Schedule
11The
Qualifications and Curriculum Development
Agency
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 144, in schedule 11,
page 196, line 24, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘Children, Schools and Families Committee of
the House of
Commons.’. We
have now finally gone past part 7, which dealt with Ofqual, so I shall
try to get my initials right here. I congratulate the Minister on her
patience in taking us through that. I note that she is still at the
crease dealing with part 8 of the Bill on the QCDA. Schedule 11
considers and makes detailed provisions relating to the
QCDA, particularly its constitution and proceedings. The QCDA will
clearly be an extremely important body in its own right. It will not be
a non-ministerial department as Ofqual was, but a non-departmental
public body. Perhaps the Minister will say a few things about the
distinction between the two in her opening comments. The Committee
might find it useful to learn why the decision was taken to make the
QCDA a non-departmental public body, rather than a non-ministerial
Department—she will be aware that there are some concerns about
the fact that there is that distinction—and whether the Bill
gives it quite the independence from Government and from Ministers that
it might be
given. 5
pm The
Opposition could perhaps be criticised for not having tabled more
amendments on this subject to probe in more depth the relationship
between the Government and the QCDA. We may want to return to that
later. Amendment 144 deals with the accountability of the chief officer
of the QCDA. According to schedule 11, the QCDA is to
consist of between eight and 13 members who will all be
appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must
appoint one of the ordinary members to chair the QCDA. Paragraph 3(1)
states: “The
chief officer is to be appointed by the QCDA, on conditions of service
determined by the
QCDA.” Paragraph
3(2)
states: “The
appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer are subject
to the approval of the Secretary of
State.” In
the debate on Ofqual, we considered whether some accountability for
these bodies should be to Parliament through Select Committees rather
than directly to the Secretary of State. The Children, Schools and
Families Committee has considered that point, as have other Select
Committees. The amendment would delete “Secretary of
State” and
insert “Children,
Schools and Families Committee of the House of
Commons.” In
other words, it would make the Select Committee rather than the
Secretary of State responsible for approving the appointment and
conditions of service of the chief officer of the
QCDA. Ofqual
is a high-profile body with potentially an important job. There will be
a lot of attention on whether it succeeds in resolving the standards
debate. Because of that, there has been an inclination inside and
outside Parliament to underestimate the importance of the QCDA. Its
responsibilities are set out in the schedule, in later clauses and in
the explanatory notes, which
state: “The
QCDA will retain the QCA’s non-regulatory functions, including
supporting Ministers on developing the curriculum and related
qualifications and delivering National Curriculum
tests.” It
is an extremely important body and there are issues about its
independence. My
party would feel much more comfortable and supported if there was
accountability to Parliament, rather than all accountability being
placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. After all, the Secretary
of State has already been given significant powers over the QCDA, such
as the power to appoint its members. We hope that the Minister will
respond to those concerns.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: On the QCDA being a non-departmental public
body, it will have the same status that the QCA currently has. It will
continue to be the key source of expertise in supporting Ministers on
the curriculum and related qualifications. It will continue to develop
and deliver national curriculum tests. Ministers are quite rightly
accountable to Parliament for the content of the curriculum and they
will continue to need an expert body that offers robust advice on
monitoring and developing the curriculum. As a non-departmental public
body, it will be at arm’s length from Ministers rather than
directly under their control. That is the relationship we want it to
have: close to Ministers, but separate from them and able to provide
expert
advice.
Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister explain why the Government decided
to make Ofqual a non-ministerial body and for the QCDA to be a
non-departmental public body? What is the justification for the
different
treatment?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The difference is that Ofqual has a
regulatory function whereas the QCDA is an advisory
body. The
amendment proposes that the appointment and conditions of service of
the chief officer of the QCDA should be subject to the approval of the
Children, Schools and Families Committee rather than the Secretary of
State. It is similar to amendment 57, which we debated on Tuesday, and
which proposed that the appointment and conditions of service of the
Ofqual chief executive should be approved by the Select
Committee. The
amendment is problematic for two reasons. First, the QCDA is
accountable to Parliament not directly, but via the Secretary of State.
In fact, two Secretaries of State have an interest in its work. That
accountability must be reflected in the responsibility for approving
the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer. I
therefore have a problem with the amendment in principle. Secondly, it
is not appropriate for a Select Committee to be responsible for
approving the appointment and conditions of service of an employee of a
public body that is part of Government. That is not the purpose of
Select Committees and they do not have the structures to do it. I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised. As
the Minister accurately said, to some extent we are rehearsing the
arguments that we had in relation to Ofqual, where we also sought to
involve Select Committees in that way. I therefore have the feeling
that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded, so I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments
made: 500, in schedule 11, page 197,
line 29, leave out paragraph (c). See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
498. Amendment
307, in
schedule 11, page 201, line 24, leave
out ‘this or any other’ and insert
‘any’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) See Member’s explanatory
statement for amendment
291. Schedule
11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause
167Objective
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 167,
page 90, line 31, leave out
‘coherence’ and insert
‘rigour’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 226, in clause 168, page 91,
line 15, at end
insert— ‘(g) information
provided to it by recognised awarding
bodies.’. Amendment
387, in
clause 168, page 91, line 15, at
end insert— ‘(g) the
desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic
knowledge.’. Amendment
386, in
clause 168, page 91, line 21, at
end insert— ‘(d) persons
whom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests
of employers or institutions within the higher education
sector.’. Amendment
145, in
clause 169, page 91, line 37, leave
out subsection
(2). Amendment
388, in
clause 170, page 92, line 12, at
end insert— ‘(c) must have
regard to the importance of maintaining the rigour of academic
qualifications.’. Amendment
389, in
clause 172, page 93, line 10, at
end insert— ‘(c) must have
regard to the importance of maintaining the academic rigour of the
curriculum.’.
Mr.
Gibb: Clause 167, which is probably the shortest one in
the Bill, sets out what the QCDA’s objectives should be. It says
that:
“The
QCDA’s objective is to promote quality and coherence in
education and training in
England.” I
can understand “quality”, which we support. However, I do
not understand the purpose of inserting the word
“coherence” into education and training. Clearly, we do
not want incoherence in education and training, but there is no need
for it to be an ordered and coherent activity. The market should
decide—whether that is within the state sector, or between the
state and independent sector. The schools will decide what the
education should be and parents should decide what type of education
they want for their children. The more diverse the education system,
the better, so that we can use best practice from all over the country
and from all kinds of institutions.
I see no
purpose in having the word “coherence” in the very short
objective that is set out for the QCDA in the clause. Amendment 34
therefore seeks to leave out the word “coherence” and
insert the word “rigour” because parents are seeking
rigour from the education system. I do not want to rehearse the debates
that we have already had in the Committee about trying to restore
rigour and standards to our education system, our qualifications and
our curriculum.
Amendment 387
inserts into clause 168, which concerns the general duties of QCDA, the
phrase: “the
desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic
knowledge”. Again,
I do not want to reprise our earlier discussions about the debate that
there has been in this country
between skills and knowledge—the idea that one can teach
thinking, historic, or scientific skills in a disembodied way that is
divorced from the knowledge being taught. Over the past
10, 20 or 30 years, there has been a drift away from knowledge towards
skills. Children are learning about chronology or data analysis in
history, but very often they are failing to learn about the Saxons, the
Romans, the middle ages and periods of history that are important to
Britain, Europe and the world. The children may well have those
esoteric skills, which I doubt that they will have acquired, but their
knowledge of history is sketchy. I sat in on a lesson in a secondary
school recently where they were learning about data analysis and
intuiting the evidence. A portrait of Henry VII was displayed to the
class, which were asked to intuit from that portrait things about Henry
VII. The answers that the children were coming up with were that he was
rich because he had a fur thing around his neck and that he was full of
himself because he had all this gilt on his clothing, but that is an
irrelevance. Nothing was said about his battle with the barons or the
fact that he was actually short of money, hence all the problems that
Henry VII suffered during his reign. That is not the way our education
system should be going, but it is the way that it is travelling at the
moment.
The purpose
of amendment 387 is to insert into the objectives of the QCDA the
desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic knowledge. No
parent in this country would find that an odd objective to
insert—I am surprised that that objective is not already set out
in the
Bill. Amendment
386 inserts a subsection (d) into clause
168: “persons
whom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests
of employers or institutions within the higher education
sector.” That
is a requirement to consult those people. Qualifications serve three
purposes—they serve the students or people who take the tests,
as our education systems serves them, but they also serve the users of
qualifications, which are the institutions of higher education and
employers. They need to be consulted when the QCDA is considering its
work and the reforms that it is implementing in the
curriculum. Amendment
388 adds a subsection to clause 170, saying that the
QCDA “must
have regard to the importance of maintaining the rigour of academic
qualification.” There
is ample evidence, which I do not want to reprise in today’s
debate, that exam standards have declined in recent years—such
as from the centre for evaluation and monitoring at Durham university,
about how there has been grade inflation in most of the A-levels taken
over the past 10 or 20
years. Finally,
amendment 389 adds a subsection to clause 172, saying again
that the
QCDA “must
have regard to the importance of maintaining...academic
rigour”. None
of the amendments is terribly controversial. They are all amendments
that the public would support. I hope that the Minister will be able to
support them this
evening.
Mr.
Laws: I am also interested in hearing the Government
definition of “coherence”, when we come to the
Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s
amendments.
I shall speak
to amendments 226 and 145. I hope that amendment 226 will not prove too
controversial and that the Minister will be able to reassure me in her
response, because the amendment adds an additional element that QCDA
must have regard to in pursuing its functions—information
provided to it by the recognised awarding body. It is important for the
QCDA to take into account the expertise and practical knowledge of the
awarding bodies. I am sure that the Minister will say that she agrees
with that—we had a similar amendment on one of the clauses
dealing with Ofqual’s responsibilities and the Minister was able
to respond positively. I hope that she will be able to do so similarly
on amendment
226. Amendment
145 is probing, to find out more about the thinking of the Government
on clause 169(1)(b), which makes some allowance for the QCDA
potentially not to be taking a responsibility for some qualifications
in the future. The explanatory notes
say: “The
Secretary of State is given the power by order to exclude
qualifications from QCDA’s
remit”— as
is implied in clause
169— “The
order-making power is subject to the negative procedure. This provision
is designed to allow for any future changes to the QCDA’s role.
The intention is that this power could be used in particular to remove
the QCDA’s functions in relation to vocational qualifications,
if the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills were to
conclude at a later date that it did not wish the QCDA to have advice
and review functions with respect to these qualifications. Any such
decision would not affect Ofqual’s role in regulating those
qualifications.” I
am interested to know why the Government—the two
Departments—have inserted that provision into the Bill and
whether they think that it would be sensible in the future for
vocational qualifications not to be part of the remit of the QCDA. I
thought that it would be the Government’s intention to include
vocational qualifications and that there was concern that they should
be treated differently from the range of academic qualifications. I
hope that the hon. Lady can therefore enlighten us about why the
measure has been inserted into the Bill and explain what consideration
has already been given by her sister Department, DIUS, into whether the
change should take place. Is there is a plan to use the exclusion power
within the foreseeable
future? 5.15
pm
| 
