Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I now turn to my own amendments. The first chief executive of Ofqual will have an enormous influence on the way that it starts its new duties, so this is an important appointment. Amendment 154 would ensure that the first chief executive is an interim appointment whose confirmation as a permanent employee or replacement by somebody different as the first permanent CEO will be done by Ofqual itself. The Minister has been quite clear about that today and I thank her for it. I am also grateful to the Bill team for confirming it in a letter dated 2 November-it arrived five minutes before we started Report on Monday-so I am quite happy about that. I will not pursue the matter further, but will the Minister say how long the interim appointment
4 Nov 2009 : Column 283
Amendment 155 would simply give Parliament a role in the appointment of the first and subsequent permanent chief executives. Because this post is such an important one, Parliament's voice should be heard about the suitability of the people appointed and the terms and conditions of their appointment. I was somewhat reassured by the Minister saying that if Parliament expresses a view about these things that will be taken into account, so I will not be pressing that matter.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the Government and commend them for the amendments they have moved in the light of Committee discussion. That is good practice and we should note the fact. However, in relation to Amendment 150, where my name has been prayed in aid, I give limited aid because I support the principle of independence, which I am sure was understood. I cannot support the amendment as it stands, because it would rule out quite a number of immensely helpful and able people who have, in one way or another, a financial interest in education-they are employed in schools or whatever. That being said, I am interested to hear the response to the question relating to Amendment 154 about the expected length of period of office for the first chief executive of the regulatory body.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's attention to my Amendment 164, but I am left asking, why not? Most Bills have clauses that say exactly what my amendment says and this Bill has several. If the intention is that the Government will act in accordance with my Amendment 164, surely they ought to be prepared to put something in the Bill to make sure that future Governments do too.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Minister, in her rejection of Amendment 150, said she wished to have head teachers on the Ofqual board. It prompted me to think of a question that has often been through my mind in these debates, and I know it is a concern of my colleagues. While the Government give such priority to education, and while we regularly have such legislation before this House, there are no primary or secondary school heads in your Lordships' House. Does the Minister join me in regretting this?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I will respond to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, first of all. I agree that it would be wonderful to have primary or secondary head teachers in our House. I am sure we would make them very welcome and value their contributions. We have a wonderfully diverse House, and anything that adds to that diversity has to be a good thing.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I can say that if I have not been able to satisfy his concerns, then I will see what I can do further. I am not sure what I can do but, in the light of today's debate, I can see that there is a consensus around putting something in the Bill on the need to publish in the way he suggests. I will try again, as I do on many fronts.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, particularly in regard to her concerns about Amendments 148 and 153 and the question about consultation following extremely unlikely events. I understand her concerns, but the Secretary of State cannot consult if it is necessary to act before it is practicable to consult. This is a legal duty set out in proposed new sub-paragraph (5B)(b) in Amendment 153. We will have to discuss this further, because we do not want to get into a situation where there needs to be an appointment, but because of an extremely unlikely set of events it cannot be made. However, the noble Baroness has very generously agreed to move forward and deal with this in a very practical way.
Moving on to Amendment 150, I appreciate the concerns around conflict of interest; of course it is right to ensure that Ofqual has a board that is independent of any undue influence. That is why we have a really strong public appointments process: it is there to make sure that the board has the right skills, and that the people appointed have the right qualities and are free from undue influence. Amendment 150 would simply go too far.
We have listened very carefully to what noble Lords said in Committee. For example, we have ensured that Ofqual will choose its deputy; we are now delivering on that. We said we would do that in Committee, and that is what we are doing now. We also wanted to make sure that the chief regulator was consulted, and that is what we are delivering on now. Noble Lords can be reassured that we are setting in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that Ofqual is truly independent.
Finally, as regards the interim appointments becoming permanent, Ofqual will set procedures running for the permanent appointments on the day it comes into existence. All being well, that will be 1 April. Bill permitting, the interim appointment will end when the permanent appointment is made. We expect that process to begin on the day Ofqual comes into existence. I hope that I have answered the questions and that noble Lords opposite will not move their amendment and will support the Government's amendment.
147: Schedule 9, page 205, line 26, leave out "person appointed to chair Ofqual" and insert "Chief Regulator"
148: Schedule 9, page 205, line 26, at end insert-
"(2A) Before appointing a person as an ordinary member, the Secretary of State must consult the Chief Regulator or the deputy (subject to sub-paragraph (2C)).
(2B) The Secretary of State may consult the deputy instead of the Chief Regulator only if satisfied that-
(a) it is not practicable to consult the Chief Regulator, and
(b) it is necessary to make the appointment before it would be practicable to do so.
(2C) The Secretary of State may appoint a person as an ordinary member without consulting either the Chief Regulator or the deputy if satisfied that-
(a) it is not practicable to consult either of those persons, and
(b) it is necessary to make the appointment before it would be practicable to do so."
151: Schedule 9, page 206, line 15, leave out "and other" and insert "may resign from office at any time by giving written notice to Ofqual.
152: Schedule 9, page 206, line 17, leave out from beginning to "thinks" in line 18 and insert "Ofqual may remove the deputy from office if Ofqual"
153: Schedule 9, page 206, line 23, at end insert-
"(5A) Before removing an ordinary member from office, the Secretary of State must consult the Chief Regulator or the deputy (subject to sub-paragraph (5C)).
(5B) The Secretary of State may consult the deputy instead of the Chief Regulator only if-
(a) the ordinary member to be removed from office is not the deputy, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that-
(i) it is not practicable to consult the Chief Regulator, and
(ii) it is necessary to remove the ordinary member from office before it would be practicable to do so.
(5C) The Secretary of State may remove an ordinary member from office without consulting either the Chief Regulator or the deputy if satisfied that-
(a) if the ordinary member to be removed from office is the deputy, sub-paragraph (5D) applies;
(b) in any other case, sub-paragraph (5E) applies.
(5D) This sub-paragraph applies if-
(a) it is not practicable to consult the Chief Regulator, and
(b) it is necessary to remove the ordinary member from office before it would be practicable to do so.
(5E) This sub-paragraph applies if-
(a) it is not practicable to consult either the Chief Regulator or the deputy, and
(b) it is necessary to remove the ordinary member from office before it would be practicable to do so."
Amendments 154 and 155 not moved.
156: Clause 127, page 77, line 30, at end insert ", and
"( ) the educational standard and performance objective"
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 160. Through the passage of this Bill, we have been setting up, it is hoped, a second independent regulator which will influence and report on the standard of education in this country. That is Ofqual, which will be able to monitor standards only through the
4 Nov 2009 : Column 286
Ofsted has also looked into examinations, with its recent report published in August about the 14 to 19 reorganisation and the new diplomas. Here, I believe it impinges slightly on the role which Ofqual might have if that role were to be extended in the way my amendments suggest. In the situation here, where we have two regulators, we need to be clear about the role of each. We in the Liberal Democrats would have no such problem, were we to be in government. Our vision is of a single unified education standards authority whose role is to monitor and report on the whole breadth of education standards in England and compare them over time and with other countries, and which would oversee Ofsted as part of its remit.
Without Ofqual having the power to investigate beyond the boundaries of qualifications, we will not really know what success in any particular exam really means. With the system that the Government are setting up, the demarcation between Ofqual and Ofsted is blurred, and we are concerned that no one will have either the power or the duty to let us all know how we are really doing compared to 10 years ago, or to other similar developed countries. Perhaps the Minister will tell me who is supposed to do that under her system.
We believe that the role of Ofqual has been designed too narrowly in assessing standards, and that therefore its success in restoring public confidence in qualifications is put at risk. We may continue to have the annual debate about falling standards and dumbing down, which is what the Government are trying to avoid. We on these Benches are committed to Ofqual's success, which is why we have put so much time and energy into making it more independent and fair in its operations through this Bill, and that is why we would like its powers extended through these amendments.
The CFS Select Committee, in its report, Testing and Assessment, clearly agreed with us. It was clear about the potential for a discrepancy between the apparent education standards revealed by regulated qualifications and the underlying measures of educational performance, standards and effectiveness. In paragraph 250, it said:
"Until the Government allows for standardised sample testing for monitoring purposes, the regulator will be left without the tools required to fulfil its primary function".
The committee essentially argued that because examination standards and the nature of examinations had changed so much over time, and because of the difficulty of comparability brought about by test reform, the targets set by the Government and the different assessment standards used at different times, it was impossible to use one or even a number of examinations to form an objective assessment of standards over time-or even at any point in time. In their response to the committee report, the Government said:
"Ofqual's role is not to monitor education standards as a whole; it is to regulate the qualifications and assessments which are one of the means by which those standards are measured".
Parliament's voice was ignored yet again.
If not Ofqual, then who? When this matter was debated in another place, Ministers contradicted each other as to whether Ofqual could conduct sampling. In the end they came down on the side of Ofqual being able to do so only in pursuit of its current powers as expressed in the Bill. Yet Kathleen Tattersall in her evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 3 March said she did not believe this legislation precluded Ofqual over time pursuing the type of strategy I have outlined. However, the Minister, Jim Knight, said he did not think it appropriate for Ofqual to simply take such powers of its own accord. It is time we sorted this out. Before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, I would like the matter clarified.
If Ofqual is to have these powers, they should be put on the face of the Bill. Then no one could argue if the chair of Ofqual sought at some future time, when the organisation has bedded in, to provide this valuable service and information which could inform policy in such an important way. Do the Government not want to base their policy on evidence any more? After the way the Cambridge Primary Review and the expert committee on drugs have been treated recently, I suspect not. We on these Benches seek evidence-based policy not policy-based evidence.
We have tinkered with this Bill. Thanks to our listening Ministers and the hard work of the Bill team we have improved it a lot, but we were never going to be in a position to revise the whole architecture of the thing, as we on these Benches would have liked, based on the alternative vision I have outlined. At the least, can we please allow Ofqual to do what the public are crying out for-to really tell us what is happening to standards? For it to do so, we need unequivocal clarity about whether it can sample, research, study and report on the underlying standards of education, not just those that are measured by examinations. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendments. We have been through painful periods of public lack of confidence in standards-the creep in A-levels, GCSEs and so on. Some device, whether via Ofqual or some other agency, is badly needed to assure the public that standards are not falling and that examinations are kept up to the mark.
I am personally a great advocate of some kind of agency which keeps item banks which are properly valid and which do not represent league tables of individual schools or local authorities, but which sample representative groups within the school population. Year on year, using properly validated item banks, they could tell us whether and where the performance in schools is rising or falling. However, I am not sure that Ofqual is necessarily the right agency to take this on. In default of any other agency I support the concept of Ofqual as the place where it should happen.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I join my noble friend and the Liberal Democrats in recommending these amendments-or, at the very least, the spirit of these amendments. With all the efforts that we have made to make Ofqual independent, it is enormously important
4 Nov 2009 : Column 288
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, the task that is outlined here is certainly difficult, but I agree about its importance. Whether this is the best way to meet it I am less certain. It would be good to hear from the Minister suggestions about how this might be carried out otherwise.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we support some of the principles behind the amendments. Noble Lords will be aware that we tabled a series of amendments to similar effect in Committee. Indeed, we would have liked to have gone further than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in some instances.
Amendments 156 and 160 would require standards to be monitored across England as a whole and for it to be reported how standards and education are changing over time. This would be very useful and help to ensure that standards were consistently maintained across the country. It is appropriate that Ofqual should produce a report on these matters that will, as we go forward, allow comparisons to be made between years. This would help to provide Ofqual with the information that it requires in order to regulate standards and to reassure the public that those standards are being maintained.
As my noble friend Lady Perry said, year on year we see headlines proclaiming that standards have fallen and that our qualifications are being undermined. An analysis across England as a whole and an annual report would add to transparency and would demonstrate to the wider public that standards were being maintained, if indeed they were. We would like to go further and ensure not only that this happens in the future but also that studies can be made into past years so that helpful comparisons can be made.
When we raised this matter in Committee, the Minister rather uncharitably stated:
"It is unhelpful to trade statistics and to go into the issue in such a way".
It is no use saying that we do not wish to face difficult issues on the grounds that they might call into question,
We pay tribute to the hard work and achievements of young people, teachers and the education system. One of the best ways in which we can do this is by securing a qualifications system worthy of them-one that challenges them sufficiently and ensures that their qualifications truly reflect the hard work that they have put in and the achievements that they have attained.
It is important to allow a comparison with earlier years. For example, Duncan Lawson from the University of Coventry has found that students entering university
4 Nov 2009 : Column 289
We sympathise with the desire to see a comparison made between standards in this country and those in other OECD countries. This reflects a concern that we raised in Committee in Amendment 316, which called for an international benchmark to be instituted. The PISA studies on advanced economies and their educational performance show that we have dropped from fourth to 14th place for science, seventh to 17th place for literacy and eighth to 24th place for mathematics. These figures are no doubt familiar to the Minister, but they deserve repetition. They underline the fact that, while we are constantly being told that standards in this country are rising, in reality we are falling behind the international field. That is why we on these Benches have commissioned a review by Sir Richard Sykes, the former rector of Imperial College, of assessment and qualifications in this country with the aim, again, of making them internationally competitive.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |