| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister can explain a little more clearly exactly how the Government believe that they are meeting the accessibility criteria?
Lord Henley: I believe I said that both SCAA and NCVQ had an excellent record in this matter, but I accepted the concerns voiced by the noble Lord. For that reason I agreed to table appropriate amendments at Report stage to take this matter further.
Lord Tope: For a moment I thought that my birthday had already arrived but it is at least a week nearer than it was when the Minister drew the attention of the Committee to my great age compared with his. I am grateful to the Minister for considering the matter in this way. I look forward very much to seeing what he tables at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 160:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 160A:
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to add to the list of functions of the QCA a specific requirement to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs. The Minister may argue when he replies that this facet is implicit in Clause 39, but it needs to be explicit in establishing a new curriculum authority to reflect advances in the legal and educational framework of special needs of recent years. Clause 39(2)(b) and (c) deal with advice on the curriculum and research to develop it. This amendment is a crucial litmus test of how far special needs will be an integral factor in these areas of the QCA's work. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am totally sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I undertake to consider it further and to return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to take account of all learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities in schools, colleges, and publicly funded training.
Baroness David: I am very grateful for that response. In the light of it, I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 161:
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 162:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 162A:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 162A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162B, 162D, 162E and 162F. The problem here relates to the undefined and very broad nature of the powers offered to the qualifications authority in the lifelong learning area. By limiting the power to NVQs, current work can be maintained, but time would be allowed to clarify a wide array of qualifications which will be affected, and to take account of the issues which will inevitably arise in the report which we await, many of us with bated breath, of Sir Ron Dearing's committee on higher education. That will impinge upon what we have before us.
On Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F the issue is whether the QCA should approve individual courses, or whether it focuses on awarding bodies. It surely cannot be charged with deciding on the minutiae of a national curriculum for lifelong learning, which is the implication of the clause unamended. The FEFC's experience has been that three times as many vocational course units have been approved for community-based open college network qualifications than for general non-vocational qualification credits. That reflects the diversity of adult qualifications and the diversity of adults' starting points in pursuing lifelong learning.
Amendment No. 162B requires the QCA to develop criteria for approval, and Amendment No. 162F requires it to approve awarding bodies; that is, the examinations boards such as the AEB. It is not clear who would accredit qualifications. The amendments do not specifically suggest that the awarding bodies should do so, and neither are the functions of awarding bodies defined.
Amendments Nos. 162D and 162E both delete Clause 40(2)(g), which Amendment No. 162F tries to amend. Amendment No. 162D requires the QCA to establish procedures for the accreditation of qualifications submitted to the QCA, which does not seem very different from the Clause 40(2)(g), for which it is substituted. How the procedures relate to the criteria in the previous subsection is not clear--at least not to me.
Amendment No. 162E requires the QCA to set criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. The previous subsection will however require the QCA to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. It is likely, as far as I can see, that the amendments are aimed at reducing the centralist structure of the QCA and allowing examining bodies, rather than the QCA, to accredit qualifications. If I am correct in that, the Minister can no doubt answer. If I am incorrect, he will no doubt tell me. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I was somewhat baffled by the amendments when I first saw them. I have to say that I am now completely and utterly baffled, following the noble Lord's explanation. It might be that I shall have to look carefully at what he said when I read the Official Report tomorrow. It seems rather odd, when one looks at Amendment No. 162A, after all the pronouncements from the noble Lord and others about the importance of standards, to find what appears to be rather cavalier treatment of standards in GCSEs, A-levels and GNVQs. All we are left with are NVQs, as I understand the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F are somewhat more comprehensive, but again I have to confess to being not absolutely clear whether the noble Lord intends the accreditation of awarding bodies to be as well as or instead of the accreditation of qualifications. The noble Lord's speech has not enlightened me much further. I will, if I may, look at what the noble Lord said, but neither the amendments nor his explanation of them has left me much wiser. As they stand, they seem to do something that would be distinctly undesirable.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It may be that the reason for that lies in the grouping, which puts together
As I was going through the groupings I found that I might be offering the Minister a little more heat than light. I believe that we would do well to reflect upon them. It is important that we get them right. As regards Amendment No. 162A, we were concerned centrally to limit the powers of the NVQs in order that what is currently being done can be maintained before we suddenly leap off into doing something else. That was in aid of the approaching difficulties that we shall have into slotting the report from Sir Ron Dearing into everything which we are currently undertaking and which seems to be perpetually on the move.
Let us by all means read what has been said tonight and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162B to 162F not moved.]
Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 162G:
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning and difference of functions between the terms "accreditation" and "approval" used in the Bill and the likely effect of such powers. It is important that the use of those terms is perfectly transparent within the wording of the Bill to ensure that there is clarity of meaning in the Bill and that there is no conflict of interest between the functions to be carried out by the authority.
The amendment seeks to remove two subsections from the Bill which appear to give the new authority power directly to approve qualifications in addition to power to accredit qualifications. Commonly, the power of accreditation in relation to qualifications is taken to mean the recognition of a qualification designed by another organisation by the designated regulatory body. "Approval" tends to be used to describe the approval of a course or syllabus by the body which designed the course or syllabus. On other occasions, those descriptions are used interchangeably.
The particular use of those terms within the Bill is crucial because of the scope of the powers which would be held by the new authority and the possible conflict of interests which could arise from the exercise of such powers. The current regulatory bodies, the SCAA and the NCVQ, have rather different remits. Broadly, the SCAA accredits GCSEs, which awarding bodies have designed, sets parameters for GCSEs and has responsibility for quality assuring the relevant awarding body processes. The NCVQ is responsible for overseeing the quality assurance process of vocational awarding bodies. It has also been involved in the design of particular types of qualification; the NVQ and the GNVQ.
The new authority may be expected to take on all those roles, but it may be more appropriate and effective for a clear separation of function to be agreed between
We have only to look at the recent history and development of NVQs and GNVQs to see that the process of devising qualifications and approving them within the same organisation is open to real difficulty. GNVQs, although taken by a growing number of students, have been revised annually since their introduction, have been the subject of a major review and assessment and are still undergoing changes. Staff in colleges and schools have had to work within a system which required massive amounts of record keeping and the arrival of new sets of course specifications, often just prior to enrolment of the next intake of students.
The NVQ, although growing, is still a qualification which only 3 per cent. of the workforce holds and which has itself been subject to a major review--the Beaumont report--and is the subject of reworking in order to be relaunched in 1988. Throughout the 10 years of NCVQ's life, other vocational qualifications, such as those provided by the three major vocational-awarding bodies--BTech, now EDEXCEL, City and Guilds and RSA--have continued to be requested by employers, often because qualifications like the National Diploma contain broad educational knowledge and understanding in addition to specific occupational competence.
NCVQ continues to receive a levy of £10 from each NCVQ qualification. A similar levy on GNVQs has now been dropped. It is difficult to see how an authority, given the role of designing and approving its own qualifications, can act as an honest broker between different valid qualification types, as the body has a vested interest in the success of some qualifications at the possible expense of others. Therefore, it is essential that there is clarity about the use of language within the Bill and the purposes and powers which will be available to the new authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: From these Benches, we support the amendment.
Page 33, line 1, leave out ("National").
Page 33, line 21, at end insert ("; and
( ) to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs.").
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("National").
Page 33, line 42, leave out ("external qualifications") and insert ("National Vocational Qualifications").
Page 34, leave out lines 13 to 18.
10.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page