Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
RT HON.
ED BALLS
MP, DAVID BELL
AND JON
THOMPSON
16 JULY 2008
Q120 Chairman: Secretary of State,
I absolutely agree with you. I realise that these bodies have
such responsibilities. However, when I met Ofqual yesterday, it
was astonished when I produced a piece of evidence that I know
to be true from Nottingham, a part of the country that you know
well. An agency hired a young man who was freshly graduated in
the sciences to mark science, maths and English papers. He was
the most experienced member of his team, which included non-graduates.
I could see the look on the face of the chair of Ofqual. She was
astonished that that was the case. When listening to Ken Boston,
for whom I have great respect, I constantly feel that he is directing
us to the lateness. That does not concern us so much. Our key
concern is quality.
Ed Balls: Quality is absolutely
paramount. I agree with you completely. It is not appropriate
for me to comment on the facial reactions of the chair of Ofqual.
However, an independent inquiry led by Lord Sutherland is reporting
to Ofqual and to me. All these issues will be looked into, including
some of the practices of marker hiring. I have been told by the
QCA that the same markers are being used and that, if anything,
there have been more quality checks. Lord Sutherland will look
at that issue. It is important that Ofqual, independently of me,
does its job properly and effectively. I am sure that it is doing
so. It has been monitoring this situation for months and its judgment
to me is that there is no evidence that the quality is lower.
It has said that it is at least as good.
Chairman: Okay. Andy Slaughter would
like to continue on testing.
Q121 Mr Slaughter: Secretary of State,
Dr Boston sat before us on Monday to discuss the delays in the
National Curriculum test results. We have seen that you have the
transcript of that. Before you came in, we were discussing where
the responsibility lies for this and how far it rests with ETS,
the QCA or with you. On Monday, the Chairman said: "So was
the wrong decision made about the contractor—in retrospect?
I know you have all sorts of difficulties. The word on the street
is that you did have a UK-based supplier, which had much more
grasp of the technology, but you went for a much cheaper option."
Dr Boston replied: "No, it was not a cheaper option—well,
it was the lowest cost option, but it was not picked on those
grounds. There were, finally, three bidders, from a field that
started at six and went quickly back to five. On the key criteria
of capacity to do the job, this company was clearly up there with
any of them". My understanding is that that is not the case,
but that ETS was significantly cheaper than other bidders. I do
not know whether we are entitled to know what the prices bid were.
Clearly, there have been deficiencies in some parts of the delivery
of the service. Will you be looking at whether mistakes were made
in the letting of the contract, particularly in relation to the
sheer logistics of it? What seems to have gone wrong here is not
so much the technical side as the actual physical process of marking—delivering
scripts to markers—which, clearly, this organisation did
not have the capacity to do. Is that not the QCA's responsibility—or
your responsibility—to see that it was let to a competent
contractor?
Ed Balls: The answer is yes. We
shall be looking at this. My remit letter to the QCA said this
year, "You will need to ensure delivery of National Curriculum
tests and make sure that they are valid and reliable against the
policy objectives established by Ministers." In the terms
of reference for the Sutherland inquiry, which we have released
this morning, we say that Lord Sutherland, reporting to me, will
look at the "appropriateness of arrangements put in place
by QCA to procure the contract for delivery of National Curriculum
tests and the subsequent management of that contract by the QCA,
and, specifically: the procurement process from the development
of the initial tender specification to the award of the contract;
the suitability of the contract to allow delivery of QCA's remit;
the arrangements for the contractor, ETS Europe, to report to
QCA; the arrangements for ETS to report risks to QCA; the effectiveness
of QCA's arrangements to manage the ETS contract and the delivery
of National Curriculum tests . . . ; and the functioning of IT
systems . . . to manage and deliver the National Curriculum tests
and to ensure delivery of data ... ". So Lord Sutherland
will look very widely at the procurement process and the subsequent
follow-through from the QCA in monitoring that contract. I, like
you, am looking forward to seeing the results of the Sutherland
inquiry in the autumn. But it will look in detail at all the issues
that you are raising.
Q122 Mr Slaughter: Including the
contract letting process, where the cheapest was the best?
Ed Balls: The "procurement
process from the development of the initial tender specification
to the award of the contract". My remit to the QCA is to
deliver the national tests. It is the QCA that then runs the procurement
process. It runs that independent of Ministers. There is no ministerial
decision making at any point through the procurement process.
There were actually more than one—I think two—Office
of Government Commerce Gateway reviews, in which the procurement
process was reviewed by OGC. On more than one occasion the procurement
process for the ETS contract was given a green light by the Office
of Government Commerce. So, from a ministerial point of view,
the fact that this was done at arm's length from us, but OGC gave
it a green light, would be sufficient to give us confidence that
it was being done properly. That is clearly not about the least
cost. It is about value for money, but value for money means making
sure that you get the job done. The unacceptability here is that
the job has not been done satisfactorily. The contract has not
been properly delivered, as I see things. But that is a matter
for Lord Sutherland to look into.
Q123 Mr Slaughter: Two brief questions
concern us now. If it is right that ETS was the cheapest company,
and if it is discovered that the company is not competent to continue
carrying out the work, are you not then in a difficulty? You will
be going back to other suppliers, which had higher prices and
which, presumably, now, in the light of what has happened, will
want to charge very high amounts in order to undertake the work.
Therefore, have not ETS rather got you over a barrel in that sense?
Ed Balls: This is a very large
contract—£165 million. It is a five-year contract,
but it is a contract that is clearly based upon performance. There
will be a number of provisions in that contract. The management
of that contract is for QCA, not for myself. It would be quite
wrong of me to start pre-empting decisions that the QCA may make
in relation to their contractor. That would be the wrong thing
to do legally as well, I think, but it is really important that
any procurement processes at any time deliver proper value for
money. That will always be a guiding principle for us, in any
decisions that are made subsequent to today.
Q124 Mr Slaughter: Finally, I understand
that once the results are with schools there is an opportunity
for schools to challenge, to question whether that is right. In
the light of what has happened so far, do you anticipate a higher
level of challenge than before? We know that many schools are
sceptical about the tests anyway, and they might be even more
sceptical after the debacle with ETS and QCA this year. Are provisions
in place to deal with what might be an upsurge in queries and
complaints this September?
Ed Balls: Whether it involves
dealing with complaints or calls to the helpline, that is a matter
for QCA and ETS. They must ensure that they have proper provisions
in place. There are complaints from schools every year.
Q125 Mr Slaughter: Have they done
that? Are they anticipating it?
Ed Balls: It is for the QCA to
ensure that such provisions are in place. Obviously, we have told
the QCA that we must ensure at every stage that things are done
in a proper and orderly fashion. We have allowed more time. Where
possible, we have encouraged schools to make any complaints by
25 July, but we have also said that because of the delays, complaints
to QCA can be made up to 10 September, or 10 working days after
the beginning of the school term, whichever is longer. There is
a clear window after the summer holidays if schools choose to
complain, and it is important that ETS and QCA handle it properly.
Ofqual will look very carefully to ensure that the processes are
done properly from a quality and standards point of view, and
I am sure that that is exercising the QCA at this minute.
Q126 Mr Carswell: Clearly, there
has been a bit of a cock-up, and there are many thousands of families
and teachers who will be anxious. There are also concerns about
the reliability of the final results. As Minister, do you take
responsibility for that?
Ed Balls: I have already answered
that question to the Chairman. I said that Ministers are accountable
to Parliament for the overall delivery of our schools policy,
including the national testing regime. It is my responsibility
to ensure that that happens, and I do so in an arm's-length way
through an independent body, the QCA, which contracts with ETS.
It is the responsibility of ETS to deliver the contract and it
is QCA's responsibility to ensure that the contract is delivered.
I have asked Lord Sutherland to do a report for me, because I
want to know whether QCA has managed this properly, so that I
can report to Parliament. That is my responsibility.
Q127 Mr Carswell: If Ken Boston is
responsible in the way that you described, how will you ensure
that he, as quango chief, takes responsibility?
Ed Balls: I am going to wait and
see the results of Lord Sutherland's inquiry and it would be wrong
to pre-empt that. I have set up an inquiry reporting to me which,
as you have seen, covers a wide range of issues. How the QCA has
discharged its remit from the Department to deliver National Curriculum
tests at Key Stage 2 and 3 makes up the core of the inquiry, and
I will publish that as soon as I get it.
Q128 Mr Carswell: Without wishing
to wait all that time for the Sutherland report, do you have full
confidence in Ken Boston as head of QCA?
Ed Balls: In my opening remarks
I said that our first priority is to ensure that the tests are
delivered in a timely and orderly fashion. That is QCA's focus
this week. I have full confidence in Ken Boston and the QCA's
ability to deliver that remit this week. Clearly, there are wider
issues that we must look at, such as the procurement process and
the subsequent management of the contract, and that is what the
Sutherland inquiry will do. For me to go into that would be to
pre-empt the inquiry.
Q129 Mr Carswell: So you might not
be fully confident of how the QCA handled the procurement process?
Ed Balls: That is why I have asked
for an inquiry by Lord Sutherland. I want to know what has happened
and it would be silly for me to say anything that pre-empts that
independent inquiry. I want to know whether the QCA has discharged
its remit effectively, and that is what I have asked Lord Sutherland
to look into.
Q130 Mr Carswell: So the Minister
for Schools does not take responsibility. He blames others and
gets someone called Sutherland to kick it into touch for the autumn.
The quango chief will not accept that he is to blame and passes
the buck to ETS. Things have been messed up and local parents
and teachers take the rap. As Minister in Whitehall, are you sure
that you are really in control of what is happening?
Ed Balls: I understand what you
have just said, but I think that that is contradicted by what
I said to you in answer to the previous question. I said that
Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the public for
the delivery of schools policy, including the delivery of the
National Curriculum tests overall. But the way in which we do
that, rather than direct ministerial control of the tests, which
would be the wrong thing to do and would not command public confidence,
is to ask the QCA to manage that process. It then contracts. ETS
is accountable for the delivery of its contracts and the QCA is
accountable for ensuring that the contract is properly given and
delivered. The reason why I have asked for an independent inquiry
is that if there have been mistakes at any point in that process,
I need to know so that I can report to Parliament. That, in the
end, is where accountability lies. I have said—I said this
to the Chairman when I wrote on 4 July—that I, like you
and like many parents and teachers around the country, am upset
by what has happened. It is unacceptable, and the distress and
inconvenience that it has caused should not happen. That is why
I am having this inquiry.
Q131 Mr Carswell: When your predecessor,
Estelle Morris, quit when she realised that the QCA had made a
cock-up over testing, I seem to remember that she found the humility
to say sorry. Will you be saying sorry?
Ed Balls: I do not actually think
that that is a correct description of what happened with Estelle
Morris. I have said that it is unacceptable. The QCA's Ken Boston
said on the radio this morning that he apologised for what had
happened and for the way in which ETS had let down schools and
parents.
Q132 Mr Carswell: But you will not
apologise.
Ed Balls: I am really upset, like
you are, about what has happened, and I want to know what has
gone on. That is why I am having an inquiry.
Q133 Mr Chaytor: The Sutherland inquiry
has two strands. He will report privately to you but publicly
to Ofqual.
Ed Balls: We will make both reports
public, but there will not be a series of public evidence hearings.
He will conduct his inquiries for Ofqual and the Department and
make them public. I do not think that there is any difference
in—
Q134 Mr Chaytor: So as soon as you
receive the Sutherland report, it will be published.
Ed Balls: Yes.
Q135 Mr Chaytor: Should the contract
with ETS also be published?
Ed Balls: That may be something
that Lord Sutherland can look at. I cannot tell you today whether,
legally, that is possible, but I am sure that Lord Sutherland
will want to provide the fullest information in his inquiry. If
it is possible for him to publish the contract, I am sure that
he will. He has not been given any indication that we want him
to keep anything private, but there will be commercial and legal
issues for him to look at.
Q136 Mr Chaytor: You told us earlier
that the value of the contract was £165 million over five
years, so the key commercial factor of the contract is already
in the public domain.
Ed Balls: That would have been
announced to Parliament.
Q137 Mr Chaytor: But given that the
terms of reference for Lord Sutherland's response to you focus
largely on the nature of the contract, how can the contract remain
secret if there is to be adequate public scrutiny of it?
Ed Balls: I gave you an open and
candid answer, which was that I did not know whether there would
be any legal or commercial reasons why it was not possible to
publish the contract. I am sure that if it is legally possible,
Lord Sutherland will want to do so. From my point of view, that
would be highly desirable.
Jon Thompson: This was a European
Union public procurement process that led to the announcement
on 28 January 2007 about the award and its value. There are legal
processes for the original advertisement and the whole process,
including the selection and the criteria for that selection, and
they are already publicly available. On the ultimate question
of whether the contract could be published, I do not know the
answer, but a significant amount of the information is already
publicly available because it is an EU public procurement process.
Q138 Mr Chaytor: But you are not
aware of any further legal or commercial obstacles that would
prevent the whole contract from being in the public domain.
Jon Thompson: I need to be very
clear about this: that contract is between two bodies, neither
of which is the Department, so I cannot actually answer that question
for you. Sorry.
Q139 Paul Holmes: To return to the
old-fashioned concept of ministerial responsibility, one frustration
for MPs these days is that when we ask a Minister something, they
will say, "Oh, you'll have to ask Railtrack, you'll have
to ask the Learning and Skills Council, you'll have to ask the
primary care trust—that's not our problem." You are
effectively saying that whatever comes out of the Sutherland inquiry,
it is the fault either of Ken Boston and the QCA, or ETS, or both,
but it is certainly not yours. As you say, you have published
this morning the terms of reference for the Sutherland inquiry,
and the first point says that it should look at how the QCA has
discharged its remit. Should not the first point be to look at
the adequacy of the remit from you and your Department?
Ed Balls: I understand the point
that you are trying to make, but I have said from the beginning
that the reason why Jim Knight came last Monday, the reason why
I am here today and the reason why I wrote to the Chair of the
Select Committee on 4 July is that Ministers are accountable to
Parliament for the delivery of schools policy, including the testing
regime. I have no problem with that, and the Sutherland inquiry's
terms of reference say that Lord Sutherland will look at the "appropriateness
of the Department's arrangements to monitor QCA's delivery against
its remit." So he has got to look at whether the Department,
as well as the QCA, was doing its job. Nothing is out of bounds
for Lord Sutherland. He can look at the whole process, and I am
very happy for him to look at whether the original remit was properly
specified.
| 
