Presently before Parliament is the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. This great sprawling piece of legislation comprises no less than 256 clauses and 16 Schedules. And lurking therein is a clause that is causing some alarm in informed circles.

In the context of every public exam in England, clause 138(1) states that “The Secretary of State may make a determination specifying minimum requirements in respect of a specified qualification, or description of qualification, to which this Part applies”. Guidance in the form of explanatory notes published alongside the Bill says this power could, for example, be used to specify “which authors’ works needed to be studied for someone to gain a GCSE in English”. We are assured that this clause “restricts the Secretary of State to specifying minimum requirements relating, in effect, to the content of a qualification”, and not grading or assessment, and will “be used only in exceptional circumstances”. But they would say that, wouldn’t they.

Exam boards are concerned that the scope of the power is too broad. Opposition MPs are attempting to have this clause removed from the bill, fearing that it will strengthen governmental ability to interfere with the curriculum for political gain. The ‘Guardian’ reported David Laws, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, as saying that what is taught in schools should not be dependent upon the whim of politicians and added that “the idea of Ed Balls or Gordon Brown determining which parts of history children are taught” is a frightening one. What price a modern history question on the origins of the Iraq war?

Also reported by the ‘Guardian’, schools minister Sarah McCarthy-Fry has promised a memorandum setting out exactly when ministers could use the new power. She added that ministers “will only use powers with regard to the curriculum in exceptional circumstances – for example, intervening to ensure Shakespeare remains a core part of what our children learn”. But it is an almost immutable rule that any piece of legislation left lying around will be used by somebody at sometime, usually after all the original assurances have been forgotten.

An earlier blog (10.06.08) contrasted ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’, where 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, with the Government, for whom 42 is more a problem than an answer. 42 achieved the status of a threat to the leadership of the Government through the wheeling, dealing and almost daily concessions to get the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill through the Commons, with the actual number itself seeming to be sacrosanct.

This week the headache became a full blown migraine for the Government when plans to give police up to 42 days to question terrorism suspects were crushed by the House of Lords. Peers voted against the measure by 309 votes to 118. This came after opposition to the proposals from all sides, with 24 Labour rebels including two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Irvine and Lord Falconer, as well as Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, Lord Justice Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

In an emergency statement to MPs, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith conceded defeat and said that the Counter-Terrorism Bill would continue its journey through Parliament without the 42 day measure. According to the ‘Guardian’, Government sources said the Prime Minister’s hand was forced because whips in the Commons told Downing Street that they would struggle to muster a majority in favour of the proposal. The 42 day plan was only passed by MPs in June by nine votes after the Prime Minister won the support of the nine Democratic Unionist MPs. If ministers had insisted on keeping the 42 day plan there would have been the need for a series of votes in the Commons to overturn the Lords’ rejection and eventually the use of the Parliament Act to force the bill through next year.

The capitulation was defiantly unrepentent. In her Commons statement, the Home Secretary was positively reproachful. She said “The other place has tonight voted to remove from the Counter-Terrorism Bill the protections that the government believes should be in place. Not to amend; not to strengthen; simply to remove. Mr Speaker, my priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some hon. members clearly do, that it is enough to simply cross our fingers and hope for the best …that is not good enough. Because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks I’m not prepared to take.”

In what some see as a face saving gesture, the Home Secretary announced that she had “prepared a new bill to enable the police and prosecutors to do their work – should the worst happen, should a terrorist plot overtake us and threaten our current investigatory capabilities… The Counter Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill now stands ready to be introduced if and when the need arises. This would enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the courts to detain and question a terrorist suspect for up to a maximum of 42 days. Individuals could only be detained where this is authorised by a judge.” Once again the totemic 42 days.

The climb down has pleased a wide diversity of groups, and it is reported that David Davies, who resigned his seat and fought a by-election over this issue, shared a celebratory bottle of champagne in the Commons with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty.

The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill received Royal Assent on 8 May. The first provisions (in relation to dangerous offenders) are expected to come in to force in July.

The Act will:

• introduce a new criminal offence of incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation
• clarify the law on self defence, articulating the state’s responsibility to stand by those acting in good faith when using force in self defence
• introduce new civil penalties for serious breaches of data protection principles
• abolish the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel
• reinstate the statutory ban on industrial action by prison officers
• introduce a minimum tariff of two years for prisoners serving indeterminate public protection sentences
• end automatic discounts for offenders given an indeterminate sentence after the initial sentencing decision has been judged unduly lenient
• give powers for courts to make dangerous offenders given a discretionary life sentence serve a higher proportion of their tariff before being eligible for parole
• create a presumption that trials in magistrates’ courts will proceed in the event the accused fails to appear
• introduce a new offence of possession of extreme pornographic images
• extend existing crack house closure powers to tackle premises at the centre of serious and persistent disorder or nuisance, regardless of tenure
• create a new offence of causing a nuisance or disturbance on NHS premises
• provide for non-dangerous offenders who breach the terms of their licence to be recalled to prison for a fixed 28 day period
• create a Youth Rehabilitation Order – a generic community sentence for children and young offenders, this will target the causes of offending behaviour and will simplify the current sentencing framework
• create the Youth Conditional Caution for young offenders
• bring compensation for those wrongly convicted broadly into line with compensation for victims of crime
• provide for special immigration status for terrorists and serious criminals who cannot currently be removed from the UK for legal reasons.