Mr.
Laws: I understand the Minister’s concerns on the
last point, although I do not agree with them. In relation to clause
58, which she probably has just dealt with, will she comment on the
views and concerns expressed by Ofqual itself to the Committee?
Kathleen Tattersall said in her note to the Committee
that “In
my view requirement for Ministerial approval of such matters as numbers
of staff and terms and conditions ... is ...
questionable.” Have
the Government rejected those
concerns?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Of course we have listened to Kathleen
Tattersall’s concerns, but it is standard practice for
non-ministerial Government departments to have the conditions of
service of its staff and their numbers and approved by a Minister.
Having reflected, we agreed that that should be the case
here.
Mr.
Laws: Given that the Department is already exercising
budget control and oversight, what is the reason for not allowing
Ofqual to determine its own numbers of staff within that budget
constraint?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It is because of the duty that we, as
Ministers, have, to ensure that we meet our budgetary constraints, and
our responsibility for overall numbers in the civil
service.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister said that part of the concern is in
discharging the budget constraint responsibilities, but that is already
in place. I am not suggesting that Ofqual should be allowed to set its
own budget, merely that once the budget is fixed, it should be for
Ofqual to determine the number of staff in the
budget.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: But we come back to the point about the
overall civil service numbers. I was interested in the remarks that the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made and the interesting
exchange between him and the hon. Member for Yeovil on that
point.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister has been extremely patient with us, but
will she explain why, if the Government have overall budget control, it
is important for them to determine the number of staff employed with
the budget? Is it not a potential mechanism through which the present
or a future Government could seek to interfere in how Ofqual chooses to
discharge its oversight responsibilities on
standards?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: No, I disagree. It is an important
ministerial tool, and it is standard practice in relation to all
non-ministerial Government departments. We are not singling Ofqual out
for that treatment, and I do not see any reason to treat Ofqual any
differently from any non-ministerial Government department.
Amendment 56
refers to line 24 and a “sub-paragraph (5)” of
schedule 9. I am confused, because line 24 corresponds with paragraph
7(5) of schedule 9. Since the hon. Gentleman and colleagues have tabled
a separate amendment, amendment 59, to remove
paragraph 7(6), I hope that I am correct in assuming that
the intention of amendment 56 is to remove paragraph 7(5). I
am sure that he will correct me if I am
wrong.
Paragraph
7(5) allows Ofqual to arrange for the payment of remuneration,
allowances and expenses to any person who is a member of an Ofqual
committee but is not a member of Ofqual or Ofqual staff. That is a
standard activity for organisations such as Ofqual, and Ofqual requires
the power to remunerate or pay allowances or expenses to persons who
may serve on its committees but are not members of its staff. Under
paragraph 7(4), Ofqual’s committees must include one member of
Ofqual or Ofqual staff, and they may also include external persons.
They may be necessary to provide expertise to the committee and so
improve its effectiveness. It is reasonable that Ofqual should have the
power to remunerate these persons and pay allowances and expenses when
it considers that appropriate.
Amendment 59
would remove the requirement for Ofqual to review at least once in any
five-year period the structure of its committees and the scope of each
committee’s activities. The requirement will ensure that Ofqual
follows good practice in reviewing its committees, and paragraph 7(6)
does not compel Ofqual to change the structure, scope or activities of
its committees; it simply sets a maximum length of time that can pass
without reviewing those aspects. Ofqual remains entirely independent
regarding how it establishes its committees and their scope.
In reality,
we believe that Ofqual, like any similar organisation, would wish to
review the structure and scope of its committees more frequently than
is envisaged in paragraph 7(6) and (7). Reviewing its committees is
clearly good practice for an organisation of Ofqual’s nature,
but we have introduced the measure to ensure that Ofqual fulfils the
minimum expectation. We do not consider it burdensome or think that it
affects Ofqual’s independence, and, with that, I invite the hon.
Gentleman to consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I was disappointed by the Minister’s response
and, in particular, by her clear lack of understanding in what she
said. I was also disappointed by the Government’s lack of
understanding about independence, given how the Bill is drafted. Ofqual
should be independent not just of exam boards but of anybody who has a
vested interest: for example, those preparing children to take the
tests, or the education faculties of the universities, which have a
vested interest in demonstrating that exam standards have not fallen in
circumstances in which they have, if the education system adopts
practices advocated by those faculties. If we are to trust the exam
system and it is to provide an objective assessment of the
effectiveness of the policies that those faculties advocate, we must
ensure that they are not represented on the board of Ofqual.
I was also
disappointed by the Minister’s response to the issue raised in
amendment 385 about dismissing the chief regulator in circumstances in
which standards in
the exam system have not been maintained. I do not accept her argument
that paragraph 3(7)(a), which deals with “inability or
unfitness to carry out the duties of
office”, covers
it and can be used to dismiss a chief regulator in circumstances where
exam standards have clearly fallen. Under most ordinary interpretations
of that phrase, people would, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said,
regard it as being akin to a decision on the grounds of medical or
other reasons of unfitness to carry out a particular job, not one based
on how well that job has been carried out. There is no other method of
dismissal. Paragraph 3 (7)(b) deals
with “absence
from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6
months”. I
therefore seek permission to press for the Committee’s opinion
on amendment 385, which will add to schedule 9 further
grounds for dismissal of the chief regulator in circumstances where the
standards of regulated qualifications have not been
maintained.
6.30
pm
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for responding in
detail to the amendments to schedule 9 and for her willingness to allow
us to cross-question her on some of those matters. She has shown
herself to be as patient as the Minister for Schools and Learners on
these occasions, which is very much appreciated.
Like the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, however, I was disappointed,
although not entirely surprised, by the fact that all the amendments
were rejected by the Minister. In particular, we are still concerned
about schedule 9 and the extent to which the Secretary of State is
exercising powers to appoint and sack key members of the regulator. We
are concerned about the lack of imagination in the accountability of
the body to Ministers, rather than to Parliament. We are also concerned
about the extraordinary powers to micro-manage in the Bill, even down
to the extent and regularity with which Ofqual must examine the
structure of its own committees and the number of staff that it is
allowed to employ.
We are
sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton, which proposes a more explicit duty to maintain
standards. Returning to the points that were made about
schedule 9(3)(7) on page 191 and the chief
regulator’s removal from office. The grounds for such removal
are “absence
from Ofqual’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6
months without Ofqual’s
permission.” There
is an ambiguous phrase about “inability or unfitness” to
carry out the duties of office. Most people would take those words to
relate either to some core issue of competence or, more likely, to some
sort of judgment about the individual’s medical or other
circumstances. There is not, as might be expected when legislating for
a new body, a clear insistence that success in upholding standards,
which is supposed to be the purpose of Ofqual, should be a key measure
in deciding whether or not the chief regulator should be removed from
office. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman in his amendment if he
decides to press it to a Division.
I appreciate
that there are small, fundamental differences on the extent to which
accountability should be to the Secretary of State, rather than to some
other body, and
the way in which individuals are selected for, and dismissed from, these
posts. It is clear that there are differences on that point, not only
with the Minister, but with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton. I should like to reflect on what the Minister has said
on those points and consider whether we will raise our concerns on
those issues at a later stage in our proceedings. I should like
highlight our concerns and disappointment, as expressed in two of our
the amendments which reflect the fact that there is an excessive desire
by the Government to micro-manage the new body. Amendment
58, which takes the power to approve the number of staff members and
their terms and conditions of service and so forth away from the
Secretary of State. We could argue about whether the Children, Schools
and Families Committee is the correct Committee to have oversight. The
Minister indicated that some of the responsibilities might be joint
departmental ones. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to
the fact that even Kathleen Tattersall is concerned that the extent of
the powers is excessive. I repeat that, in her note to the Committee,
she
said: “In
my view the requirement for Ministerial approval of such matters as
numbers of staff and terms and conditions... is more
questionable.” We
have had a number of exchanges on the issue, and I am grateful to the
Minister for her willingness to respond to so many interventions, but I
am not entirely convinced by the Government’s
argument. The
Minister began by saying that the budget was somehow a relevant factor
in causing the Government to want the powers, but nobody was suggesting
that budget control should be undermined in any way. The issue, having
set the budget, is whether it is reasonable for Ministers to interfere
in issues such as how many staff are employed. I am concerned, because
I hope—we will look at this in detail in clause 125—that,
in the future, Ofqual will be more independent from the Government than
it is at
present. Ofqual
may also decide to take on new responsibilities to discharge its
functions in relation to standards. I will not anticipate our arguments
on clause 125 but, in her evidence to the Committee, the Minister
herself said that such new responsibilities would be possible. If
future Governments have the power to cap staff numbers, they may well
seek greater oversight and use those powers to constrain the extent to
which Ofqual develops its functions. Future Governments could, for
example, employ more staff to carry out sample testing of particular
cohorts to make an assessment of changes in standards over time and the
relationship to changes in exam standards. Although that may seem to be
a narrow point, it is quite important, so we may return to it later and
frame the amendment more
carefully. Finally,
I am concerned about micro-management, which is why we tabled amendment
59, which would remove the duty on Ofqual to review its committees
every five years. The fact Ministers believe it necessary to prescribe
in legislation the regularity with which Ofqual has to review its
committees suggests a very low level of confidence in the individuals
and chief executive who will oversee such reviews. If the Government
are going to be that detailed in micro-managing Ofqual, heaven knows
what other duties and regulations they might want to impose through the
Bill, even though such measures might seem like common sense to some
individuals. As a small indication of our desire to make Ofqual more
independent, it is my intention to press amendment 59 to a
Division. The
Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm his intention in
relation to amendment 50, which is the lead
amendment?
Mr.
Laws: I apologise, Mrs. Humble. I would like to
return to the issue covered by amendment 50 later, so I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: 385, in schedule 9,
page 191, line 7, at end
insert— ‘(c) failure to
ensure the standard of regulated qualifications is
maintained.’.—(Mr.
Gibb.) Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
19] Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman: We now come to Government amendment
497—
Mr.
Laws: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. I
apologise for interrupting you, but I wanted to clarify whether it
would be possible also to move a Division on amendment 59, as I
indicated.
The
Chairman: I will ask the hon. Gentleman to move that
amendment formally when we reach the appropriate point, after the next
two groups of amendments.
| 
