Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I would like to update the House before it rises on the delivery of this year's national curriculum tests, following my appearance before the Select Committee last week and my letter to its Chairman yesterday. I would like to provide an update to the House on five areas: progress on marking; marking quality and appeals; contractual discussions between the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and ETS Europe; the Sutherland inquiry; and the future of national curriculum tests. I shall continue to update Parliament regularly over the recess. I will write weekly with an update to the Chair of the Select Committee, copying my letter to Opposition spokespeople and the Speaker and placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

First, on marking, the first priority is to ensure that schools receive their 2008 results in an orderly way, with the minimum of delay. This morning, in a written statement, I provided the House with the latest information that the QCA and ETS Europe have given me on results released to schools. The total of scripts marked and released has now risen to more than 98 per cent. of marks at key stage 2, and at key stage 3 some 88 per cent. of marks are now available—94.1 per cent. in maths, 93.4 per cent. in science and 76.9 per cent. in English. QCA and ETS Europe had made a commitment that all schools would have received their marks on 8 July, and they have both apologised to schools for the delay. I share the frustration and anger of teachers, children and parents about the delays in the release of this year's test results—this should not have happened.

Secondly, on marking quality, I have been advised by Ofqual—the independent regulator of qualifications, exams and tests in England—that the quality of marking is at least as good as in previous years, and justifies the issuing of results. Ofqual has assured me that it continues to monitor the quality of the marking of the tests, and that it will consider the evidence in relation to any problems that are brought to its attention and act accordingly. I shall continue to update Parliament on the progress with Ofqual's work on marking quality. The QCA has extended the timetable for appeals to 10 September or 10 days after the start of term, whichever is later.

Thirdly, QCA has confirmed, in a statement over the weekend, that it is in contractual discussions with ETS Europe following these unacceptable delays. QCA states that it is considering all available options to allow the timely conclusion of the work for the 2008 test series and to secure a successful 2009 programme. The contract with ETS Europe was drawn up and has been managed by QCA, at arm's length from Ministers, to ensure the independence and objectivity of the testing regime. Any contractual discussions are legally a matter for the QCA and ETS Europe. Those discussions are continuing, and they are highly sensitive—commercially, legally and financially. At this stage it is very important and in the public interest that QCA should be able to conclude those discussions in a timely, orderly and rigorous fashion, in order to safeguard the interests of pupils, schools and taxpayers.

I am advised that ministerial intervention or interference at this stage, including public statements intended to influence the outcome of these contractual discussions, would be inappropriate and would jeopardise the public interest. In particular, it is very important that nothing is said to shift responsibility or redress from where it properly falls under the contract. I hope that the House will understand why I cannot comment further at this stage.

Fourthly, following the publication of the terms of reference last week, I can confirm to the House that Lord Sutherland has started work on his independent inquiry. It is important to allow an orderly completion of this year's national curriculum tests, so Lord Sutherland has told me that he intends to collect evidence in August and September before reporting publicly when the House returns in the autumn. The independent inquiry will look at all the issues surrounding the test delays, including the specification and procurement of the contract with ETS by QCA. That will include the role played by Ministers and my Department and the arm's length relationship between the QCA and Ministers and departmental officials in that regard.

Finally, on the wider question of testing and assessment, I have welcomed the Select Committee's recent report and its support for the principle of externally assessed national tests. But, as I said to the Committee last week, the current testing and assessment regime is not set in stone. Indeed, in the children's plan we highlighted the potential opportunities presented by our Making Good Progress pilot, involving 500 schools, where pupils are entered for single-level tests when their teacher judges them to be ready and at the level appropriate for them.

It is important that we evaluate the case for change before making decisions. As I said to the Committee last week, the pilot runs to next July and is being externally evaluated. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, and I will publish it to Parliament, but we must not return to the situation where school accountability was weak, parents lacked good information about their child's progress and, as a result, many children fell behind in their education and development. That is why it is so important that we complete the delivery of this year's test results, ensure the delivery of the 2009 national curriculum tests and secure public confidence that the system is being appropriately managed, regulated and scrutinised at arm's length from the Government.

I am determined that we learn the lessons of this year's experience. I am confident that the work of Ofqual and Lord Sutherland will be of great value in that regard, and I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

May I first of all thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for finding time before we break up for this statement? I also thank the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to update us today on the latest twists in this terrible fiasco. I wish to underline our sympathy for the pupils, parents, heads and teachers whose summer has been blighted by the chaos surrounding the marking of the key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests.

Under the American contractor ETS, there have been chronic delays in getting all papers marked, the marking itself has been flawed, with reports of teenagers and cocktail waitresses being approached to help meet deadlines, and papers of widely differing quality being given the same mark. The Secretary of State says that it is no worse than every year. Does not that just underline the incompetence at the heart of this Government when it comes to education?

The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that this situation is unacceptable, but what parents and teachers want to know is whether he will take responsibility. He has consistently argued that responsibility for this affair rests in hands other than his—at arm's length. But can he confirm that civil servants from his Department—specifically, the director general of schools—were there at the meeting when the contract was awarded to ETS? Can the Secretary of State tell us what, if anything, civil servants told him about that procurement process? Can he tell us what action, if any, he then took to ensure the safe delivery of testing?

When I informed the Secretary of State in the House on 19 May that ETS had a record of missed deadlines and mistaken marking in the US, he confessed he had "no knowledge" of their record—even though he is accountable to Parliament for the testing regime. How could the Secretary of State have known so little about the company to which we were entrusting a multi-million pound contract when his own director general of schools was there when the contract was awarded? The chief executive of the QCA says that he is entirely satisfied with the process that awarded ETS this contract. Is the Secretary of State?

I note what the Secretary of State says about the ongoing contractual negotiations, but does he not agree that when companies with public sector contracts fail to live up to their promises they should not be bailed out by the taxpayer? Does he not agree that any contract signed with a company that means we have to pay them to escape is a contract that could only have been signed by a Government who are neither prudent nor competent?

As soon as ETS took up its contract, examiners started to register their concerns. The standardisation process, which ensures consistent marking, was flawed, with highly experienced markers being failed and other, much weaker candidates, being passed despite registering a worryingly high number of mistakes. Worse, the failsafe system to deal with bad marking—the borderline process which allows for papers to be remarked—was scrapped. Given the high number of complaints of inconsistent and error-strewn marking in this year's tests, how can the Secretary of State have confidence in the quality of marking? Can he give an absolute guarantee that full key stage 2 results will be published on 5 August and key stage 3 results on 12 August? And can he give an absolute guarantee that heads and teachers can be confident that the results generated by ETS will be robust enough to guarantee accurate pupil scores and reliable league tables?

In assessing the credibility of everything that has been said today, it is crucial that we also know just what action Ministers took when the flaws in ETS's operation became impossible to ignore. When was the Secretary of State first made aware that there were major problems with this year's marking and what actions did he take? In March, the chief executive of the QCA warned the Secretary of State that the introduction of "new IT" by ETS carried risks. What steps did the Secretary of State take to reduce those risks?

On 14 May this year, the head of the new exams watchdog Ofqual wrote to the Secretary of State to outline her priorities. In his reply, the Secretary of State said nothing about the importance of getting this year's SATs right, and instead said that the new single-level testing and the diploma programme were the priorities. Why, when teachers and examiners were already warning of problems with the tests, did the Secretary of State not ask the regulator specifically to address those concerns?

On 19 May, I and Mr. Laws again raised the concerns being voiced by teachers and examiners. The Secretary of State said that he would monitor the situation closely. Then on 4 July, Ministers had to acknowledge that the problems with marking were so great that the publication of results would have to be delayed. Can the Secretary of State tell us what specific steps he took after 19 May to get SATs testing back on track, what meetings he had, which interventions he authorised and which officials he pursued? Or did he, like an exam candidate who has not done his homework, just cross his fingers, hope for the best and pray that he would not be asked any tough questions?

We all await Lord Sutherland's report with interest, but when the Secretary of State's predecessor Estelle Morris ran into trouble with a marking fiasco, she commissioned a former chief inspector to issue an interim report within a week. Why is the Secretary of State not insisting on similar urgency even now? Is he afraid of the results? Has not his behaviour throughout this affair been characterised by indifference, high-handedness and inattention? Is it not the case that his Department failed to ensure that contracts had been awarded properly, failed to heed warning signs and failed to act quickly to avert a fiasco that every teacher in the land could see coming? Do not pupils, parents and teachers deserve better than a Secretary of State who fails the most basic test of all—competence in office?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

There is no doubt in my mind that parents, teachers and pupils deserve better than the service that they have had in recent weeks from ETS Europe and from the QCA. I have said clearly that I very much regret what has happened and the inconvenience to schools and pupils. Indeed, I share the frustration and anger of teachers, children and parents that this should have happened.

The QCA and ETS have both apologised. However, as I have said, this is a commercial and legal matter, and I will not say anything that either shifts responsibility or redress from where it should properly fall, or that would influence the outcome of the current contractual discussions. What I say in the House today has practical and financial consequences, and for me to indulge in the rhetoric and grandstanding of the hon. Gentleman would be ill-advised and against the public interest: I am not going to do that.

I am happy to answer the many scattergun questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. It is important to answer them now, but we will also have the inquiry by Lord Sutherland, which I set up immediately and which will provide independent answers to all those questions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the length of time that the process will take. It will take so much time because it is important that we go through all that has happened and get it right. He might not have observed that the difference between this case and the Tomlinson inquiry in 2002 is that there was no contractual, legal or commercial issue at stake in the delivery of those tests. There is such an issue at stake in this case, and that is why it is important that things are handled carefully. Lord Sutherland has said that he wants to work to this timetable. I am happy to let him work to the timetable that he thinks is right to get to the heart of what has occurred.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the procurement process. That process was handled at arm's length from Ministers. At no point have Ministers seen the contracts drawn up between the QCA and ETS. At no point were Ministers consulted on those contracts—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Opposition Members ask why not, but it is not possible for the Government to be accountable for the results of tests while at the same time being actively involved in the management of the marking of those tests. That would not command public confidence. That is why the right way, which is how this has been done for a number of years, is for the contract to be managed at arm's length by the QCA. That is what it did in this case.

I am accountable to the House for schools policy, including the delivery of results. However, the responsibility for the delivery of those results is a matter for the QCA and ETS under contract. Lord Sutherland will look carefully at why that delivery did not happen. Clear processes were followed at the time, including the Office of Government Commerce's carrying out gateway reviews—at least one, carried out two years ago—to ensure that the contract was negotiated in line with the remit set by our Department and in line with best practice in order to deliver efficiency, value for money and the best procurement of the contract. Those processes were given a green light by the OGC and that was reported to Ministers.

All the details of the procurement process, including the role played by Ministers and officials, will be considered by Lord Sutherland in his report. The reality of government is that Ministers do not interfere with the procurement and marking of tests and test results. We have stuck to that fundamental principle.

Earlier this year, there were early difficulties with the marking and with some of the computer programmes for the test results. That was raised with our Department in advance of our exchanges in the House of Commons in May. They were raised in the House on that day, too. I immediately sought reassurances. In the following weeks, the Minister for Schools and Learners had a series of meetings. Contingencies were put in place for the delivery of those results. I had a meeting on 2 June with Ken Boston, the chief executive of the QCA, in which I was reassured that all the actions that we had asked for in the days after 19 May had been taken. We were assured that the actions in that period had got things on track.

Despite a series of meetings in May and June, it was only on 1 July that the QCA brought to our attention the fact that the tests would not be delivered on time, because the marking was behind and because of problems with the flow of data to the computers on which they are presented. We immediately asked for that to be investigated by the QCA and, two days later, having satisfied ourselves that that was the position, we announced in a letter to the Select Committee, reporting to Parliament, the Library and Opposition spokesmen, that we would delay the publication of key stage 2 results until 15 June and the publication of key stage 3 results until later in that week. At that time, we announced the independent inquiry. We discussed the inquiry's terms of reference with Ofqual and with Lord Sutherland. That was published when I appeared before the Select Committee the following week.

At the same time, Ofqual reassured me on 4 July, and has done since, that the quality of marking is at least as high as in previous years—although that is monitored closely—and that therefore it is appropriate for those results to be published in August. The final decision on publication will be made on the advice of the independent statistician in our Department and on the basis of the views of Ofqual in the coming days and weeks.

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know how the regime works in practice, but 10 million scripts are marked by over 1.2 million pupils in every year—

Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

What?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

The scripts are done by pupils, not marked by pupils; I am sorry about that faux pas. There are 1.2 million pupils and 10 million scripts, and every year there are some difficulties with the marking of those scripts. That is why we have an appeals process and why there are appeals every year. Of course, every year there are problems in the marking of the scripts and things get sorted out.

The advice I have received from the QCA and others is that the volume of complaints received through the helplines has been similar to the volume received in recent years. Ofqual is looking at that, and Lord Sutherland will consider it. No evidence has been provided at this point to suggest that there is any reason to delay the publication of the marks. It would be the wrong thing to do for the future of testing in our country.

As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about teenagers and cocktail waitresses marking tests, he has no evidence that any teenager or cocktail waitress has marked any test. If he wants to provide that information to Lord Sutherland's inquiry, I am sure that it will be considered. Once again, we will find that behind the rhetoric there is no substance to the hon. Gentleman's allegation.

We have an independent inquiry. Sensitive contractual discussions are going on at the moment. All aspects of the matter will be considered closely. It is important that we take the right decisions this year so that we can secure confidence in the future of the testing regime. Rather than undermining confidence, the hon. Gentleman should support the work that we are doing with the independent inquiry. He should support the work that the QCA is doing in order to get the best outcome in these discussions. Rather than undermining confidence, he should act more like a statesman in these matters.

David Laws (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that notwithstanding those comments the Secretary of State will accept that if we are to have a high-stakes national testing system we must have a high-quality marking system that enjoys confidence. I hope that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that this year's marking of the key stage 2 and 3 tests has been nothing short of a complete shambles.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that he gave an assurance to this House more than two months ago that the key stage tests were on track, yet in spite of that reassurance 130,000 scripts for key stage 3 English have yet to be marked. Is he prepared to accept some responsibility on his part and on that of his ministerial team for the failure to act in that two-month period? Interestingly, he acknowledged a moment ago that he and his ministerial colleagues were aware of the problems before he made the statement in the House on 19 May that the tests were on track. Will he tell us in his response when he and his ministerial colleagues were first made aware of the problems that there have been this year?

On the issue of the reliability of marking, is the Secretary of State not extraordinarily complacent and very premature to assume that we can have confidence in this year's key stage test marking? That is particularly the case in the light of the number of complaints that there have already been about key stage 2 English and that there are likely to be about key stage 3 English tests when they are marked and sent out. Will he confirm that the assessment that has been made by Ofqual, which he seems so keen to rely on, appears to be only a somewhat cursory assessment of the processes that have been used and not of the results? Schools that end up having to appeal against the results could face costs of £6.50 per script or £180 per school or per set of results. Will he consider waiving those fees this year so that schools in this country do not end up paying for the incompetence of the Government and ETS? On ETS, does he accept that it is fairly clear from all the evidence so far that ETS has demonstrated unfitness to run the contract this year?

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any payments have been made so far to ETS out of the extraordinary £165 million that the Government will pay to that company over the next five years to administer the tests?

Can he also tell us, without going into the detail of the contracts that have been signed, whether the QCA and the Government have the power to cancel ETS's contract without paying penalties if it can be demonstrated that ETS has acted in a negligent and incompetent way in administering the test this year?

On the time scale for the Sutherland inquiry, the Secretary of State has given us the usual ministerial vagueness, saying that the report will be delivered in the autumn. Can he be a little clearer about when he expects the report to come back? Can he indicate the latest date by which it would be necessary for the Government to make a decision if they are to put in place a new contractor for the 2009 tests, given the sensitivity of the time scales involved?

On the future of the testing regime, I think the Secretary of State said that the Select Committee was supportive of some form of national testing, and indeed it was, but it was also extremely critical of the existing testing regime. In his comments at the end of his statement about single-level tests and other adjustments that could be made, there was a sense of the deckchairs being shuffled around on the Titanic, given what we have seen with the marking of the tests this year and the much wider criticisms that have been made. Nobody is suggesting going back to a system of zero accountability, but when it is clear that the testing regime is collapsing under its own grotesque weight, do we not need a more fundamental review of that regime than the one that the Secretary of State is hinting at? Do we not need to axe some of the unhelpful and irrelevant tests, such as those at key stage 3, which have a low value in terms of school accountability and pupil assessment? Should we not put some of the enormous amount of money that could be saved by reducing the scale of testing into early diagnosis and early intervention to address some of the root causes of the challenges faced by so many young people in our education system today?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I am a bit confused. Today, the hon. Gentleman is calling for a review of national testing and its future; yesterday, he said:

"There is no need for endless reviews about the future of the national tests."

I am not sure whether he is calling today for a different review from the one that he rejected yesterday. To be fair to him, however, we have different and principled positions: I believe that it is important that we have continued externally validated national curriculum tests, and he does not—he calls them grotesque and he wants to abolish them.

I should say to Michael Gove that we no longer have any idea what the Conservative party's policy on externally validated tests is. I guess that we will have to wait for the outcome of its inquiry under Richard Sykes before we get more elucidation from the hon. Gentleman. However, Mr. Laws and I have different views. I am happy to reform, but I want to keep externally validated tests, and it is really important for parents, teachers and the Government that we do so.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will abolish the £6.50 per script appeals charge. As he will know, there is a £6.50 charge only if the school fails in its appeal; if it succeeds, it does not pay a charge. Of course it is sensible to keep that charge in place, but if more appeals are successful, schools will not pay more charges. As I said—I am not being complacent about this—Ofqual has advised me on the basis of its work so far that there has not been a decline in marking quality, but it has also said that it continues to keep the issue under the review, and that is its role. That shows that I was right to introduce the principle of an independent regulator—Ofqual—last year so that it could play that role precisely.

The hon. Gentleman asked when we became aware of the issues before us, and we were of course aware of them. The Schools Minister and I were aware of the problems that had occurred with ETS Europe before our exchange in the House of Commons on 19 May. Lord Sutherland will look into the detail of all this. We also took repeated and regular action in the following weeks in discussions with QCA, but, again, Lord Sutherland will look at that in his inquiry. I hope that he will report as soon as possible once he has collected his evidence in August and September. I hope that that will be in October, but, for today, I will say that it will be in the autumn, because I do not want to pre-empt his timetable, as that is for him to decide. However, I am clear that the sooner he can complete his report, the better.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks at what point we should make decisions about the contract for the 2009 tests. He tries to lure me into providing a commentary on the discussions that are currently under way. He asks me to use words such as "incompetent", but I am not going to get into that. As I explained very clearly, the advice to me is that to secure the best interests of the taxpayer, schools and pupils, the right thing for me to do today is not to comment on discussions that are ongoing and very sensitive, so I will not comment on them. Obviously, however, the sooner information can be provided to the House, the better.

Several hon. Members:

rose —

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

Order. We have already been over half an hour on the statement and an awful lot of people are seeking to catch my eye. Could I please now appeal for one crisp question and, hopefully, a crisp answer?

Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West, Labour)

May I pass on to the Secretary of State the concerns expressed to me at the weekend by parents and students, including a young constituent called Emma Hoare, about the quality of the marking and the lack of reassurance that they obtained from the TV appearance by an ETS spokesperson, who simply did not seem to grasp the seriousness of the issue? Can Ofqual take into account the need to reassure the public, as well as the Secretary of State, about the quality of these tests?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

My hon. Friend is quite right. One reason why I acted last autumn was that, in my judgment, there was a conflict of interest in the same body—the QCA—being responsible for contracting to deliver the tests and also acting as the independent regulator of quality. That is why we pulled those two roles apart and why we are legislating for Ofqual. Ofqual is giving the assurances, and it is monitoring the situation closely. There are always some problems with marking every year, but the advice to me is that, so far, there have not been more problems than in previous years. Ofqual is keeping that under review and looking at it closely, and I will report regularly to the House.

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

Like the rest of the country, the Secretary of State must have seen the two published test papers in English that appeared in the national newspapers last week. Can he tell us why the public and the House should have any confidence in the marking of those test papers, when one, which was clearly well written and accurately spelled, was given a very similar mark to the other, which was poorly written and poorly spelled? For the record, can he tell us his personal opinion of those two papers and the marks that they received?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

Like the hon. Lady, I have no confidence in the marking of those two particular scripts. I am sure that the head teacher of Moss Side primary will be making an appeal. There are appeals every year when the marking goes wrong. The question that we have to judge is not whether there has been a problem in an individual case—that is for the appeals process—but whether there has been a systemic problem of marking quality. As of today, no evidence has been provided to me of a systemic problem of marking quality, but we will keep the issue under review.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour)

Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern among teachers about the quality of the tests themselves? When I visited three primary schools in Slough, I found that the teachers were not particularly concerned about the results, although they were angry that they had not got them yet. However, they were very keen to tell me that the extended writing test at key stage 2 was ethnically biased and not appropriate for the pupils of Slough. Those teachers are also concerned, and this will affect every constituency, about how the RAISE system—the system for reporting and analysis for improvement through school self-evaluation—for tracking pupil progress will be affected by what has happened and by the quality of the tests, which look at individual questions.

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I hear my hon. Friend's concerns. She will understand that the tests are not set by Ministers or by my Department, but at arm's length by the QCA. I will make sure that her views on those issues are expressed to the QCA. We need to make sure at all times that we have the highest standards of test setting. We also need to make sure that we have a curriculum in primary schools that is suited to the needs of our 21st century society. That is why Sir Jim Rose is reviewing the primary curriculum. Obviously, that will impact on tests in the future.

Mark Francois (Shadow Minister, Foreign Affairs; Rayleigh, Conservative)

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's rather extraordinary statement, which could best be summarised as saying, "This is absolutely nothing to do with me. I'm just the Secretary of State in charge of the Department." Is it not the truth that this is a complete fiasco, that it has happened on his watch and that ultimately the buck rests with him and no one else?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

As I said very clearly, I am accountable to Parliament for schools policy, and that includes the delivery of the tests. I was clear about that today, and I was clear about it last week when I appeared before the Select Committee. However, the responsibility for delivering those tests lies contractually with ETS Europe. A contract was drawn up with the QCA at arm's length from Ministers, and rightly so, because that is the only way to inspire public confidence in the objectivity of test setting that is independent of ministerial interference. I am clearly accountable for setting the regime, but the responsibility lay with ETS Europe, and the question that is being discussed today is whether those responsibilities have been properly discharged.

Barbara Keeley (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC (Minister for Women)), Leader of the House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I have written to him about a primary school in my constituency and the issue of marking quality. The school has achieved key stage 2 results of 74 per cent. in maths, which is good for our area of Salford, but its English results, which were expected to be 70 per cent., were only 34 per cent. That is having quite an impact on the English teachers. The school has checked with the Salford school improvement service, which cannot see any reason for the gap between what was expected and what has actually happened. The school is concerned about what will happen to its reputation across the summer holidays, and about the children who are transferring to high school with those unexpectedly poor results. What advice should I, as its local MP, be giving to the school? How should it proceed to manage this matter across the school holidays?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I would advise my hon. Friend to encourage the school to appeal. In a case where it is felt that there is a problem across all the test papers, the school should lodge a group appeal rather than individual appeals. That appeal will be looked at separately and independently, and rightly so, because it is important that the appeals process works in an orderly way, as it does every year. I would encourage my hon. Friend to advise that primary school to appeal.

Graham Stuart (Beverley & Holderness, Conservative)

The Secretary of State has said that he regrets the situation, and he has accepted the point made by my hon. Friend Mr. Francois that, as Secretary of State, he is in overall charge of education policy and of this testing. Yet, before the Select Committee and today in the House of Commons, as the person at the top with whom the buck stops, he has signally failed to take the opportunity to apologise. Will he do so now to all the parents, children and schools that have been so badly let down?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I have to say—and I shall say it for the third time to the hon. Gentleman—that I am advised that ministerial intervention or interference at this stage in a contractual discussion would be the wrong thing to do. It is important that nothing is said to shift responsibility or redress from where it properly falls under the contract. I said in my statement that, "I hope that the House will understand why I cannot comment further at this stage." Clearly, however, some Members did not understand why I cannot comment at this stage, but that is still the policy that I am going to pursue, because that is the legal advice that I have been given.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Lord Jones of Birmingham Kt, Minister of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

The issue of procurement, including price, and the issue of culpability, involving the discussions between the QCA and ETS, go to the heart of the matter. If the Secretary of State will not comment on those issues now, will he do so in due course? On the quality of marking will he ensure that the independent inquiry looks at the issue of appeals, including numbers of appeals and successful appeals, to see whether his point about quality being maintained is upheld?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

The body that is responsible for regulating the appeals process and ensuring the quality of marking and the quality of appeals is Ofqual, and that is really its responsibility. Clearly, Lord Sutherland will look at any issue that he wants to, but in the first instance, that is a matter for Ofqual. Lord Sutherland will look at all aspects of the procurement process, including how the contract was specified and procured, and that will include the input from departmental officials and Ministers in my Department in setting the remit. He will look at all those issues and report publicly. Of course I will comment, but I have said today that I will not comment on the details of this process while the commercial negotiations are occurring, because they are financially and legally very sensitive indeed.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I suspect that a letter I have received from Christine Glen, the head teacher at Wincanton primary school in my constituency, is typical of many. She uses words such as "fiasco", "incompetent" and "slapdash", and deplores the quality of the marking of scripts that she has received. She makes the important point that, when pupils have worked up to or beyond national expectations all year and are then given a disastrous mark in an exam, it has a very unfortunate effect not only on the pupils but on their future career at secondary school. If that pattern is replicated across the country—and it sounds as though it is—would it not be better to declare this year's SATs null and void, and to allow the teachers, who have the expertise, the competence and the knowledge of their pupils, to make individual assessments?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

The answer to that question is no. That would be quite the wrong thing to do in the interests of children and young people in our country. That is why I have rejected the Liberal Democrats' advice to scrap externally marked SATs. The right thing to do in the case that the hon. Gentleman describes would be for the head teacher to appeal. The appeals process will work properly, as it does. If there is a problem, it needs to be sorted out at the appeals stage. As I said earlier, there is no evidence being provided to me at this stage by Ofqual that there has been a decline in marking quality, although of course there are problems with marking every year. That is why we have an appeals process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage the head teacher in his constituency to appeal.

Brian Jenkins (Tamworth, Labour)

Without prejudging the outcome of any inquiry, may I inform my right hon. Friend that anyone in the industry will tell him that we simply do not have a sufficient number of qualified exam markers in this country? That is the problem. Either we get more markers or we balance the work load across the year—which would he prefer?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

It is essential that we have enough qualified markers, and that depends on the rates of pay that the markers are paid to do their job. As my hon. Friend may know, the payments to markers were increased during this process in order to bring in more markers. I am told that we have enough qualified markers; the question is whether they are marking the tests. Lord Sutherland will look at all these matters, but I think that in this case not enough markers were engaged at an early stage.

Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)

Teachers, parents and pupils will be astonished to hear the Secretary of State say that he is unable to say sorry because of the legal advice that he has received. Will he publish that legal advice today?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I have said that I very much regret what has happened, and I have explained clearly that the advice to me is that I should not comment on anything that would prejudice responsibility. That is the legal advice that I have been given. I have made it clear that I am accountable, but the responsibility lies with the QCA and with ETS Europe. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is trying to make comments that would shift that responsibility.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

Having called for this statement on two successive points of order, yesterday and two weeks ago, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now come to the House. With his well-developed political antennae, he will understand the alarm and dismay that will be present in 20,000 staff rooms and in 1 million families. Will he at least aim to write to those 20,000 schools at some point in this process to explain what has happened? At that time, will he explain what has happened to the QCA due diligence report into ETS, whose voracity has clearly exceeded its competence to undertake this hugely important task?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

The large majority of primary and secondary schools received their marks on time, so my hon. Friend is wrong to say that this has caused consternation in 20,000 staff rooms around the country. As I have said, however, I regret the fact that some schools received their results late. Some schools are still waiting for the full suite of their results, and that is something that needs to be sorted out. Indeed, it is being discussed today between the QCA and ETS Europe.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister (Children, Young People and Families), Children, Schools and Families; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Head teachers have reported the need to check their SATs results against the teachers' assessments. I thought that the purpose of the national tests was to check the teachers' assessments. Is it not therefore time that we had more confidence in the teachers' assessments, particular at key stage 3?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

As the hon. Lady will know, because we discussed this in the Select Committee last week, it is one of the purposes of the Making Good Progress pilots to allow more teacher discretion in setting the level of tests for a child to take. These tests play more than one role, however. They are an aid to teacher assessment, and they also provide a way of allowing parents to see the independently validated progress of their child. They also provide a way in which we, and the hon. Lady, can compare performance school by school. All those functions can be performed only if we have universal, externally validated tests. However, that does not mean that we cannot make changes to give more discretion to teachers, and I am keen to do that if the evaluation suggests that it will work.

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

Given the lack of confidence in the system and the likely increase in the number of appeals, what extra resources are being put into the appeals process?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

The advice to me from the QCA is that the appeals process will deal with the volume of appeals and, as I have set out, the longer timetable will allow schools more time. It is very important that the QCA and Ofqual ensure that the appeals process works in a proper, orderly and timely way. That is very much in their minds at the moment.

Bob Spink (Castle Point, UKIP)

In this as in so many other areas, smaller or less interfering government is much better. Will the Secretary of State change his policy so that there is less externally validated testing? We should trust teachers more: they are excellent, and they have the right judgment about children in their care. Trusting them more, especially around key stage 3, would save a lot of money and anguish.

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I just explained to Liberal Democrat colleagues why I disagree with the approach that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I should like Making Good Progress to lead to more teacher discretion, but it would not be right for parents to move away from externally validated tests. I disagree with him, and believe that the information from the tests is a very important part of our drive to raise standards in primary and secondary schools. On this matter, we will have to agree to disagree.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

Given that Ofqual is a new creation, what is the basis for the Secretary of State's assertion that the quality of marking is at least as good this year as previously? Given what he has heard from hon. Members this afternoon, and in the media, is not it time that he admitted that there are serious concerns about the quality of marking? What is he going to do about it?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

As I have said already, the answer is that Ofqual, the independent regulator in these matters, wrote to me on 4 July to say that, in its judgment and according to the information that it had so far, the quality of marking was at least as high as in previous years. The chair of Ofqual said on the radio last week that the organisation was monitoring marking quality closely. If there is evidence of a problem with the quality of marking, Ofqual will act and also advise me, but that is not where we are today, and nor is it the advice that we are receiving. Advice on exam marking, standards and quality should not come from Ministers or the QCA, which sets the tests. It is much better for that advice to come from an independent regulator, and that is why we have introduced the reform.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)

The Secretary of State has said that he is accountable. If that is so, why has he not resigned?

Edward Balls (Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Normanton, Labour)

I have already answered that question a number of times. I am accountable for schools policy, including the testing regime, but it is a principle of that regime that national curriculum tests are set and managed at arm's length from Ministers. That is because Ministers should not interfere with how those tests are set and managed, and that is why the contract is managed at arm's length by the QCA, with ETS Europe. A contractual discussion is going on between the QCA and ETS Europe, which together are responsible for delivering the test results. Both organisations have apologised because they have not met the expectations of pupils or the outputs that they specified in their contract. That is where the responsibility lies.