, leave out from ‘require’ to end of line 8 and insert
‘an authorised person to be given permission to do anything that a person authorised by a provision of Part 1 of the Education Act 2005 (c. 18) to inspect documents could do by virtue of section 58 of that Act (computer records).’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
This amendment clarifies that Ofqual may set an “entry and inspection condition” that allows a person authorised by Ofqual to inspect and copy electronic records in the same way as a person would be able to do if authorised under section 58 of the Education Act 2005.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
 
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