Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: One of the main objectives of Ofqual is the
maintenance of standards. If it is felt that the chief regulator has
not fulfilled the objectives of Ofqual, that would be a consideration
in deciding whether they should be removed from
office.
Mr.
Laws: I know that Ministers come programmed to reject all
Opposition amendments—perhaps understandably—but does the
hon. Lady agree that the intention behind the words that the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is trying to amend is
ambiguous?
An “inability
or unfitness to carry out the duties of
office” almost
suggests a medical reason for the potential dismissal, rather than the
quality of the job that is being done. Will she reflect on whether the
hon. Gentleman is actually being extremely helpful in trying to make
this paragraph clearer and
firmer?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point,
but I did not read the paragraph as saying that the removal could be
only for medical
unfitness.
Mr.
Laws: I was not necessarily suggesting that medical
unfitness would be the only grounds, but the words
“inability” and “unfitness” suggest a basic
problem with an individual doing a job, rather than the quality of the
job that is being done. That is the ambiguity in the
paragraph.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I disagree about the degree of ambiguity
because the duties of office are the duty objectives that have been set
out. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised the
example of the maintenance of standards. Meeting the standards
objective is one of the main duties of Ofqual and of the chief
regulator. I do not agree with the point the hon. Member for Yeovil is
making. Amendment
416 proposes
that: “The
terms of the conditions of service of the Chief Executive, including
all refunds of expenses incurred by the Chief Executive in carrying out
his duties shall be published
annually.” Paragraph
6(5) of schedule 9 states that the terms and conditions of the chief
executive and the
“amount of
remuneration, allowances and
expenses” will
be determined by Ofqual with the approval of the Secretary of State.
That will ensure that the payments are set at a fair level that
represents good value for money. We do not consider it appropriate to
place a requirement in legislation to publish an individual’s
terms and conditions of service or expenses
repayments. Similarly,
amendment 417 proposes that payments made to the chief regulator and
ordinary
members “shall
be published annually together with the contracts of employment and
pension arrangements of the chief regulator and the ordinary
members.”
Mr.
Walker: I really should have read the Bill more closely
than I did. Am I right in thinking that the chief executive will have a
rolling contract or will it be a fixed-term contract of three years or
whatever, subject to renewal at the end of that
period?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: My understanding is that it is a
fixed-term contract, but I stand to be
corrected. Amendment
417 proposes that payments to the chief regulator and ordinary members
be published annually. Again, the amount of those payments is approved
by the Secretary of State. We do not consider it appropriate to place a
requirement in legislation to publish those payments. The terms of
contract will be up to Ofqual and subject to the Secretary of
State’s
approval.
Mr.
Gibb: The Minister says that there is no need to put the
publication of remuneration in the legislation. Does that mean that she
intends that terms and conditions, annual salaries, expenses and
pension contributions will be published in the annual
report?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am not sure whether it will go in the
annual report, but Ofqual will be subject to audit by the National
Audit Office. It will have to produce accounts, and my memory of most
organisation’s accounts suggests that that has to be stated in
broad terms.
Mr.
Laws: Is it not standard procedure that even if something
is within particular bands, the amounts of the salaries and pension
entitlements of senior individuals in organisations such as this would
be included in the annual report?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am not saying that it will not be
included. My point is that I envisage other mechanisms being used to
ensure the accountability mentioned in the amendment, rather than it
being in the Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: I am still not clear about whether that information
will be included in the annual accounts. One of our prime roles in this
place is to maintain and look after tax revenues and ensure that they
are spent properly. Neither I nor the hon. Member for Yeovil have been
able to get the answer to a simple question: will the annual salary and
pension contributions of the chief regulator and the chief executive be
included in the annual report of
Ofqual?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I cannot answer that question at the moment,
but I will get back to the hon. Gentlemen on the matter. I intend
Ofqual to be as transparent, visible and accountable as we want it to
be. Certainly in respect of the annual accounts, National Audit Office
guidelines will be used as to what is published and
audited.
Bill
Wiggin: My understanding is that if a Minister says in
Committee that something should be so, any judge who later looks at the
musings of the Committee will try to take the Minister’s
decision as part of the judgment. Therefore, if she says that those
figures will be published, it is highly likely that that will happen.
Why will she not say that?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I said that we intend Ofqual to be as
visible, transparent and accountable as all of us wish it to be. I do
not intend to go into detail at this stage. We will look further into
what is in the annual report and refer back to the matter as we
progress further with the legislation.
Amendment 420
is about the removal of ordinary members. It is similar to amendment
385 and seeks to state in the Bill that ordinary members can be removed
from office by the Secretary of State on the grounds of
“failure to
ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is
maintained.” Under
paragraph 4(5) of schedule 9, the Secretary of State may remove an
ordinary member from office on the grounds of
“inability or
unfitness to carry out the duties of
office.” The
same argument as the one I made earlier applies.
Amendments
40, 197 and 198 propose restrictions on the appointment of Ofqual
members. It goes without saying that we need Ofqual to have top-notch
people with a mix of the necessary skills and experience and the fibre
to act independently and take the flack that will no doubt come their
way. We must ensure that Ofqual membership attracts the best possible
candidates. Ofqual members will need a wide range of experience and
expertise to ensure and account to Parliament that Ofqual is a well-run
organisation that meets its objectives and responds well to all those,
including employers, higher education institutions, schools and
colleges, that rely on it to do its job thoroughly and
effectively.
I can tell
the hon. Member for Leominster that salary and pensions contributions
will be included in the annual accounts. I do not know whether that
goes forward to the annual report, but annual accounts are a matter of
public record.
Appointments
will be made by the Secretary of State to ensure that the best possible
candidates are chosen. As I said earlier, the public appointment
process will be regulated by the OCPA to ensure independence and
transparency. If we are to have the best possible candidates, I do not
want the Bill to narrow down the field. Amendment 197
proposes that one of the members of Ofqual should be a member of
another regulatory body. I do not think that we should go down that
route. Does Ofqual need to work closely with fellow regulators in the
UK and overseas—with Ofsted and other regulators? Absolutely, of
course it does. Does that mean that we need to write something into the
membership provisions? No, I do not think that it
does.
Mr.
Gibb: Do other regulatory bodies in this country have a
requirement for their board to contain a member of another regulatory
board?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Not to my knowledge, but I will find out.
Amendment 198 proposes that the chair and chief executive must be
full-time positions. Again, we do not need legislation on that. Will
the posts be demanding, high-profile, key leadership roles in the
education sector? Yes, of course they will. Will the posts be
full-time? The chief executive position is pretty much bound
to be and the post of chief regulator may well be too, but, again, I am
not sure that we need it in
legislation.
Mr.
Walker: The Minister says that the post of chief executive
is “pretty much bound to be”, which is not
quite a cast iron assurance. Will it be a full-time
position?
6.15
pm
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I certainly envisage it being a full-time
position, but I do not think that it is necessary to put that in the
Bill.
Amendment 40
proposes that ordinary Ofqual
members “must
not have financial or other occupational interests that might be
regarded as constituting a conflict of interest with that of promoting
the objectives of
Ofqual.” I
am not entirely clear what the amendment is intended to achieve. It
would clearly be inappropriate to appoint anyone directly connected to
an awarding body that Ofqual would be regulating, but I do not think
the amendment is about that. I cannot see who else would have a
conflict of interest serious enough to bar them from membership. Ofqual
will have procedures to manage conflicts of interest over specific
issues. I do not accept that there is any professional who would have
an interest that would conflict with maintaining standards or
confidence in exams and assessments. What matters most to head
teachers, like the rest of us, is that confidence in the system is high
because of robust regulation, so their students get the results and
credit they deserve for their achievements.
Mr.
Gibb: Can the hon. Lady not understand that if someone who
runs a school and is judged on the exam results of pupils were also a
member of Ofqual, it would theoretically be in their interest to allow
standards to decline, so the school’s results would rise by more
than the standard of education provided there would normally
demonstrate? It is a clear and obvious conflict of
interest.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It sounds a little convoluted to me. The
Bill provisions are consistent with provisions for the membership of
the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Ofsted. Indeed,
there are several vice-chancellors on the board of the HEFCE, which has
a role in funding teaching and research in universities and colleges.
The HEFCE has successfully managed any conflict of interest, but the
important thing is the essential expertise that those individuals
bring. We need Ofqual members who bring a range of experience and
expertise.
Mr.
Gibb: Does the hon. Lady think that it would be right for
a serving bank board member to be on the board of the Financial
Services Authority?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: We are talking about a different
issue.
Mr.
Gibb: We are talking about
regulation.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I accept that it is regulation but, in this
instance, I think it important that Ofqual has the flexibility to have
a range of expertise. I do not want to impose restrictions and say that
it cannot bring people in because they were head
teachers.
Mr.
Gibb: But does the FSA not need expertise as well? It has
to go out and employ somebody from the City of London, who has to
abandon all their interests in a bank or financial institution. Should
the hon. Lady not ensure that any board member of Ofqual is not a
serving professor of education in a teacher training college or a
serving head teacher?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I think that this case is different. The two
cases cannot be compared. Ofqual’s conflict of interest rules
will cover it. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and his FSA and
banking analogy.
Amendments 54
and 55 propose that Ofqual rather than the Secretary of State should
appoint Ofqual’s first chief executive and determine his or her
conditions of service. On the other hand, amendments 418 and 419
propose that the Secretary of State should appoint all future Ofqual
chief executives, not just the first. There is provision in the Bill
for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive because
we have a chicken and egg situation. Ofqual will need a chief executive
on day one to lead on the set-up of the organisation and ensure that it
hits the ground running. Indeed, we will do our best to ensure that the
chief executive is in the post before day one as part of a shadow
arrangement, again so that Ofqual can get off to the best possible
start. However, Ofqual itself will not exist at that stage; there will
be no formally appointed Ofqual members, so they cannot appoint of the
first chief executive. What we will need is for the Secretary of State
to appoint on the first occasion, looking to Kathleen Tattersall, as
the chair of interim Ofqual, to play a leading role in the appointment.
Future chief executives should of course be appointed by Ofqual rather
than the Secretary of State, and their conditions of service will be
decided by
Ofqual.
Mr.
Laws: Did the Government consider any other options for
the appointment of that individual the first time round? Did they
consider any role that Parliament, through the Select Committee, might
play?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I said, the important thing is that we
need to get the chief executive in as soon as possible, which is why we
have taken the route we have—that the Secretary of State
appoints the first chief
executive. Amendment
415 proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to
remove the chief executive, but that is neither necessary nor
appropriate. Ofqual should have the power to both appoint and remove
the chief executive. The conditions of service are set by the Secretary
of State for the first chief executive, while Ofqual will be able to do
that for future chief
executives. There
are two amendments that propose a role for the Select Committee on
Children, Schools and Families in the appointment of staff. They refer
specifically to that Committee, even though Ofqual’s role is
also of interest to the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills. The Children, Schools and Families Committee is
appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration,
expenditure and policy of the Department for Children, Schools and
Families, including the work of non-departmental public bodies and
Ofsted. Amendment 57 proposes that the appointment and conditions of
service of Ofqual chief executives after the first appointment should
be subject to the approval of the Select Committee rather than the
Secretary of State. Amendment 58 proposes that the number of Ofqual
staff, their conditions of service and the amount of remuneration
allowances and expenses of staff should be subject to the approval of
the Select
Committee. It
is not in dispute that Ofqual needs to report to Parliament and that
the Select Committees will have a key role in holding Ofqual to
account. In relation to the
new appointments to the post of chief regulator, as we have already
said, the Select Committee will hold pre-appointment hearings, but
constitutionally, I do not think that we can have Select
Committees—part of the legislature—making appointments to
the staff and boards of parts of the
Executive. | 
