Clause 130

Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 224, in clause 137, page 78, line 8, after ‘consult’, insert

‘relevant recognised awarding bodies and’.

Amendment 199, in clause 137, page 78, line 9, at end add

‘and must include in such consultations representatives of the higher education sector and representatives of business.’.

Amendment 225, in clause 140, page 80, line 7, after ‘consult’, insert

‘relevant recognised awarding bodies and’.

David Laws (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome you back to the Committee, Mrs. Humble, as I do members of the Committee—well, certainly Opposition members of the Committee; unfortunately, there are still only two hon. Members on the Labour Benches.

Sometimes it feels as though we are slaving away without any attention from the outside world being paid to our deliberations. I was therefore particularly pleased that our discussions this morning attracted widespread media attention under the headline “Labour Loses Key Committee Votes”, with a lovely photograph of the hon. Member for Brent, South at the top of the article.

I said this morning that there is every reason for the Government to accept amendment 222, to invite Ofqual to ensure that recognised awarding bodies are consulted as part of the processes laid down in the clause. However, if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, perhaps she will confirm and clarify that Ofqual will be expected to consult in such a way with the recognised awarding bodies.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

Clause 137 is about the criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. With last week’s news that Cambridge university will now be looking to distinguish bright pupils by accepting the new A* A-level grade, it shows just how far school qualifications have gone awry. It seems that they are no longer used for businesses or  universities. Only last year, Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial college, mooted the idea of an entrance exam, stating:

“We are doing this not because we don’t believe in A levels, but we can’t use the A level any more as a discriminator factor.”

He went on to say that he believes in many aspects of the current qualifications system but cannot ignore the weight of evidence that points to one fundamental truth—that A-levels are no longer created with the needs of business and higher education in mind.

The aim of the amendment is to halt the trend and reverse the situation in which a 2008 CBI survey found that 40 per cent. of companies had serious concerns about the literacy and numeracy of their employees. Through open and honest consultation with employers and those in higher education, we can begin to ensure that the criteria for accreditation prioritises literacy and numeracy as well as knowledge, concept and ideas in our qualifications. Currently, the qualifications system seems to be falling far short of that.

We have already heard about the worrying statistics from the Royal Society of Chemistry, which said that teenagers who get 35 per cent. of the answers correct when faced with today’s examination papers would only have got 15 per cent. correct if they were dealing with papers from the 1960s.

Universities and employers have a proper and very vital interest in driving up standards. A 2008 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey found that 90 per cent. of companies expected their skill needs to grow, with 36 per cent. requiring high-level skills. At a time when our economy is in deep peril, the development of higher skills is at an all-time premium. We cannot afford to fail our students, our employers or our universities. We must ensure that the qualifications that are the route out of our problems are a collaborative venture built with the best interests of all those parties at heart. It is the purpose of amendment 199 to ensure that there is consultation with the users of qualifications, higher education and employers.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; Portsmouth North, Labour)

Clauses 130, 137 and 140 give Ofqual the duties to publish criteria for the recognition of awarding bodies, the accreditation of qualifications and the assignment of guided learning hours to the relevant qualification. In each case, Ofqual must consult such persons as it considers appropriate before setting or revising the criteria. The amendments would change that by specifying certain persons whom Ofqual must consult. There is no need to specify that in the Bill because Ofqual will already have to do it.

Amendments 222, 224 and 225 would require Ofqual to consult recognised awarding bodies before changing their criteria for recognition, for accreditation and for guided learning hours. Of course Ofqual will do that. No regulator is going to ignore the community it regulates in a consultation exercise. If it helps the hon. Member for Yeovil, I will put it on the record that I expect Ofqual to consult those bodies. There is nothing to be gained by specifying that in legislation.

Amendment 199 is a variant on the same theme. It would require Ofqual to consult representatives of the higher education sector and business. Clause 126 sets  out various general duties for Ofqual. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (2) require Ofqual to have regard to the reasonable requirements of those sectors when performing its functions. Paragraph (f) requires Ofqual to have regard to information from sector skills councils. Amendment 199 would not have a significant practical effect because Ofqual will have to focus on the needs of higher education and business in all it does. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

David Laws (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. She has given the clarification that we wanted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.