Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-419)
RT HON
ED BALLS
MP, RT HON
JIM KNIGHT
MP AND DAVID
BELL
20 MAY 2009
Q400 Mr Stuart: Permanent Secretary,
I am sorry for appearing cynical, but we are trying to get to
the truth here. What we have is a person from your private office
who was apparently in charge of the recording equipment at the
hearings and may have been part of the drafting team, and then,
days after Ken Boston gave his evidence, weeks before Ministers
gave evidence to the Sutherland inquiry, and months before it
was published, you met with Ken Boston and suggested—according
to his testimony—that he should resign because the findings
were not going to be good for him. Can you explain that meeting
and why you took that extraordinary step?
David Bell: Just before I answer
that question, I think I should say that it was Dr Boston's lawyers
who asked me to keep private and confidential all the discussions
I had with Dr Boston in September and October. Dr Boston chose
in this Committee to breach that confidentiality. It was entirely
appropriate for me, as the principal accounting officer, to talk
to Dr Boston about his position, and yes, I did ask him to consider
his position. However, when Dr Boston gave testimony to your Committee
he said: "The Permanent Secretary spoke to me and I made
it clear that I would be willing to consider departure only on
the basis of the contract being paid out." In actual fact,
that is not quite the case, because when Dr Boston's lawyers wrote
to me, they said: "Dr Boston should receive a payment equivalent
to 10% of his salary." His lawyers went on to say—
Mr Stuart: Chairman, that doesn't answer
my question, and I'd rather he answered the question I put, rather
than the one he would like me to have put.
Chairman: Hang on. Graham, if he doesn't
answer the question, you will get another bite, but let him answer
first.
David Bell: You asked me why I
had that conversation, and I am referring to Dr Boston's testimony.
Dr Boston's solicitors said on his behalf: "All success measures
appended to the remit letter from the Secretary of State have
been met, other than in relation to delays over the Key Stage
tests." So when Dr Boston said he only asked for his contractual
entitlement, that is not the case: he asked for additional payment
if he was even to consider early retirement.
Q401 Mr Stuart: Why did you say that
the inquiry findings were going to be bad for him?
David Bell: You didn't have to
be a prophet to work out that the inquiry was going to be bad.
The other thing I should say is that as the crisis unfolded during
July and into early August it became apparent to me that Dr Boston
did not have a grip of the detail of the issues. Therefore, I
surmised that the inquiry was going to be very difficult for the
QCA and for Dr Boston. I had no contact with anyone in the inquiry
and I did not know what it was going to say.
Q402 Mr Stuart: You did have contact.
You said you had contact with the person from your private office
who had joined the inquiry team—only on discussing administrative
matters relating to the inquiry, but—
David Bell: Precisely.
Q403 Mr Stuart: But even after the
appointment of that person you were in contact with them on administrative
matters. That person worked for your private office beforehand
and was returning to your Department afterwards, and you were
in contact with them during the inquiry. No wonder you were so
confident.
David Bell: I will give you the
administrative contact we had. She said, on Lord Sutherland's
behalf, "Can we set up an interview to take your evidence?"
My reply was, "Yes, you can, and we will do it on this date."
That is the administrative contact we had during the process.
Ed Balls: May I add briefly to
that point? David wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 22 April 2009
and made it quite clear that at the time of the discussion he
had in September with Dr Boston, when the discussion with lawyers
and the contractual payments arose, there had been no prior discussion
at all with Ministers. That was a discussion that David had with
Ken in his role as accounting officer. The second thing I would
like to say, and this echoes what Lord Sutherland has said on
the record and to Mr Stuart, is that in my view our Permanent
Secretary and our civil servants have at all times operated with
the highest standards of integrity and independence, and the insinuation
that somehow there was some kind of complicit co-operation in
trying to change the direction of the Sutherland inquiry's findings
is absolutely untrue and unfounded in my experience. I think that
in this Permanent Secretary we have somebody with the very highest
standards of integrity. It is really important for me to put that
fact on the record, on behalf of the two Ministers here.
Q404 Mr Heppell: Following on from
that, and to get this absolutely clear, on whose authority did
you approach Ken Boston in September 2008?
David Bell: My personal authority.
Q405 Mr Heppell: And when was the
decision taken? When did you make a decision to seek his retirement?
David Bell: I first met Dr Boston
to discuss that on 24 September and that led to exchanges between
me and the lawyers. I went back to the lawyers and quite explicitly
said that it was not my responsibility to initiate any action
against Dr Boston. What I was saying to Dr Boston, as principal
accounting officer to accounting officer, was, "I think you
should consider your position because it has been a very difficult
year." So I initiated that.
Q406 Mr Heppell: So that was because
of the impending report? Was it anything to do with the meeting
on 18 March? That was what Ken Boston said in evidence. He said
he believed that Ministers had decided to put the skids under
him—his words—following the meeting on 18 March.
David Bell: At no time did the
Secretary of State, the Schools Minister or any other Minister
say to me, "You have to have a conversation with Ken Boston,
telling him to go." They never said that to me. I had the
discussion as the principal accounting officer saying to the accounting
officer responsible for the QCA, "You should consider your
position." Dr Boston implied to you that he was only prepared
to consider his position if his contractual entitlements were
met. Actually, Dr Boston was seeking a bonus and some other additional
payments before he was prepared to leave. I wrote back and said
that it would be completely unacceptable to pay anything other
than his contractual entitlement. So Dr Boston was seeking more
than his contractual entitlement if he was going to have a negotiation
with the QCA board about his future.
Q407 Mr Heppell: Do you think, with
hindsight—I know that such things are very useful—that
it was a good idea to be seeking resignation from Dr Boston before
Lord Sutherland had reported and before the Secretary of State
and the Minister had even given any evidence at the inquiry? I
know that you have partly answered this.
David Bell: Yes, I think it was
appropriate. The principal accounting officer has to take overall
responsibility for relationships with other bodies and other accounting
officers, and given that I had seen Dr Boston close up during
the crisis and was very concerned about the way he was handling
it, I think you would have been astonished if I had had no conversation
with him about his future. I saw that and felt that a conversation
would be appropriate in the circumstances. Don't forget that Dr
Boston was scheduled under his original contract to go in September
2009 anyway, so there was a conversation that would be had in
the autumn. I decided to initiate that conversation and say that
I thought that in the circumstances he should consider his position,
but I was only ever prepared to accept that he would have six
months' notice.
Q408 Mr Heppell: Just one final thing
about something Graham said earlier. Would the minutes of the
QCA meeting that suspended Mr Boston not be subject to freedom
of information?
David Bell: I think you will find
that if it was a confidential personnel board meeting they would
not be, because you can utilise the arrangements regarding personnel
and confidential details in the Freedom of Information Act.
Q409 Mr Timpson: Secretary of State,
you have used today as an opportunity to clarify a number of matters
by referring to correspondence between your Department and Ken
Boston.
Ed Balls: My statement was clarifying
correspondence between the Schools Minister, the Committee and
Lord Sutherland. The correspondence that the Permanent Secretary
referred to is correspondence that we were not involved in and
I have not referred to it in my evidence.
Q410 Mr Timpson: But it is coming
from your Department and it is being co-ordinated with Ken Boston's
involvement in his role in the QCA.
Ed Balls: I have never seen any
of the letters to which the Permanent Secretary has referred between
himself, lawyers and Ken Boston. I did not know of their existence.
Mr Timpson: I am not suggesting you have.
All I am saying is that you have read that correspondence.
Ed Balls: No, I have not seen
that correspondence.
Q411 Mr Timpson: Perhaps if I put
the question to you rather than anticipating where this might
go, it might save us a bit of time. One of the periods that has
been in dispute—the confusion about who was at what meeting
and what happened during that period—is between 19 May when
questions were asked in the House about the delivery of the tests
marking and 2 July when, as I think it was said earlier, it seemed
to move on to phase two: it was heightened. In order to help the
Committee have complete clarification and confidence in the answers
that you have given, and in the spirit of transparency, do you
not agree that it would be helpful to provide to the Committee
the correspondence between yourself, the Schools Minister, your
Department and Ken Boston, so that we can be absolutely clear
as to what happened during that period?[4]
Ed Balls: All the correspondence
was submitted to Lord Sutherland. In a sense, we have been through
this. Lord Sutherland has seen all this evidence in compiling
his report.
Mr Timpson: But this Committee hasn't
seen it.
Ed Balls: The issues around the
release of information that was put together for the Sutherland
inquiry are matters for Lord Sutherland, and then the normal processes
for release. That is not something that we, ministerially, would
be involved in. In terms of the particular issues raised, on 19
May this was raised in oral questions. My office spoke to Dr Ken
Boston's office to ask for and receive reassurances. I then had
a meeting with Ken Boston on 2 June. At that meeting I also raised
a constituent's issue. I wrote to my constituent on 6 June. Ken
Boston wrote on 16 June. On 17 June the Schools Minister had a
meeting with David Gee. On 2 July I had a meeting with Ken Boston
and David Gee. All of that is clear and in the public domain,
and all the papers that underpin that would have been provided
to the inquiry. It is not for me to pre-empt processes around
either the release of the papers of the Sutherland inquiry or
freedom of information. There are proper processes for that. But
those are not processes in which Ministers would ever be involved.
Q412 Mr Timpson: Can I go back to
the original question—do you agree that it would be helpful
to the Committee to have access to all that correspondence in
order to clear up the confusion that has run on for months?
Ed Balls: I did answer that question,
by saying that it is not appropriate for me as Secretary of State
to comment on the release of information from an independent inquiry
or through freedom of information.
Mr Timpson: I am not asking for it from
Lord Sutherland. I am asking for it from you.
Ed Balls: But all of the papers
were provided to the Sutherland inquiry.
Q413 Mr Timpson: But we have not
seen them, and that is the point I am making. Is there any reason
why we cannot see them?
Ed Balls: The answer I am giving
you is that it is not for Ministers to decide on the release of
those papers. It is a matter for the Sutherland inquiry and the
freedom of information processes. As far as I am concerned, personally,
there is absolutely nothing to hide and everything to gain from
full transparency. I am completely relaxed about it. What I do
not want to do is pre-empt the proper processes around the release
of information. These are probably questions that you should put
to the Permanent Secretary for an FOI point of view or that you
should ask Lord Sutherland.
Q414 Mr Timpson: Well, can I put
on the record a polite request for that information? If I have
to go through official channels, can I be given the information
by which to do that?
Ed Balls: It is not for me to
make decisions about the release of those kinds of papers. But
we did say to Lord Sutherland that he had to have access to everything
in order to do his inquiry, and he did.
Mr Timpson: So that is a no.
Ed Balls: It is the same answer
as I gave you a moment ago. It is not for me to make decisions
about the release of information in that way. But as I said, I
gave you a very clear answer. From my point of view, full transparency
is absolutely fine and the right thing.
Q415 Chairman: Lord Sutherland has
returned all the documents supplied by the Department, as I understand
it.
David Bell: Yes, he has. But to
reinforce the Secretary of State's point, there are proper procedures
regarding policy papers and other papers that go through and flow
through a government department. If Ministers are approached,
either by parliamentary questions or via freedom of information
requests, officials have to consider those questions. They have
to be considered under the Secretary of State and by the proper
procedures. We don't just put out all the papers on every policy
area, because even under the Freedom of Information Act that would
be considered inappropriate. But the key point is that Lord Sutherland
had access to all the papers that he needed and he drew his conclusions
based on all of those papers. That is the most definitive statement
of what happened: Lord Sutherland, an independent inquirer, published
an independent report.
Jim Knight: Incidentally, Edward,
the Permanent Secretary was copied into the letter to Michael
Gove from Lord Sutherland, where he raised similar sorts of questions.
It is a very thorough response from Lord Sutherland which details
the places in his report that Michael could go to in order to
see the sequence of events, and how all of those questions were
properly answered in his inquiry. I would imagine that Michael
would be very happy to share that.
Q416 Mr Timpson: As we are talking
about transparency, and independence seems to have been the theme
of this session, can I ask one further question about Ofqual?
Can you give assurance that the full independence of Ofqual—you
have referred to it as having the same independence as the Bank
of England—will mean that there won't be any DCSF observers
appointed to Ofqual?
Ed Balls: I think that in the
end that is a matter for the Ofqual board.
Q417 Mr Timpson: What is your view?
Ed Balls: I am very happy to have
the same arrangements as the Bank of England.
Q418 Mr Timpson: So, your preferred
view is for there not to be DCSF observers on Ofqual?
Ed Balls: No, because the Bank
of England has an observer from the Treasury.
Jim Knight: We have got to be
very clear, during the course of the Bill that is going through
Parliament, that whether Ofqual invites observers or not is a
decision for its board.
Mr Timpson: I understand that, I was
just using this opportunity to find out your views.
Ed Balls: The Bank of England
chooses to have a Treasury observer at the monthly meeting of
the Monetary Policy Committee, but I don't think that anyone has
ever suggested that that in any way compromises the independence
of the Bank of England when it comes to making decisions on interest
rates.
Jim Knight: The reason why a board
would sometimes want to make that decision is that Ministers still
make policy decisions and there are times when it might be helpful
to a board to understand the background to how those policies
were arrived at. If it has someone present that it can ask those
questions of, that can be helpful to it, but in the end, that
is the board's judgment.
Ed Balls: That is absolutely how
it works in the case of the observer on the Monetary Policy Committee,
who will update regularly on aspects of fiscal policy.
Chairman: Thank you for that, witnesses.
A quick one from Derek.
Q419 Derek Twigg: I want to return
to the issue of onscreen marking because you made a very unequivocal
statement. I reread the evidence that Ken Boston gave during the
hearing, in answer to my question. He said, "It certainly
was not the case that there was risk in the system; this is proven
technology and it is used widely throughout the world for school
marking. It is used here extensively, with the general qualifications.
It was not a risk." That is completely in contradiction to
what you have said. I cannot believe that you have come here and
said something that is not true, in any way, but I wondered whether
you have evidence from the QCA saying what it recommends. I find
it bizarre that you came here and made a statement like that to
this Committee.
Ed Balls: In my opening statement,
I said that while Dr Boston was clearly in favour of onscreen
marking, which I understand from reading the testimony to the
Committee, the QCA itself decided, on the basis of trials that
were carried out in 2005, not to proceed further. That was the
QCA decision. It may well be the case that Dr Ken Boston has,
at some point, in writing, or to officials in the Department,
made the case for onscreen marking since I have been Secretary
of State. But what I said was that at no point, to my knowledge,
verbally or in writing, did Dr Ken Boston ever make the case to
me for onscreen marking. It was the QCA's decision not to proceed,
including in the case of the ETS contract in 2008.
4 Correspondence published on the QCA website. Back
| 
