Educational Assessments
Debate between John Hayes and Robin Walker(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) on securing this debate and on the enthusiasm with which she has put her case. She has written extensively about examinations and assessment and she is a passionate advocate for children and young people.
There is a great deal on which we can agree, such as understanding the importance of young people’s mental health, the importance of skills as well as academic rigour in the system, and the importance of balancing opportunities across vocational and academic routes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want schools to be teaching to the test and that we want pupils to be engaged in activities as well as learning from which they can benefit.
I fear that we are fated to disagree, however, on exams and assessment reform. We stood on a manifesto that promised to ensure that
“every pupil gets the qualifications they need for a prosperous future, while learning in an environment where they will be…fulfilled.”
It is vital to me that qualifications align with our broader vision for education. The Government are clear that young people should be able to access a broad and balanced academically focused curriculum up until the age of 16. We believe that pupils should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said to familiarise them with the essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens and to ensure that as many children as possible can lay claim to a rich intellectual inheritance.
Key to that, of course, is ensuring that they have the numeracy and literacy skills to access that broad and balanced curriculum by the time they finish primary school. GCSEs provide the basis for an academically focused curriculum from 14 to 16 and it is our ambition that, by 2025, 90% of pupils will sit a core set of academic GCSEs known as the EBacc.
We have taken steps to ensure that pupils have the opportunity to study high-quality vocational and technical qualifications alongside that core from 14 to 16. We have improved the quality of non-GCSE qualifications at key stage 4 by introducing a new approvals process for technical awards. Only those that meet our stretching requirements and are reviewed by Ofqual will be recognised in key stage 4 performance tables alongside academic qualifications.
With that broad grounding, all students, regardless of background, are prepared to fulfil their aspirations post 16. Pupils can specialise by choosing from a range of high-quality academic and technical qualifications and routes that then become open to them. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the academic route is not the only path to success, which is why it is important that a range of assessment types and pathways is available, drawn from our rigorous and evidence-informed blend of qualifications, to ensure that all students can achieve their full potential.
Alongside A-levels, we have introduced T-levels. Our 10 new T-levels are being taught, including digital, construction, education and childcare, and healthcare science. More than 20 will be available from 2023 and they give students a clear path from their studies to their chosen career. We are also streamlining and improving the quality of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister is both diligent and thoughtful about these matters. The key thing is that many people’s tastes and talents take them down a practical route, yet we are still labouring under the illusion that the only way to gain accomplishment comes through academic prowess. The simple fact of the matter is that, as he suggested, we need to recognise that fewer people should be studying those degrees that confer neither intellectual rigour nor economic value. People should be studying practical, vocational, technical subjects for their own benefit and fulfilment and for the national interest.
Mr Walker
I do not disagree at all with my right hon. Friend, and he will see that some of the work our right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education is doing with the university sector is about recognising precisely that, but I do not think that is an argument for removing GCSEs at the age of 16; it is an argument for ensuring that those vocational routes are available.
As we all know, the past two summers have seen unprecedented disruption to the familiar routine of exams and assessments. Teachers and school and college leaders across the country have coped amazingly well with the pandemic and with its associated disruption to exams—and I want to take this opportunity to again thank them from the Dispatch Box for their herculean efforts—but we know that exams are the best and fairest way of judging students’ performance.
Exams provide a shared understanding of what students know and can do—an even playing field with everyone being assessed on the same thing at the same time, independently. We know that exams and the preparation leading up to them can be motivating and lead to improved learning. Beyond that, exams provide students with an objective and accurate gauge of their progress and understanding of subject matter, which can inform their choices about where to go on to next. Exams are the most objective measure, which is why non-examined assessment and coursework is used only where knowledge, skills and understanding cannot be tested validly by an exam. Examples of this would include coursework in GCSE and A-level art and design. For all those reasons we are committed to exams continuing to play a crucial role in our education system, and we are firmly committed to their reintroduction this summer as we emerge from the effects of the pandemic.
Over the course of the last 10 years our reforms to secondary and further education qualifications have created a gold-standard exam system that is respected around the world. Our qualifications exports in 2018 were worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy; this points to a model of success of which we should rightly be proud.
My predecessors in the Department reformed and strengthened GCSEs from 2013 to address concerns from higher and further education institutions and employers that the previous qualification did not adequately prepare young people for the demands of the workplace and higher studies—points my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley made. Our reformed GCSEs rigorously assess knowledge acquired by pupils in key stage 4 and are in line with expected standards in countries with the highest-performing education systems.
Our reforms strengthened GCSEs in a number of ways. Qualifications became linear, with exams sat at the end of a two-year course so that less time is spent preparing for modules and resits and more time is spent on teaching and learning. My hon. Friend raised the point about teaching for tests. I have frequently discussed that with Ofsted, which takes it very seriously; its new inspection framework encourages schools to keep a focus on the breadth of curriculum, particularly at key stage 3 and earlier, and discourages teaching to the test.
Ofqual was formally established as the new independent regulator in 2010, with a statutory responsibility to maintain standards. It put in place robust arrangements to maintain standards, which led to year-on-year stability in grades over a long period. Ofqual also introduced a new grading scale, from 9 to 1, with 9 the highest and 1 the lowest grade, in place of A* to G, to signal that the standard of qualifications had changed and to allow greater differentiation of performance at the top end. In 2017 Ofqual also introduced a national reference test to capture improvements in attainment in English and maths so that these could be reflected in grading.
GCSEs serve a critical function as a measure of attainment and a vehicle for progression, and they do so because they are recognised and trusted. They have strong public recognition, with support from 75% of those surveyed as part of Ofqual’s most recent public perceptions and confidence study. That trust stems from a long history in this country of assessment at age 16, which has existed since at least 1918 when the school certificate was introduced, through to the introduction of O-levels in 1951, CSEs in 1965 and GCSEs in 1988.
Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
Debate between John Hayes and Robin Walker(3 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes
I would never say that all MPs are completely stupid, as you know, Mr Hosie, but if my hon. Friend does not value as highly as he ought to the 1998 Act and the devolution settlement that arose from the Good Friday agreement, perhaps he will recognise two other pieces of law that are directly pertinent to our considerations.
The first is the 2005 agreement, whereby the devolved constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland established the consent for constitutional change, described as a fundamental principle of devolution. It made clear that in terms of constitutional change it was essential that the Northern Ireland Assembly took a view, and indeed made a decision, that was consistent with anything that this Parliament did. That is the underlying principle of consent in the devolved arrangement.
Moreover—I know my hon. Friend will have read his papers very closely before coming to the Committee—the Delegated Legislation Committee that looked at the matters before us made it very clear that what we are being asked to do today is entirely exceptional in terms of the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Unprecedented was the word that the Committee that studied the regulations before they came to us used to describe them.
It is unacceptable to argue that because we took a decision when there was no Assembly, now that the Assembly has been re-established, we should ride roughshod over the view that it took and that it takes about the issue. It is inexcusable that the explanatory memorandum should suggest that the new regulations, which are so much wider than the 2020 regulations, should depend on the consultation process for the 2020 regulations, which in any event was sharply criticised as being far too short and deeply controversial.
Having had a deeply controversial and inadequate consultation process for the first regulations, we have now introduced regulations that are more wide ranging and that could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggested, lead to—
Sir John Hayes
Before I give way to the Minister, I pay personal tribute to him, because he has been incredibly courteous throughout; I have had many exchanges with him on the matter. I know that his personal views on these matters are not a million miles from mine, but I do not want to embarrass him by saying more than that. The truth is that he knows that with these regulations there is a possibility of us ending up with, rather than a circumstance whereby the availability of abortion in Northern Ireland is equivalent to that in the other parts of the United Kingdom, a circumstance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, whereby abortion in Northern Ireland is offered more permissively than elsewhere. Perhaps he can correct me.
Mr Walker
I am very happy to correct my right hon. Friend on that point. I am certainly happy that we have had constructive engagement, and I hope that all Members on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the debate, will recognise the willingness to engage on these issues.
May I come back to my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that today’s regulations are wider in some way than the 2020 regulations? This is simply about the implementation of the 2020 regulations. Today’s regulations make no change whatever to them; they are simply about ensuring that what the House put into law in 2020 is delivered.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister says that, but it is clear from reading the regulations that, in certain circumstances, abortion can take place up to birth and that the 1967 Act’s insistence on two medical practitioners authorising abortion will not necessarily apply in Northern Ireland. I regard both those things as a more permissive application of the law than the one that pertains.
The 1967 Act may well be applied in theory more than in practice—I should not want to comment on that—but at the very least the risk of the more permissive regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge described concerns the people of Northern Ireland, who fear that what is imposed on them might not only go against the expressed will of the people, but be altogether worse than that.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made it perfectly clear that the essence of the argument used when the law was passed was that as there was no Assembly we had to act. She argued:
“I understand that, if it was not for the fact that we do not have an Assembly, this would absolutely not be the right way forward”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 183.]
That is what she said, with not a great deal of elegance; none the less, her point is made: it would absolutely “not be the right way forward.”
If it was “not the right way forward”, why on earth have we continued to pursue this path? When the Assembly was reformed, with a new Government, we had an opportunity to think again. It would not have been a huge step, given that the Assembly had the chance to vote on the matter. It has all the appearance of the Government dictating their will and of Parliament insisting that devolution counts only when the devolved Assemblies agree with people here. That is not something that you, Mr Hosie, I nor any democrat in this place could possibly sanction.
We must think too about the consequences for the Union and the continuing pertinence and relevance of devolution. If people in Northern Ireland come to believe what I have suggested—that their right to self-government is condoned by a Parliament that is so arrogant that it says that when they do not agree with the prevailing view here their rights can be torn away from them—how can they possibly continue to believe in the settlement or, indeed, even in the Union?
I was recently contacted by a clergyman from County Fermanagh, who decried the regulations as the final nail in the coffin of devolution. Indeed, an open letter was sent to the Prime Minister from 250 church leaders opposing today’s proposals. On at least four occasions, we have actively ignored the expressed will of Northern Ireland’s representatives on a matter of great importance to many in the Province. First, as has been noted, on 19 July 100% of Northern Ireland Members who take their seats voted against the process that resulted in section 9—a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter. Let me repeat that: a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter—a matter expressly devolved to Northern Ireland, yet it was imposed despite that opposition from Members who hold a specific mandate to represent the people there. At that moment we told the people of Northern Ireland that the voices of those elected to represent them would be ignored, and their history and deeply held views on this matter of conscience disregarded. By extension, we told the people of Northern Ireland that their opinion did not matter.
Secondly, we ignored the voice of the people of Northern Ireland in the consultation on the 2020 regulations, in which 79% of participants said they did not want the measure to proceed—seventy-nine per cent. is an even greater percentage than I managed to secure of the vote in South Holland and The Deepings—not much greater, but somewhat.
Thirdly, we ignored the voices of the people of Northern Ireland when we insisted on welcoming the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly while simultaneously ignoring its clear vote last year to reject the 2020 regulations. We now seek to forsake them again by forgoing further public consultation on the new regulations, at a time when the Assembly is working as intended, providing extensive and conscientious scrutiny of an imposed policy of the utmost sensitivity and profound local concern.
Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Debate between John Hayes and Robin Walker(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman mentions treaties, but I did not; I mentioned a legal obligation, under which the House of Commons has placed us through section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. As he will know, as a result of an urgent question last week, we debated at some length the fact that we were bringing this forward, and I provided answers as to why we were doing so, rather than—as some in his party suggested—repealing section 9. I think this is a perfectly rational approach to delivering on the commitments that the House has placed on us under the 2019 Act.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, who has behaved with genuine courtesy throughout the whole of this process. Would he comment on whether, in the write-round that precedes these things, our Attorney General expressed any concerns in respect of the legal and constitutional implications of these regulations? I appreciate that the Minister cannot detail any concerns—that would be inappropriate—but were concerns expressed by the Attorney General about the legal and constitutional implications?
Mr Walker
As my right hon. Friend knows very well, the Government never comment on legal advice. However, he is quite right to refer to the fact that there has been a write-round process, and the Attorney General of the United Kingdom has supported that process to allow these regulations to move forward.
This statutory instrument, the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, came into force on 14 May and revoked the earlier regulations. These regulations have been made in accordance with the statutory duty that Parliament imposed on the Government last summer through section 9 of the 2019 Act. That duty was to make regulations to provide for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland in a way that implemented the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under article 8 of the optional protocol of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The CEDAW recommendations mandate access to abortion services at least in the cases of
“(i) Threat to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health without conditionality of ‘long-term or permanent’ effects;
(ii) Rape and incest; and
(iii) Severe foetal impairment, including FFA, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities and ensuring appropriate and ongoing support, social and financial, for women who decide to carry such pregnancies to term.”
Mr Walker
I respect the hon. Lady and the position from which she is arguing, but the Northern Ireland Assembly has had many opportunities to take forward these issues and provide a framework that would address the requirements of CEDAW, and it has not taken them. As she refers to the debate, I reiterate what I said in response to the urgent question last week: the Northern Ireland Assembly chose to vote on one aspect of these regulations and said that it did not like it. It did not debate the full details of the regulations themselves, and it did not provide a way forward that is compliant with CEDAW. I am very happy for it to debate these issues and take them forward, but it must do so in a way that is CEDAW compliant. It has every right to do that and reform these regulations, should it choose to do so in a way that is CEDAW compliant.
I appreciate that this is an issue on which views are deeply held, and I respect the fact that people coming at it from either side of the argument are doing so with the best interests of others in mind. I have no doubt that the arguments that we will hear today, across the whole spectrum of opinion on the subject, come from the heart and will be well informed. The starting point for the framework was that, as a result of the repeal of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, from 22 October 2019 carrying out an abortion is no longer a criminal offence, except for late-term abortion, to which the offence of destroying a child capable of being born alive would still apply.
In relation to complying with the statutory duty on the Government, our overarching policy aims were to ensure that the framework protects and promotes the health and safety of women and girls, provides clarity and certainty for the medical profession, and is responsive and sensitive to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly being restored from January, where our legal obligation remained to act on this issue.
Towards the end of last year, we publicly consulted on the proposals for the new legislative framework. The consultation gave people and organisations in Northern Ireland an opportunity to provide input and views on how we could best deliver an abortion framework consistent with our statutory duty. We were clear in that consultation that this is not about whether the Government should deliver on our statutory duty, but rather about how we can most effectively deliver a framework as required.
The Government have engaged with a range of stakeholders in Northern Ireland during this process and in recent months, including political parties, medical professionals, women’s groups, abortion service providers, trade unions, civil society organisations, individuals with lived experience and church groups. We listened to feedback expressed in the consultation process and through various engagements, and we have responded accordingly. We have sought to balance the range of views against our statutory duty, and to take pragmatic decisions informed by evidence.
Many stakeholders have welcomed the regulations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is our firm view that the regulations provide a new legislative framework that is operationally sound, works best for Northern Ireland and delivers on the Government’s statutory duty.
Sir John Hayes
On the issue of the legality of these regulations, I understand the Minister’s reticence about discussing the legal advice from our Attorney General, but he will know that Northern Ireland’s Attorney General has also commented, and made those comments publicly available. That gentlemen has argued that regulations 7 and 12 are ultra vires and that, in respect of regulation 13, the Secretary of State may have been guilty of misdirection. Those are very serious remarks from a Law Officer. Would that advice not make it almost impossible to receive these regulations in Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend refers to the Attorney General’s comments to the Executive, which, as he says, he has made public.
I am, for my part, very confident that we have the vires under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 to carry forward the legislation. I have to say to my right hon. Friend, whom I greatly respect, that this issue has been a matter of contention over a long period. He, like me, would much rather that Northern Ireland politicians had been able to address the issue together and take it forward, but that has not proven to be the case. It was in recognition of that that this House told the Government to take action on this issue.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman refers to statistics, and numbers of people. These are contested matters; we hear of different polls giving different results on these issues. What is very clear is that this Parliament mandated the Government to deliver on this issue. We have the vires to do so, and we have sought to do.
Mr Walker
It was the last Parliament, as my right hon. Friend points out. I believe that the majority by which that Parliament, on a free vote, mandated the Government to do this was around two thirds. I think it is very clear that this is the right thing to do, partly because of the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Down.
I know that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford when he just spoke, have expressed that this has resulted in what they view as a more liberal regime than in Great Britain. I do not believe that that is the case, and we have sought to ensure proper and appropriate implementation of the CEDAW recommendations, in a way that means that the outcomes delivered will be equivalent to those in the rest of the UK, to ensure that women and girls have the same access to services in similar circumstances.
Therefore, many of the provisions in the regulations mirror provisions under the Abortion Act 1967 on such issues as conscientious objection to ensure consistency in the provision of services across the UK. The Government’s response to the consultation, published on gov.uk, sets out further detail on how the Government made their decision on each element of the framework, and the reasons behind each decision.
I will briefly turn to an overview of the key elements of the regulations. They provide for access to abortions without conditionality up to 12 weeks’ gestation. We judge that that provision is proportionate and appropriate in order to implement the CEDAW recommendation of ensuring access in cases of sexual crime, while avoiding building a system that could lead to further trauma for victims of rape or incest, or act as a barrier to access for those victims. A barrier to access would, in the Government’s view, be a breach of the CEDAW requirements.
Without a period of access without conditionality, the duty to report a crime that applies to everyone in Northern Ireland, including medical professionals, could create a perceived barrier to access for victims of sexual crime and lead to women or girls seeking alternative, unsafe options outside the health system, which we want to avoid now that there is lawful access. We know that that was an issue in preventing access to even the very limited scope of abortions that were legally available prior to October 2019.
The regulations also set out three further circumstances in which an abortion is legal: first, up to 24 weeks’ gestation, in cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or girl greater than the risk of terminating the pregnancy; and, secondly, in cases of severe foetal impairment and fatal foetal abnormalities with no gestational time limit. That is where there is a substantial risk that the condition of the foetus is such that the death of the foetus is likely before, during or shortly after birth; or, if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental impairment as to be seriously disabled. The third set of circumstances are cases where there is a risk to the life of the woman or girl greater than if the pregnancy were terminated or, where necessary, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or girl, including in cases of immediate necessity—with no gestational time limit.
In such cases, the regulations require that two medical professionals, as defined in the regulations, certify in good faith that the ground has been met. Abortions are also allowed where it is immediately necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman. The CEDAW report is silent on the question of gestational limit in such circumstances. We consider that the above grounds are an appropriate way of delivering on our statutory duty and implementing the recommendations of the report in a way that will work effectively in practice. An intentional contravention of the requirements to certify that an opinion has been reached in good faith that one of the grounds under the regulations has been met to allow the abortion is punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.
The regulations allow for abortions to be provided by a doctor, nurse or midwife. They may be carried out in general practitioners’ premises, clinics provided by a health and social care trust, and health and social care trust hospitals, operating under the overall Northern Ireland health and social care framework. Early medical abortions are carried out by taking two pills. The regulations allow the second pill to be taken at a woman’s home, following the first pill being taken at an approved location. That mirrors the approach used in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The regulations allow the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to approve other places where abortions may take place—a power that mirrors the power for the Secretary of State under the Abortion Act. That could be used, for example, to approve third or private sector provision, or to enable greater use of telemedicine.
The regulations require the medical professional to notify the chief medical officer of the Northern Ireland Department of Health of the abortion, alongside other relevant data specified in the regulations. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland will then be responsible for annual publication of relevant data. To ensure confidentiality and the protection of personal data, the regulations impose restrictions on how the data can be used. Disclosure of information notified to the chief medical officer, other than in accordance with the regulations, is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.
We recognise the strongly held beliefs about abortion. That is why the regulations make it clear that no one will be required to take part in treatment for abortion to which they have a conscientious objection. The only exception is where that treatment is necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman.
That protection mirrors precisely the conscientious objection provision in the Abortion Act, is consistent with the interpretation of that provision by the Supreme Court, and does not extend to the ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with that treatment. The Government are satisfied that the current scope of the conscientious objection provision works satisfactorily in the rest of the UK, is human rights compliant, and is therefore appropriate to apply in Northern Ireland to the provision of abortion services under the regulations.
Finally, the regulations impose a criminal sanction on anyone who intentionally terminates or procures the termination of the pregnancy of a woman otherwise than in accordance with the regulations. That is about where someone is acting dishonestly or negligently, and it will not apply where a termination was done in good faith for the purpose only of saving the woman’s life or preventing grave permanent injury to the woman’s physical or mental health. It is not intended that a medical professional should be prosecuted where they form an honest opinion in good faith as to risk, but makes a factual error.
As an additional protection for medical professionals, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before proceedings can be brought under the regulations. Other criminal laws will continue to apply, including section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which prohibits the destruction of a child otherwise capable of being born alive. However, the regulations make relevant amendments necessary to ensure that abortions carried out in accordance with the regulations by the relevant medical professionals are not contrary to section 25 of the 1945 Act, and no woman or girl can be prosecuted with respect to ending her own pregnancy.