| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I agree with noble Lords that the Bill, as you read it off the page, is a complicated piece of legislation, as is often the case, but it aims to join up arrangements for education and training with the mainstream education sector, and I believe very strongly that it will help to ensure that young people in youth custody will no longer be the poor relations. I therefore very much welcome its provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, again spoke very generously about the work that we, and particularly the Bill team, have been doing. He voiced concerns about the need for a uniform system of record keeping, and he is absolutely right that the Youth Justice Board has a programme. It is called Wiring Up Youth Justice, and includes the eAsset system, which we talked about on a number of occasions in Committee, and secure e-mail. Importantly, it will also include the development of a new YOT case management system, which I believe will deal with the noble Lord's concerns and will cover both England and Wales. The noble Lord was concerned that we should be clear in statutory guidance that local authorities should work with YOTs to integrate information-sharing on a person's education, and that these information-sharing systems should be well described in guidance so that proper records are kept and there is appropriate access for different parties who have the interests of the young person at heart.
Finally, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Elton, for their advice on how to progress the House's concerns about, in particular, communication, assessment and special educational needs. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their generosity with their time in helping us come to a solution. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment.
10 Nov 2009 : Column 707
Clause 65 : Prohibition on charging
Clause 93 : Meaning of "apprenticeship place"
20: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause-
"Promoting progression from level 2 to level 3 apprenticeships
(1) The Chief Executive must promote the desirability of persons within subsection (2) undertaking apprenticeship training at level 3.
(2) The persons are those who-
(a) are undertaking apprenticeship training at level 2,
(b) have completed an English apprenticeship in relation to an apprenticeship framework at level 2, or
(c) hold an apprenticeship certificate at level 2.
(3) For the purposes of this section apprenticeship training is at a particular level if it might reasonably be expected to lead to the issue of an apprenticeship certificate at that level.
(4) The following provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 1 apply for the purposes of this section-
section 1 (meaning of "completing an English apprenticeship");
section 12 (meaning of apprenticeship framework and level of an apprenticeship framework).
(5) Section 95(4) (meaning of apprenticeship certificate and level of an apprenticeship certificate) applies for the purposes of this section."
21: Clause 128, page 81, line 2, at end insert-
"(6A) The Secretary of State must publish a direction given under subsection (6)."
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, in moving government Amendment 21, I shall speak also to the 12 other amendments in my name in this group. The debates in Committee and on Report have shown a welcome level of support for our plans to set up Ofqual as an independent qualifications regulator.
10 Nov 2009 : Column 708
Amendment 21 was inspired by an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We had already said we would publish any direction given to Ofqual requiring it to have regard to aspects of government policy, but this amendment requires that to happen. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support it. We laid a number of amendments on Report to make sure that the power to set minimum requirements was used only in exceptional circumstances. On Report, I agreed to consider whether it might be appropriate to provide additionally for parliamentary scrutiny. These amendments therefore provide for minimum requirements to be specified through an order subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses, following consultation with Ofqual and others. Parliament will be able to accept or reject the order. These amendments are tabled in response to issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
Finally, I have tabled an amendment which fulfils my commitment on Report to consider whether Ofqual could look at attainment. In preparing this amendment, we were conscious of the need to avoid what many could describe as mission creep-I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that last week at Report stage-and, in particular, we are concerned to avoid any confusion with Ofsted's role. I would therefore expect Ofqual to work with Ofsted to ensure that there is no possibility of overlap.
This amendment requires Ofqual in its annual report to set out how far its objectives have been met. In relation to its qualifications standards objective, Ofqual will have to say what information about attainment in school qualifications it has taken into account. It will also have to provide details of that information, which could be a description of the information or the information itself. This requirement will strongly improve transparency and therefore, I hope, confidence in Ofqual. In summary, these three sets of amendments improve further the provisions establishing Ofqual. I beg to move.
4.45 pm
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the majority of these amendments provide that an Ofqual determination is to be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I little thought when I tabled Amendment 177 on Report that it would take 10 amendments to bring it into force at this stage. However, I welcome them, particularly Amendment 139, which is the provision that makes it quite clear that this has to be done by affirmative resolution. In the future, should an unwise Secretary of State seek to meddle inappropriately in the work of Ofqual and such a determination come to your Lordships' House, I relish the opportunity to pull it to pieces.
10 Nov 2009 : Column 709
I do not like the power of determination now any more than I did in the first place, but I recognise that we now have more transparency, parliamentary scrutiny, and that Parliament will make its opinion known about the extent to which it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to meddle in these matters. We have consultation and a limited scope for determinations; there is publication and, of course, Ofqual is able to refuse if it thinks it inappropriate. Again, I welcome this set of amendments and I thank the Minister for her consideration and the work of the Bill team to make it all happen.
Amendment 30 is a different matter. It asks Ofqual to put certain things into its annual report, again in response to amendments I laid on Report. My intention really is mission creep and I would like to know that there is someone out there who will look at underlying educational standards over a period of time. Although these amendments do not go as far as I would like, I welcome them and have a few questions for the Minister. Will the information in the annual report set out quantitative data separately for each GCSE, A-level or diploma line showing the analytical bases and margins of error for each qualification? Will those be compared with previous years or will one have to scrutinise each annual report individually in order to arrive at those comparisons? Will it show how the standards set by different awarding bodies compare with each other? If the report can do all those things, it will be an effective way of ensuring that Ofqual focuses on maintaining standards over time and make it easier for the reader of an individual annual report to get a clear impression of what is going on. If the noble Baroness cannot answer those questions now, I am happy for her to write to me.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for government Amendment 21 and for her kind words. Perhaps I may ask her a question on Amendment 30. New subsection (2A) states that:
"'Relevant regulated qualifications' are regulated qualifications that are taken wholly or mainly by pupils at schools in England".
I can see that that is a convenient shorthand for leaving out the international baccalaureate and IGCSEs, but is she sure that this does not attack qualifications that she would like to see kept within the net? Where, for example, do British music qualifications fit into this? Are there individual GCSEs or A-levels that happen to be taken in larger proportions by overseas students? Is she sure that this paragraph hits the target she is aiming for and not anything else?
Viscount Eccles: While the Minister is considering those questions, perhaps I may go back to Amendment 22 and all that follows from it. I have a dim memory that this was formerly Clause 138 and that amendments were tabled from both these and the Liberal Democrat Benches seeking to bring the matter under some form of parliamentary procedure. We are grateful for the fact that we have the affirmative order, although is it not right that revocation and some of these amendments are subject to the negative procedure? However, that seems entirely in order.
We all join in thanking the Ministers for the amendments because it is right to bring a matter as important as the minimum requirements within
10 Nov 2009 : Column 710
Lord Bew: My Lords, as one of the Peers who has argued the case on what was Clause 138 at some length, I, too, express my gratitude to the Minister and to the Bill team for the many meetings and consultations that we have had. Although the solution that has been reached to this issue is not perfect from our point of view, it is, none the less, an acknowledgement of the fundamental point that has been made throughout the debate-that it is very important, in so far as it is possible, to defend the independence of Ofqual. We are grateful that a decision has been made which at least means, albeit in possibly controversial and difficult circumstances, that the Secretary of State for Education will have to defend before Parliament any controversial determination that is made.
I again thank the Minister and her officials for their help to those of us on these Benches who have taken an interest in this question.
Baroness Verma: My Lords, we are grateful that the Minister has taken the concerns of my noble friend Lord Lucas on board and returned with Amendment 21, which would require the Secretary of State to publish any direction he gives to Ofqual. In the interests of transparency and accountability of this regulatory body, it is right for these directions to be published.
We are grateful, once again, for the hard work the Ministers and the Bill team have put into listening and responding to our concerns. We raised our concerns about Amendments 22 to 29 and 37 to 40 on Report, and I shall not repeat all the arguments. We have made it clear that we on these Benches feel that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have the power to issue minimum standards in respect of the skills, knowledge or understanding required to gain a particular qualification. We have also made it clear that we feel that Ofqual now falls short of the regulator that we would like to see. We have suffered in this country as, year on year, more complaints are made about the standards of education and examination. In 2008 the World Economic Forum, which measures how globally competitive a country is, placed the UK at 28th in terms of the quality of its education and 47th in terms of its maths and science.
We have made our feelings quite clear on this subject. We believe that it is right and proper for the Secretary of State, who is elected by the public on the strength of promises made, to have the power to change the conditions and raise standards. In light of this, we cannot support the amendments tabled by the Minister, which mean that any determination made under Clause 140 must be issued by order and through the affirmative resolution procedure. We feel that the Secretary of State should be held accountable to Parliament for decisions he makes to implement policy. Ofqual should report to Parliament and directions given to Ofqual by the Secretary of State should be published. Nevertheless, we believe that the Secretary of State should reserve the power to determine minimum
10 Nov 2009 : Column 711
We welcome Amendment 30, which makes it a requirement to include information about Ofqual's performance of its functions, the extent to which Ofqual has met its objectives and details about levels of attainment in some regulated qualifications. However, for the most part we remain disappointed by the amendments the Government have introduced to the clause, both on Report and now at Third Reading.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has to say. We have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the whole House have been addressed. The Bill will lead to a strong, independent regulator able to do the job that we are all looking for; that is, to ensure that standards in examinations and qualifications more generally are properly regulated and the public can have confidence that they are so.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the scope of qualifications to be reported on. The power to which he referred is permissive. Ofqual can publish extra data if it wants. Similarly, the Select Committee can ask it to publish extra qualifications data if desired, even if they were strictly outside the scope of new subsection (2)(a). If the noble Lord requires further clarification, I shall be happy to write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the detail of the information in Ofqual's annual report. I am advised that Ofqual can go into that kind of detail if it wants to; it will be within its gift. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on that, because I am sure that she would find it helpful to have a little more detail in response to her question.
I note the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. As a former member of the Merits Committee, I am pleased that he feels that we are getting the affirmative procedure right in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, was very pragmatic in his analysis of where we have come to. We have been blessed by the contributions of the Cross Benches, and I am grateful to noble Lords for the time that they have given on this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke about mission creep, but her analysis differs from mine. I genuinely hope that the work that has gone into developing Ofqual will result in a body that can do a job which this country needs so much: to ensure that young people who put the hard work into their exams get the recognition that they deserve. I am sure that that will be the case and hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the amendments.
Clause 140 : Power to determine minimum requirements
22: Clause 140, page 87, line 7, leave out "make a determination specifying" and insert "by order specify"
10 Nov 2009 : Column 712
23: Clause 140, page 87, line 10, leave out "a determination" and insert "an order"
24: Clause 140, page 87, line 15, leave out from "if" to end of line 22 and insert "-
(a) the qualification, or each qualification of the description, is one to which this Part applies, and
(b) the condition in subsection (3A) is met in relation to the qualification or each qualification of the description.
(a) one or more forms of the qualification is (or are) approved under section 98 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, or
(b) the Secretary of State reasonably expects approval under that section to be sought for one or more forms of the qualification."
Clause 141 : Consultation before making determination of minimum requirements
Clause 142 : Effect of determination of minimum requirements
27: Clause 142, page 88, line 5, leave out "a determination under section 140(1) has" and insert "minimum requirements specified in an order under section 140(1) have"
28: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause-
"Revocation and amendment of orders specifying minimum requirements
(1) Subsection (2) applies if-
(a) the Secretary of State has made an order under section 140(1) in respect of a qualification or description of qualification, and
(b) the qualification or description of qualification ceases to be one to which section 140 applies.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order-
(a) revoke the order, or
(b) amend it for the purpose of removing the qualification or description of qualification from the application of the order.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the power of the Secretary of State to revoke or amend an order under section 140(1) in other circumstances.
10 Nov 2009 : Column 713
(4) Sections 140(2) and 141 do not apply to an order-
(a) revoking an order under section 140(1), or
(b) amending an order under section 140(1) for the purpose only of removing a qualification or description of qualification from the application of the order."
Clause 143 : Amendment and revocation of determination of minimum requirements
Clause 170 : Annual and other reports
30: Clause 170, page 100, line 16, leave out from "must" to end of line 17 and insert "include-
(a) a statement of what Ofqual has done in performing its functions in the reporting period;
(b) an assessment of the extent to which Ofqual has met its objectives in that period;
(c) details of any information obtained by Ofqual in that period on the levels of attainment in relevant regulated qualifications.
(2A) "Relevant regulated qualifications" are regulated qualifications that are taken wholly or mainly by pupils at schools in England.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2)(b) in respect of the qualifications standards objective must in particular explain how, in making the assessment, Ofqual has taken account of any information within subsection (2)(c) obtained in the reporting period or an earlier reporting period."
Clause 194 : Targets for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children
31: Clause 194, page 114, line 23, at end insert-
"(1A) In section 66 of that Act (regulations and orders)-
(a) in subsection (4) after "containing" insert "the first regulations under section 9A or";
(b) in subsection (5)(a) for "to which subsection (3) does not apply" substitute "to which neither of subsections (3) and (4) applies"."
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |