The
Chairman: Order. Is this a speech or an
intervention?
Jeff
Ennis: It is an intervention, I just wanted
to—
The
Chairman: It is already too long for an intervention, so
we will leave it at that. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to come back
and make a speech later if he wants
to.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I will try and second-guess what the crumbs
of comfort were that my hon. Friend was asking for, with the caveat
that it is, of course, a matter for Parliament, not Government, to
decide how Ofqual will report. We would expect the relevant Select
Committees to play a key role, as they do with Ofsted, and I would
imagine that they would want to use the same
mechanisms. As
I mentioned, the Government are also planning to ask Ofqual to consider
commissioning an independent review of the reforms to qualifications
regulation after three years, in order to assess what they have
achieved. If Ofqual agrees to that, it will need to decide what
performance measures to set to enable that review to report
meaningfully. It is not good practice to specify such detailed
requirements on the face of the Bill. The danger of prescription is
twofold. First, when Ofqual reports, it would focus only on the
requirements in the Bill, rather than considering carefully and
discussing with the Select Committees what would be most appropriate
for it to report on each year. Secondly, the Bill is not future-proof.
In five or 10 years, the expectations of Ofqual may have moved on and
our successors may want it to report on different things. Comparing the
current Bill with the Education Act 1997, which established the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, shows how far expectations
change. Rather than buttoning things down in legislation, we want to
ensure that we have robust processes in place to hold Ofqual to account
and to ensure that its work is transparent. We believe that that is
what is in the
Bill. Amendment
70 reflects the view of last year’s report by the Children,
Schools and Families Committee that measuring standards is the primary
function of the regulator. I need to emphasise that we have discussed
similar amendments and that the Government disagree with that view. A
key role—arguably the single most important role for
Ofqual—will be to keep the height of the hurdle constant from
year to year. That is not easy as curricula and qualifications change,
as they must, but that is the reassurance that we need. Ofqual must be
able to focus on that task and not be distracted by wider questions
about standards. It should be unconcerned with how many people can jump
the hurdle; that is the
job of the Government as they pursue policies that improve the quality
of teaching and learning, safe in the knowledge that those improvements
will be reflected properly and credibly in the form of better results
and qualifications in
assessments. Mr.
Laws: I appreciate the Minister’s views and the
views of the Government, but she will be aware that information is
already regularly made available, on a comparative basis, on
educational performance in different countries. Ministers are often
inclined to comment on that. Would it be more sensible if we allowed
the independent regulator, Ofqual, to make those judgments and comments
and to take that responsibility away from Ministers, who will naturally
be concerned about
independence?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: There is nothing in the Bill that prevents
Ofqual from reporting on qualifications in other countries. The primary
function of Ofqual—the clue is in the name: Office of
Qualifications and Examinations Regulation—is to regulate
qualifications and assessments, not to measure standards. Giving Ofqual
the role of measuring standards across the education system and forcing
it to engage in endless debates about standards, would distract it from
its core role and make its job unmanageable. Both Dr. Mike Cresswell,
from AQA, and Kathleen Tattersall, the chair of interim Ofqual, made
those points in the evidence session.
Amendment 33
would require Ofqual to have any recommendation in its annual report
approved by each House of Parliament before it could implement them. As
I have said, we expect that the relevant Select Committees will play a
key role in holding Ofqual to account, as the Children, Schools and
Families Committee does with
Ofsted. 4.45
pm Similarly,
we would expect the Select Committees to scrutinise Ofqual’s
annual report and to discuss the implementation of any recommendations
with the chief regulator. However, as far as I know—the hon.
Member for Yeovil can correct me if he has any more evidence—it
would be unprecedented for a Department to have its detailed business
plan approved by Parliament. That would risk undermining the proper
governance and accountability relationship between Ofqual and
Parliament. Parliament, principally through the relevant Select
Committees, should be responsible for holding Ofqual to account for the
delivery of its objectives, but Ofqual must have the discretion to
decide how best to achieve those
objectives.
Mr.
Gibb: Does the Minister recall the statement about Ofqual
by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the right
hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls)? He
said: “It
is an independent regulator of standards, it is independent of
Ministers and it reports directly to
Parliament.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2009;
Vol. 488, c.
27.] That is
the essence of the amendment: to enable Ofqual to report directly to
Parliament. It is not about the Minister’s programme of
work.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It is for Parliament to decide how that
reporting happens. My point is that government is government, and we
would hope that Parliament would use the Select Committee mechanism.
Presumably,
Ofqual’s business plan would include the recommendations from its
annual report. Parliament should not second-guess Ofqual’s
judgments, because Ofqual would then be at risk of failing to achieve
an objective because it did not attain approval from Parliament for
something in its business
plan. Finally,
amendment 556 would require Ofqual to publish for public consultation
an annual work programme for the coming year. I sympathise with the
general sentiment that Ofqual should be a regulator that works
transparently and makes the effort to listen to the voices of a wide
range of people with an interest in qualifications and assessment,
including learners, business, higher education, schools and colleges,
and the general public. Ofqual may want to publish an annual business
plan or lay such a plan before Parliament and the Northern Ireland
Assembly, but I have concerns about the amendment similar to those
about other amendments we have
discussed. As
a matter of principle, we should avoid detailed prescription of how
Ofqual does its business. Both the legislation and the ongoing
accountability mechanisms should focus on what Ofqual
achieves—how far it meets its objectives—and leave the
detailed judgments about how to deliver to Ofqual itself. Ofqual needs
to have powers to deliver, which the Bill provides, but it risks being
a less effective organisation—less able to be robust and to
respond to events—if it has to jump through hoops before it can
act. So, let us trust Ofqual to regulate as effectively and
transparently as possible, to consult as and how it needs to, and to
answer to the Select Committees. As with all these
amendments—accountability, yes; scrutiny, yes; measuring
Ofqual’s impact, absolutely; but not through statutory
requirements regarding how Ofqual goes about its business, which might
constrain its ability to meet learners’ needs. I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful for that detailed response to this
group of amendments. I think that we can agree on amendment 7, because
the Minister made it very clear that she will expect Ofqual to define
specific and measurable criteria for its objectives and report on them
in its annual report. I am very satisfied with her response on that
amendment, which she has put on the
record. However,
I am afraid that I remain unconvinced by her response on amendments 70
and 556. Amendment 556 states that Ofqual should publish a forward work
programme, which would allow for consultation from outside groups,
allowing people to know what Ofqual was looking at and input their
views. The Minister’s response was that we do not want to give
Ofqual too many responsibilities and be too prescriptive. I remind her
that schedule 11 on page 192 of the Bill, which we debated a couple of
days ago, insists that Ofqual should review the structures of its
committees on a particular timetable. If the Government, and hence the
Minister, are going to be so prescriptive as to insist that Ofqual
manage its committee structures in a particular way, and prescribe
precisely how often it should review those structures, surely the
Minister should be willing to do something far more important, and
insist that Ofqual set out its forward work
programme.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a
requirement to review the committees every five years does not
necessarily mean that it has to change
anything, but that it has to check that it is right? That is not the
same as the micro-management to which he has
referred.
Mr.
Laws: No, I will not accept that. I suggest, without
wishing to revisit a previous debate, that how Ofqual reviews whether
to keep the structure and scope of its committees is exactly the kind
of issue that it should have responsibility for. Any chief executive or
management group within Ofqual who are not capable of that, frankly,
would not be fit for the job.
Amendment 556
sets out precisely the type of requirements in which the Government
should be interested, such as the responsibility for Ofqual to have a
forward programme of work that allows other organisations to engage
with it. Again, we are finding inconsistencies in how the Government
are framing the legislation, with micro-management in areas in which
they have no business micro-managing; and some duties that should be
placed on those bodies are not in the Bill.
I was also
disappointed, but not completely surprised, by the Minister’s
response on amendment 70. I know that the Government are reticent to
make Ofqual what it was originally advertised to be—a genuine
watchdog that can comment on standards, and end the endless debates
that occur every August and throughout the year on whether there has
been dumbing down or standards have been maintained. It is surprising
and disappointing that Ofqual should not even be able to make
international comparisons, and that it is not encouraged to be the body
that makes assessments about the international surveys, which already
take place, and draws conclusions that might not only be relevant to
general observations about standards in English education, but be
regarded as a legitimate cross-check for the qualifications it is
supposed to regulate. I was amazed when the Minister said that she did
not want to force Ofqual to engage in endless debates about standards,
and I think that that was from her written comments, rather than an ad
lib. If Ofqual is not going to be at the centre of the endless debate
about standards, it will clearly fail to do the job that it needs to do
and that, in many senses, the Government have sold it as doing in the
media.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: At the risk of returning to a previous
debate, does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are talking about the
standard of qualifications, which Ofqual does have powers to look at,
rather than standards across the wider education system as a whole,
which it does not have powers to look
at?
Mr.
Laws: I accept that that is the narrow way in which the
Government want to define Ofqual’s responsibilities and that our
views differ on that, which is part of what the debate is about.
However, I am also inviting the Minister to reflect on the fact that it
is important for the Government to make comparisons with other
countries, and judgments on standards and on whether the regulated
qualifications are doing their job. It is important that there should
be an independent body commenting on the available international
evidence, which Ministers constantly use to justify their statements on
educational standards. Ofqual is precisely qualified
to do that job and it is somewhat disingenuous of the Minister to say
that nothing prevents it from doing so, when clearly, everything that
Ministers are saying implies that it should not tread in that area at
all.
I am
disappointed with the Minister’s response on amendment 70, which
confirms my fear that we are heading for a body that will have no
credibility in the standards debate, will not be forced to engage in
endless debates about standards and will not be able to make
comparisons with international performance or objective assessments on
what is happening with regard to the international surveys of
education. It will essentially be a toothless regulator that will fail
to do the most important job of making objective, credible and
respected judgments about standards, which it should be able to do and
which it has a responsibility for. I am, however, satisfied with the
Minister’s response on amendment 7 and beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
proposed: 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.’.—(Mr.
Laws.) Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
9.
Division
No.
33] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 162
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
163 and 164 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
10 agreed
to. Clause
166 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
