Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 260, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has already referred to it. The amendment was put forward by AQA and contains the specific additional power needed for Ofqual to be able to intervene in the rare cases where it is necessary because an awarding body is setting, or intending to set, inconsistent standards. Rapid intervention may be necessary in such cases if Ofqual is to deliver its qualifications standards and public confidence objectives. In the case of the GCSE science examination which the noble Baroness cited, Ofqual intervened to lower the pass mark for the other boards. AQA, while it disputed that it had got the standards incorrect, recognised that each awarding body had used different data and analysis to support its process. It also recognised the broader picture and the importance of key issues relating to standards and how to interpret them; and that technical uncertainty was one reason why every year we have arguments about standards—a tradition that clearly is not in the best interests of young people, because it casts doubt on their achievements. Although in this case it may have seemed a curious process that Ofqual was using, AQA and the other awarding bodies recognise that Ofqual should have this power and be able to use it effectively. We support the part of Ofqual’s work that involves monitoring standards, funding research and sampling tests—as laid out in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—as well as conducting research that makes it possible to compare standards and performance in England with other OECD countries. However, we have concerns about the very short timescale that the noble Baroness has given—eight months to produce a survey of UK GCSE and A-level qualifications. There is a deal of work there. Amendment 316 is interesting. I recall being involved some years ago in an EU-funded project called LangCred, which aimed to set benchmarks for language and skill proficiency across the EU. It identified nine skill sectors, including building, commerce, motor vehicle repair, hotel management, catering and tourism. We had a highly organised Dutch project manager and 12 countries began the work, with four years’ worth of EU funding and the authority of the EU behind it. However, at the end only a limited database had been compiled—it was far from comprehensive and merely covered a few qualifications from some participating countries. It was set up in the UK as the first European economic interest group, and had the distinction of being the first EEIG to be wound up four years later. There were interesting lessons to be learned from that project. One was that to try to establish internationally recognised benchmarks for qualifications sounds simple and highly desirable, but it consumes enormous time and resources and the end product is not necessarily recognised universally, even with EU backing. The suggestion that Ofqual in its early days might produce anything with that legitimacy is probably not feasible. However, that is not to say that it should not be in a position to commission and fund research and sampling, in order to produce statistics that will shore up our confidence in our qualifications system. Indeed, many studies of comparative qualifications—in particular, in academic and vocational areas—are useful and valued, but in this case we question whether that is the best use of Ofqual’s resources and whether it will ultimately get the recognition that it deserves. However, broadly we are very much in favour of the way in which these amendments are going.