Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I start from the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley: the paramount requirement is that Ofqual should be independent and be seen to be independent, so the best thing would be to delete the clause, especially as I am entirely unconvinced by the example given by the Government in their Explanatory Memorandum. As the noble Baroness said, if the Bill is properly designed, how can qualifications not reflect the national curriculum? How can the sort of problem illustrated in paragraph 414 of the Explanatory Notes ever occur? We may need the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. In that case, let us have them, but there is the question of the design of the rest of the Bill. The Minister has a lot of influence. As has been pointed out several times, he has influence over what the curriculum is to be. If my amendments were accepted, he would have total control over what are the curriculum was to be. We will argue that when we come to it. He has a great deal of control over what examinations are offered in state schools, because he can veto the funding of any examination. He can just say, "This does not meet the standards, we will not allow this. Go away, Edexcel, your English is not good enough". He has an ultimate veto on whether any examination goes through. Given that level of power, how can any Minister worth their salt not be able to get what they want through quiet conversation with Ofqual and the examination bodies? What examination body will pursue a qualification that it knows will not be funded at the end of the day? That would be a total waste of money. The powers that the Government need are all there. I recognise that in achieving anything in the Bill I am up against the obstacle that my Front Bench does not agree with me. My noble friend did not make clear what sort of use of the power in Clause 138 he would intend, should he get into government. That would help us a lot in deciding where Clause 138 should go. I do not think that he is backing the illustration used by the Government; he must have some sensible thought in his head. I very much hope that he will share it with us. Given that we are to go down the route of not deleting Clause 138, I return to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Eccles. If Clause 138 is to be in the Bill, it is essential that its use be totally transparent and public, and the provision must be made through an affirmative resolution rather than a determination published merely at the whim of the Secretary of State. He may give us a promise, but the next one may choose to do otherwise. That is entirely unsatisfactory for public confidence. If we are to founder on the rock of my noble friend’s determination not to join us in opposing Clause 138, I very much hope that we can convince him and those on the Liberal Democrat Benches to support my noble friend Lord Eccles.