Examination of Witness (Questions 400-406)
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2002
SIR WILLIAM
STUBBS
400. I was going to restore the balance and
say in a sense I as Chairman of this Committee was impressed by
one other civil servant, the civil servant that was seconded to
the QCA—I do not know if you saw the transcript?
(Sir William Stubbs) Yes I did.
401. I think most of press had gone but I thought
what she said in answer to my questions was again pretty robust
and courageous. If you remember, I asked her about what happened
and I said, "What is your view?" and she said: "I
think it was inappropriate that discussions were had with awarding
bodies and not with ourselves." You rather put that on the
line. I wanted that to lead us in. One difference between that
last meeting in May and now is that at that time—and I do
not know if you were putting on a front—you bridled a bit
when I suggested you were too close to the department—
(Sir William Stubbs) Yes.
402. And I pushed you and again said that you
not go in and thump the desk enough. The difference between May
and now is that people have been rather more converted to the
way that we were pushing you.
(Sir William Stubbs) The first thing, Chairman, is
I am very pleased you made those remarks about Beverley Evans.
The inference in the questioning from this Committee last week
was that civil servants seconded to an external body behave like
a spy in the camp. In all my experience, it has been exactly the
opposite, in funding councils and other bodies, and civil servants
seconded out behave as people with integrity, and she is a woman
who did just that, so I am pleased you put that on the record.
When I saw you in May, first of all, I was more exposed than I
should have been because I was a part-time Chairman and we did
not have a permanent Chief Executive in place who should have
been alongside us, and we had the quinquennial review and one
was not quite sure where that was going to lead us, and we had
had the disaster of the January round of examinations with Edexcel.
I knew it was in the offing but could not say anything at that
stage that Edexcel were thinking about coming out of A-level examinations,
so if I was playing down that particular aspect you were probing
on, it was in that context, but now matters are different and
I am saying it to you as honestly and frankly as I believe it
to be. I am sorry if I have given the impression that I am more
robust than people who have come before you before. I am calling
it as I see it and I have been around for a fair number of years
and seen how it happens. The Education Service is changing significantly
with new expectations, new involvement of Government, a lower
involvement of local authorities, and an increased responsibility
for schools. The whole landscape is shifting. Under those circumstances
I believe there is probably an increased requirement to have a
body that is independent and that is seen to be independent, speaking
directly to the body that gives it its money, and Parliament votes
that money, albeit through the department. So it is in that context
that I say I am now utterly convinced, Chairman, that we need
a new form of accountability.
Ms Munn
403. What the quinquennial review recommends
is that there needs to be a Memorandum of Understanding between
the DfES which is approved by ministers and QCA, because one of
the things it says is that the relationship had been set out but
in various letters in effect and that over time additional bits
had been added to it. Would that not be sufficient then in your
view to clarify the position?
(Sir William Stubbs) We are dealing with different
matters. The Memorandum of Understanding, which has not progressed
much, is really to get a better understanding of who is responsible
for what. There are ministers in the Department who are now active
in aspects of the school curriculum in ways which would seem to
have been the responsibility of QCA, sometimes acting without
even taking the advice of QCA. That is what is lying behind that
recommendation, the feeling that the boundary between the responsibility
of ministers, the responsibility of the Department and the responsibility
of QCA should be sharper than it has been in the past.
404. But still the point concerns greater clarity
about the relationship, and greater clarity about who does what,
not just in terms of these kinds of issues but in terms of all
the stakeholders, so that the people who are dealing with you
and dealing with the department have that clear understanding.
(Sir William Stubbs) I am sure that would help, but
it would not solve the problem we are dealing with. The problem
we are dealing with is where it is seen that a body which is supposed
to be independent is being treated and perceived as an agent,
that is unhealthy, it is not true but it is unhealthy, and I think
that needs to be properly addressed in the way in which other
witnesses have given evidence to you.
Chairman
405. One little thing that worried me not in
the last response but the one before that was when you were saying
that ministers were playing around with the curriculum in the
department without reference, are you saying ministers should
not have views on changing the curriculum? I am teasing out what
concerned you there.
(Sir William Stubbs) Clearly the Secretary of State
decides at the end of the day what is in the curriculum but he
does it on the advice of the QCA, or should do it on the advice
of the QCA. What is happening is there are significant groups
that have been established inside the Department, and civil servants
and advisers appear—I do not mean advisers in the sense
of political advisers but experts who come in and are advising
ministers without being accountable in any way—and they
start to form views about where they want matters to go and then
ask QCA to flesh this out. I do not think that is the right way
to go about this. I think they should say, "We are concerned
about this, what is your view? We would like to strengthen or
extend in this area; please may we have advice", and then
we take it forward, but it is being blurred and that is what the
person who carried out that review was getting at when he wrote
that particular part.
406. Sir William, it has been a long session
but a very interesting one. Thank you for your time and your frankness.
(Sir William Stubbs) Thank you for your patience.
|
