Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, had it right when he described the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as setting out masterfully the challenges and issues around Clause 138, showing the importance of this debate. I have listened carefully and with great interest to all contributions, and I shall think very carefully about all the points raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, spoke about determinations and regulation. We do not agree that it is necessary to require that a Clause 138 determination is made by regulations, as his amendment insists. There are enough safeguards already to prevent an inappropriate determination, notably the importance of transparency, which has been built into the clause. If Parliament wanted a Secretary of State to account for a Clause 138 determination, it could always, as it does, haul him or her in front of the Select Committee. That is the benefit of transparency. Noble Lords made many more points about this important clause in this debate. I am particularly keen to help skin as many cats as appropriate, if I can, but I firmly believe that not only is Clause 138 consistent with Ofqual’s independence, but it actively supports it. Where QCDA and Ofqual have failed to agree on qualifications criteria—that is an important point and maybe we have not emphasised it enough—it allows the Secretary of State to require some aspects of the qualification to be delivered. By that, I mean something like minimum knowledge, skills or understanding. However, the Secretary of State should not be able to change aspects of qualifications that are central to the maintenance of standards. That is why Clause 138 prevents Ministers saying anything about assessment, grading or standards. Without Clause 138, those aspects of qualifications would not be ring-fenced for Ofqual. However, I acknowledge that we have not yet been able to convince your Lordships that Clause 138 sits coherently with Ofqual’s independence. I have heard the remark, "We are not about marking our own homework" so many times, and we will come on to much more of that when we talk about QCDA. I want to reassure the Committee that we will reflect very carefully on today’s debate. There are two areas we will need to look at in particular. The first is standards. A Secretary of State could influence standards through Clause 138 by, for example, requiring the Mr Men to be part of an A-level, but the transparency that Clause 138 provides will militate against him seeking to do that. However, in the light of the debate, we will consider whether transparency is sufficient protection or whether we need something more in the Bill. The second is how we expect Clause 138 to be used, which is only when something has gone wrong with the process of developing criteria between QCDA and Ofqual. We shall reflect on whether we could do something to make that clearer in the Bill. It is not our intention that the Secretary of State should use this power whenever he or she chooses. It should be very much curtailed. I thank noble Lords for the time that they very generously gave me through the Recess to talk further about the detail of the amendments. In particular, I was very interested in the analysis which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, presented with her linked amendments and the perspective that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, presented to us. I was also very interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the exchange between him and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked again about timeliness. I am a little unsure whether I have the right advice to be able to respond to him properly, but I have a note to tell me that it will be up to Ofqual to decide when to implement it—I presume that "it" means a determination. Hence, Ofqual cannot be directed to implement this at a pace at which it feels uncomfortable. I will have to read Hansard and look slightly more carefully at this. We have to get the balance right. I am very concerned to hear the phrase describing the Secretary of State as "reaching into" the independence of Ofqual. That is not something that I would wish to promote. I certainly would not wish to see Clause 138 used as a device to do that. With those reassurances and a commitment to further discussion and work between now and Report, which will be a busy time, I hope the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.