Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I find it very sad that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the possibility that the abilities of our young people and the quality of teaching have enabled standards to rise. I was pleased to hear that the setting up of a strong and independent regulator has received widespread support. Most hon. Members in the Chamber would agree that that is needed, but there are inevitably some differences of opinion about exactly what Ofqual's role should be. Two themes in particular attracted debate in Committee, and they are again the subject of amendments today: first, what Ofqual's role as a standards watchdog means—there seems to be some confusion about what is meant by the standards that Ofqual must maintain—and secondly, what "independence" means. Ofqual must be free to take the decisions that it needs to take to maintain standards. It will report to Parliament on how it does so. However, that does not mean that Ofqual should operate without reference to matters that are at the heart of Government education policy, such as the content of GCSEs or the purpose of national curriculum assessments. Let me take standards of qualifications first. We spent a good deal of time on that in Committee, and quite rightly so. Protecting standards is the key driver for the establishment of Ofqual. It is essential that we have—I am drawing on the wording of the Bill now—qualifications and assessments that give a reliable indication of knowledge, skills and understanding, and that indicate a consistent level of attainment, including over time. That needs an expert, independent regulator with the powers to ensure that qualification standards are maintained and the credibility so that people trust it when it provides that assurance. The Bill has a range of provisions that are all about delivering on that, including objectives for Ofqual in respect of safeguarding the standards of qualifications and assessments; a power for Ofqual to set conditions that are binding on awarding bodies, so that Ofqual can have all the leverage that it needs to safeguard standards, coupled with a strong set of enforcement powers if an awarding body steps out of line; strong powers to regulate assessments; a reporting line to Parliament, not Ministers; and separation from the organisation that develops the curriculum and delivers and develops related qualifications or tests, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. What we do not have, because there is no need for it, is anything in the Bill that tells Ofqual exactly what it should do to safeguard standards. The Bill makes it clear what Ofqual needs to achieve and how it will be held to account. The focus of the Bill is rightly on outcomes and accountability, not on process. Ofqual is not being told how to achieve its objectives. The starting point is that we need to trust Ofqual to get on with the job that it is given and leave it to choose the right tools for doing just that. We would certainly expect Ofqual to publish evidence underpinning its conclusions on the maintenance of standards and—to pick up the point in new clause 2—to consider lessons from other countries. Ofqual will be accountable to Parliament for the way it pursues its objectives, but we will not prejudge the best way for it to gather or present its evidence on qualification standards, or what it should publish and when. That should be Ofqual's call. Parliament, not least through the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, will look to Ofqual for the definitive word on the quality of qualifications in this country. That is what the Bill enables. The Bill gives Ofqual all the powers that it needs to monitor those standards and pronounce its judgments on what it finds without fear or favour. That is why I do not support amendments 61 to 63, 71 and 74 and new clause 2, which relate to standards. I agree with what I take to be the underlying sentiment of some of those amendments—that standards of qualifications need to be as high as ever they were—but we do not need amendments to the Bill to deliver on that. The Bill already gives all the safeguards that we need. Given the time, I shall deal with Ofqual's independence, on which our message is clear. To be an effective regulator, Ofqual must be fully independent. The acid test is whether Ofqual has the powers that it needs to meet its objectives, the freedom to exercise those powers and the responsibility to report to Parliament and the public on its performance against those objectives. The Bill meets that test in every respect. It has to; there would be no point in establishing Ofqual without making it fully and clearly independent. Being independent, Ofqual might sometimes say things that will be uncomfortable for the Government and others, as we found when it reported on science GCSEs a few weeks ago. Home truths— Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 23 February). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 278.