Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill — Independence of Qfqual — 11 Nov 2009 at 19:30

David Laws MP, Yeovil voted in the minority (Aye).

The majority of MPs voted for greater freedom for Qfqual, the qualifications regulator, to act independently from ministers.

Government minister, Iain Wright, explained that the proposed opposition amendment (a)[1], which was rejected, would allow ministers to alter the standards of qualifications through specifying minimum requirements. He said the government wanted to see Ofqual directly accountable to Parliament for maintaining qualifications standards and for ministers not being allowed to "meddle".[2]

The vote was about the wording of a proposed new clause to be added to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. The clause[3], with the alternative words being voted on shown in square brackets, is reproduced below:

  • "Effect of determination of minimum requirements
  • 1. This section applies in relation to a qualification or description of qualification in respect of which minimum requirements specified in an order under section (Power to determine minimum requirements)(1) have effect.
  • 2. Ofqual must perform its functions under sections 130, 131 and 137 in relation to the qualification or description of qualification in a way which secures that the minimum requirements in respect of the qualification or description of qualification are met.
  • 3. But Ofqual is not required to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) if it appears to Ofqual that complying with that duty would result in the level of attainment (in terms of depth of knowledge, skills or understanding) indicated by the qualification or description of qualification [ not being consistent with | being lower than ] that indicated by comparable regulated qualifications.”

The majority of MPs decided to use the "not being consistent with" wording; which gives Ofqual more freedom not to act on a "minimum requirement order" (an instrument to be set down by ministers and subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses).

The new clause reproduces part of clause 138. The role of ministers in setting qualification standards was debated intensely when Clause 138 was debated intensely in committee.[4]

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 272.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 101 (+1 tell)052.8%
DUP0 4044.4%
Ind0 3050.0%
Lab271 (+2 tell) 0 (+1 tell)078.3%
LDem0 22034.9%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP1 0033.3%
Total:272 131064.9%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Helen JonesWarrington NorthLab (minister)tellaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive