Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 220, 221, 222, 223 and 224A. We now come to consider Ofqual, the new Office of the Chief Regulator of Qualifications and Examinations, which, under this legislation, is now to stand alone purely as a regulator, with the duty to develop the curriculum to move to the QCDA, about which we will speak later. There is no doubt that there is a need for a strong, expert and independent regulator, who can speak up for learners on the standards and range of qualifications available to them. It is vital also to employers, further and higher education providers and, indeed, the whole economy that we have such a regulator. In Kathleen Tattersall as the new chair we clearly have an expert with experience and determination. We wish her well and thank her for the copy of her letter to MPs during the Committee stage in another place in April this year; it was most helpful. It is clear that to be successful the chief regulator will need all the help she can get and as little interference as possible. That is the basis of the various groups of amendments that we have tabled which we are about to debate. One of the key duties of the new Ofqual, in Clause 125(4), is to, ""promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and regulated assessment arrangements"." One glance at the newspapers during August, when the public exam results are published, will make clear the need for someone to do this. Sadly for all those young people and teachers who have worked so hard to achieve their results, every year we have doubts expressed about whether the standards of the various grades achieved are comparable to similar grades last year and the year before, or even the decade before. We also find questions about the assessment arrangements and how rigorous they are. Questions arise about the balance of exams and coursework, multiple choice questions, and the depth of probing of the knowledge found in the exam paper. It is very important that this comes to an end. Candidates for exams have a right to know what they have achieved when they reach certain grades and their potential employers need to know that too. That is why we believe the independence of Ofqual is so vital. If the Government are allowed to interfere with its work there will always be questions and doubts about whether results have been manipulated to make the politicians who happen to be currently in charge look good. This applies to all parties, not only the current Administration. I say to the Government that what we are trying to achieve by tabling these amendments is for their own good. I am sorry if I sound like their maiden aunt when I say that. The medicine may not taste nice but I can assure them that it will do them good. More importantly, in this global employment world, it will be good for learners and their opportunities in the global marketplace. Let us look at what the Government are offering to us and see whether it measures up to a strong, expert and independent Ofqual with the power to use good advice wherever it is to be found. First, we need to look at Schedule 9, where the arrangements for the appointment of all the Ofqual personnel are to be found. There we see that the Secretary of State can appoint all the board members and the chief executive; he will also appoint the deputy chair. The chair is a Crown appointment but I doubt if Her Majesty would appoint anyone unless she had been advised who by the Secretary of State. He will also decide the terms and conditions of service initially and approve them subsequently. This is a recipe for political meddling and the placing of people who will do as the Secretary of State wishes. This is not a recipe for a strong, independent organisation. Of course, initially there is no alternative but to have the first chair appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Government. However, there is no reason why all the members should not also be Crown appointments and subject to the same public appointment scrutiny. That is our Amendment 219. Amendment 220 suggests that the ordinary members themselves should elect a person to act as deputy to the chair rather than the Secretary of State doing so. This is quite frequently done on boards. Amendment 221 allows them also to remove that person if they feel it necessary. Amendments 222 and 223 allow the Ofqual board, under its chair, to appoint its own chief executive and determine his or her conditions of service. In most large organisations it is usual for the sitting chair, acting with the board, to decide who should be the chief executive rather than having someone foisted upon them. In that way we can be sure that they will have total confidence in that person, which they must do in order to work smoothly together. Of course they would have to work within the budget given to them in relation to the remuneration of that person, but they would have discretion in the matter. Amendment 224A is there in case your Lordships’ House does not approve the other amendments in the group. It would require the Secretary of State, in carrying out his functions in relation to the appointment and conditions of staff, to seek the opinion of Parliament. We envisage this would be in the person of the DCFS Select Committee or a combination of appropriate select committees among the movable departmental feast to which we have recently been treated. Your Lordships will notice that we have withdrawn Amendment 224. By approving this group of amendments, your Lordships would give Ofqual considerably more independence from Ministers right from the start and give it the opportunity to work to deserve the confidence of the public, which I know is what the Government want as well as the Opposition Benches. I beg to move.