Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I support Amendment 240A and shall speak on Amendment 255A in my name. Like my noble friend Lady O’Neill, I should like to link those amendments, because there is a consistency in the arguments that we advance. I can understand and anticipate a view by the Government that the words that we wish to add under Amendment 240A defining the functions of Ofqual are unnecessary and that these functions are denoted in other clauses. I even noticed that Ofqual’s formal publication states: ""The Bill defines Ofqual’s future powers to allow us to challenge awarding, and other, organisations at a strategic level. It will empower us to keep under review all aspects of National Curriculum and Early Years Foundation Stage assessment arrangements and to secure the efficient provision of regulated qualifications"." I understand in principle how the Government might feel that we are proposing something that is already covered in the Bill. However, let us fast forward to the dreaded Clause 138, the "Dictator Clause", and to the defence offered by the Government in the Explanatory Notes: ""This clause allows the Secretary of State to determine the minimum requirements in respect of skills, knowledge, or understanding that someone must be able to demonstrate to gain a particular qualification or a qualification of a particular description (a term explained in paragraph 392 above). For example, it could be used to ensure that the content of GCSEs properly reflects the NC Key Stage 4 Programmes of Study, which they are intended to assess"." On the one hand, the Government may argue that this is already covered, that the functions of Ofqual are clearly defined and that what we are proposing is unnecessary. On the other hand, and with another voice, they seem to be suggesting that there is a question mark over how the functions of Ofqual might operate, which in turn justifies the position taken in Clause 138 on the role of the Secretary of State. I respect and understand the position of noble Lords who say that there is no need for that role for the Secretary of State; I see fully the force of their argument. However, it is not an argument that I wish to advance. My argument accepts in principle the Government’s contention that there may be circumstances in which the residual capacity is required. If that is so, it is vital that it be circumscribed correctly, to avoid what we all wish to avoid—the impression that Ofqual is not an independent body. That is at the heart of the matter and of this discussion. I will make two further comments. I support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. When I look around, I see other academics in the Chamber. As academics, we have difficulty with the contention that you can make a distinction between the requirements and the standards of a course and with the suggestion that the Secretary of State can reach in to affect requirements but not standards. In the real world of the classroom and the lecture theatre, these things are intermingled so intimately that it is not a real or viable distinction. In so far as the Government’s case depends on that distinction, it is not viable. At the simplest level—and these are the best examples that you can give—you could take out one Shakespeare tragedy and replace it with another, or replace one Dickens novel with another from the same sub-genre of novels. However, between "Hamlet" and "Othello" there is a vastly differing critical literature. It is very difficult to play around with the requirements for a course and not to touch the standards. That part of the Government’s argument is weak, although I accept that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, may require residual powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, we have chosen our language carefully. In the formula that we use about affecting standards and not lowering them, we wish to avoid any connection with the wider debate on standards. Important things have been said on both sides of the Committee this afternoon and I am certain that the House will address this vital public question on other occasions. I do not wish to be understood as saying that I have no concern about the issue of standards. However, that is not the question under the microscope at this moment and we would muddy the waters if we allowed the standards debate to infect the terms of the discussion about the clause. That is why we have chosen the language that we have. In conclusion, I say to the Government that we are anxious to find a compromise in which the central intention that Ofqual should be seen by the public to be an independent body—an intention accepted on all sides of the Committee—is preserved.