Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Amendment 34 would change QCDA’s
objectives from those of promoting quality and coherence to promoting
quality and rigour, and I shall start by responding to the hon. Member
for Yeovil. The “Concise Oxford English Dictionary”
defines “coherent” as logical and consistent. Coherence
is currently part of QCA’s objective under the Education Act
1997 Act, so it is nothing new.
Mr.
Laws: Does “coherence” have any implication
for the number of
qualifications?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The coherent idea is that QCDA is not
looking at curriculum and qualifications in isolation, but can look at
them collectively to provide quality and rigorous learning programmes
for young people. It is not QCDA’s role to look at the number of
qualifications. Rigour
is important, but it is intrinsic to quality so we do not need to
identify it separately. Nor should we be losing the requirement to
promote coherence.
Mr.
Gibb: Progressive educationalists believe that a quality
education should not be rigorous and that it should be child-initiated
learning in a loose and play-based way. That would not constitute
rigour, but it could constitute
quality.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: In my view, rigour is intrinsic to quality
and we do not need to identify it separately. Coherence is important
because, as I said, we want to make sure that collectively we have
rigorous learning programmes for young people—a point that we
are capturing by
“coherence”. Amendments
387 to 389 would give QCDA additional general duties of having regard
to academic knowledge, academic qualifications and academic rigour. I
do not disagree that QCDA will have to have regard to such matters, but
the Bill should not specify everything that it must have regard to.
Those requirements are implicit under the Bill in its objective to
promote quality and to have regard to the requirements of learners and
higher education. QCDA could not deliver those objectives without
ensuring academic rigour, so the amendments are not
necessary. Amendments
386 and 226 would require QCDA to have regard to information provided
respectively by representatives of employers or the higher education
sector and awarding bodies. In relation to amendment 386,
QCDA already has a general duty to have regard to the requirements of
employers and higher education under clause 168(2)(b) and (c). If there
were specific representatives whose information the Secretary of State
wished it to have particular regard to, he could direct it to do so
under subsection (3)(c). The amendments are therefore not
necessary. Amendment
226 would require QCDA to have regard to information provided by
awarding bodies. As I said, the Bill cannot specify everything that
QCDA should have regard to and, of course, it will have listen to, and
work with, awarding bodies as it drafts qualifications criteria and
keep the qualifications system under review. If it did not do so, it
could not do its job properly, which is why it does not need to be told
to do so. There is no reason to single out under the Bill awarding
bodies ahead of all the other organisations, including subject
associations, with which QCDA will need to
work. Amendment
145 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to limit by order
QCDA’s remit in relation to qualifications. Its qualifications
remit, as defined under clause 169, is broadly the same as that of
Ofqual and covers qualifications awarded in England that are not higher
education qualifications although, unlike Ofqual, QCDA will have no
functions in Northern Ireland. That reflects the fact that Ministers
might want advice from QCDA on any qualifications or types of
qualifications that Ofqual regulates and, under clause 170,
QCDA is under a duty to keep under review all qualifications within its
remit. As
was announced last year, ministerial colleagues in DUIS will want to
review, in due course, whether QCDA should have a long-term role
advising on adult vocational qualifications. There are other bodies
that have a role in those qualifications: sector skills councils look
at the skills and qualifications needed in individual sectors of the
economy and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will look
across the adult skills landscape. If
the QCDA is also looking at adult qualifications, there is a risk of
duplication with those other bodies. Therefore, if DIUS Ministers
conclude that they do not want the QCDA to look at post-19
qualifications, subsection (2) allows them to remove vocational
qualifications from its remit, and the QCDA would no longer be under a
duty to keep those qualifications under review. The amendment
would prevent DIUS from rationalising the advice that they get on
post-19 qualifications, without further primary legislation. It would
force the QCDA to keep reviewing the qualifications, even if doing so
duplicated the role of other bodies that were better placed to advise
DIUS and DIUS Ministers did not want that advice. In the light of that,
I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will not press the
amendments.
Mr.
Laws: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving such
full responses and for explaining the Government’s thinking
behind clause 169 and the excluded qualifications. She has usefully put
the Government’s thinking on the record. I need to reflect on
what she has said before considering whether we have any concerns about
taking such vocational qualifications out of the QCDA’s
remit.
On amendment
226, the Minister gave a fairly similar response to the one that she
gave when we discussed information from awarding bodies. Although she
is unwilling to accept the amendment, I hope that the QCDA will listen
closely to those awarding bodies. I shall allow the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to respond to his own amendment, as he
no doubt wishes to, but I want to put on record that I am not entirely
convinced about the clarity of the word “coherence” and
about whether the Bill benefits from it. If one negates the two words
in clause 167, one ends up with a fairly meaningless formula, which
indicates that the clause does not add any clarity to the Bill and is
not useful.
Mr.
Gibb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I did not feel that
the Minister’s explanation of the use of
“coherence” was convincing. Her main argument being that
the word was in the 1997 Act when the QCA was established. The history
of the QCA over the past 11 years has been anything but coherent. One
only has to look at the administration, through ETS, of the standard
assessment tests last summer. That was certainly not coherent. Using
that word in the 1997 Act has not led to success, therefore we need the
word “rigour” in the clause instead of the word
“coherence”. The
Minister said that she was also in favour of rigour, so we share that
aim. She thought that it was synonymous with “quality”,
but I do not believe that it is. One can have progressive, quality
exams that are. The Montessori approach is high quality, but few would
regard it as a rigorous approach to young children’s education.
There are arguments on both sides about whether it is effective. The
QCDA should develop a rigorous curriculum for our schools. That is what
the Minister and parents want. I hope that the Minister will vote with
us as I press amendment 34 to a division.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
9.
Division
No.
34] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 167
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
168 and 169 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
170Qualifications:
general
functions
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 490, in
clause 170, page 92, line 20, leave
out subsection
(5).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments 491, 492 and
494.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Beginning with amendment 490,
clause 170(5) makes explicit provision for the QCDA to develop, set or
administer certain tests or tasks, which the QCA has been doing
successfully for some years in relation to key and basic skills
qualifications. The subsection mirrors one inserted into the Education
Act 1997 by the Education Act 2002 to reflect that work. We need the
QCDA to do such work in the future, but having reviewed the provision,
we concluded that the QCDA can do those things under clause 175 of the
Bill. Therefore, the provision is not needed and should be removed from
the
clause. Amendment
491 clarifies how clause 171 will work. The clause allows the QCDA to
assist Ofqual in the development of qualifications criteria—it
is therefore a key clause to make Ofqual effective. One of the key
reasons for establishing Ofqual as an independent regulator was to get
rid of the current conflict of interest in QCA’s functions,
where it is responsible for both the development of criteria of
qualifications and their regulation, including public assurance about
the maintenance of
standards. In
future, we envisage the process to operate as follows. The QCDA will
draft or amend the criteria for public qualifications. It may do so off
its own bat—for example, if it is time for a review of the
criteria—or it may do so because the Secretary of State has
asked it to. If it was the latter, the Secretary of State may have
issued a determination under clause 138, setting out the minimum
requirements for the qualification on knowledge, skills or
understanding. Once the QCDA has developed the draft criteria, it will
send them to Ofqual, which will then check and confirm that it is happy
that the criteria allow standards to be maintained. If it is, it will
formally adopt them, proceed to regulate against them, and invite
awarding bodies to submit proposals for qualifications that meet the
criteria. That will be a useful check on the
quality of the QCDA’s draft criteria. It also means that Ofqual,
not having been responsible for developing the criteria, will be
credible when it provides assurance about the qualifications developed
against them. But if Ofqual was not happy with the draft criteria, it
would send them back to the QCDA for redrafting. The decision on
whether to adopt the criteria will be fundamental to the confidence in
the new
system. Amendment
491 will change clause 171 so that the QCDA has a duty to assist Ofqual
in setting criteria where a section 138 determination has been made.
Giving the QCDA a duty reflects the importance of the clause, and,
given the need to avoid a conflict of interest, we would expect the
QCDA to undertake criteria development where such a determination has
been made. Linking it to section 138 will allow the Secretary of State
to retain an overview of the QCDA’s priorities: by issuing such
a determination he sets an expectation that it will be drafting the
criteria. But it is an important principle that Ofqual continues to own
the criteria to allow it to maintain a control of standards, which is
why the duty only kicks in if Ofqual makes a
request. Even
where a section 138 determination has not been issued, the QCDA may
still assist in setting criteria—although it will not be under a
duty to do so. As I have said, we would not expect to issue a section
138 determination as a matter of
course. Amendments
492 and 494 follow on from amendment 491. Amendment 492
clarifies that the assistance that QCDA may provide to Ofqual in
connection with Ofqual’s qualification functions does not
include financial assistance; it would be peculiar for one public body
to be able to provide financial assistance to another. To ensure there
is not a more general overlap between the respective powers of clauses
171 and 175, amendment 494 clarifies that clause 175 cannot
be used to provide assistance that is within the scope of
clause 171. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that
the Committee will accept the
amendments. Amendment
490 agreed
to.
5.30
pm
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 146, in
clause 170, page 92, line 25, at
end add— ‘(6) All
qualifications which are approved by the QCDA and Ofqual must be funded
by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any advice which may be
given to the Secretary of State by the Joint Advisory Committee for
Qualifications Approval or any other
body.’. The
amendment would insert a sixth paragraph at the end of clause 170,
which sets out QCDA’s duties and powers in relation to
qualifications within the agency’s remit. The amendment would
ensure that all qualifications that are approved by QCDA and Ofqual
would be funded by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any advice
that the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval or any
other body might give
him. JACQA
is new and has a low profile, so I have no criticism of you,
Mr. Chope, if you are unaware of it. For the
Committee’s information, however, I have obtained a paper
entitled “JACQA: Frequently asked questions”. It is not
clear how frequently the questions are asked, but the first question,
“What is JACQA?”, suggests that they are not asked very
frequently at all. The paper explains that JACQA is
“a new committee
that is being set up to advise the Government on the public funding of
14-19 qualifications in England. We want to ensure that all
publicly-funded qualifications help young people to unlock their
talents and achieve their aspirations—we are therefore
introducing a new process to ensure that public funding is directed
only at those qualifications that meet this
requirement.” In
response to the second question, “Who is on JACQA?”, the
paper
notes: “JACQA
will be made up of representatives from employers and all parts of the
education and training sector. It will be co-owned and jointly chaired
by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (subsequently to become
the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency), and the Learning
and Skills Council (subsequently to become the Young People’s
Learning
Agency).” JACQA
is an important body for the reasons given in the answer to the fifth
question, which explains that JACQA is an advisory committee and,
although it does not have any statutory powers,
it “will
make recommendations to the Secretary of State on which 14-19
qualifications should be eligible for public
funding.” The
Government talk about setting up independent bodies such as Ofqual and
QCDA to give independent advice and make rational judgments about
particular qualifications, but the paper’s 13th question
reads: “Is
it possible for a qualification to be accredited by Ofqual, but then
rejected for funding by
JACQA?” The
answer, significantly,
states: “Yes;
accreditation and Section 96 approval are separate processes. A
qualification could be accredited and then privately
funded.” A
qualification could therefore be approved by Ofqual and QCDA, but not
receive any
funding. Why
have the Government decided to set up JACQA? It means more bureaucracy
and an additional power for the Secretary of State, and essentially
cuts away much of the independence that the QCDA, arguably in
partnership with Ofqual, has. Those bodies can develop qualifications,
consult and do independent work, but ultimately, on the basis of an
obscure body, they can discover that none of those qualifications will
be funded by the
Government.
| 
