Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011.

Clause 20

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 20, page 25, line 27, after ‘England’, insert

‘or the governing body or proprietor of an Academy’.

Bore da, Mr Williams. For the sake of posterity, I record for Hansard that it is a beautiful sunny morning and, as ever, we are all slaving away indoors on the Bill. We have reached clause 20, on the requirement for schools to participate in international surveys.

This is a probing amendment about the Minister’s intentions on academies. The clause will give new powers to direct community, voluntary or foundation schools to participate in international surveys, and we will have the opportunity to talk about that proposal at length when we discuss the next amendment. But we seek absolute clarity on the Government’s intentions, given that the clause makes no reference to academies. For any survey to have the chance to give an accurate picture of educational performance in the country, a representative sample of academies must participate. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why he has not included academies in the clause, and how he will compel them to participate.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Good morning, Mr Williams, and welcome back to our proceedings.

Clause 20 will give the Secretary of State power to

“direct the governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school in England to secure that the school participates in such international education surveys”.

The amendment would extend that power to academies, and I fully understand its rationale. I reassure the hon. Member for Cardiff West that academies will participate in international education surveys through the mechanism of the funding agreement between the Department for Education and individual academies. The principle is to ensure that academies are bound by minimal amounts of legislation, and that the contractual funding agreements with academies are used where necessary. As it stands, the clause supports that principle, while it allows us to secure academy participation via the funding agreement.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Will the Minister confirm for the Committee that, if requested to do so, all academies will be compelled to participate, including those already in existence.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Unfortunately, they have to be academies that have such a requirement in their funding agreement. The hon. Gentleman hints at the fact that academies created under the previous Administration will not have that provision in their funding agreement. If he looks at the participation of academies in 2009, he will find a high rate of participation: of the nine academies drawn in the sample, eight participated. One did not, which is not good. However, although the proportion of community, voluntary and foundation schools that participated is slightly lower, the numbers are alarming in absolute terms: of the 168 drawn in the sample, only 146 participated in the scheme, which means that a large number of maintained schools did not participate. Although the proportions between participation rates for academies and for foundation, voluntary and community schools are broadly similar, the fact that all new academies will have such a requirement in the funding agreement will tackle that small problem with academies. The main issue we have to address in the clause is with maintained schools.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

That highlights a small problem—I accept it is small—with the Government’s approach. They want to capture all schools, including academies, but they are not able to do so, because they are not legislating to require all academies to participate. They are therefore accepting that that can be achieved only through the funding agreement, but existing academies will not have that requirement in their funding agreement and therefore will not have to participate. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but it would be sensible for the Minister to try to seek a solution if he wants all schools to participate in surveys. If it is so important, it should be all schools and it should be funded by the state. It should not be some schools. Even if it is a small number—a minority—a significant part of the state sector would not be participating.

The amendment was probing. Having highlighted the flaw in the Government’s proposals, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 20, page 25, line 29, at end add—

‘538B Power to publish information following requirement to participate in international surveys

The Secretary of State shall have the power to publish information resulting from section 538A (Power to direct schools to participate in international surveys) provided that the UK Statistics Authority has approved any statement or report to be issued by the Secretary of State as providing statistically robust information about England school performance.’

Perhaps I should move quickly to a Division—we seem to have extra help on our side.

The amendment requires a health check on the way in which the Secretary of State uses any data produced by compulsory participation in international surveys, which the Government have introduced in this clause. Why might that be required? Why would we need to ensure a health check on the Government’s—particularly this Secretary of State’s—use of such statistics? Frankly, because of his record of misusing and selectively quoting statistics. Let us look, for example, at how the Secretary of State made use of statistics in his speech on Second Reading. He quoted a set of statistics that he said showed:

“all our children were failed by Labour.”

That is a puerile and ridiculous assertion for a Secretary of State for Education to make, and obviously not true, although that did not stop him making such an assertion in the House. It was puerile and superficial. [Interruption.] I think I can say that. I am not accusing him of anything unparliamentary. He then quoted from the OECD survey programme for international student assessment, otherwise known as the PISA survey. He said:

“We moved from fourth to 14th in the world rankings for science, seventh to 17th in literacy and eighth to 24th in mathematics by 2007.” —[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 167.]

It is totally misleading for anyone to quote out of context the UK’s raw rankings in figures between 2000 and 2009, when the number of countries taking the PISA tests dramatically expanded over that time.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

I am very interested in this. I have heard the hon. Gentleman talk about it before. If I am in a race and I get the gold medal, and then a new engine enters the race and beats me, should I still get the gold medal?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is a little like looking at the rankings in the English Premier League. I do not know what team the hon. Gentleman supports—I do not think that Bedford has a team in the Premier League. Times have changed since 1997, when not one Conservative represented a constituency with a football league club in it, but we have moved on from those halcyon days. If the Premier League in England, Serie A in Italy and the Bundesliga in Germany were combined, and instead of finishing in the top 10 of the premiership in one year, the very next year we finished lower down the table of the three championships combined, that does not suggest that the quality of our play had declined. It simply means that more teams are playing in the league, so it is utterly irrelevant. He can win his gold medal in the Commonwealth Games, but if he does not win at the Olympics, it does not mean he is any worse an athlete.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to take us too far into this footballing metaphor, Mr Williams, because you would not want us to do that. Nevertheless, we are competing, not in a national competition, but in a world competition. We are in the world cup. Our students—the young people who come from our schools—are in an increasingly competitive world and an increasingly advanced economy. Of course they have to compete on international terms.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not my point. No one is disagreeing that we seek to compete on international terms; I am simply pointing out how the Secretary of State, with smoke and mirrors, has tried to suggest that this definitively indicates a decline in the quality of education in this country, which it does not, for the reasons that I gave in a multi-sports metaphor on the Olympics, the Bundesliga, Serie A and the premiership.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The hon. Gentleman claims that what the Secretary of State said was untrue and that everything he has said has shown that that is not the case. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is not true. He has said that the Secretary of State said that absolute standards have fallen, but it was relative standards that fell. The whole point of having standings is to be able to compare with elsewhere. When we drop down to 24th on the PISA table—which was set up to give a picture of where we sit internationally—we should take that seriously. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, who is committed to trying to make a difference to our children’s education, not least in a competitive world, would want to play such pernickety games to get Labour off the hook for not getting the results that we all devoutly wish they had.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am not playing pernickety games. I will come on to illustrate why the hon. Gentleman, despite his distinguished chairmanship of the Education Committee, is himself not giving the full picture in his intervention. In addition, the OECD, which is responsible for compiling the statistics, has said that comparing the UK’s results between 2000 and 2009 is not statistically valid. The OECD has said that—not me. With this clause, the Minister may be trying to overcome the problems with sampling in 2000. There was not a statistically valid sample from this country in 2000. The Secretary of State chose not to mention that in his comments on Second Reading, although perhaps I am being unfair to the Secretary of State, as the Chair of the Education Committee has said. If PISA is the only credible international evidence available to us, the Secretary of State had nothing else to call upon in making his arguments.

Obviously, being the Secretary of State, and wishing to give full picture, he would quote all the international evidence from all credible surveys in his comments on Second Reading. From that, we might presume that PISA is the only international evidence that is available. Except, of course, that is not true. As we know, from a snippet towards the end of the Secretary of State’s speech, there is another significant international study, which he made a quick passing reference to and then moved on, conveniently choosing to ignore its findings.

The other major international testing study, which was not cited, presents an entirely different picture for England than the PISA study. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which is better known as the TIMS study and which has been going longer than PISA, last reported in 2007. It showed that between 1995 and the last tests in 2007—I hope the Secretary of State’s officials are listening, because they should read it too—England’s primary school maths performance improved by a greater margin than any of the other 15 nations that had pupils taking tests in those years, including Singapore, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Norway. Our score went from below the international average in 1995 to comfortably above it in 2007. Our ranking improved from 12th out of 16 countries in 1995 to seventh out of 36 countries in 2007. To use the earlier analogy, if we had combined the premiership, Serie A and the Bundesliga, instead of finishing in the bottom 20 in the smaller premiership, our team would have rocketed up the tables in the much larger international table during that period. I should have thought that the manager of that team would have wanted to brag about such a startling improvement.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I have asked a question before in this Committee to which I did not know the answer, and barristers say people should not lead with their chin. Is the hon. Gentleman’s Serie A analogy the correct one? Are the countries that have been added truly world-leading or are they more northern premier? Which countries have been added to the list?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I do not have the full list in front of me; I should have brought it with me—that is good point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to traduce those countries without knowing which they are. I shall go on to cite some of the countries that this country has done better than in that measure of international performance.

As I have said, we might have thought that the Secretary of State, as the manager of our team in this sporting event, which the Government are so keen to talk about, would have wanted to brag about our performance in the, shall we say, Europa league, or champions league—whichever one it is. He is a bit like Alex Ferguson on the BBC as far as this matter is concerned, we do not hear him say anything at all.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

You don’t hear him on the BBC.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Exactly. As the hon. Gentleman says, we do not hear him say anything, because he chooses not to speak to the BBC. Similarly, the Secretary of State chooses not to speak about the TIMS survey.

The most recent round of TIMS brought more good news relating to the other tests. So that I am not accused of quoting selectively, in secondary maths, England was the joint third most improved of 20 countries over the 1995 to 2007 period, rising from 11th out of 20, to seventh out of 49 in the table. In science, the country was seventh most improved out of 16 in primary, its ranking moving from sixth out of 20 countries in 1995, to seventh out of 36 in 2007. It was the fifth most improved out of 19 in secondary, its ranking improving from seventh to fifth between those two years, even though the number of countries taking part had increased from 19 to 49.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

This is a very interesting discussion, but the important thing is that we are ensuring that schools and this country participate. We must take a serious and much harder look at the methodologies of such measures to ensure that we get it right—that is the progressive step. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to defend the record of his Government. Perhaps we can take his position as read and move on.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am speaking to my amendment, which aims to ensure that the Secretary of State is called to account by the independent UK Statistics Authority that was set up by the previous Government. It was set up for the very purpose of ensuring that Ministers—we, in government, in fact—and future Governments were called to account for the way in which they use statistics. I am simply helping the Committee by providing it with information, which the Secretary of State neglected to do on Second Reading. I hope such information is of interest to the Committee.

I take on board what the Chair of the Select Committee has said about my not having the full list of countries in the tests. Nevertheless, in the 2007 science tests, in primary, English pupils finished ahead of countries including the United States, Germany, Australia, and Sweden. We do not hear much about Sweden from the Secretary of State since it has dropped down the PISA tables after introducing free schools. In secondary, English pupils we were ahead of those countries plus Russia, Hong Kong and Norway. Why did the Secretary of State say, on Second Reading, that the PISA statistics were ungainsayable? I remind the hon. Gentleman that “ungainsayable” was the word used.

On Second Reading, towards the end of his remarks, the Secretary of State said that he could not find anything to celebrate in children’s achievements in our schools. Perhaps he did not want to find anything to celebrate; why else would he have ignored the findings of one of the studies that he is now legislating, in the clause, to compel our schools to participate in? In those remarks, in every other speech he has made, including to the world education forum earlier this year, and in the articles he has written on the subject he has chosen to completely ignore the evidence. That one-eyed selection of international evidence even formed the basis for the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill.

The rationale for why we are legislating, as set out in that impact assessment, completely ignores the evidence. It states:

“The Schools White Paper set out how we are falling behind in the international league table”—

singular—

“of educational performance compared to competitor countries. The most recent PISA survey - the international league tables”—

plural, there—

“of school performance - reported that since 2000”—

I pointed out earlier the problem with that; the OECD says that it cannot be done—

“we have fallen from fourth to sixteenth”.

There is no mention of the alternative picture reflected by TIMSS, which is ironic, given that TIMSS is a closer test of pure curricular knowledge of the sort about which the Secretary of State often enthuses, in that it is more traditional in its approach and testing methods than PISA is. For the Government to seek to base their reform strategy on international testing evidence and yet ignore the conclusions of one of the world’s most prestigious testing studies because they do not fit with the political picture that they are trying to paint about their education reforms shows that the Secretary of State cannot be trusted on the statistics that he cites. No doubt, if future PISA statistics do not go his way, he will ignore them and cite TIMSS figures instead—if they go his way—seeking statistical comfort in some other statistical survey.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The hon. Gentleman makes a clever case, and I understand, politically, why he wishes to do so. None the less, PISA is the preeminent international record. Any comparison tables will have some challenges, especially given the different nature of curricula in different countries, and if other countries join the assessment, statistically we are not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, PISA is the preeminent measure, and it suggests a worrying lack of progress by this country. Will the shadow Minister at least accept that?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I do not accept that PISA is the preeminent measure; the TIMSS tests have equal status, and certainly that is why the Government are legislating for TIMSS as well as for PISA. PISA is, nevertheless, an important study. We know that if we put too heavy a weight on some of the measures, we ignore some important statistical facts—the hon. Member for North Cornwall made a point about that. Ofqual is doing work on that issue at the moment, and it cited the King’s college study in its recent report. Ofqual wrote to the TES last week, saying that King’s college had made those statements, but it did not deny what the college was saying.

Anyone here who is of the Catholic persuasion—I know that one or two Members are—will understand the concept of cardinal sins; unfortunately the Secretary of State does not understand the concept of cardinal and ordinal numbers, despite his desire to talk about tables. The point is not where we rank in the tables but what our performance is, and, as statisticians and people involved in comparisons will tell us, as will Ofqual when it reports, often the difference in movement in the tables is statistically much smaller than the ranking shifts suggest. A mature debate about that would reflect the fact that it is ironic that we are talking about testing in maths when people do not know the difference between an ordinal number and a cardinal one.

Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Who was first? I have a richness of choice here, but I am afraid that I will go on seniority and choose the Education Committee Chairman.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. I am reminded of an occasion when I went to Manila and met the cardinal archbishop, but I met Rosales rather than Cardinal Sin. Like him, I narrowly missed the key point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

If it helps in future, the cardinal is the guy in red, and if the band strikes up, do not ask him to dance.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but he clearly has not got a sure grasp of pecking orders, as he has just shown. That might apply to his assessment of schools and their performance, too. His amendments would have a wide effect and they would certainly affect statistics on vocational education. Given that he is my predecessor in respect of the management of work and skills, perhaps he could say a word about the Lord Leitch report, which the previous Government commissioned, and what that said about our comparative performance on skills and what our schools do to feed those skills?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I can see that the Minister is keen to keep his pecker up in terms of the pecking order in Committee. Of course, the Leitch report was an indictment of many years of failure to provide basic skills to people, particularly in literacy and numeracy. A vast remedial programme was put in place to try to improve that. There was some success—although more so in literacy than numeracy. That is a more difficult nut to crack because it is sometimes almost unfashionable—sorry, that is the wrong phrase. It is perhaps not acceptable socially for someone to admit that they cannot read, which creates particular problems in dealing with adult literacy. However, sometimes people happily say, “I’m no good at maths” and accept that that is the way it has to be, which is not the case. That is a serious point. My amendment would not do what the hon. Gentleman is saying; it would simply create a bit of a health test in relation to anything that comes out of the Secretary of State’s mouth about statistics.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

The hon. Gentleman was talking about maths and English, but reasoning and rationality are important as well. I have done some research on that. He was making the point about PISA studies in his metaphor that it is as though we are adding football teams from Serie A, the Bundesliga and so on. I did some research about which countries have been added. Which of the following countries would appear, as he would say, in the Bundesliga or the premiership? [ Interruption. ] There are plenty of choices. For example, Azerbaijan was added. Is that important? The Kazakh Republic was added. Is that a country we ought to be falling down behind? Other countries are Serbia, Moldova, the Kyrgyz Republic, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. There are other countries if hon. Members wish to hear them. Those countries do not seem to relate to the premiership teams that he would say are a fair comparison.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I think the hon. Gentleman referred to PISA rather than TIMSS. The point is that even if no countries had been added to the TIMSS table, this country still would have gone up. I am not claiming, as the Secretary of State does, that one international survey is the definitive answer. I am just saying that if such things are going to be quoted, the full picture should be given. The Secretary of State deliberately chose not to do that.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

With respect, we are making these points because the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State said something that was untrue. He then tried to use a metaphor to buttress that strong assertion. His metaphor and argument are falling down because the truth is that the addition of those countries was not comparable to the standards we should expect for our children in this country. That is why I am making my point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I do not think it is falling down at all, because if they had not been added to the table, we would have gone up anyway. That makes absolutely no difference to my argument. If we delve more deeply, we might find other examples. As I pointed out, in the TIMSS tables we are rising above a lot of countries that the Secretary of State sometimes quotes as being higher than us in other tables.

The point is that the PISA tables and the TIMSS tables use their own methodologies. As I mentioned, the TIMSS tables use more traditional methodologies, which the Secretary of State favours elsewhere. This country does well in respect of TIMSS. I am afraid it was the Secretary of State who did not give the full picture. I have accepted that PISA is an important international comparator. We will hear in a moment whether the Minister accepts that TIMSS is. If he does not, he should say in the clause that TIMSS is not statistically valid and therefore he will not compel our schools to participate in it. If he thinks it is rubbish, he should not be compelling our schools to participate in wasting their time.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is the hon. Gentleman painting a full picture? I note that he has not cited the Progress in International Reading Study survey. Does he want to cite PIRLS as well as TIMSS and PISA?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am sure the Minister will do that for us in a moment. I am illustrating the Secretary of State’s approach and what he cited in evidence for the Bill. It was his job to give us the full picture.

Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage)

In 30 minutes, we have committed the mortal sin of combining politics, religion and football in one debate, and I also know where I stand in the pecking order in the Committee.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Azerbaijan.

Stephen McPartland (Conservative, Stevenage)

Does the hon. Member for Cardiff West agree that we all want our children to have access to the best education system in the world? Every single one of the surveys he reported on has demonstrated that that is not currently the case, so we need reform.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I have a higher opinion of the hon. Gentleman than the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who implied that he might be the Azerbaijan at the table—not that there is anything wrong with Azerbaijan, in case we get into trouble with the Foreign Office.

We can all share the need to improve our education system, but the debate about doing so should be based more rationally on the evidence available, rather than on the Secretary of State picking and choosing selectively, deliberately ignoring statistics when they do not suit his purpose. If we could call to account the statistics authorities, as I am suggesting, he would not be able to do that so easily in future.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I probably know as much about education as anyone in the room, but I freely admit that I know nothing about the standards of children in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Serbia. The point is that were I to quote any of that, I would first check the facts and the evidence, which my hon. Friend is saying that the Secretary of State has not done.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank my hon. Friend; it would be wise to do that.

Returning to the Secretary of State’s contribution on Second Reading, and in illustration of just how confused he is on such things, he went on: “How can a country”—[Interruption.] Mr Williams, have a listen to what he said.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I am listening.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I know you are, Mr Williams, but I thought you would be particularly interested.

The Secretary of State said, using figures from PISA:

“How can a country that is now 28th in the world for mathematics expect to be the home of the Microsofts, the Googles and the Facebooks of the future?”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 167.]

Had he checked, he would have found that the USA, the home of Microsoft, Google and Facebook, finished below the UK in the PISA maths tests. That country has a pretty mediocre record in the PISA statistical ranks.

We have seen, therefore, that we cannot trust the Secretary of State to be straight with the statistics. We need his statements to be checked by the neutral statistics watchdog that the Labour Government set up.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Interestingly, Microsoft, Google and Facebook are all information and communications technology companies, but ICT is not even included in the English bac. Why does the Secretary of State believe that those subjects are important if they are not included in the English bac?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The English bac reflects a different corner of the Secretary of State’s mind, which I am keen not to delve into now, although we might have an opportunity at another time.

The Secretary of State needs his statements checked by the neutral statistics watchdog set up the previous Labour Government, and that is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This has been an interesting and entertaining debate, but it would be more illuminating to look at the facts and figures. First of all, the hon. Member for Cardiff West is confusing problems relating to the PISA surveys. He is confusing the 2000 survey with the 2003 survey, which we have not cited. In PISA 2000, England failed to reach minimum school participation rates, but because the pupil participation rate was met the OECD included data for England as part of the UK’s results in its PISA 2000 report. However it was in PISA 2003, which the Secretary of State has never cited, that the OECD excluded results for the UK in its international report, because in England neither the required school participation rates nor the required pupil participation rates were met. That is where the problem was, rather than with the 2000 figures.

It is interesting to note that Ministers at the time were very keen to cite the PISA 2000 survey results. I remember Schools Ministers and the then Secretary of State citing them and I will go on to quote the permanent secretary at the time, who was also keen to cite them.

In response to those issues, the previous Government commissioned the Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute at the university of Southampton to investigate the school and pupil samples for England, in order to look more closely into possible bias in both the 2000 and 2003 samples for PISA. The institute’s subsequent report concluded that the impact of possible bias on the position of England and the UK in any ranking of OECD countries was very slight and estimated that it would only have shifted England’s position by about one place in 2000.

David Normington, who was the permanent secretary at the Department for Education in 2002, said:

“For those doubters who constantly seek to run down (our education success), we now have the OECD/PISA study – the biggest ever international study of comparative performance of 15-year-olds in 32 countries – which shows UK fourth in science, seventh in literacy and eighth in maths. Only Finland and Canada are consistently ahead of the UK – and major countries like Germany, Italy and Spain are well behind”.

Both officials and Ministers were very keen to cite PISA when it suited them.

When we look at international surveys, it is important that we look at all of them and take them as a whole. The hon. Member for Cardiff West, the shadow Minister, failed to cite the progress in international reading literacy study, which is a reading and literacy survey, in which we dropped from third to 16th between 2001 and 2006. When the PISA survey, the PIRLS survey and the trends in international mathematics and science study survey are all taken together it is quite clear that there is a problem with us internationally. If we look at the 2009 PISA survey—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The Minister just said that when the TIMSS survey is taken with the other surveys it is quite clear that there is a problem. Can he just explain what problem the TIMSS survey is revealing?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Yes, I will. In the TIMSS survey, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan are all above us in the maths survey for 14-year-olds, as indeed is Hungary, which was sixth. Indeed, those first five countries are not just above us; they are significantly above us and there is a gap between them and Hungary in sixth place. England is in seventh place. Taiwan scored 598, Korea scored 597 and Singapore scored 593. We then come down to Hungary, which scored 517, and England, which scored 513. That is the problem. In China, which is represented by Shanghai in the PISA 2009 survey, 15-year-olds are two years ahead of 15-year-olds in this country in maths. That is the problem that we are trying to confront.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The Minister has not cited any of the countries that are below us in the TIMSS survey. Also, if Shanghai alone is chosen from China to illustrate the point, does he not accept that it gives a very skewed picture of the reality of the level of attainment in China? I do not dispute that we should not do all we can to improve our performance overall. I am just asking the Minister to tell the Committee why the Secretary of State made no mention of TIMSS in his speech on Second Reading.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We have limited time for those speeches. The hon. Gentleman did not cite PIRLS in his speech. Of course, one wants to present the case as well as one can, but looking at TIMSS properly and forensically, the same problems that the Secretary of State referred to on Second Reading are revealed there too. On the figures for children at age 14, between major competitor countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, and the countries below them. The hon. Gentleman asked me to cite countries that were below England. They include the Russian Federation, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Scotland, which came 17th in that survey, Serbia, Italy and Malaysia. Clearly, there are a lot of countries below us in the TIMSS survey, but our concern is the gap. Even the most favourable survey that he wishes to cite reveals severe problems in the gap between this country and our major competitors.

The same applies in the TIMSS survey for children aged 10. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Kazakhstan, which came fifth in that survey, and the Russian Federation all scored above England. The top four—Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan—scored significantly higher than this country. That is what we are trying to deal with.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Just to be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, Shanghai has a population of 20 million people, and China has a population of 1.3 billion people. The population of Shanghai is comparable to most countries in the European Union, so it is quite reasonable to use Shanghai as a comparator.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that honest contribution. However, looking at the PISA survey, Shanghai, China is at the top. As the hon. Gentleman says, it has a population of about a third of the size of this country. Then comes Singapore, then Hong Kong, China, whose score is 555, Korea, Chinese Taipei with 543, Finland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and Macau, China with 525. Here are the problems. We have not yet reached England in the PISA survey, and all those countries are our major competitors. We have to do better if we want our school leavers and graduates to be able to compete in a global jobs market with those countries.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

It is perfectly possible for all of us—we are all politicians, so we all do it—to look and quote selectively, but we are actually talking about children and teachers in schools who are working hard and improving the way they do things, and getting better over time. We do no one any good when politicians bandy things around between themselves as if those things really show the day-to-day truth in schools. We need to learn from best practice, to support teachers and children to do better. What children achieve at 14 reflects at least nine years of compulsory schooling, and possibly education before that. All we are asking is that the Minister ensures that the statistics are looked at properly. The people to whom we do the disservice by talking things down are those who are working hard to improve things.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is no question but that young people today are working extremely hard in schools, and there is a case to be made that they are working harder than ever—harder than we had to work at school. Teachers too are working hard to deliver a good education for children in their care.

This has been an honest debate. We have cited all the available surveys and we seen the figures presented to us, and the problem that we have to examine is why it is that despite the effort, the net effect of all the surveys is that we are declining in international rankings. That is a serious concern, and we have to start to look at what is in the curriculum and in our exam system, and what it is about the system that is being forced on teachers that leads to children of the same age group in places such as Shanghai, China being two years ahead of us in maths, compared with 15-year-olds in this country.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman is a well-educated man. He knows that we cannot put the statistics all together in that way, shuffle them all and take an average. He knows that statistically that is utterly invalid, and that the King’s college report cited by Ofqual in its recent report said that

“looking to see which position England is placed in and whether or not it has moved up or down the league tables—”

plural—

“is not that meaningful, partly because the absolute differences in scores between countries are not that great and partly because the constituent group of comparators changes from study to study and from year to year. Overall, and over time, England’s performance is not that worrisome.”

I am not saying that is a great endorsement, but the Minister knows that we cannot simply put the three things together, take an average and say that is our performance.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I never said that is what we should do; I said we should take a balanced look at all the surveys. I find things to worry about in the TIMSS survey, and I worry about the absolute figures. The hon. Gentleman’s quote stated that the absolute figures did not differ that much. In the TIMSS survey they do not differ much in England, where there is a clustering around the figure 513. However, there is an enormous gap between the first five in that survey, and the next batch down that includes Hungary, England, Russia, the USA, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. That goes from Hungary’s score of 517 to between 570 and 598 for the top five countries. That concern is reflected again in the PISA survey, where Shanghai, China, has a mean score of 600, compared with England’s mean score of 493. That constitutes two years of study and achievement, and we are trying to address that concern.

Andreas Schleicher, the head of the PISA study, said that the picture for the UK was,

“stagnant at best... Many other countries have seen quite significant improvement.”

That is the point. Standards in our education system may have been maintained or even improved slightly, but compared with our international competitors we are declining. Even taking into account the fact that more countries have joined the PISA survey, we are still in decline over that period.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is not fair to say that this matter has not been talked about in context, although all politicians tend to be a little selective in their arguments. The real context of our education performance is the massive increase in expenditure in our education system that took place over the first decade of the 21st century, and the fact that the gap between rich and poor has widened. I know that the whole House and all members of the Committee are committed to creating a fairer society in which opportunity and outcome are not determined by where a person is born. This debate is in the context of the widening gap between rich and poor, and massive investment, but yet there is stagnation. It is right for Ministers in the new Government to implement reforms, and to feel a certain level of indignation at our failure to do more until now.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Problems highlighted by the PISA survey included the wide gap between the top and bottom in our education system, the growing tale of underachievement and the huge gap in equality in our system. We come 55th out of 57 countries in terms of equality of system, and we have the biggest attainment gap between the maintained sector and the independent sector of most OECD countries. When those issues are taken together, the international surveys reveal a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. That is what the Secretary of State is seeking to do.

The amendment would require the UK Statistics Authority to approve, before it is published, any statement or report from the Secretary of State resulting from England’s participation in international surveys. The UK Statistics Authority’s main function is to provide international scrutiny of all UK statistics. It already has the power to monitor and comment on any statistics produced by the Secretary of State, but it is not within the remit of the authority to approve statements and reports before they are issued. The amendment would place a new function on the authority.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that statements published by the Department make robust use of data and statistics. I assure the Committee that the Department works closely with data suppliers to promote data standards and robust system development. Thorough guidance is provided to ensure consistent interpretation and data quality indicators, and areas of improvement are fed back to data suppliers to enhance the quality of future collections. Specialist statisticians support the Department in using the data effectively. It is not a requirement for any other statements or reports issued by the Secretary of State or the Department of Education to be pre-approved and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that it is not necessary in this case and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

We have had an interesting debate and we have helped to put on the record some of the things that the Secretary of State did not wish to be on the record in the course of the Bill. I understand the Minister’s point about the UK Statistics Authority, but I hope that this has served as a useful shot across the bows of the Secretary of State.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does my hon. Friend believe that his amendment might have stood more chance of success if it had referred to an entity called the office for statistical responsibility, or some such thing that might be more to the taste of the coalition? While the Minister has assured us that the use by the Secretary of State of statistics that come from the survey will be statistically sound, has anybody sought to address the issue of who will decide the sampling and on what basis the sampling will be decided for the use of this power by the Secretary of State to direct schools to participate in surveys?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

On the second point, as I understand it, schools are requested by the organisations that compile these—the OECD in the case of PISA, for example—and until now it has not been a compulsion for them, so they decide the sample and are responsible for ensuring that it is statistically valid. The clause simply means that they cannot turn down participation in a survey. In that sense I do not necessarily share his concerns, but even though he is a member of another party, we should have involved him in helping us to draft our amendment; it might have been more effective had we used the term “office for statistical responsibility”. That might have tickled the Minister’s fancy and he might have felt able to accept it.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The shadow Minister mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, said that there was nothing to celebrate in the performance of children in our schools. I was shocked by that and thought that, if he had said that, it was regrettable, so I looked up the Second Reading and I may have the wrong reference, but in response to an intervention by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr. Blunkett), he says:

“I would love to be able to celebrate a greater level of achievement, but I am afraid that this is the dreadful inheritance”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 167-68.]

He regretted that there was not more to celebrate; he did not say that there was nothing to celebrate. I know that the shadow Minister is a man who will want to make sure that he got it right for the record.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

That is the point—he said that he regretted that there was not more to celebrate, but there was more to celebrate. There was the TIMSS report, which he could have celebrated.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Rubbish.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

It is not rubbish, as the PPS says from a sedentary position with his usual loquacious eloquence. “Rubbish” he shouted out. It is not rubbish because that is the whole point. He said that he had nothing else that he could celebrate, but he did. He could have celebrated what the TIMSS report said, which gave a completely different picture of this country’s performance; therefore it is wrong to say that it is rubbish. The Minister is itching to get up.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Gentleman cited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying:

“How can a country that is now 28th in the world for mathematics expect to be the home of the Microsofts, the Googles and the Facebooks of the future?”,

but he failed to cite the rest of the quotation, where my right hon. Friend went on to say:

“The only way in which we can hope to compete effectively is not just by educating a minority to a high level, but by utilising the innate talent of every child, and that is what the measures in this Education Bill will do”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 167.]

There is a Secretary of State celebrating the innate talent of the youth of this country and he should recognise that.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I say “Hear, hear” as well to the innate talent of the children in this country. What the Secretary of State did not do was celebrate their achievements. He seemed to suggest that with all this innate talent, none of them was achieving anything, because he failed to quote the TIMS survey. He was trying to say that because we are 28th in the PISA table for maths there would never be any Microsofts, Googles or Facebooks in this country. But the USA did worse than us in the PISA table so that does not work logically. The Secretary of State cannot get away with it. Given the Minister’s remarks and the desire to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

We could have a stand part debate without, to use Aneurin Bevan’s phrase, descending to morbid footballism.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

On a point of order, Mr Williams, was that not Lloyd George?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I stand corrected. Possibly. We shall see.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

We have had a wide-ranging debate and I am grateful to you, Mr Williams, for the opportunity to say a little more about the clause. If the Government had not put it in the heart of the Bill we probably would not be debating the importance of these international standards, whichever ones we use. Clearly there needs to be close statistical analysis of all these things but the important thing is that we also reflect our real success in this country with inclusive education. We try to ensure that we bring forward all children and develop the talents of all children, whereas in some other countries they focus on certain pupils and push them forward. I accept that we need to look at these measures but we should ensure that when we evaluate all these things our successes with inclusion are reflected.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I will not because we have already had a wide-ranging debate.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

If the hon. Gentleman does give way, it will save me making a speech.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

In which case I give way.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

May I put on record our support for his point about the need to be careful to ensure that test results are not skewed in any way by the fact that we try to be inclusive in making provision for those with special needs to participate in exams? It is a pertinent point that he makes.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that this is something that the Secretary of State and the Minister and all colleagues in the Department take very seriously. I thought that it would be useful to outline that point and make absolutely clear our tradition of developing all those talents, which the Minister mentioned earlier and the Secretary of State referred to on Second Reading, and that those successes—I am sure in future they will be even greater—should be reflected.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution to this clause stand part debate. One of the overriding objectives of our education policy is to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier backgrounds and those from poorer backgrounds. That drives everything we are doing in education, whether it is the English bac or the pupil premium where we are increasing the funding for schools for children from poorer families—£430 per pupil this year, rising to £2.5 billion by 2014. This is a significant contribution to closing that attainment gap. We are also introducing measures in league tables that will evaluate the performance of schools in helping children from challenging backgrounds or with special needs. All these issues are vital and an important Government objective.

My hon. Friend will have seen the recent Green Paper “Support and Aspiration” published by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). Therein lies the kernel of some very effective policies to help children with special educational needs.

Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells)

In fact, of course, the most important thing is that every single child should be measured for their progress wherever possible. We should not just rely on academic qualifications. The most important thing is that those with special needs, those who are on that borderline of D to C, and those who are bright—every single child, whatever their capacity—should be pushed to their full potential.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The floor standard figures published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State already include, for the first time, a progress measure. That measure is not simply the raw attainment of 35% achieving five or more GCSEs A* to C, including English and Maths; they must be above average in terms of progress as well, and that is the right approach to assessing the performance of our schools.

It is very important that all our maintained schools participate in those surveys. That is what the clause seeks to do and I urge the Committee to support clause 20.

Clause 21

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause gives effect to schedule 6, which provides for the position of chief regulator of qualifications and examinations to be held by the chief executive of Ofqual, rather than the chair. Under the provisions, the post of chief regulator will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and the chair will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Given that we will have a debate on schedule 6, I move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 107, page 74, line 5 [Schedule 6], after ‘Secretary of State’ insert

‘, subject to confirmation by the House of Commons Education Select Committee,’.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 108, page 74, line 26 [Schedule 6], after ‘Secretary of State’ insert

‘, following consultation with the House of Commons Education Select Committee,’.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Good morning, Mr Williams, on what is a beautiful spring morning. The amendments are probing amendments, which we have tabled in order to get an idea of the Minister’s thinking. Amendment 107 seeks to check that the appointment of the chief regulator will still continue to be subject to the scrutiny of the Select Committee as it is today. It is not clear, as currently set out in the Bill, whether that will be the case. It would therefore be useful if the Minister could put that on the record for the avoidance of doubt.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I may not have been able to follow the legislative language, but it seems to me that amendment 107 relates to the chair. Of course, the role of chief regulator in Ofqual is moving from the chair to the chief executive. We could debate whether both posts should be subject to hearings of the Select Committee, but the chief regulator would certainly seem to be the key post. If the role moves from chair to chief executive, surely it is the chief executive who the Select Committee should confirm.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for clarifying that. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that the chief regulator’s role is moving from the chair of Ofqual to the chief executive, and I share his view that both appointments should be subject to pre-appointment hearings with the Select Committee. To reiterate, it would be useful to get the Minister’s thinking about that on the record.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Just to clarify, I am certain that the chief regulator should be subject to hearings with the Select Committee, possibly strengthened to confirmation. As to whether the chair should also be subject to that, I think that the number of posts subject to Select Committee hearings should be kept to the bare minimum.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Perhaps this is where we slightly disagree. I think that we will come to this issue when we discuss amendment 110, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the reasoning behind the role of the chief regulator being moved from the position of chair to chief executive. I am not entirely certain why that is the case. I do not want to pre-empt the discussion that we will have on amendment 110, but I am not entirely certain what the changes would add to how to help to maintain standards, enhance perception that standards have been maintained, which is an important point, and help the governance of Ofqual. I hope, with your permission Mr Williams, that we can discuss that later on.

Amendment 108 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can sack the chair of Ofqual only following consultation with the Education Committee. I understand from reading reports of the Committee stage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 that there was a great deal of debate about the governance of Ofqual, and whether its chair could be removed if he or she was unfit for office. I was not a member of the Committee, but the Minister of State was, so he has the slight advantage of having rehearsed these arguments. We are concerned that giving the Secretary of State the ability to sack the chair of Ofqual could provide the Government with too much power, allowing it undue influence over Ofqual. The Bill provides temptations for the Government to distort the system to suit political ends, and this probing amendment would help to clarify the Government’s position.

The ASCL has told us that it is crucial that Ofqual retains its strength and independence from the Government. It stated:

“As Ofqual will be regulating the Department of Education in its administration of National Curriculum assessments, we are concerned about a conflict of interests while the Secretary of State has the power to remove the chair.”

I ask the Minister to set out the rationale behind the decision to allow the Secretary of State that power. The Bill does not define clearly enough the grounds on which the Secretary of State can sack the chair of Ofqual. New paragraph 3A(5) of schedule 9 to the 2009 Act, contained in schedule 6 to the Bill, states:

“The Secretary of State may remove the chair from office on either of the following grounds—

(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of the office;

(b) absence from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without Ofqual’s permission.”

The Committee that considered the 2009 Act subjected these provisions to considerable deliberation and scrutiny, and it would be useful to record the Minister’s thoughts on ensuring that Ofqual’s independence is retained if not enhanced, and how these provisions will help to improve standards in our qualifications system.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

As I noted in interventions, transferring the role of chief regulator from the chair to the chief executive is important. It is essential for Ofqual to be clear that it reports to Parliament through the Select Committee. That process of accountability will help to bolster the independence of Ofqual, and will reassure the public that the role of Ministers in determining how Ofqual behaves is mediated by Parliament. That is an important principle.

The Select Committee has not discussed whether it wishes to have confirmation hearings with the chair of Ofqual, which is the current situation, and with the chief executive. However, the Secretary of State has written to me saying that he is happy for the Select Committee to hold hearings for both. That is welcome, and the manner in which the offer was made was well received, but the Committee has not yet decided whether it wishes to cover both posts.

I mention in passing that although the Select Committee can hold a hearing with the candidate that the Secretary of State of wishes to appoint, it does necessarily have to do so. My view—it is a personal view, and not necessarily that of the Committee—is that we should focus only on the key appointments. If we had to deal with too many appointments and decided not to hold hearings for them all, the perception among the public might be that we were failing in our duty properly to scrutinise appointments. That, however, is for future debate.

Like the shadow Minister, I am interested to probe the Minister’s thoughts on why this transfer is taking place. Perhaps he will give us a little more idea of how he sees the role of the chair of Ofqual, especially in relation to the chief regulator, and of how that relationship will work. Perhaps he will spell out the role of the chair and the board in removing the chief regulator. Perhaps he can also tell us the Government’s view on the ongoing issue of whether they are prepared to allow the key departmental Select Committee to have a right of veto over certain key posts, although, as I say, I would not want too many to be covered. The Treasury and the Chancellor have conceded that in the case of the Monetary Policy Committee, and I see no reason in principle why it should not occur with other key posts. That would further cement Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Government and ensure that it played a role in relation to what are supposed to be independent bodies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I remind the Committee that we will be having a debate on amendment 110, but we might have strayed slightly into that territory.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is vital that appointments to the position of chair of Ofqual are, and are seen to be, credible and independent. We need an individual who can lead the board of an assertive and effective regulator. That is why appointments to the position are made entirely on merit, with independent scrutiny of the process by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments to ensure that appointments are conducted in an open and fair way.

The Government are also strong believers in the benefits of the pre-appointment hearing system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness mentioned, which is another key safeguard of Ofqual’s independence. That is why we have specifically asked that, in future, the Select Committee scrutinise appointments not only to the position of chair, as it does now, but to the new combined post of chief executive and chief regulator. We will, therefore, increase the number of Ofqual appointments, subject to scrutiny and the Select Committee’s agreement.

Our commitment to pre-appointment scrutiny is reflected in our proposals for the appointment of the first chief executive/chief regulator. Glenys Stacey has already been appointed as Ofqual’s chief executive. Members will understand that, under the existing legislation, that is a civil service post and is, therefore, not eligible for pre-appointment scrutiny. Even though it is our intention, other things being equal, that Glenys Stacey will transfer and become the new chief regulator, we have offered the Select Committee an opportunity to scrutinise that transition, and my hon. Friend referred to the letter from the Secretary of State. That offer has been taken up, and by ensuring that the chair and the chief executive are subject to pre-appointment scrutiny, we will increase the democratic accountability of appointments to Ofqual. That will, I hope, provide assurance that there will be ample opportunity for Select Committee involvement in such appointments.

The amendment would, however, go further and introduce a requirement for the Select Committee to confirm appointments to the position of chair, effectively giving the Committee a veto over the appointment process. That would muddy the waters over accountability. Ultimately, responsibility for making appointments must remain with Ministers. That ensures that Ministers are personally answerable and accountable to Parliament and the public for the men and women they appoint. The Cabinet Office and the Liaison Committee are currently looking at pre-appointment scrutiny across Government, and we must pre-empt the outcome of that review. However, we have no plans to introduce a Select Committee veto on appointments.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Will the Minister explain the difference in principle between appointments to the MPC and to bodies such as Ofqual?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Those issues will be addressed by this cross-Government scrutiny. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable for education standards, and it is important that they have the ability to appoint people. Of course, the Select Committee will make its views clear. Under the previous Administration, the Children’s Commissioner was appointed despite the Select Committee’s views, and that decision was taken by a Minister. In some circumstances, such decisions are, as Sir Humphrey would say, very brave, but Ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament, and they must take such decisions. With regard to the MPC, we are talking about an exceptional arrangement. It is a reflection of the unique role of the Office for Budget Responsibility that appointments are subject to the right of veto, as with the MPC. At the moment, the Government have no plans to give Committees a statutory right of veto over other public appointments.

On amendment 108, for Ofqual to be an effective and independent regulator, as I said earlier, its leadership must be free to take difficult decisions without fear of inappropriate interference. That is why we are not making any changes to the limited grounds for removal of the chair set by Parliament in schedule 9 to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

The Select Committee has an important role to play in holding Ofqual and its chair to account for their performance through its normal scrutiny process, but the grounds on which the chair can be removed by the Secretary of State are limited by legislation, and we do not believe that a requirement to consult the Select Committee before doing so would provide the additional benefits intended by the amendment. To remind the Committee what those grounds are, schedule 9 says that the chief regulator may be removed from office only on the grounds of

“(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office;

(b) absence from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without Ofqual’s permission.”

Those provisions are replicated in schedule 6 to the Bill. Proposed new paragraph 3A(5) of schedule 9 to the 2009 Act says:

“The Secretary of State may remove the chair from office on either of the following grounds—

(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of the office;

(b) absence from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without Ofqual’s permission.”

I believe that the amendment would make things worse by calling into question Ministers’ accountability for the removal of the chair in the limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so. Removal of a chair is not an option that any Secretary of State would take lightly, but as with appointments, it is important that ultimate responsibility for removal of chairs remains with Ministers so that they are personally answerable and accountable for their decisions. Our provisions would ensure that without interfering with the current appropriately high bar for removal.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The Minister said on the issue of veto—I do not agree with him—that it is important that Ministers have the right to drive decisions through. None the less, hearings are held. Amendment 108 mentions consultation with the Select Committee. In no way would it bar the Secretary of State from carrying out his duties under schedule 9, and the Minister overstates his case to say so. He might not wish to concede this, but the amendment would not inhibit the Secretary of State’s ability to take decisions and be held accountable for them.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Well, we can always agree to differ on the matter. The Secretary of State will want to consult. I would not rule out his wanting to consult my hon. Friend, as he and I do on all kinds of issue. Clause 107 discusses confirmation of veto, and my hon. Friend is right that consultation is involved. Even so, I ask the Committee to resist amendment 108. The grounds for dismissal are sufficiently specific, sensitive and restrictive—inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of the office is not a political or party issue—that they provide a sufficiently high bar for leaving the decision to the Secretary of State.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

May I tempt the Minister to speculate on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would exercise the power? Also, before I sit down, I reiterate the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. Amendment 108 was carefully worded not to provide a power of veto but to ensure some degree of consultation between the Secretary of State and the Select Committee if there was a question of incompetence or unfitness for office.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I will not be tempted down that avenue. Ministers in the previous Administration succumbed to that temptation when they introduced schedule 9 to the ASCL Act 2009. The wording of the provision is sufficiently clear that the chair must be absent from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than six months. That is clear and specific, and we need not speculate why a chair might be absent for so long.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I do not want to play tag with the Minister, but if he does not want to speculate on the precise circumstances, will he at least explain what unfitness means? Is this a mental health related matter, or could a strongly ideological Secretary of State arrive and decide that this person is so differing in view to themselves that they are simply unfit for office? I have felt that many holders of public office were unfit for office but it was not because they had a mental health problem or any other problem, it was because I did not agree with them on many issues.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The best way forward is for me to write to my hon. Friend and copy in other members of the Committee so that we can define this term precisely. So far as this debate is concerned, the wording of the paragraph is clear, especially in relation to absence from meetings for six months. On subparagraph (5)(a), I will certainly write to the Committee.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The schedule is one of the few provisions that has both a direct and indirect effect on Northern Ireland. I certainly resisted the temptation to table any amendments that referred to a consultation with Assembly Ministers or Assembly Committees. Does the Minister not accept that the amendment which provides for consultation with the House of Commons Select Committee, which has a UK representative responsibility in the way in which it operates, gives assurance to devolved interests that if there are issues of concern, they can be ventilated and duly considered at an appropriate level via the Select Committee? In the past, we have found that communication between Assembly Committees and House of Commons Select Committees has ventilated issues that do not normally get dealt with through ministerial engagement.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments. If he feels that the current group of Ministers are not doing that, I hope that he will come to see us and put that right. The issue is about dismissal. Amendment 108 is about the removal of the Chair of Ofqual. Given the clear wording of the schedule, which will be clarified further by the letter that I intend to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, those issues do not require vast consultation. It is a sensitive matter to do with the removal of somebody from an office because of inability or unfitness to carry out that office, or because of absence for six months. Such a matter goes beyond policy and should not be subject to those levels of consultation.

With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I thank the Minister for his comments. His offer to write to the Chairman of the Select Committee and the rest of our Committee is very helpful. On the deliberations at Committee stage of the ASCL Act 2009, considerable time was spent on working out—I accept that this wording has been transferred directly from the Act—what inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of the office means.

Given that I am now in Opposition, I share the view of the Chairman of the Select Committee—it is amazing how one changes when the shoe is on the other foot—that the wording seems to imply that it is about some sort of medical complaint. Certainly absence of more than six months would seem to indicate that as well. None the less, the Minister’s offer to write is very helpful.

In respect of the broader point regarding this group of amendments, it was news to me that the Cabinet Office are considering reviewing the whole possibility of pre-appointment hearings. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on that. He went so far in his comments, but I hope that he will go slightly further and say that he would resist any suggestions or recommendations that could spring from the Cabinet Office that would restrict heavily the idea that the Ofqual chair and the chief executive are subject to any pre-appointment hearings.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The shadow Minister talks about how flexible his principles are. His hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, the former president of the Oxford Union, will know the old saying, “These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.”

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

My flexible friend.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

A flexible friend. Has Her Majesty’s Opposition changed its view on confirmation hearings and giving Select Committees a right of veto, as has been conceded over the Office for Budget Responsibility if not the Monetary Policy Committee?

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 108, page 74, line 26 [Schedule 6], after ‘Secretary of State’ insert

‘, following consultation with the House of Commons Education Select Committee,’.

When the Committee adjourned this morning, the Minister had responded to amendment 107 to schedule 6, with which the Committee was considering amendment 108, and Mr Wright was bringing his concluding remarks to a close.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Good afternoon, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I think that you were being slightly optimistic in saying that I was bringing my comments to a close. I might start again, just for your benefit. I was facing down an accusation from the Chairman of the Select Committee that I was devoid of principles.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The point was that the hon. Gentleman’s principles were flexible, depending which way he was facing at any given time.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I resent that. I am not a Liberal Democrat—[ Laughter. ]

I will move on, as I would like us to make a lot of progress this afternoon. Given what the Minister said about writing to the Committee on the proposal and the point that he made about trying to restrict pre-appointment hearings for the Select Committee on Education, I take reassurance from what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 110, page 75, line 22 [Schedule 6], at end insert—

9A Before commencement of this Schedule, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on the need to separate the functions of the Chair and Chief Regulator of Ofqual.’.

I apologise, Mr Walker. You have me again.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

How is your mother?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am glad that you mentioned my mother, Mr Walker, as it allows me to put on record her gratitude to the Committee for wishing her a happy birthday. She had a wonderful day. It also allows me to wish my grandmother—sadly, she is no longer with us—a happy birthday as well; today would have been her birthday. We miss my nana enormously—she has not been with us for five years now—so I am grateful for your indulgence.

Amendment 110 is a genuinely probing amendment to determine the Minister’s thinking on changing the arrangements relating to the chief regulator, chair and chief executive of Ofqual. I do not understand the reasoning behind it. How will it help enhance standards for examinations in this country? How will it increase the perceived independence of the regulator of examination standards? How will it improve the governance of Ofqual as an institution? The amendment is designed to probe the Minister so he can provide the Committee with some outline of his thinking.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Welcome back, Mr Walker. I will try to help the hon. Gentleman, who says that he does not understand the clause and schedule and why we are introducing the measure. The main driver for change is the benefits of consolidating the positions of chief executive and chief regulator. By combining the positions, we will clarify and strengthen the public-facing role of Ofqual’s chief executive and create a single figurehead for Ofqual.

As a full-time position with executive responsibility, the single figurehead will have the day-to-day knowledge of the sector and the organisation needed to lead Ofqual’s regulation of standards. That will reinforce the post holder’s credibility when speaking on behalf of the organisation and prevent confusion with the role of non-executive chair highlighted by Ofqual in its written submission to the Committee.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Has Ofqual asked for the measures? Does it see a weakness and think that its objectives would be improved by changing the arrangements?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

These are quality matters and are for Ministers rather than arm’s length bodies to decide. In its written submission to the Committee, Ofqual pointed out the confusion with the role of non-executive chair. Ensuring the credibility of Ofqual’s public figurehead and chief executive is vital if we are to secure the improvements needed for our qualifications to match the best in the world.

It flows from those reforms that we must have a separate chair of the Ofqual board. An authoritative and assertive regulator for qualifications and assessment is critical if our education system is to keep pace with the best in the world. These provisions ensure that the chief regulator has the understanding and credibility to lead Ofqual in securing the rigour of exam standards. With that brief explanation, I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that this is the right course of action.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister has not done so yet. Can I probe him on the Government’s arrangements for the chair and the chief executive? The relationship between a chair and a chief exec, and how that has harmony as well as tension, is essential for any organisation, and particularly one that is so important to the public in providing reassurance about standards. Will the Minister outline further how he imagines the governance arrangements will work? He touched on it briefly, but will he make it clear for my benefit whether the chief executive will be accountable to the chair, and through the chair to the board, or directly to the Secretary of State? Is independence being compromised in any way here? That is the reasoning behind the amendment. How does the Minister think the new arrangements will enhance the governance standards of Ofqual? I am not convinced that he has reassured me on that.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course, the chief executive is accountable to the chair, as in all these types of governance arrangements. I will quote the evidence Ofqual submitted to us.

“Ofqual is content with the change of titleholder, because it will avoid potential confusion with the role of non-executive chair. The chair will continue to have an important role in leading the board in governance of the organisation.”

If the hon. Gentleman will recall the evidence given by Sandra Burslem, she said:

“It is an equally common model for the chief executive to be the chief regulator, as in the case of the National Audit Office, where the Comptroller and Auditor General is the chief executive.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2011; c. 82, Q160.]

It is on that model that we are basing Ofqual. As I have just indicated, it seems to have support from Ofqual.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Further to the intervention by the shadow Minister, who suggested that there would be either accountability to the board, which there obviously will be, or to the Secretary of State, there is also accountability to Parliament, normally through the Education Committee. Will the Minister spell out exactly how he sees accountability of Ofqual in the round?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course, there will be the pre-appointment issues that we discussed this morning. My understanding is that the Education Committee will interview the chief regulator annually and will have an inquiry into the annual report of Ofqual, as it does with other arm’s length bodies that relate to education. The board will retain collective responsibility for Ofqual’s function, allowing the board to hold the chief regulator properly to account. I wanted to get those precise terms on the record. I hope that I have answered everyone’s questions and, on that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I do not wish to press the amendment to a division, but there is a degree of work to be done and I am not convinced of the reasoning behind the schedule. I understand that other parts of Government have similar models, and I accept that completely. The Minister has not, however, provided real reassurance to the Committee on how this will work. Ultimately, I think it will work, but I cannot understand the relationship between the chair, the chief executive and the Secretary of State and why there is a need, unless it is for consistency across Whitehall, for the arrangements to be changed. Is he suggesting that Ofqual has been ineffective in its governance arrangements and in the achieving of its objectives in the first year of its life by having the current model? What is he trying to fix by changing things in the Bill?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It was slightly odd how it worked. Isabel Nisbet, who was the chief executive of Ofqual, was conducting the day-to-day operations of Ofqual. She would appear in the media to discuss issues. The chairman, Kathleen Tattersall, was the chief regulator, and she was a non-executive appointment. It seemed an odd arrangement, and Ofqual itself caused the worst confusion about who was the single face. We want to avoid problems arising, which could happen if people were not clear about Ofqual’s position. Making the chief regulator a full-time position with executive responsibility will mean a single figurehead with day-to-day knowledge of the sector and the organisation. That is the key driver behind matters, rather than having the role of chief regulator wrapped up with the non-executive position of chairman. That seemed to be an odd governance arrangement.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

For the record, it was anomalous that the non-executive chairman was the chief regulator, and the change makes more sense. We have the chief inspector of schools and other bodies coming before the Education Committee regularly who both represent that organisation and are in day-to-day control and charge of it, and to have something similar for Ofqual seems right in principle.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. He is right. Safeguards will be in place, including the work of Select Committees; Ofqual’s annual report to Parliament on its functions; and pre-appointment scrutiny. We have got the model right and, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I thank the Minister for his further reassurances, and I am glad that he mentioned Isabel Nisbet’s role when there was heavy snow in January or February 2010, when she appeared before the media as the public face of Ofqual to reassure students and their parents that they would be able to take their exams. I understand what he is saying. I do not want to press the amendment to a Division, and I am grateful for his supplementary reassurances. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 22

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Walker. I bring to the Committee’s attention my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for China and the support given to it by Cambridge Assessment, a not-for-profit organisation which is attached to Cambridge university and provides English language standards globally and, in particular, sets examinations globally in English. It has several worries about the clause. Under the current Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, Ofqual has five objectives: the qualification standards objective, the assessment standards objective, the public confidence objective, the awareness objective and the efficiency objective.

I have several probing questions. Given the emphasis in the Bill on comparing standards of our own qualifications with those internationally, to what extent should Ofqual’s priority be its qualification standards objective above the other objectives given to it under the Act? Does he consider that Ofqual’s public confidence and awareness objectives form naturally out of the actions taken under its qualification standards objective, and that public confidence and better awareness will emerge if Ofqual is allowed to focus on a primary function of standards regulation?

The Government have emphasised the role of higher education in developing post-16 qualifications in their recent White Paper, but that emphasis does not appear in the Bill. Does the Minister agree that those interested parties who use qualifications—such as subject communities, professional societies, employers, higher education, schools, colleges and teachers—should have a greater role in determining the content of qualifications than they do at present and therefore a greater role in determining their standard? Does he consider a system that incorporated those views to a greater extent would have an impact on the role that the regulator would then be required to play? Does he agree that the detail of individual qualifications is something that should concern primarily those who use qualifications, such as higher education and employers, or should the regulator or the Government look at each qualification in turn?

Finally, does hon. Gentleman think that international comparisons are always helpful? For example, higher education requirements are likely to be different given the types of demands made for different subjects in different HE systems throughout the world. The standards to be reached for a four-year degree course, as taken in many countries around the world, or for a non-specialist degree are likely to be very different from those demanded by three-year specialist degrees, in which the UK is dominant. Does that mean we should be looking more to the demands of the qualification users, rather than comparing qualifications internationally?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Walker.

I am sympathetic to a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Preston. As I have said before in Committee, clause 22 appears to be poorly drafted. It could contain tensions between the different requirements on Ofqual, pushing in different directions, in particular if we look at proposed new subsection 2(b)(ii), which states that the qualifications standards objective is to secure

“a consistent level of attainment (but not over time) between regulated qualifications and comparable qualifications (including those awarded outside the United Kingdom) which are not qualifications to which this Part applies.”

The provision requires a consistency of attainment between regulated qualifications in this country and comparable ones outside. Different territories have different needs and different structures of education. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what exactly he means by “comparable”—it is hard to work that out. If, in Committee, we are looking at the clause but struggling to get much concrete meaning out of it, it is hard to see it as well drafted law.

I do not know if the Minister has had chance or occasion to look at the clause again, perhaps asking civil servants to think some more or talking to Ofqual, and to come up with something clearer. Good sense might be buried deep within the tangled meaning of the words, but it is far from obvious. I hope that any such meaning, if it is consistent and sensible, can be drawn out by rephrasing—a rephrasing that I have not been able to come up with myself, which is why I have not tabled an amendment, because I found the intent of the clause so hard to divine.

In the broadest possible sense, we want to ensure that our qualifications are not dumbed down over time. The Bill, perhaps, responds to a sense of that happening, as borne out by the recent Wolf report, which suggested that the explosion of vocational qualifications has meant that some courses have been rather too poor and are leading hundreds of thousands of young people in the wrong direction, to somewhere from where there is no progression into further education or work.

As the clause stands, it is flawed, so I hope that the Minister will take that on board and, whether in Committee or the other place, might suggest improvements. On the face of it, the clause looks like it needs improving.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I have one broad question and one specific question. My broad question follows nicely, like a dovetail joint, that of the Chair of the Select Committee.

Everyone probably agrees on the need for consistency and for comparing our education system with others. However, on my broad question, which I pursued in our oral evidence session with the Ofqual representatives, can the Minister give some clarity about what he means by the international comparison, bearing in mind that, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, other countries will have different needs, requirements and objectives for their examination systems? We will not be comparing apples to pears when doing so. What form will the reviews take? Which countries will be used? Which research methods will be incorporated?

My specific question relates to comparisons between regulated UK and international qualifications, and how they provide reasonable adjustment provisions for disabled examination candidates. The Alliance for Inclusive Education told us that it is seeking assurance from the Government as to how they will ensure that Ofqual is mindful of its equality duties when determining which countries’ qualifications it wants to use when setting appropriate educational standards under the standards objectives clause.

That seems reasonable, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give further information about how the Government will provide a level playing field for comparisons with disabled examination candidates.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause amends Ofqual’s qualifications standards objective to add the further objective that it ensures that regulated qualifications indicate a consistent level of attainment with comparable qualifications, including those awarded outside the UK. It ensures that the importance of international comparability of qualification standards is properly recognised by Ofqual. It will enable Ofqual to raise the standards of qualifications to keep pace internationally, rather than being bound to look only at keeping them consistent over time.

The quality of education in England has fallen behind while our competitors, such as China and Singapore, plough ahead. The 2009 PISA results, which compare countries’ performance in key subject areas, show that we are falling behind in the international rankings as other countries move more quickly, as we discussed this morning. Without wanting to raise the ire of the hon. Member for Cardiff West, we are now 25th for reading, 28th for maths and 16th for science, which is around the international average for OECD countries. We are therefore looking to maintain standards, and comparing them with the past is not enough. Candidates need to be sure that a qualification has a highest possible value in the international job market. Unless our exams keep pace, they run the risk of acting as a ceiling of ambition for our students, thus robbing them of the opportunity to compete with their counterparts in other countries.

The hon. Member for Preston asked to what extent the standards objective should be a priority. The clause amends only subsection (2) of section 128 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. All the other objectives—the qualifications standards objective, the assessments standards objective, the public confidence objective, the awareness objective and the efficiency objective—that are set out in section 128(1) will still be in force. Section 128(2) of the 2009 Act refers to giving

“reliable indication of knowledge, skills and understanding, and…indicate a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable regulated qualifications.”

Clause 22 adds to that a further requirement that qualifications indicate

“a consistent level of attainment (but not over time) between regulated qualifications and comparable qualifications (including those awarded outside the United Kingdom)”.

That will allow Ofqual to judge our qualifications not just by how they compare with 2009 or 1999, but by looking abroad and widening our horizons beyond this country to ensure that we continue to raise standards.

I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. Every time I read the clause—I almost agree with him—its wording seems somewhat cumbersome and awkward, given its reference to

“a consistent level of attainment (including over time)”

and

“a consistent level of attainment (but not over time)”.

A lot of thought went into that, and while my immediate reaction when the first draft came to me was precisely as my hon. Friend said, the provision is correct. There is a difficult tension between sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). We need Ofqual to use its judgment to determine whether standards are high enough. The measure allows Ofqual to do just that—to raise them when they are not high enough and to stop them from drifting downwards if they are of a high standard internationally. Ofqual made clear in its evidence that it will be able to manage what is required. Its deputy chairman, Sandra Burslem, said in her evidence:

“There could be a tension between those two”,

meaning sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). She continued to say:

“The current drafting leaves it, we think, to Ofqual to determine when to prioritise which of the two…That is a tension that we are quite happy to take on.”

I think it is right to say that there is a creative tension. Dennis Opposs from Ofqual told us:

“A lot of thought is needed to try to determine what we mean by comparable qualifications so that we are making a fair comparison. Clearly, different countries operate in different ways. If we look at 18-year-olds, as we are at the moment, we will find that in some countries students take many more subjects than they do in this country. That raises some questions. For example, if someone here is doing history and someone somewhere else is also doing history but the subject forms a much smaller part of their curriculum, how do you make the comparison?”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2011; c. 83, Q162 and 165.]

Those are the intellectual issues with which Ofqual is grappling, and it did not grapple with them before. As a consequence of the Bill, it is now looking abroad, and it is very important to bring that information into our deliberations.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I am grateful to the Minister for his efforts to explain the phrasing of the clause, although I think he has gone native on it. The provisions that we put in a Bill should involve a great degree of clarity. The clause could have said that Ofqual should in future judge the currency or value of UK qualifications against other jurisdictions to ensure that they remain relevant internationally. As I said, I struggled to come up with alternative wording, which was why I did not table an amendment, but it should be possible for the provision to be a little clearer.

The clause specifies that Ofqual must include qualifications awarded outside the UK, which it does not regulate, and also some within, so we are asking Ofqual to compare the qualifications that it does accredit with those that it does not. Is there a tension in that? Are we setting it a rather peculiar task?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend raises important issues. The fact that he, with all his experience and eminence as Chair of the Education Committee, could not draft his own amendment explains the difficulty that parliamentary counsel had when drafting the clause. The final wording is deliberately drafted so that there is a creative tension between the two. One can ask what will happen if standards over time are fine but they are not fine internationally—which of those two compete? My understanding is that such judgments are for Ofqual, but it will want to ensure that we compare internationally if there is a conflict between the two.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Is it possible that the impenetrable drafting that the Minister’s eminent and hon. Friend—

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Your Eminence.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Yes; we had cardinals this morning.

Is it possible that the impenetrable drafting identified by the hon. Gentleman is to do with the Minister’s desire not to create any new legislation but simply to amend existing legislation? Is that why the drafting is almost as difficult as creating a dovetail joint with a bevelled chisel? It seems extremely difficult to make any sense of this.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause is not difficult to understand, if we are being frank, even though it looks cumbersomely worded because of the parentheses. However, it implies a contradiction, and we are not resiling from the fact that there is a contradiction. There is a deliberate creative tension between ensuring that standards in our qualifications are maintained over time and ensuring that there is a consistent level of attainment between comparable qualifications, including those available abroad.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Whenever my students came across a piece of impenetrable text or a difficult question, I used to tell them to rephrase the question. For the record, if it is not possible to redraft the clause, will the Minister tell us, in his own words—in plain English—what it means?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It means that Ofqual, as well as obeying all the objectives in section 128(1) of the 2009 Act, has to ensure that our qualifications must at least maintain their standards over time and also that they are comparable with the best regulated qualifications abroad. It is almost a question of the highest of those two requirements. I think that Ofqual is clear that that is what it means. Its challenge is to take into account all the factors raised by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness about how we compare like with like, given that a history student in one country may be spending 10% of their curriculum time on the subject while such a student in another country spends 15%. Ofqual is ideally suited to tackle those issues. I am confident that the work it is conducting will be of a very high quality. It means that, for the first time, we are taking into account what is happening in countries, given that many school leavers and graduates will be competing for jobs in the world market in the years ahead.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I apologise for extending the discussion further and moving on to slightly different territory, but I want to deal with proposed new subsection (2)(b)(i) and the issue that

“a consistent level of attainment (including over time)”

should be maintained “between comparable regulated qualifications”. As we know, newspapers come out every year with stories about dumbing down and how exams have become easier. It always strikes me as a rather sterile debate, because the number of people who take qualifications is now much higher than it was 50 years ago. If we have a measure that differentiates between the top 60% of the population, rather than the top 7%, it will necessarily be less accurate. It is a different qualification for different times and different needs.

Is there a danger if things can freeze in time? Suppose that Latin became phenomenally popular because it was proven by research to be the best subject ever and we wanted a vast percentage of the population to study it. It would make little sense to have a standard that could not be reached by most of the population. Instead, there should be a qualification that people can pass and is proven to be good for them—I do not know whether that made any sense. My point is that, over time, it might not always be appropriate for a qualification never to be dumbed down, if it needs to serve a different purpose from the one it serves today.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend goes to the root of the problem. Some of our qualifications do not have the public support—no, “support” is the wrong word. The public have lost some confidence, however, that a number of qualifications have maintained the standards of previous years. To an extent, there has been a deliberate policy of widening access to qualifications and enabling a wider proportion of the cohort to get a pass in certain subjects. There has been a tacit acceptance that we do precisely what my hon. Friend describes. If that is the objective, however, it is not the right approach if we are to maintain public confidence in our exam system. If that is the objective, we should say so, but when Ofqual or the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority—its predecessor—have been asked, they have said that there has been no dumbing down of the qualifications over the years. Such statements undermine people’s confidence in the exams, and we are trying to get away from that. If there is a desire for an exam that everybody is able to pass, it should be called something different. I do not disagree with the objective suggested by my hon. Friend, but we need honesty in the exam system to restore public confidence.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Is it not the case that dumbing down would be less likely to occur if communities of interest, as Cambridge Assessment calls them, were more involved in determining the content of many of the qualifications? By communities, I mean professional societies, employers, higher education institutions, schools, colleges and teachers. If they had a leading role in determining the content of each qualification, dumbing down would not take place. We could give awarding bodies greater ownership over the development, design and content of qualifications that were previously under the remit of the QCDA.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is crucial that HE and employers are involved in the design of qualifications, and he is right to raise that point. Standards of qualifications are important, which is why we need effective regulation. He is also right to suggest that less central Government diktat over qualification content is necessary, and that is the thrust of what we are trying to do. He is right that exam awarding bodies need an important say in the content of the qualifications, and that is the direction in which we seek to move.

On special needs education, Ofqual will look at all aspects of comparability in pursuing a standards objective, and that includes issues of disability. It has a general statutory duty to have regard to the needs of students with disabilities, and that will be relevant in the work it carries out under the new objective. I hope that I have covered all issues raised by members of the Committee and that they will support the clause.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister has convinced me that this provision is completely impenetrable. He mentioned creative tension, but I suggest that there is an inherent contradiction. I think that he used that phrase about making sure that

“regulated qualifications indicate…a consistent level of attainment (including over time) between comparable regulated qualifications, and…a consistent level of attainment (but not over time) between regulated qualifications”.

To pick up what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, is it possible for the Minister and his officials to redraft the clause? I know what he wants to achieve, but the Bill as drafted provides an inherent contradiction rather than a creative tension. Will he return to the clause at a later stage in the Bill’s passage through the House and the other place to ensure that he actually achieves what he wants?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

No, I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We spent a long time drafting the clause and the tension in it reflects the tension in the real world. We want to have standards that are equal to the best in the world as well as qualifications that are usable. That is the challenge that Ofqual faces, and it is capable of delivering on that challenge. It fully understands what the clause means—as I do, and as I think the hon. Gentleman does—and it is well equipped to deal with that challenge. It is an important step forward that we are asking a UK regulator for the first time to look at what is happening in other countries. We need a less insular and more global approach in the new global economy.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Which has top priority or primacy among the objectives—the level of consistency on domestic qualifications or international comparisons?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is both. If, through this work, we discover that our qualifications are lagging behind those of comparable nations abroad for rigour and standards, the priority will be to ensure that our qualifications rise to those standards. Ultimately, as an independent regulator, it is for Ofqual to decide what is best for students in this country. The clause sets out clear objectives to ensure that there is consistency over time, that the best qualifications around the world are looked at, and that standards are comparable with other non-regulated qualifications. Those are Ofqual’s objectives, and I am absolutely confident that, based on the wording of the clause, it is capable of delivering them.

Clause 23

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 23, page 26, line 15, at beginning insert

‘Subject to subsections (2) and (3),’.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 112, in clause 23, page 26, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must not bring this section into force before 31 March 2013.’.

Amendment 113, in clause 23, page 26, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power to commence this section under section 78 he must lay before Parliament a report which sets out which QCDA functions, programmes and activities he intends to—

(a) transfer to himself,

(b) transfer to other bodies,

(c) close down.’.

Amendment 114, in clause 24, page 26, line 18, at beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection (4),’.

Amendment 115, in clause 24, page 26, line 23, at end add—

‘(4) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power to commence this section under section 78 he must lay before Parliament a report which sets out arrangements which demonstrate he has put in place sufficient resource and expertise to undertake the QCDA functions which are transferred to him by this Act, and those additional functions he is proposing to undertake.’.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Amendment 111 would delay the abolition of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. With its demise, most of its functions will reside with the Department for Education, including the development of the national curriculum and the accompanying supporting materials. Given the current development of the new curriculum, it would be entirely sensible to delay the abolition of the QCDA slightly to ensure a continuity of expertise and experience. Will the Minister confirm his intention on when the QCDA will be abolished? How will he ensure that the transition of functions to the Secretary of State will be smooth and that the current work of the QCDA is completed?

I have a copy of the letter sent by the Secretary of State to the chair of the QCDA on 15 September 2010. Essentially, it sets out the revised remit of the agency and its funding for 2010-11. The Secretary of State wrote:

“I should make clear that where an activity is continuing during this financial year, it should not be assumed that the activity will continue beyond March 2011 either at the QCDA or elsewhere. However, there are some activities that will need to continue up to the point of closure.”

It might just be me, but that seems to be as clear as mud.

In addition, schools are expected to follow the core programmes of study from September 2013 and the other curriculum areas from September 2014. It is understood that the curriculum materials will be made available, to enable proper preparation by schools, at least one year before the curriculum’s introduction. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether that will happen if, by then, the functions have been transferred to the Secretary of State. We tabled amendment 113 to seek clarity on the specific functions that will be transferred from the agency to the Secretary of State. I shall take your advice, Mr Walker, about whether we need a stand part debate on that matter.

It is not clear why the QCDA is being abolished, although I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State is not a friend of the agency—he has never much liked it. Will the Minister share with the Committee the evidence that the Secretary of State considered that led him to abolish the body? It is unclear which functions will be transferred to the Secretary of State, which will go to other bodies and which will cease. Will the Minister clarify that? Will he tell us what will happen to the existing functions? On the functions that will transfer to the Secretary of State, how does the Minister intend to consult to ensure that his decisions are informed by the views, wishes and needs of the teaching profession?

Amendment 114 would ensure that the Secretary of State had sufficient resources and expertise to carry out the new functions that will transfer to him from the QCDA. I do not wish to rehash or recycle previous debates in which we have discussed the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the General Teaching Council for England, and so on, but the same principles apply. Parliament must be satisfied that the Secretary of State is demonstrably capable of taking on such functions. How will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State is able to carry out each of the new functions that he will undertake as a result of the abolition of the QCDA? The centralising aspect of the Bill is a concern, bearing in mind every other function and agency that he will take on. Again, what consultation will he have with the profession when he makes decisions on matters such as curriculum development? It would be most helpful to have a clearer outline of what functions will be transferred.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendments 111 to 115 were tabled to seek clarity about the future of the QCDA’s functions and reassurance that those areas that are due to transfer to the Department will be adequately resourced and efficiently transferred. The detailed consultation with the QCDA and staff from its representative, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has already begun. Through that process, staff will be informed whether their job is at risk or whether they are likely to transfer to the Department. At this stage, it would be wrong to pre-empt that process by giving specifics on structures, or on how many jobs will be available for a specific function. The staff who are affected should hear first, in a manner that is consistent with protocols agreed between the Cabinet Office and the PCS. I am happy to commit to writing to hon. Members with further details before Report, but I shall give a summary now, which I hope they will find useful.

A new Executive agency, the standards and testing agency, will be established in Coventry to develop and deliver statutory assessments of children up to the age of 14. The QCDA’s functions in that area will transfer to that agency, along with the relevant staff who currently work on statutory tests and assessments. We have made it clear to the QCDA that our priority is to effect the transfer as smoothly as possible, thus minimising any risk to test delivery. Clear and robust arrangements involving senior QCDA representatives are in place to manage that change and keep a close eye on any potential risk. The independent examinations regulator, Ofqual, will have an important role, as it does now with QCDA. It will keep under review the agency’s functions in relation to statutory assessments and it will ensure the integrity and impartiality of national curriculum tests.

Part of the QCDA’s work is to support the effective delivery of examinations. That work will also transfer, but to the Department itself rather than to an Executive agency. That function will continue to include collecting and delivering exam scripts, as well as the key elements of the central service that the QCDA provides to support examination offices. The collection of exam scripts is a vital service that the Joint Council for Qualifications and Ofqual were keen to see continued for fear that its withdrawal might jeopardise the system.

I also confirm that, at the request of the Joint Council for Qualifications and in consultation with Ofqual, we have agreed, in principle, that the access arrangements online tool, which supports schools and colleges in requesting and tracking reasonable adjustments for pupils in respect of qualifications, should transfer to the JCQ. The JCQ has agreed to maintain that service and continue to meet the expense of funding it.

Since the introduction of the national curriculum, responsibility for the curriculum has always rested with the Secretary of State, both under the previous Administration and this, and nothing is changing as far as that is concerned. The QCDA simply acted on behalf of Government in advising and helping to design the curriculum and, as such, no functions are transferring from the QCDA to the Department. It is simply that the QCDA’s often duplicative functions in keeping the curriculum under review are ceasing. In future we will appoint directly the curriculum expertise we need as and when necessary to support specific tasks such as curriculum and qualifications reviews. This is just the approach we have taken already in the current national curriculum review. We will also make better use of the expertise of teachers and subject experts in universities and industry to support our policy-making, rather than relying on intermediary bodies such as the QCDA to provide curriculum advice.

The QCDA’s production and publication of 566 separate pieces of curriculum guidance overwhelmed teachers. That activity had to be stopped. We want teachers and head teachers involved in setting the curriculum in their school to use their professional expertise, not be bound by reams of guidance. The slimmed-down curriculum we intend to introduce will be simpler to understand and focused on core subject knowledge. It will give schools the freedom to design a full curriculum that is rigorous, relevant and engaging, without the need for interference from the Government or their agents.

Turning to the QCDA’s role in developing qualifications, its role was already reducing as a result of the creation of Ofqual as an independent regulator. Our intention is to move away from centrally set exam requirements over and above the necessary core that will be established by the curriculum. Instead, we want to encourage more direct influence by universities—and learned societies, reflecting a comment by the hon. Gentleman—over the content and design of exams. We need much less state involvement in the design of qualifications. I hope that the Committee will find that useful.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the QDCA will close. It will close soon after Royal Assent, subject to the will of Parliament, and we are winding down anything unnecessary. That is already happening. The staff have stopped doing things that are not good value for money for the taxpayer. We have halved the QDCA’s budget since we came to office in May last year.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Given the winding down of the agency’s functions, has there been a reduction in staffing numbers of the agency?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course, if the functions decline there will be fewer activities taking place and, given that the budget is reducing, there will ultimately be fewer staff performing these functions. How we manage that decline is subject to negotiation and there is obviously a desire to minimise any compulsory redundancies. In May 2010, 509 people were employed by the QCDA and as at the end of January 2011 that figure was 326. Much of that fall was achieved either through natural wastage or transferring staff to other functions within Government.

In conclusion, the abolition of several departmental arm’s length bodies, including the QCDA, signals a reduction in centralised control over aspects of education where there is no need for the Government to be involved and supports greater devolution to localities and the front line. Abolishing the QCDA is vital to allow improvements in standards to be driven by professionals—school leaders and teachers. It will ensure that Ministers, rather than unelected officials, are clearly accountable for those national functions which are continuing. It will maximise the amount of the education budget that goes directly to schools and colleges.

We must not delay in moving towards the abolition of the QCDA, as proposed by one of these amendments. Unnecessary work has already ceased and arrangements are in place to transfer any essential remaining functions over the course of the coming months. It serves no one, least of all the taxpayer, to prolong the closure process unduly. I hope that with those few remarks, I have assured Members of the Committee that this transfer is happening efficiently and sensitively, that the Department has the resources, the expertise and the capacity to take on those new responsibilities and that it is setting up a new executive agency to do some of those important functions, such as national curriculum testing. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I shall not press the amendments to a Division. I maintain that the Bill has a centralising aspect—into the hands of the Secretary of State—which is at odds with what the Minister has outlined. However, his invitation to keep the Committee informed about what is going on is a welcome and positive step. On that basis, and with the proviso that we might return to the matter on Report to see what progress has been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 7

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 117 to schedule 7, page 77, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert—

‘(3) The Secretary of State must publish the proposal in such manner as, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, is likely to bring the proposal to the attention of any other person concerned with education in schools.’.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 116 to schedule 7, page 78, line 2, leave out from (3) to ‘evidence’ in line 3 and insert—

‘a 12-month period to submit’.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I will speak first to amendment 116—[ Interruption. ] I thank the Committee for that warm noise.

Amendment 116 is intended to probe Ministers about what is meant by a “reasonable opportunity” to submit evidence about any changes to the national curriculum. The Department for Education has said:

“Our intention is to undertake a systematic and comprehensive review of the National Curriculum, and ministers have considered carefully how best to do this in a structured way, to ensure coherence and consistency in our approach and make sure that we are taking the time necessary to consult widely and to give serious consideration to the complex issues involved.”

The Department goes on to say:

“We want to hear from as many people as possible as we take this review forward, and to generate a lively debate about what is taught in our schools. In the first instance we have launched a Call for Evidence to which anyone can contribute their views and experiences.

We will also be taking forward work with subject communities and other experts over the course of the review to build an evidence base on which recommendations and proposals will be built, and we will be working to engage with teachers and their representatives to secure their input. Once we have published our proposals there will be further wide-scale public consultation before final decisions are made.”

I am probing the Minister about whether, as amendment 116 suggests, a 12-month window of opportunity would be classed as reasonable. If not, how long is he intending?

Amendment 117 is intended to probe the Minister about the consultation arrangements relating to changes in the national curriculum. The explanatory notes to the Bill state:

“Paragraph 15 replaces section 96 of”

the Education Act 2002

“so as to change the way in which persons must be consulted before the Secretary of State makes certain orders or regulations relating to the National Curriculum. Under section 96 as substituted, the Secretary of State must give notice of the proposal to specified persons and other persons whom the Secretary of State thinks it is desirable to consult.”

What are the Minister’s intentions to consult actively in the development of any proposal by the Secretary of State to change the national curriculum? In particular, I would like the Minister to outline whether and how he intends to consult with the teaching profession, parents, employers, unions and other interested parties. It would be helpful if he could outline his thoughts further.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendment, as the shadow Minister said, seeks to specify the period in which stakeholders can submit evidence for representations relating to proposed changes to orders or regulations relating to the national curriculum, and suggests that that time should be 12 months.

I agree that we should encourage contributions from those concerned in the matters if a change in the national curriculum is being considered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there should be a robust process for ensuring that any such changes are consulted on widely, and there must be a proper opportunity for people to comment and discuss. He will know that in the previous regime, of which he was part, the Government developed and introduced a code of practice on consultation in 2000, setting out how consultation exercises are best run. The third version of the code was published as late as 2008, setting out the approach that the Government should take when they are involved in a consultation and the timetables concerned. The current Government take the same view as the previous Government on consultation and support the code. The code recommends that such consultation should normally last 12 weeks, not 12 months—that is the practice adopted by the previous Government.

I am sensitive to what the hon. Gentleman said and I accept that there are circumstances where time scales will need to be varied because of feasibility. For example, if a consultation takes place over Christmas or summer, it is absolutely right to have flexibility about the total time that it takes, to account for those events. Consultations that the QCDA managed in the past on the national curriculum have been in line with the guidance set out in that code of practice, and we intend to continue the precedent established—in this respect, at least—by the previous Government.

We mentioned Catholicism briefly this morning in your absence, Mr Walker, and you missed the interesting contribution on that subject. Strangely and coincidentally, I was reading a recent biography of Cardinal Newman this morning over breakfast, which was given to me by the Secretary of State for Christmas. I was reading about Newman’s use of empiricism. I am not a great fan of empiricism; I like the mystery that Chesterton said is an essential component in happiness. Notwithstanding that, it is important that we look at evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that stakeholders are uncomfortable or unhappy with that code of practice, I am prepared to listen to it. If there were difficulties with the period of consultation in the past when responding to changes to the national curriculum, we should know about them. If the previous Government were plagued with complaints, let us get them on the record here, because we want to improve on what has gone on before, where necessary. I see that the hon. Gentleman has been passed a note about Catholicism, and I know that he will use it with the assiduity for which he is known in this place.

What is seriously important for schools and other stakeholders is that they are able to offer any views that they have on proposals about the national curriculum. We share that view—it is absolutely right, as the hon. Gentleman says, that those views are fed in in a timely way and that we see the results of such consultation reasonably quickly. Specifying a period of 12 months for those consultations is likely to be seen as pretty cumbersome, not by the Government, but by stakeholders, and would delay the completion of procedures for making and implementing changes related to the national curriculum. I think that that would generally apply to most such changes, given what I said about precedent and about the national code. In practice, it would mean that the implementation of a change to the national curriculum would take a full year longer than under the previous arrangements—arrangements that will be continued under the Bill.

Amendment 117 would place a duty on the Secretary of State, requiring him to make orders or regulations related to the national curriculum in such a manner as to be likely to bring those proposals to the attention of any person concerned with education in schools. I am sympathetic to what I interpret to be the intended effect of the amendment and I agree that those who are interested in the national curriculum should have the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to it. We must be open-minded about such matters, and drawing on the expertise, the understanding and the proper concern of important stakeholders is important. I understand why the amendment has been tabled and I respect the purpose behind it.

I recognise that what is taught in our schools, particularly the elements that require the national curriculum, is of the utmost significance and generates interest. It generates debate, too, and inevitably dissent from what is the natural part of life in a democratic and civilised society. It is a good measure. We should care about what is taught in our schools, and I want as many people as possible to be involved in the process. I am open-minded about such matters, as members of the Committee know—[Interruption.] I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State is nodding or shaking his head.

We have made a commitment to ensure that the review of the national curriculum we launched earlier this year is carried out in an open, consultative and inclusive way. The change proposed under the Bill is who conducts the consultation, not the nature and quality of the consultation itself. We are committed to ensuring that, when exercising powers in relation to the national curriculum, there should be widespread and thorough discussion. That is why we have been careful to leave the current arrangements for consultation to those groups that must be consulted under proposed new section (96)(2) under the schedule. It names local authorities, governing bodies and other representative organisations. In addition, subsection (3) of the proposed new section requires the Secretary of State to

“give notice of the proposal”

through, for example, the Department’s website as well as through other channels relating to the national curriculum to any other persons

“with whom consultation appears desirable”.

That is important. The hon. Gentleman is asking for a more open process. The Bill specifies that anyone who desires to consult should be included in that consultation, in addition to the names and organisations that it outlines. That is the slightly more permissive approach that he wants. It will, of course, include parents, pupils, representatives of further and higher education, and employers. We heard about some of those in our earlier discussions and it is absolutely right that those affected by such changes should be party to the discussions and consultations that take place. I imagine that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to tease out. The measure will achieve the same effect as intended by his amendment.

Finally, the code of practice on consultation sets out that discussion on policy proposals must be targeted at and made accessible to those likely to be affected by or have a particular interest in such proposals. I am gaining a reputation in Committee for being a fair, open-minded, responsive and listening Minister, and I do not want in any sense to demur from those observations. I confirm absolutely that we will adhere to the guidance under the code. In the light of my immensely reasonable response, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West passed me a note when the Minister was speaking which said, “The Minister is often a mystery to us and always a source of happiness”—[ Laughter. ] The Minister’s remarks have been positive. He is right about precedence in consultation and flexibility so that we do not have major consultation on a big piece of the national curriculum at, say, the start of July. On the basis of his having made encouraging noises, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 8

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 118, page 80, line 8 [Schedule 8], at end insert ‘, or a charity’.

Mr Walker, I seek your guidance on whether you consider that we will have a clause stand part debate on the schedule, as it will shape my remarks to amendment 118.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am taking advice. It depends how wide-ranging the debate is. It is a limited amendment, so there is every chance that we will have a clause stand part debate.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

That is very helpful and fair, Mr Walker. You are always a source of happiness.

The purpose of amendment 118 is to enable the Secretary of State to transfer any property to a charity. The Minister and I debated that with regard to the TDA. Will the Minister explain whether that would be possible in respect of the QCDA? Could it cover intellectual property, for example? Could it cover the non-statutory framework for, say, religious education? If the Secretary of State does not wish to maintain this framework as part of the functions that are transferred to him, the amendment would enable it to be transferred to a charity that supports religious education in schools. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope the Minister will feel positive and able to accept the amendment. He can put something on the record and explain how amenable he is to the content of the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment 118 would allow Ministers to transfer any residual QCDA staff and assets at the time of closure to a charity, as well as to Ofqual and the Department, as we have in the Bill at the moment. The provision for the making of a transfer scheme allows residual staff and assets that remain in QCDA immediately prior to closure to be transferred to the Department or Ofqual in a simple and efficient manner. I can assure members of the Committee that in the process of transferring and disposing of assets, the Department is actively considering the benefits of transferring some assets to charities, including awarding bodies and their representatives, particularly where the benefit brings about savings to the public purse. If that is the intention behind the amendment, I can readily confirm that we have sympathy with it.

However, we do not need a transfer scheme to provide for such transfers, as they would be sorted out well in advance of the closing date. For example, I outlined previously that we have already agreed in principle, at the request of the Joint Council for Qualifications, that the access arrangements online tool will continue and transfer to the Joint Council for Qualifications. In addition, we are planning to transfer curriculum resources in the form of video to educational forums such as TES Connect, so that it can build them into its existing resource catalogue under the open government licence. As we work through the details, we will of course ensure that those assets are disposed of and protected in accordance with statute and Cabinet Office requirements.

The key point is the timing of the transfers. There is no need to introduce legislation to allow for a transfer scheme between the QCDA and a charity, such as an awarding body, as transfers of this nature will take place as part of the ongoing closure process. The transfer scheme in schedule 8 will only be required for residual staff or assets, where those need to transfer to the Department or Ofqual as part of the final closure arrangements. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can withdraw his amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

That is incredibly helpful. Thanks to the Minister’s positive remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

In keeping with previous practice on similar provisions in the Bill, I want to discuss the schedule in relation to staff, premises and liabilities. I have looked at the annual report—you can take the boy out of accountancy, but you cannot take the accountancy out of the boy—and, as of 31 March 2010, there were 675 staff. The Minister has been helpful on staffing, because in an earlier intervention he said that there were about 325—I might have got the precise figure wrong—as a result of natural wastage and the transfer or cancellation of functions. Will he update the Committee further? Given what he has previously said about other organisations, such as the General Teaching Council for England and the Training and Development Agency for Schools, will he give us some reassurance, because staff will be concerned about whether their jobs will continue and the possibilities for future employment? Is he able to give any reassurance, through the Committee, on how that is going?

On premises, I think the Minister said earlier that the new agency will be based in Coventry. I have been to the QCDA’s headquarters there, which is in a relatively new building. As I will come on to say, lease payments still have to be made for a long time. Will the Minister outline, in relation to the estate strategy, what is happening? Off the top of my head, I understand that the agency has premises in London—in Piccadilly, I think—so what will happen to that?

The balance sheet or “statement of financial position”, as it is called for a Government agency, shows that the QCDA has net liabilities of almost £56 million—£55.8 million. That is an astonishingly high figure. Will the Minister confirm that that liability position will be transferred to the Department? That will again leave the Department at risk of financial exposure, and to such a large degree that it might impact on other elements of its work. What is the Minister doing about that £56 million? That figure includes £34 million owed in balances with bodies external to the Government, which has significantly increased from the previous year’s figure of £27.9 million. Is it the case that organisations might think, “The QCDA is being wound up. That’s great—I don’t have to pay my debts”? Will the Minister reassure me that, as a matter of debt management, the liability owed will be brought down as much as possible?

On commitments, the accounts state that there are “Obligations under operating leases” for a period of “later than five years” to the tune of £13.2 million. A note to the accounts states that for

“the premises at Coventry an annual rent of £1.423m per year is effective to 31 July 2024.”

That is a long time for the Department to be committed but, given what the Minister has said about the agency being moved into the Coventry office, will he confirm that that is the case? Will the Minister explain how those difficult financial pieces of information and the fact that the agency has a net liability position of some £56 million are included in the impact assessment—the one which accompanied the Bill rather than the White Paper? It states:

“Direct costs will include approximately £7m relating to the cost of redundancy settlements for expected job losses, and approximately £5m relating to the cost of setting up the executive agency.”

There does not seem to be any mention of the net liability position or of operating lease commitments going on beyond five years. How can that be explained, and is there a transparent view of the Department’s financial exposure? It would be helpful if the Minister answered those questions.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I will deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. First, I have already given the number of staff currently employed by the QCDA, which has been reduced to 326. In line with Cabinet Office protocols, we are taking all reasonable steps to avoid compulsory redundancies, but obviously cannot rule them out. We must be sensitive in handling staff reductions, as we are being. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that when we debate these issues across the Committee. The numbers have reduced, as I have said, through loss of contractors and temporary staff, through natural wastage and through access to other vacant positions. Also, some functions have transferred to Ofqual and a number of people have left through voluntary arrangements. That number will be reduced further through the more comprehensive voluntary redundancy scheme.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Will there be any compulsory redundancies? Does the Minister see a virtue in a much smaller state and, with regards to the QCDA, a much smaller complement, given that functions will be transferred elsewhere?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not want to comment on that issue at the moment, but staff consultation under the voluntary redundancy scheme began yesterday and we should let those negotiations continue. The future of the QCDA’s building in Coventry is currently being assessed as part of our estate strategy relating to the reduction in the number of arm’s length bodies and the associated buildings. Some arm’s length bodies are still being reviewed so the final strategy will not be ready until the summer, although we aim to have preliminary findings ready before then. A number of functions of the agency will reside in Coventry.

This is not the place to comment on the details of liabilities, and I will cover those financial issues in the note that I have already committed to send to the Members of the Committee before Report.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can the Minister offer further clarification or assurance that any transfer of functions, staff or estate from QCDA to Ofqual will not in any way distract or detract from Ofqual’s bespoke engagement in relation to vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland? I want to make sure that mission creep, or mission expansion, does not diminish the quality of Ofqual’s work in consideration of its responsibilities in Northern Ireland.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I want to cover one final thing about the financial position. We will be managing very closely all aspects of the abolition of QCDA, including the financial aspects. Issues such as debt management, raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, will be managed vigorously, as we manage all such matters. I hope that I have reassured members of the Committee that the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff from the QCDA to either the executive agency, the Department or Ofqual will be managed efficiently and with sensitivity with a view to ensuring that staff are properly looked after and that we deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I understand and appreciate what the Minister has said. I remember quite vividly, when I was in the Department, listening to the speech of the Secretary of State, then the shadow Secretary of State, to the Conservative party conference in 2009 in which he really had a go at QCDA. The Secretary of State is no friend of QCDA. He mentioned 76 spin doctors employed by QCDA, but figures, real figures, for the communications department said that the figure used by the Secretary of State—those 76 spin doctors—included all staff in the communications department, QCDA and Ofqual customer service departments. They included switchboard and helpline operators, web and publishing editors and people who support schools and local authorities. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State wanted to abolish QCDA and made up some figures in order to justify it? Will the Minister put on the record that he realises that, actually, staff have played an invaluable role in making sure that schools, local authorities and others get assistance with the national curriculum and that this does not do the Secretary of State any favours whatsoever?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Secretary of State was making a valid point in opposition. We have to be far more careful about how we spend taxpayers’ money. Had the previous Administration been more careful, we would not have the current budget deficit. That is why we have to make some difficult decisions, which would not have been necessary had we not had that approach to public spending.

I have met a number of QCDA staff since last May and have been hugely impressed by the quality of the people who I have been dealing with. The senior staff at the QCDA have worked effectively and co-operatively with the Department in managing the transition to the agency, the Department and Ofqual. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the work carried out by staff at the QCDA. However, we object to the continual production—whatever the quality of the product—of the large volume of guidance and revisions to the curriculum that I think have overwhelmed the teaching profession and schools. We are trying to stop the permanent revolution in curriculum review, which was an explicit objective of the QCDA. That is what we are trying to change.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I welcome the tone that the Minister has taken on the staff working in the QCDA, and take on board the point about the importance of spending public money. Will he take the opportunity to withdraw what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading? He said:

“How can it be right that we can find money to employ 76 people in communications—76 spin doctors”?—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 174.]

That is just not true.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I find it difficult that we have arm’s length bodies that have large communications departments. [ Interruption. ] People do not object to switchboard operators. We object to large communications departments in arm’s length bodies outside the Department. The reduction in communication spend and resource is consistent with the Government’s marketing and advertising freeze. That is why we have been able to reduce expenditure effectively without any diminution of the quality of service on the front line.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Every one in the Committee and outside understands the difference between someone working, for example, on a switchboard and a professor of rotational medicine, such as the type that politicians employ to spin their messages. It was simply a bit of spin on the part of the Secretary of State himself. Is that not correct?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

No, I do not accept that at all. We have to be careful about arm’s length bodies having a large department that is about reputation management of the arm’s length body. That is what the Secretary of State was concerned about. [ Interruption. ] If we get down to what someone’s particular job is in a communications department, of course it sounds benign. The question is should such arm’s length bodies—there are many of them, as they grew significantly under the previous Administration—have such large communications departments to manage the reputations of those bodies? I do not think that that is what taxpayers believe their money should be spent to deliver.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It may be understandable that people at the QCDA have large communications staff, because of what happened to the former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, who was hung out to dry by the previous Government in every effort to avoid any culpability for the SATs fiasco. All too often, they and the previous Secretary of State used spin, and allowed the reputation of people such as Ken Boston to be damaged unfairly. We need to move to a culture in which we do not need spin doctors because one arm of the Government is not smearing another.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I think that I have covered the issues raised by Opposition Members, and on that basis, I urge the Committee to agree that schedule 8 be the eighth schedule to the Bill.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Briefly, I give the Minister, who is a fair and reasonable man, the opportunity to apologise for his Secretary of State’s remarks on “76 spin doctors”. People in the Committee and elsewhere will quite rightly have a perception of what a spin doctor is. Someone operating the switchboard and providing a help line and advice is not a spin doctor. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and that the QCDA employed three press officers, which is different from the Secretary of State’s claim that there were 76 people employed in the communications department? How many switchboard operators does the Department for Education have and have they been redesignated as spin doctors?

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. May we have a brief response from the Minister, because the Chair’s patience is being tried?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Secretary of State was citing the fact that the communication department of this arm’s length body employs 76 people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to drill down to find out what their roles are, whether it is a switchboard operator, personal assistant or whatever, he can. The Secretary of State was rightly asking why arm’s length bodies have communication departments employing 76 staff. That is the problem, and we are right to tackle it.

Clause 26

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 26, page 26, line 29, at beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection (7),’.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 100, in clause 26, page 27, line 9, at end add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State must produce a transition plan to highlight how he will assist schools, colleges and local authorities in the transition from the current system of careers guidance to the new all-age careers service.’.

Amendment 122, in clause 26, page 27, line 9, at end add—

‘(7) Before the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on arrangements for the funding of careers guidance between the end of ring-fenced Connexions funding and the establishment of the All Age Careers Service.’.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

We now come to an important part of the proposed legislation—the radical changes to careers guidance in England. The Government intend to abolish the current Connexions service and introduce an all-age careers service for young people aged 13 to 19, and for adults some time in the future. I pay tribute to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning on this matter. The measure has received wide-ranging praise from stakeholders in the sector. This amendment grouping is designed not to reinstate, or even to delay, the abolition of Connexions, although there could be a case for that, but to probe the Government for more detail on the important transition period between the abolition of Connexions and the start of the new all-age careers service.

Time is running out. Many Connexions staff have received redundancy notices, and will lose their jobs on 31 March, which is just a week away. Unison estimates that a quarter of Connexions centres have already closed, and that some 8,000 professionals are in the process of imminently losing their jobs. It is clear that once that expertise and professionalism is lost to education, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. There is a risk that these professionals will be lost to education, and to the cause of helping to raise the ambitions and aspirations of young people, for ever. At a time of record unemployment and genuine heartfelt fear from young people and their parents on the prospects of a lost generation, we need excellent careers advice now more than ever. It is not the time to leave the careers service in limbo.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Does it not seem peculiar that a Government, who came to office castigating the previous Government for their record on youth unemployment, should set about abolishing organisations that are there to find young people employment?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I would go much further than my hon. Friend on that. I know that there is a case for the abolition of Connexions; we are not here to determine whether that is suitable. Things like the future jobs fund, which was abolished and which helped 720 young people in my constituency alone get a foot on the job ladder, are essential. This Government have no strategy for young people. It is a real shame that this country will have to pay the costs of that for decades and decades to come.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am intervening, because it is widely known that I am an admirer of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want him to become seduced by his own rhetoric, so that he loses the force of his argument. Although the future jobs fund is not within my purview, apprenticeships are. I give him the opportunity to welcome the fact that we announced a further 50,000 apprenticeships yesterday, some 40,000 of which are targeted at young people.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The Minister is a committed champion for young people in a Government who do not have a strategy for them and who regard them as a soft target. I pay tribute to what he has done. The welcome steps on apprenticeships in yesterday’s Budget have his mark on them, so I pay tribute to his policy and his strength in Whitehall. To be fair, he is building on the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West and I carried out when we were in government, but I believe that he is passionately committed to this issue. Now is not the time to ask, but I would be interested to know whether the money to fund those apprenticeships is new or recycled, and whether the targets are different.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is a little harsh of the hon. Gentleman to make accusations against this Government given the previous one’s record. People can argue about the economic performance of this country under the previous Government before the credit crunch. There is no doubt, however, about what happened to young people who ended up in unemployment, which did not go down throughout the period of economic growth, and went up when we reached the credit crunch. A humble atonement is required from an Opposition Member. I welcome additional apprenticeships. I know that the shadow Ministers genuinely tried to tackle that matter, but they failed. We all need to take a tone of humility, because, collectively, we must do a lot better for young people. We do not want a lost generation.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

In the previous Government, I was the Minister with responsibility for the Connexions service. I remember being before the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor’s Select Committee, and the Chairman questioned me harshly on that matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Throughout the good times and the bad, 10% of young people have been disengaged—they have not been in employment, education or training—and successive Governments have found that difficult to solve.

We can look at the various segments of young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is the nature of some to go in and out of jobs. They might not have responsibilities to family and so on, so if they do not like a job, they can go. Depending on the fluidity and flexibility of the job market, they might be able to get another one. To do so, however, is becoming increasingly difficult in the current economic situation. A core segment of approximately 30% of young people found it more difficult to choose a suitable career or training pathway, for which careers provision is essential. If we get that right, we do an awful lot to reduce that core 10%—which is rising—of young people who are NEET.

At some point in future, there will be a transition period between the abolition of Connexions services and the rise of the all-age careers service. During that time, people who might really benefit from an efficient, effective and personalised careers service will be lost through the cracks, and we may not see them re-emerge as economically active people for decades to come. That is a tragedy for the people concerned and for our economic growth as a nation, too.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Given that we are having this discussion, has my hon. Friend read the work of Paul Gregg from the university of Bristol? He has discussed how not getting into employment early on becomes a scar on young people’s employment prospects throughout the course of their life. They become less qualified and less attractive to employers, even if they subsequently get into the labour market. It is important to have a career service that helps stop that process in its tracks. It is worrying that we might lose those staff who could put people on the right path before we get to the stage of having an all-age careers service. If we try to intervene when people are age 25 or 26, we are already dealing with people who will never earn as much as their contemporaries, because their career trajectories have been scarred.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

My hon. Friend is right. I am familiar with the university of Bristol work. I imagine that although her constituency is in a London borough, her experience is similar to mine. I want to put on the record that she is considerably younger than I am, but we are in the same ball park—there are only five years between us, I think. I grew up in the 1980s, when industry in my part of the world—the north-east—was closing fast. Some people whom I went to school with have never worked to their potential. They have embarked on low-paid, low-skilled jobs. It is an absolute tragedy for them, their families and the economic growth potential of my region. One of the reasons that I wanted to come into politics was to ensure that that would not happen again. Given the global economic circumstances and the economic policies pursued by the Government, despite the best efforts of the Minister, I fear that we will see a return of a lost generation. The tragedy will be difficult to estimate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is the beginning of an interesting and important debate. I have two things to say at this juncture. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is right—about the academic evidence, the long-term effect of people’s first experiences of engagement or non-engagement in the work place—and the hon. Member for Hartlepool is right that the connection between Departments, throughout Government, is important.

I want to inform the hon. Gentleman’s contribution by telling him about something I am doing that he would not know about. I am trying to forge an unprecedented level of co-operation between the DWP and my other Department, BIS, on the subject, for just such reasons as he gave. If we can get the engagement of disengaged young people through good joint working—work experience and the first taste of employment—we can change people’s prospects and help them to fulfil their potential. That is why both contributions were right. I want to assure him that we are engaged in such a process.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. Was that was an intervention?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That was an intervention—long but rich.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I welcome the Minister’s intervention, and his work in the Department for Education and in BIS and the DWP. To be fair, he is building on my work and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West and Jim Knight, now Lord Knight, who was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions in the previous Government. We came together to discuss things regularly and, as a result, produced an apprenticeship subsidy, to ensure that employers could be incentivised to take on young people.

Returning to the transition period between the abolition of Connexions, which is in a matter of days, and the establishment of the all-age careers service, can the Minister put more meat on the bones? As I understand it, some services will be available from September, with the full service up and running by April 2012. Will he clarify more fully the timetable for setting up the new careers service? What will be the handover period between Connexions and the new careers service, given that we are days away from wide-scale redundancies and loss of expertise to the careers service? Such a handover service does not seem possible. In any case, is September too late for the setting up of some services? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that the longer someone, in particular a young person, is out of the job market, the more difficult it is to get gainful, meaningful employment.

The risk of the current plans is that students might be in the last year of a qualification—they might be examined in May or June this year—and will soon be thinking about their next steps, perhaps for entry to a new course in September. Where, perhaps in July or August this year, will they get advice from on their various options? What is the Minister putting in place with regard to that? Does the all-age careers service require primary legislation, and if not, why not? If it does, why is nothing planned in the Government’s legislative programme? Would that mean a further delay?

A further very important point is funding. How will the careers services be funded? I asked a written parliamentary question a few days ago—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Did my hon. Friend get an answer?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

The number is now down to 499, because I did get an answer. I asked if the Minister could make additional funding available to prevent redundancies in local authority and Connexions services before 31 March and before the establishment of the all-age careers service. The Schools Minister responded kindly—

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

And promptly.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

And promptly—this only took a matter of months. The Minister responded:

“The new Early Intervention Grant will provide a substantial funding stream (a total of £2,222 million in 2011-12 and £2,307 million in 2012-13) with new flexibility to enable local authorities to act more strategically and target spending early, where it will have the greatest impact. The organisation of services is for local authorities to determine, in the light of their statutory responsibilities. Any changes that may be necessary in the current provision of careers guidance services will be for local authorities to work through, involving, where appropriate, Connexions service providers.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 727W.]

That sounds great. No one could disagree with that. But if we look into it, the new early intervention grant is being cut by 11% this year and a further 11% the year after. The Connexions budget now sits within the EIG, but that replaces 22 separate funding streams, including teenage pregnancy and children’s social care work force funding, to which we in the last year of the previous Government provided £2.8 billion. So there has been a £311 million cut already this year. As I said, there will be an 11% cut the following year. That money will not be available, given what else needs to be funded as part of the early intervention grant. I plead with the Minister—will he consider more fully the transitional agreements and the loss of professionalism and commitment to the ambition of young people that will happen in a matter of days unless we get a very full and clear idea of what the Minister plans to do?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does the hon. Gentleman remember why we have to make such difficult decisions in all these funding areas?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Yes, because the Government want to go too far too fast in ensuring that their first, second and third priority is deficit reduction. I am concerned, as I think the Minister is, that that will be at the expense of the young people of this country being able to get suitable training, opportunities and careers advice. It will plague this country for decades to come.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, there is a pattern and this is not the only area where services have been stopped before something new has started up, leaving a gap and losing the skills of people? That was due to happen with the debt advice workers, but it was realised that that was a big mistake and the Government fortunately rowed back on that. Does he agree that this is about not losing the skills of people who have become extremely skilled in this area, who will have to find other work and may subsequently not be available to help our young people?

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I mentioned this is in my earlier remarks. We are days away from wide-scale redundancies in the Connexions service. We still have very unclear and ambiguous messages with regard to the start of the all-age careers service. In that time people will quite rightly be trying to look elsewhere, and that professionalism will potentially be lost for ever.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Is my hon. Friend, like me, concerned about schools having to deal with a whole range of new provisions, whether it is organising the football matches because they are now responsible for school sports, or organising careers advice on a school-by-school basis? That will be a lot more complicated than using the professional service that is delivered in partnership with a number of schools, which is what we currently have at the moment. The economies of scale that were produced by working in such a way may no longer be realised by schools. It is a false economy.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

I absolutely agree. We will be discussing that when we consider amendment 119. Given that the Government profess to trust professionals, they are doing their level best to keep professionals out of schools. It makes no sense. I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to the debate on amendment 119.

As I said, this is a huge gamble. The Government are taking a massive leap in the dark. Young people, as in many services in the past few months, are losing provision, and it is not clear how it will be replaced. Once again, we get an announcement from the Department for Education and the Secretary of State that looks bold and is designed to curry favour with a certain element of the media, but their policy is muddled, ambiguous and ill-conceived and fails to consider the legislative, administrative, logistical and financial implications of such an announcement. This is a big issue. I know the Minister is committed to the ongoing ambition and aspiration of young people, but as the measure currently stands, he will fail in his task if he allows that to happen. Can the Minister provide any further clarity?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister. Amendments 100 and 122, which are the substantive amendments in the group as chosen by your good self, Mr Walker, focus on the transition between the current provision to the new all-age careers service. Reading between the lines of the shadow Minister’s speech—or perhaps one does not have to—one can tell that there was an acceptance that Connexions, despite the good work that it carried out, has not delivered in the careers arena in the way that we would all like to see, and that a move to an all-age careers service is one of the positive steps of the Bill. A lot of the devil is in the detail, and there is a certain amount of devil in the transition as well, which I will focus on.

We all know—or ought to know—how important careers guidance is. It contributes to young people getting on the right pathway in life and being able to progress educationally and ultimately in employment. If we are to reverse our position on unemployment, particularly for young people, and the calamitous fall in our manufacturing, it is important that we get it right. The shadow Minister mentioned, as Opposition Members frequently do, the terrible decade of the 1980s when manufacturing was, according to them, put to the sword. However, despite the earlier high-minded speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff West about not being selective with information and always mentioning everything regardless of whether it is helpful to one’s case, they never mention the fact that manufacturing suffered worse under the Labour Government than it did under the Government of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s. The Labour Government did not inherit, as Mrs Thatcher did, a bankrupt economy on its knees, but a golden legacy. I am aware of my need to return to the amendment, and I will swiftly do so.

The whole point of good careers advice is to ensure that people do not end up unemployed and that manufacturers and others find people who have been guided through the pathways to the right education and skills so that they can be employed. It is well worth hammering home that Opposition Members should remember the Labour Government’s poor record on manufacturing, which we need to turn around.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.