Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is wise for me to say this but when I did my science degree at university, we looked at various biochemical pathways, and I was really shocked to discover young people looking at these at GCSE fairly recently. The transfer of knowledge from what I studied at university to those at GCSE level in, admittedly, not a short period of time is quite breathtaking and probably worthy of a debate all of its own. This has been an extremely helpful and important debate. When I get into the detail of the amendments, I will develop the point that this is not necessarily a debate about whether the standards of the qualifications themselves have been maintained. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was in itself one of the greatest testimonies for why we need Ofqual. She put so clearly an analysis that I totally reject. However, the process of rejecting it leads to a debate which I believe undermines the achievements of young people, teachers and the education system around the country. It is unhelpful to trade statistics and to go into the issue in such a way. I reject her analysis, but I want to focus on Ofqual and the extremely important questions around the amendments. I like the analogy of hurdles, but we sometimes confuse performance standards with the number of young people who get over the hurdles. The Government are committed to increasing the number of young people who get over the GCSE hurdles or the key stage 3 hurdles. In line with our Leitch strategy we want to ensure that we better equip ourselves for the future. When we talk about the height of the hurdle and the number of young people or adults who get over it, it is important to be clear that they are different things. In the Bill we have set Ofqual an objective to maintain the level of that hurdle, so it is a helpful analogy. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked in detail about Amendments 230 and 231. These amendments would confuse the clear definition of standards in Clause 125 as they suggest that maintaining standards is something other than what is in the clause, though they do not say what. I know that she tabled these amendments to make some clear points, but they would risk Ofqual getting tied up in legal knots. I heard her concerns about Ofqual becoming some kind of PR agency and must reassure her that nothing is further from the point. We believe absolutely that confidence and understanding flow from Ofqual fulfilling its objectives around standards. It is not about a PR exercise but about doing a great job and maintaining those standards with rigour. It is not a flimsy commitment to PR. On Amendment 316, Ofqual will need to have the freedom to decide how best to deliver its objectives to maintain standards, which is what we were debating just now. It must also have the freedom to be accountable for that. I have a number of concerns about the amendment, as it assumes that a single benchmark could be created to enable the maintenance of standards in GCSEs and A-levels. But maintaining standards, as the debate suggests, cannot be done that way. Different exams are taken in different subjects, offered by different awarding bodies in different years. They must be comparable. It is a complex job, which is why we need an expert regulator. Moreover, since a review a few years ago found the English exam system to be among the most tightly managed in the world, we could end up tying standards to a qualification system inferior to ours, which would be a mistake. Finally, there would be a substantial price tag attached to such a study. To do it properly could cost a six-figure sum. We need Ofqual to decide whether that is the best way to maintain standards and to be publicly accountable for its decisions. Much the same could be said of Amendment 236. Again, it would risk being an unwelcome and expensive distraction and could blur Ofqual's accountability to meet its objectives. Ofqual can set any conditions on an awarding body only if they serve its objectives. We come back to the Bill’s structure, which is clearly set out. Given its qualification standard objective, I would expect Ofqual to set conditions specifically relating to the maintenance of standards. Those conditions will need to be framed to allow Ofqual to direct an awarding body under Clause 145 if there is a risk to the consistency of standards. I believe that we agree that Ofqual needs to be able to make a direction on standards, but—let me provide absolute reassurance to the Committee—the amendment is unnecessary. What it proposes can be done under the existing wide power to set conditions. Indeed, the amendment would risk cutting the width of what is otherwise a wide power. On Amendment 225, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to discussions prior to Committee. We agree that Ofqual may want to look at higher education data to supplement its other work on standards. It has power to do so. The HESA has confirmed that it will be willing to explore working with Ofqual to provide higher education data to enable Ofqual to carry out its statutory duties. Ofqual already has a power to conduct research under Clause 162. Several noble Lords have mentioned how essential that is. I hope that they will be reassured that Ofqual will be able to decide the research that it wants to fulfil its objectives as clearly set out in the Bill. It can use whatever tools it likes to serve its objectives. It could do sample testing, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, suggested. It could get a cohort of Peers together and get us to sit down to do our A-levels again—I cannot think of anything more terrifying, at the moment; actually, maybe I could. If it wanted to do some sample testing to enable reliable qualification standards comparisons to be made, it could. To conclude, we need a Bill that gives Ofqual power to ensure that standards are maintained. I reassure the Committee that the Bill delivers that, and I therefore very much hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.