 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:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 March 2009(Afternoon)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillClause 130Criteria
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. Amendment
199 is a variant on the same theme. It would require Ofqual to consult
representatives of the higher education sector and business. Clause 126
sets
out various general duties for Ofqual. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of
subsection (2) require Ofqual to have regard to the reasonable
requirements of those sectors when performing its functions. Paragraph
(f) requires Ofqual to have regard to information from sector skills
councils. Amendment 199 would not have a significant practical effect
because Ofqual will have to focus on the needs of higher education and
business in all it does. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will
be
withdrawn.
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 131General
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 133Fee
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.
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.
“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.
“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 134Entry
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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 27 March 2009 |