Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I begin by saying how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about the need to narrow as much as possible the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would appropriately lay a determination. I also agree with her that the solution to our disputes about Clause 140 that the Government have proposed is far from elegant. Compromises are often messy. Indeed, they are a complex spider’s web, which commentators and Secretaries of State will have difficulty penetrating. Perhaps that is quite a good thing, as it might dissuade them from trying to use the power at all. However, I thank the Minister for listening to us about this and for coming up with some sort of compromise, imperfect though it may be. It may be complex and inelegant, but with one caveat I think that it will serve our purpose. My caveat is my Amendment 177, through which I would have any Secretary of State who was unwise enough to try to reach into Ofqual by making an appropriate determination subjected to the full glare of publicity by having to justify himself in Parliament prior to making that determination, which Parliament could vote against if it saw fit. I have been led to expect that the Government may well accept the principle of this amendment. That, of course, would then have to be drafted into the new replacement clause rather than into Clause 140, which I hope will be well and truly deleted and go into the history books as a result of Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to which I put my name. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, says about the possibility of the nature of the debate in Parliament. I do not think that I agree with her about what would happen. I think that the debate would be about the appropriateness of making a determination at all rather than about the detail of what that determination should be. However, if the Government accept the principle of my amendment, I would like to discuss with the Bill team the wording to be drafted into the Bill at Third Reading to pick up the principle of parliamentary scrutiny and to protect us from what the noble Baroness is concerned about. I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that that sort of debate is not desirable. In Parliament, the Secretary of State would be subject to forensic scrutiny, certainly at this end of the building. Let me be clear. Most of all I would like to see this power removed completely. I would like to vote for Amendment 179 and leave it at that. Indeed, that is what we argued for in Committee. I simply do not accept that we need to legislate for the rare and improbable situation of a total breakdown of relations between Ofqual and the QCDA. If that was what the clause was for, the Government should have said so in the Bill. However, we now have a considerable narrowing of the door through which a meddling Secretary of State can slip—indeed, to Alice in Wonderland dimensions. Mr Ed Balls will need to be a white rabbit if he is to get through it. He would also need to be a very persuasive white rabbit if my Amendment 177 is accepted in principle and drafted in at Third Reading. He would have to convince Parliament that it was necessary and appropriate to interfere. It is inconceivable that Parliament would sanction such a thing if it were not unavoidably necessary. This power of determination is the linchpin in the perception of the independence of Ofqual. I have already said how important we think that is. The public will not have confidence in Ofqual if they think that the Secretary of State can tell it what to do if he disagrees with it. There has been far too much of that. That is why we have negotiated long and hard with the Government on this matter. As long as we can have parliamentary scrutiny, we can now back the government amendments as a reasonable second best to the annihilation of the whole sorry thing.