Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I am pleased to welcome this section of the Bill. I agree with those who have spoken so far that an independent regulator is essential for public confidence, as well as for the quality of education that pupils in schools have available to them. All seven of the current group of amendments are, like the curate’s egg, good in parts. I will now—briefly, I hope—give my version of which parts are good and which, perhaps, are less good. It is not a black and white matter in most cases; rather, it is that there are shades of balance and opinion. I shall quickly run through them. In Amendment 219, to summarise quickly, it is somewhat over the top to have all members appointed by the Crown. This might complicate things, and it might take away from the important position of the chair of this body. That is my reaction there. In Amendment 220, however, there is a good balancing effort. The suggestion that members may elect their own deputy has much to commend it. If one takes that view, it follows that one would support Amendment 221, which relates to the continued tenure in office of the deputy. Amendment 222 specifies that we leave out the Secretary of State in line 23 on page 203 of the Bill. It is inevitable that the first chief executive will have to be appointed by one form or another through the Secretary of State’s office, and it would not add much to strike that out from this part of the Bill. Ofqual may not be fully in existence until a chief executive is formally appointed. It is reassuring that, further down, the appointment and conditions of service of a later chief executive are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, which is rather a different matter from making the appointment. So I am less happy about Amendment 222 as well as Amendment 223, which deals with the same point. My reaction to Amendment 224A is that this is a much broader question than simply the appointment to this particular post. It is an issue that comes up in a number of contexts in this House: parliamentary scrutiny of public appointments. There is a discussion to be had about that as a principle, but if we were moving in that direction, I do not think I would start here. I would prefer to see this appointment through and Ofqual in process, rather than what might turn out to be fairly long-drawn-out scrutiny by committees of various kinds. If you have that in position, it is a different matter and you can perhaps deal with it fairly promptly. I fully support the emphasis behind Amendment 220A, which has to do with transparency and disinterestedness. However, if one were to apply it as it is written out, leading as it would—as I think has been agreed—to the exclusion of all who have professional knowledge of examination, teaching and assessment, I wonder whether that would be a good thing. A number of committees of your Lordships' House might find applying such a criterion rather difficult in so far as it would exclude from them some very important members who have an interest—members who currently can declare that interest and who can step aside if it is financial. It might also exclude those who have occupational and professional expertise that would in due proportion be very helpful to a body such as Ofqual. However, that being said, I support the direction of the Bill and hope that we can make good speed with it.