Mr.
Gibb: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman
has said, and that is precisely the situation that we find ourselves in
now with the international general certificate of secondary education,
which has been approved by the QCA, or Ofqual, and now we await a
recommendation from that body to find out whether there will be
funding. Meanwhile, we have a two-tier system in which the independent
sector is allowed to teach the qualification and the state sector is
not.
Mr.
Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not just an
argument for educational boffins. It has a real practical impact now,
and it is a mechanism through which the Government can fail to fund
qualifications they do not like. It is a mechanism through which they
can pursue a narrow range of qualifications, rather than allow a market
in qualifications to develop in the way that we discussed in part 7 of
the Bill. Perhaps it is a way for the Government to deliver the
slightly vague notion of coherence that we found out about at the
beginning of this part. That appeared to be something to do with
quality in the Minister’s mind, but we suspect it is more about
the Government dictating centrally which qualifications they do and do
not like and preventing a
genuine market in qualifications. That is a real concern to us.
Essentially, it means that there is a power to veto the measures and to
veto qualifications that may be good and of use in the private sector,
and which state sector schools and colleges may wish to use, but which
they are not permitted to use because the Secretary of State vetoes
them. The amendment is a perfectly sensible
one.
Annette
Brooke: According to all my hon. Friend’s research,
is it a matter of public knowledge whether the Secretary of State
always follows the advice of his advisory body, or whether he has
supreme power
anyway?
Mr.
Laws: That is a very good question. I am desperately
looking for the answer on my list of frequently asked questions about
JACQA. Unfortunately, I do not have it. My hon. Friend raises a very
important point and I think that the Minister, who is smiling in an
encouraging way, intends to answer that question when she sums up. She
might also say when the first meeting of JACQA was. It would be helpful
if she clarified which qualifications have been referred to JACQA for
its
advice. The
amendment is important because it means that we could have high-quality
qualifications that would be of use in the private sector and that
maintained schools might wish to use. The qualifications could be
denied to those schools not because of QCDA or Ofqual, but because of
some obscure committee giving advice to a Secretary of State, who might
wish to strangle qualifications that he or she sees as competing with
the range of qualifications approved by the Government. I therefore
hope that the Minister can respond to some of the points made,
including those made by my hon. Friend, and assure us that she is going
to get rid of that dreadful committee and allow QCDA and Ofqual to do
the job that they are there
for.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As the hon. Gentleman explained, his
amendment would require the Secretary of State to fund any
qualification approved by both Ofqual and QCDA, regardless of advice
given by JACQA or anyone else. The amendment is a little unclear but I
assume that by “approved by Ofqual” it means
“regulated by Ofqual”.
This measure
will give to QCDA the power that currently rests with the Secretary of
State to decide which regulated qualifications should be funded. That
is not an extra power; it makes more transparent the operation of the
existing power. Funding approval goes to the Secretary of State under
the Learning and Skills Act
2000. Ofqual’s
role is to ensure that regulated qualifications are of good quality,
whether those qualifications are used by maintained schools, colleges,
independent schools, employers or others. However, just because a
qualification is of good quality does not necessarily mean that it
should be approved for funding in maintained schools and colleges.
Qualifications used in state schools must fit in with the national
curriculum. More generally, the Government’s 14-to-19
qualification strategy sets out how we plan to rationalise the
qualifications offer to make sure that it is easily understood,
provides clear progression routes and meets the diverse needs of all
young people.
The strategy
is partly in response to complaints from schools that the current
qualifications offer is confusing. We want to make it easy for young
people to see what options are available to them, and to ensure there
are no dead-end routes. It is entirely legitimate for the Government to
decide which qualifications to fund, and, in particular, to decide not
to fund some regulated qualifications. We have said, as a matter of
policy, that we will normally approve funding only for qualifications
that are regulated by Ofqual. Paragraph 21 of schedule 12 reinforces
that by requiring ministerial consultation with Ofqual prior to
approving funding for a qualification that is not regulated.
We have put
in place the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval,
known as JACQA, which is a joint committee of the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority and the Learning and Skills Council. If the Bill
is passed, it will be a joint committee of the Qualifications and
Curriculum Development Agency and the Young People’s Learning
Agency. JACQA is an advisory committee that first met in December 2008.
It provides Ministers with informed advice on which qualifications are
consistent with the qualifications strategy; but it is, and should
remain, Ministers who are responsible for decisions on which
qualifications to fund. They are accountable to Parliament for those
decisions in a way that QCDA would not be.
Mr.
Laws: Is the Minister saying that her prime concern is
that QCDA might approve qualifications that are not consistent with the
national curriculum, and that she wants JACQA to check on that
incompatibility?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: JACQA is there to advise Ministers on any
issue. My point is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament,
whereas QCDA is not, and that Ministers should be responsible for
decisions on which qualifications to fund.
Mr.
Laws: Other than inconsistency with the national
curriculum, what reasons might there be for being concerned about or
rejecting a
qualification?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I suppose that the main concern would be in
relation to our 14-to-19 qualification strategy going forward in
maintained schools. We have said on numerous occasions that we intend
to have only four principal qualification options available nationally,
beyond 2013, that are eligible for public funding: GCSEs and A-levels,
diplomas, apprenticeships and progression pathways within the
foundation learning
tier. The
amendment would require the Secretary of State to accept a
recommendation by QCDA to fund a qualification, but would also require
him to ignore a recommendation by JACQA, which will be a joint
committee of QCDA. The current arrangements are transparent and the
accountability is clear, whereas the amendment would be confusing. I
therefore invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: I am afraid that I still have concerns about this
matter. It seems odd to establish all these independent bodies,
including QCDA, and then to reserve all these powers to the Secretary
of State. The Minister has explained that she would be concerned about
national
curriculum issues, and that might be understandable, but it is not clear
to me whether the availability of a qualification that was in some way
inconsistent with the national curriculum would necessarily compromise
the duty on schools to follow the national
curriculum.
The Minister
gave much more of a clue to the Government’s thinking when she
spoke about their desire for a limited number of qualification options
and their desire to control the qualifications offer. That is much more
what this is about. I understand her concern that we could have a
proliferation of qualifications in the future, and that it might be
difficult for universities and others to make judgments about them. I
also understand that there might be a disadvantage to young people in
educational institutions where certain qualifications are not on offer,
but if the Government seek to regulate the qualification market in the
way that I suspect they intend to, which is signalled by the
establishment of such a body, the safety
valve—
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if his
amendment is accepted, the danger is that Ofqual will look at funding
considerations when deciding whether to regulate a qualification? That
is not the purpose of
Ofqual.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Laws: I am not sure why Ofqual would need to consider
that, particularly as the QCDA will already have an important
responsibility in that area. We suggest that the qualifications
approved by both QCDA and Ofqual should be funded by the Secretary of
State. Allowing those qualifications to be used in the maintained
sector is a safety valve when the Government’s qualifications
offer does not do the right job. That safety valve should be available
to hold the Government to account. I am disappointed with the response,
and I will seek to press the amendment to a vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
35] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause
170, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
171Assistance
etc. in relation functions of
Ofqual Amendments
made: 491, in clause 171, page 92,
line 27, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and
insert— ‘(1) The QCDA must,
if requested to do so by Ofqual, assist Ofqual in setting
qualifications criteria which relate to a qualification or description
of qualification in respect of which a determination under section
138(1) has effect.
(2) The QCDA may—
(a) assist Ofqual in setting qualifications
criteria which do not fall within subsection (1),
and (b) provide other
assistance, information or advice to Ofqual in connection with the
performance by Ofqual of any of its qualifications
functions.’. This amendment
requires the QCDA, where requested by Ofqual, to assist in setting
qualifications criteria for a qualification covered by a determination
under 138(1). It also enables the QCDA generally to assist Ofqual in
connection with its qualifications functions, including assisting with
setting qualifications criteria in other
cases. Amendment
492, in
clause 171, page 92, line 32, at
end
insert— ‘“assistance”
does not include financial assistance (and “assist” is to
be construed accordingly);’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) This amendment
prevents the QCDA from giving financial assistance to Ofqual when
providing assistance to Ofqual under clause
171. Clauses
171, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
172Curriculum
Mrs.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): I beg to move amendment
548, in
clause 172, page 93, line 5, at
end insert ‘and publish a review
annually’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: Amendment 549, in
clause 172, page 93, line 16, after
‘may’, insert ‘, with the
permission of the Secretary of
State,’. Amendment
553, in
clause 172, page 93, line 17, at
end insert— ‘( ) The QCDA
may, with the permission of the Secretary of State, publish and
disseminate, or facilitate the publication or other dissemination of,
information relating to exemptions from the Early Years Foundation
Stage.’. Amendment
550, in
clause 173, page 93, line 24, at
end insert ‘, as defined by the Secretary of
State.’. Amendment
551, in
clause 173, page 93, line 36, after
‘may’, insert ‘, with the
permission of the Secretary of
State,’. Government
amendment
493. Amendment
552, in
clause 175, page 94, line 29, after
‘QCDA’, insert ‘with the
permission of the Secretary of
State,’.
Mrs.
Miller: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Chope, in my first contribution to the
Committee’s debates. This is an important part of the Bill, and
there are a number of other important parts that I hope the Committee
will consider this evening.
These
amendments seek to ensure clarity about where the responsibility lies
for the curriculum as applied to schools and, importantly, early years
providers. Obliging the QCDA to require the Secretary of State’s
permission to publish, disseminate or facilitate the publication of the
curriculum would ensure that it needed the Secretary of State’s
clear agreement to the curriculum, early learning goals and other
educational programmes.
There are two
reasons why that is important and why it is important to tie the
Government closely into the workings of the QCDA. First, although the
QDCA has operational responsibility for the day-to-day workings of the
system, clear and unambiguous lines of responsibility must go back to
the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is accountable to
parents, students, teachers, early years workers and
providers.
Secondly, the
early years foundation stage is a new part of the curriculum, and
considerable concerns remain about how it impacts on the early years
sector. Some 2,000 child minders have left the child care sector since
the EYFS was put in place. The Secretary of State will need to monitor
closely the impact of the EYFS, because a careful balance must be kept
between the implementation of the strategy and providers’
ability to continue to provide an important part of our child care
system. The EYFS is complex and highly prescriptive, and it is clearly
having an impact on providers. That is why it is important for the
Secretary of State to be kept involved. The Department’s own
consultation highlighted a lack of clarity on responsibility in that
area, and we feel that the amendments would help.
It might also
be useful at this point to remind the Committee of the problems that
other hon. Members are having with another non-departmental public
body, the Learning and Skills Council. Hon. Members will be aware of
the funding crisis in the further education sector. As a result of
close questioning by hon. Members, Ministers have had to admit that
they were not fully aware of the work being done by the LSC, perhaps
because it is a non-departmental public body.
I do not
think that such lack of involvement and knowledge of what is going on
will be acceptable in such an important matter as the curriculum. The
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families needs to be aware
of what is happening. To avoid doubt, the amendments would make it
crystal clear that the Government are ultimately responsible for that
important area of
policy. Amendment
553 recognises provisions made by the Government that allow certain
providers of early years care with a proven record of offering
excellent early years education to request an exemption from the EYFS.
That amendment would put a clear responsibility on the QCDA to ensure
that information about exemptions is readily available, particularly
information on how a provider can make an application.
Schedule 12
will enable the Secretary of State to set up a body, including the
QCDA, to review cases for exemptions from the EYFS and to keep those
cases under review. The Government have taken seriously the concerns
expressed by some providers, hence the exemption procedure. Perhaps the
Minister is also aware of the concerns raised about the nature of the
exemption process. Exemptions are possible in theory, but they seem to
be more difficult to come by in practice. In undertaking to disseminate
information on the matter, the QCDA will be able to assess whether the
exemption process is practical and proportionate and ensure that the
system is workable.
| 
