Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I start on a happy note: we will all want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on her special day today and wish her many happy returns. Picking up on a suggestion which I may have allowed following the earlier debate—that I somehow have a grudge against PR companies—I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Government are grateful to many PR companies for the great work that they do. I appreciate the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for me to say that we can accept all these amendments in a single word and make it all right, but I fear that I am not going to necessarily progress the debate a lot further than the Committee in the other place. I am advised, quite comprehensively, that the issue of timing is picked up within the Bill. I shall attempt to take your Lordships through this because I have great sympathy with the sentiments underlying the issues raised in the debate. The importance of Ofqual acting quickly when it needs to, the imperative of protecting the needs of the learner and of having a long-term commitment to confidence rather than a short one, and so on, are all extremely important points. The Bill already requires Ofqual to operate in these ways but I will have a go at convincing the Committee. Returning to the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about whether the public confidence objective is linked to the assessment objective, I am advised that Ofqual has to meet all its objectives and balance these against each other. So they are all linked to each other, as we should expect. Amendments 227 and 243 in particular refer to timeliness or acting in a timely way. I take this to mean that if Ofqual needs to act urgently then it should do so, but equally it should not rush into things where that would be inappropriate—qualification development, for example, can take a long time to do properly—and no one should be able to pressure it do things too quickly or too slowly. As a Minister I feel slightly as if I am standing here trying to be in two places at once. The Bill provides for all this already. Ofqual must act efficiently and effectively under Clause 126(7) so that it cannot go too slowly, and under Clause 126(2)(b) it has to have regard to reasonable requirements of learners. Obviously that brings with it the requirement not to go too suddenly, with reference to the points made earlier about printing textbooks and signing up to courses with the expectation of being able to obtain qualifications. Provided that it met these requirements—remember that Parliament can hold it to account for this—no one would have any way of forcing Ofqual to go at a different pace. As we said earlier, it is going to be an independent body. It is worth saying, though, that timeliness is not an end in itself; it is certainly not an objective. Timeliness is important for efficiency, effectiveness and for meeting the interests of learners, but the amendments suggest that timeliness is important for its own sake. Maybe I am being otiose, I do not know, but I do not believe that Ofqual can achieve its objectives if it behaves in a way that is not timely. This could risk confusion in the way that we interpret the Bill. Time appears again in Amendment 232A. Ofqual would not meet its confidence objective if it were not meeting it at all times. If it were to plan only for the short term, it would risk not meeting its confidence objective in the long term. With the Bill as drafted, Ofqual is required to think long-term about building confidence, with confidence being nurtured and allowed to develop over time. On Amendments 229 and 237, learners need high quality qualifications, as we all agree, to reflect their achievements. I agree that employers are key customers of regulated qualifications, and Ofqual will have to ensure that those qualifications are relevant to the needs of employers. Both these requirements are adequately covered in the Bill already; Clauses 126(2)(b), (c) and (d) give Ofqual general duties to have regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and learners. Additionally, subsection (4)(c) will be used to require Ofqual to have regard to information provided by sector skills councils. None of these interests has absolute priority. Were they ever to conflict, Ofqual would have to make judgments. We are looking for an independent body that will make judgments about how to prioritise them and, as the Committee will be well aware, will be accountable for the judgment that it makes and how that judgment has been reached. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, may have flagged this issue at Second Reading. I hope that I can help him. The purpose of a direction here is to identify the particular areas of government policy that Ofqual should take into account, but that does not mean that Ofqual, having considered that aspect of policy, is obliged to take any specific action relating to it. If Ofqual decided that implementing the policy in a particular way was inappropriate—for example, because it conflicted with its objectives—it could decide not to do so. Amendment 254 relates to what Ofqual should do if it revised existing accreditation criteria—in other words, if it changed the requirements of a particular qualification. The existing provision in Clause 137(10) gives Ofqual the power to make a "saving or transitional provision" in such circumstances. If Ofqual decided to change the accreditation criteria for a qualification for which people were already studying, the awarding body could not then offer the old version of that qualification from a given date. However, importantly, Ofqual can insist that the awarding body allow existing learners to take the old qualification—noble Lords were concerned about resits and other scenarios. Ofqual would have to make such a provision if failure to do so conflicted with its general duty to have regard to the reasonable requirements of learners. Amendment 254 stipulates that making such provisions should be not an option but compulsory for Ofqual, even if there were no students studying for a qualification, which could put it into a perverse position. In the light of my comments, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that timeliness and the other concerns raised in this group of amendments have been addressed. However, if there is anything further that I can do or any reassurance that I can give, I shall be very happy to do so before Report.