| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
We are returning to the question of JACQA and the control that the Secretary of State has on what qualifications are provided in English schools. JACQA is explained at some length in a 45-page document that I had the pleasure of browsing through. It was not drafted with the same skill as the Bill, if I can put it that way, but the intent is quite clear. On page 6, it shows where the Government are heading, which is towards a very limited range of qualifications to be available in English schools: either GCSEs and A-levels
4 Nov 2009 : Column 312
Not so long ago, the Minister was praising diversity and innovation—indeed, that is embedded in the Bill in the requirements for Ofqual—but that is not where her colleagues in another place are headed. To quote from today’s press announcement:
“Our qualifications strategy is securing real choice for young people with different learning needs”.
That lines up with what the Minister said. It continues:
“GCSE is robust, rigorous and proven ... It ... allows plenty of opportunity for pupils to be stretched”.
Many people have disagreed with that for many years. The main way in which that has expressed itself has been the growth of the IGCSE. The GCSE has never gained any currency internationally. The IGCSE has become increasingly popular in schools that are free to choose between it and GCSE because of the stretch that it provides—the way in which, for instance, in languages, it provides a real qualification rather than a pretend one—and many other aspects of the way in which it is better fitted to pupils with a degree of ambition who are likely to want to take the subject further.
The Commons Minister concludes:
“We don't want to go back to where qualifications served the needs only of a tiny few”.
What the Minister is doing is making sure that qualifications serve only the majority and that those who would be fitted by something different—by a minority qualification—are not to be allowed that qualification. What is to come after this? Presumably the international baccalaureate—I can see no mention here of the words in any context— which so recently was promoted by the noble Baroness’s department, is to be wiped off the face of state education. We are to have a system where the particular needs of pupils are subjugated to the wish of the Government for conformity and a system of examinations that is plain vanilla and simple and does not allow for variations. In particular, it does not allow for other qualifications to, I suppose the Minister would argue, show up the weaknesses in the qualifications that the department has chosen.
7.30 pm
This is an immensely regrettable state of affairs. I do not have much hope that the Government will change their mind—in fact I have no hope—but I very much hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench and my colleagues in another place will continue to share my view about the iniquity of this. Qualifications ought, at the ultimate, to suit the people who are doing the learning. That ought to be what we care about. It is reasonable to wish to impose some structure on this and make it sensible, but it ought not to be done at the expense of the learners. Here we are, disadvantaging the whole of the state sector compared with independent schools, equipping them with a qualification that in many instances is a worse preparation for A-level than the IGCSE.
4 Nov 2009 : Column 313
I presume that the Bill is looking to deprive those schools of the international baccalaureate—a qualification which for breadth stands over and above anything offered in the UK pantheon. It restricts vocational qualifications to diplomas, which are as yet untried and unproven; as with any innovation, they will clunk and squeak and need oiling, repairing and reassessing. Yet we are looking at destroying vocational qualifications, which have achieved a wide currency and respect, all in the name of conformity and of not allowing the best to succeed where the mediocre can be universal. I really hope that we will not find ourselves going in that direction.
I have a suggestion for how to deal with this—I am mainly talking to my noble friends. If we do not have flexibility generally and we want to be able to keep control of what is happening in the majority of schools, at least we should allow the best—those who we are absolutely certain are capable of taking decisions in the interests of their pupils—to vary from the government line and strike out to find qualifications that suit their learners. They will be approved by Ofqual and that whole process will be gone through to obtain a proper level of funding for them, which will be reflected in the determination, as we have seen elsewhere in this Bill, of the learning hours involved. This is looking at where the balance should be between schools and the Secretary of State and what qualifications should be delivered, and saying that the best schools should be allowed to choose the best qualifications for their pupils and should not be subject to the blanket blindness of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley: If it is really necessary for my noble friend, may I quote from my noble friend Lady Verma? She said in Committee that,
- “increased choice in examination qualifications will help to drive up standards in schools. The schools which offer these diverse exam choices know that their parents have an option about where they send their children”.—[Official Report, 19/10/09; col. 460.]
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I do not want to keep noble Lords from their dinner, but I want to give the noble Lord's amendment the attention that it deserves. For the record, there were specific reasons for not funding Cambridge international certificates in some subjects. They did not meet the requirements of the curriculum. There is plenty of opportunity for diversity and innovation within the four national routes that the Government have identified. As noble Lords are aware, in time, we will undertake a review of the qualification system. The Secretary of State quite rightly has powers to ensure that public funding cannot be used to fund courses leading to qualifications that are not approved by him, even where they are regulated by Ofqual. Maintained schools can only offer courses that have been approved by the Secretary of State in practice. We have set out that we require qualifications to be regulated by Ofqual before they are even considered for use in maintained schools.
Funding agreements for academies require an academy trust to offer only courses at an academy that lead to external qualifications approved by the Secretary of State. However, academies have—this is what the
4 Nov 2009 : Column 314
There is flexibility for academies that wish to offer unapproved qualifications. In considering such approvals from academies, Ministers will need to take into account the views of parents, the impact on other local schools and the effect on pupils who may transfer out of an academy to another school. Ministers must take into account the importance of the educational opportunities for a young person should they decide to move.
With regard to the international baccalaureate, as we all know, young people are motivated by different types of learning. Some may prefer the IB and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, spoke about the IB very passionately in Committee. They may prefer the new diplomas to A-levels and it is right that they have the choice. Entries for the IB are a fraction of those for A-level. A-level remains the overwhelming choice for students, schools, colleges and higher education. More than 200,000 people take A-levels each year, which is 100 times more than the IB. But we recognise that many HE institutions like the international baccalaureate for its broad base of study and we take heed of that view. The amendment would create an unnecessary requirement within the Bill. I hear the conversation between the Benches opposite and listen with great interest, but hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am comforted by the noble Baroness’s words about the IB, although given the contrast between what she said about choice and diversity and today's decision, I remain in a fairly bleak mood about where the Government are headed. In all of the 44 pages, I do not see the international baccalaureate mentioned in JACQA’s scheme for filing down and limiting the options for the qualifications that state schools can take. I hope for a better Government and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
172: Before Clause 140, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to determine minimum requirements
(1) The Secretary of State may make a determination specifying minimum requirements in respect of a specified qualification, or description of qualification, to which this section applies.
(2) But the Secretary of State may make a determination under subsection (1) only if satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of ensuring that the curriculum studied by persons taking a course leading to the qualification, or a qualification of the description, is appropriate, having regard to the likely ages of those persons.
4 Nov 2009 : Column 315
(3) This section applies to a qualification, or description of qualification, if the qualification is one to which this Part applies and—
(a) one or more forms of the qualification (or qualifications of the description) 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 (or qualifications of the description).
(4) A minimum requirement in respect of a qualification or description of qualification is a requirement which relates to the knowledge, skills or understanding which a person must demonstrate in order to obtain the qualification or a qualification of the description.
(5) If the Secretary of State makes a determination under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish the determination,
(b) give notice of the determination to Ofqual, and
(c) lay the determination before Parliament.”
173: Before Clause 140, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation before making determination of minimum requirements
(1) Before making a determination under section (Power to determine minimum requirements)(1) the Secretary of State must consult Ofqual and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) For the purposes of consulting under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out—
(a) the grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied of the matter specified in section (Power to determine minimum requirements)(2),
(b) the proposed minimum requirements, and
(c) the Secretary of State’s reasons for proposing those minimum requirements.
(3) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of the document to Ofqual and any other persons the Secretary of State proposes to consult under subsection (1).”
174: Before Clause 140, insert the following new Clause—
“Effect of determination of minimum requirements
(1) This section applies in relation to a qualification or description of qualification in respect of which a determination under section (Power to determine minimum requirements)(1) has effect.
(2) Ofqual must perform its functions under sections 132, 133 and 139 in relation to the qualification or description of qualification in a way which secures that the minimum requirements in respect of the qualification or description of qualification are met.
(3) But Ofqual is not required to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) if it appears to Ofqual that complying with that duty would result in the level of attainment (in terms of depth of knowledge, skills or understanding) indicated by the qualification or description of qualification not being consistent with that indicated by comparable regulated qualifications.”
175: Before Clause 140, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment and revocation of determination of minimum requirements
(1) A determination under section (Power to determine minimum requirements)(1) may be amended or revoked by the Secretary of State.
(2) Sections (Power to determine minimum requirements)(2) and (Consultation before making determination of minimum requirements) apply to the amendment of a determination as those provisions apply to the making of a determination.
(3) If the Secretary of State amends a determination under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish the amendment, or the determination as amended,
(b) give notice of the amendment to Ofqual, and
4 Nov 2009 : Column 316
(c) lay the amendment, or the determination as amended, before Parliament.
(4) If the Secretary of State revokes a determination under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish notice of the revocation,
(b) give notice of the revocation to Ofqual, and
(c) lay notice of the revocation before Parliament.”
Clause 140 : Power of Secretary of State to determine minimum requirements
Amendments 176 to 178 not moved.
Clause 145 : Review of activities of recognised bodies
Clause 147 : Power to give directions
Clause 148 : Power to withdraw recognition
183: Clause 148, page 90, line 3, leave out from “(8)” to end of line 10 and insert “must require the decision on review to be made by a person who is independent of Ofqual.
(10) A person is independent of Ofqual for the purposes of subsection (9) if the person is—
(a) an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or Ofqual’s staff, or
(b) a body none of whose members is a member of Ofqual or Ofqual’s staff.”
185: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of system for allocating values to qualifications
(1) Ofqual must keep under review any system used by the Secretary of State for allocating values to qualifications to which this Part applies by reference to the level of attainment indicated by the qualifications.
4 Nov 2009 : Column 317
(2) The duty in subsection (1) applies only if the values are to be allocated for the purpose of a qualifications-based performance management system.
(3) A qualifications-based performance management system is a system for measuring the relative performance of schools by reference to the performance of pupils at the schools in qualifications to which this Part applies.
(4) Ofqual may at any time require the Secretary of State to provide it with any information which Ofqual considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance by Ofqual of its duty under subsection (1).”
Clause 153 : Interpretation of Chapter
186: Clause 153, page 91, line 35, leave out “has the meaning given by section 140” and insert “means a qualification in respect of which the persons who are, or who may reasonably be expected to be, seeking to obtain the qualification are, will be or may reasonably be expected to be assessed for those purposes wholly in Northern Ireland;”
Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.41 pm.
Immigration: Detention and Deportation
Question for Short Debate
7.41 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish a limit for the length of detention under immigration and asylum law, reduce the number of detainees, and prevent deportation breaching Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I start from the proposition that it is wrong to lock up parents and children who have committed no crimes in this country. To do so when they have little or no legal advice, and for periods of unknown length, is doubly bad. Those affected are mainly asylum applicants who have not succeeded in being recognised as refugees. They also include people who have overstayed their leave to remain. All of them may already have been here for years and have married here and produced children. All may have very real fears of what might happen to them if they are removed to their countries of origin, whatever the Government may say about memoranda of understanding.
Political persecution, tribal and personal vendettas, and sexual and gender crime persist in all too many countries. A recent joint report from the Scottish Refugee Council emphasises the sufferings of women, both in their home countries and after their arrival here. That council recommends that the UK Border Agency should identify vulnerable and traumatised
4 Nov 2009 : Column 318
In the second quarter of this year, 235 children were detained. About 7,000 persons entered detention in each quarter of this year, almost balanced by those leaving. Two hundred and fifty-five had been detained for between six and 12 months, and 225 for over a year.
The detention of children is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That fact compels the Government to derogate from the convention. This is a great shame on the 20th anniversary of the convention, which we as a country helped to draft. Detention of children and parents, together with the workings of the system, have been strongly criticised by the UK children’s commissioners, the chief inspectors of prisons, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and international and non-governmental organisations. In 2006, 13,500 members of the public backed the campaign called “No Place for a Child”. In addition, 137 Members of another place signed an Early Day Motion and 19 Scottish parliamentarians added their concern.
In 2006, an all-party group made up of the honourable Member who is now the Speaker of another place, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the honourable Member for Oxford West and Abingdon published a paper on alternatives to detention. What, I ask, has happened since then? Have the Government studied the non-custodial methods used in Sweden, Canada, Australia and the United States? Have they reflected sufficiently on the problems that constantly arise when we wish to return individuals and families to such countries as Somalia, Zimbabwe Sudan and Iraq? Will they start granting indefinite leave to remain on compassionate grounds? Will they provide casework and legal advice to vulnerable people, especially those with children, all of whom can readily be identified? I believe that a casework and advice approach would be vastly cheaper than the present expensive detention system. It would not make families more likely to abscond, because they would wish to remain in contact with essential services, including health and education.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |