[back to previous text]

Mr. Laws: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the conclusions were that the quality of the key stage test marking in 2008 was as good as in previous years?
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The statement made by Ofqual was that the quality of marking in 2008 was at least as good as in previous years.
Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister confirm whether Ken Boston and David Gee are still suspended and whether they are on full pay, or have they moved on?
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: They are still suspended and are still on full pay.
Mr. Gibb: I think that the public will be interested in that final answer.
I was slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response to the amendments. I understand her point on reporting what action Ofqual will take in tackling a problem with the QCDA, but one of the activities that could be reported is a direction to the QCDA. That could be regarded as activity as well as sorting out the problem. None the less, I take on board her point.
I was disappointed by her response to amendment 380 on standards. If she was as serious about maintaining and raising standards as Conservative Members, she would not have a problem with accepting the amendment, notwithstanding that it might be regarded as otiose if it is implicit elsewhere in the Bill that Ofqual has a duty to maintain standards. Standards are so important that they cannot be understated in any legislation. I will therefore press the amendment to test whether the Committee is as serious as Conservative Members about maintaining and raising academic standards in our schools.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.
Division No. 32]
AYES
Brooke, Annette
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Laws, Mr. David
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Walker, Mr. Charles
NOES
Blackman, Liz
Butler, Ms Dawn
Creagh, Mary
Ennis, Jeff
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Knight, rh Jim
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Thornberry, Emily
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 154 and 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 156

NC assessments regulatory framework
Amendment made: 301, in clause 156, page 87, line 10, leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 290.
Clause 156, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 157

EYFS assessments regulatory framework
Amendment made: 302, in clause 157, page 87, line 29, leave out ‘from time to time’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 290.
Clause 157, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 158 to 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
3.55 pm
Sitting suspended.
4.28 pm
On resuming—
[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 162

Annual and other reports
Mr. Laws: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
‘and the extent to which it met objectives.’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 70, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
‘how it performed in relation to its objectives, what its assessment is of changes in educational standards and performance since its last report, and how English educational standards and performance compare with those in other developed countries.’.
Amendment 33, in clause 162, page 89, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4A) No recommendations contained in the report referred to in subsection (4) shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
Amendment 556, in clause 162, page 89, line 22, at end insert—
‘(9) Ofqual shall, before each financial year, publish a document (the “forward work programme”) containing a description of the main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and how these activities are intended to meet its objectives.
(10) Before publishing the forward work programme for any year, Ofqual shall give a notice—
(a) containing a draft of the forward work programme, and
(b) specifying the time within which representations or objections to the proposals contained in it may be made,
and shall consider any representations or objections which are made under paragraph (b).’.
Mr. Laws: Thank you, Mr. Chope, and welcome back to the chair. I hope that you are suitably impressed with the rapid rate of progress since you were last in it—perhaps not quite as rapid as some might have wished, but in any case, we are further on than we were last time
The clause deals with the annual reports that will have to be produced by Ofqual, and we have tabled amendments 7, 70 and 556. Amendment 7 would change subsection (2) to ensure that Ofqual would be required to define specific and measurable success criteria for its objectives. As it stands, the subsection does not make it clear that there should be a specific comparison and assessment of its performance in that period of time against the objectives set for the organisation. With many governmental bodies in the past decade or so, there has been has been an expectation that annual reports will make a rigorous attempt to evaluate whether the performance targets that the body has been given have been met. We have discussed in relation to other clauses what Ofqual’s objectives will be and the need for some measurable process to assess whether it is meeting them. It is therefore entirely sensible to invite the Government to consider whether that assessment should be part of the annual report.
4.30 pm
Amendment 70 seeks further to flesh out what the annual report must contain. It would indicate that the report must not only state how Ofqual has performed its functions in the reporting period and how it performed in relation to its objectives, but give an assessment of changes in educational standards and performance since the last report. The report would therefore have to give a sense of how standards are changing over time.
Importantly, the amendment would require Ofqual to make an assessment of
“how English educational standards and performance compare with those in other developed countries”.
Amendment 556 would introduce new subsections (9) and (10) to the clause. It would ensure a more rigorous process for Ofqual’s reporting structure and performance measurement. It states:
“Ofqual shall, before each financial year, publish a document”
that represents the
“forward work programme”
and contains
“a description of the main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and how these activities are intended to meet its objectives”.
The forward work programme would ensure that schools, colleges, qualification providers, the media and parliamentarians clearly understand what Ofqual’s priorities are each year, and that it can plan its qualifications accordingly. One issue that we discussed earlier and in previous sittings is the need for some coherence on the timeliness of what Ofqual does, to ensure that other organisations are informed in good time of Ofqual’s plans and priorities and that they are not wrong-footed by initiatives that take place at very short notice, without an ability to have an input.
Of course, a forward work programme would also provide checks and balances for Ofqual’s activities and allow for greater scrutiny of, and accountability for, its performance. We think that all the measures in amendments 556, 7 and 70 ought to be welcomed by the Government, and that they are consistent with their strategy in the Bill.
Mr. Gibb: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Chope, after a short absence.
Clause 162 will require Ofqual to publish an annual report as soon as is practicable after the end of each reporting period. The explanatory note says that that report must be laid before Parliament. Our amendment 33 says that no recommendation contained in that report shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. It is trying to echo the affirmative resolution statutory instrument procedure that we have in the House to ensure that the annual report is debated. It is all very well laying a report before Parliament, but we need to be sure that it is debated in the House.
I know that we are not permitted in legislation to require the House of Commons to do anything. To get around that convention we have tabled an amendment requiring any recommendations to be debated in both Houses, the reason being that Ofqual’s maintenance of standards is important to the public, higher education and employers. Unless the annual report of Ofqual is scrutinised in this place, I believe that we would be failing in our duty to ensure that those standards are being maintained. That would be an important annual parliamentary event, to ensure that our standards are maintained, and certainly a key priority for Conservative Members. That is why we are sympathetic to amendment 70, which states that changes in standards should be compared with those in other developed countries.
We tabled a similar amendment requiring a benchmark comparison with similar qualifications abroad. That is our party’s policy. If we were to win the next election, we would have an official link requiring our examinations to be compared with those in other countries. There is a concern that our qualifications have drifted downwards compared with many international qualifications that have not gone down the modular route or reduced the knowledge content. It is interesting to note the popularity of qualifications such as the international GCSE, which is very popular abroad but the Government will not allow in state schools in this country for fear of creating a two-tier examination system. The truth is that we have a two-tier system in this country. We have a system whereby the independent sector is allowed to teach and examine using the IGCSE, but state schools are not permitted—or are certainly not funded—to teach it. That has an effect of not providing a competitor exam to the GCSE, which over the past 10 years has been chipped away by the QCA and the Government so that its standards are very different from those of the IGCSE, even though they started out in a similar position when they were split.
Without taking up any more of the Committee’s time, I think that we should debate this annual report in Parliament and the amendment provides a method by which the report’s recommendations will be debated in this House and another place.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I, too, would like to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Chope.
Amendments 7 and 70 would require Ofqual to include in its annual report material on the extent to which it has met its objectives. Amendment 70—I think we have said this before—says that one feature of the standards objective on which Ofqual must report is educational standards and performance, including comparison with other countries. I readily agree that Ofqual will need to report achievement of its statutory objectives, 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.
I asked Ofqual on Tuesday to write to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I can confirm that Kathleen Tattersall will be writing, as committed, on setting measurable objectives. I do not think it is necessary to include the detailed requirement in legislation. Ofqual will be accountable to Parliament and the Select Committees will no doubt put in place arrangements for scrutinising Ofqual’s work and assessing what it has achieved. Ofqual will have to put in place some exacting success measures by which its performance can be assessed.
 
Previous 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