Schedule 11

– in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 26 March 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

The Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

I beg to move amendment 144, in schedule 11, page 196, line 24, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert

Children, Schools and Families Committee of the House of Commons.’.

We have now finally gone past part 7, which dealt with Ofqual, so I shall try to get my initials right here. I congratulate the Minister on her patience in taking us through that. I note that she is still at the crease dealing with part 8 of the Bill on the QCDA. Schedule 11 considers and makes detailed provisions relating to the  QCDA, particularly its constitution and proceedings. The QCDA will clearly be an extremely important body in its own right. It will not be a non-ministerial department as Ofqual was, but a non-departmental public body. Perhaps the Minister will say a few things about the distinction between the two in her opening comments. The Committee might find it useful to learn why the decision was taken to make the QCDA a non-departmental public body, rather than a non-ministerial Department—she will be aware that there are some concerns about the fact that there is that distinction—and whether the Bill gives it quite the independence from Government and from Ministers that it might be given.

The Opposition could perhaps be criticised for not having tabled more amendments on this subject to probe in more depth the relationship between the Government and the QCDA. We may want to return to that later. Amendment 144 deals with the accountability of the chief officer of the QCDA. According to schedule 11, the QCDA is to consist of between eight and 13 members who will all be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must appoint one of the ordinary members to chair the QCDA. Paragraph 3(1) states:

“The chief officer is to be appointed by the QCDA, on conditions of service determined by the QCDA.”

Paragraph 3(2) states:

“The appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.”

In the debate on Ofqual, we considered whether some accountability for these bodies should be to Parliament through Select Committees rather than directly to the Secretary of State. The Children, Schools and Families Committee has considered that point, as have other Select Committees. The amendment would delete “Secretary of State” and insert

“Children, Schools and Families Committee of the House of Commons.”

In other words, it would make the Select Committee rather than the Secretary of State responsible for approving the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer of the QCDA.

Ofqual is a high-profile body with potentially an important job. There will be a lot of attention on whether it succeeds in resolving the standards debate. Because of that, there has been an inclination inside and outside Parliament to underestimate the importance of the QCDA. Its responsibilities are set out in the schedule, in later clauses and in the explanatory notes, which state:

“The QCDA will retain the QCA’s non-regulatory functions, including supporting Ministers on developing the curriculum and related qualifications and delivering National Curriculum tests.”

It is an extremely important body and there are issues about its independence.

My party would feel much more comfortable and supported if there was accountability to Parliament, rather than all accountability being placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. After all, the Secretary of State has already been given significant powers over the QCDA, such as the power to appoint its members. We hope that the Minister will respond to those concerns.

Photo of Sarah McCarthy-Fry Sarah McCarthy-Fry Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families 5:00, 26 March 2009

On the QCDA being a non-departmental public body, it will have the same status that the QCA currently has. It will continue to be the key source of expertise in supporting Ministers on the curriculum and related qualifications. It will continue to develop and deliver national curriculum tests. Ministers are quite rightly accountable to Parliament for the content of the curriculum and they will continue to need an expert body that offers robust advice on monitoring and developing the curriculum. As a non-departmental public body, it will be at arm’s length from Ministers rather than directly under their control. That is the relationship we want it to have: close to Ministers, but separate from them and able to provide expert advice.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

Will the Minister explain why the Government decided to make Ofqual a non-ministerial body and for the QCDA to be a non-departmental public body? What is the justification for the different treatment?

Photo of Sarah McCarthy-Fry Sarah McCarthy-Fry Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families

The difference is that Ofqual has a regulatory function whereas the QCDA is an advisory body.

The amendment proposes that the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer of the QCDA should be subject to the approval of the Children, Schools and Families Committee rather than the Secretary of State. It is similar to amendment 57, which we debated on Tuesday, and which proposed that the appointment and conditions of service of the Ofqual chief executive should be approved by the Select Committee.

The amendment is problematic for two reasons. First, the QCDA is accountable to Parliament not directly, but via the Secretary of State. In fact, two Secretaries of State have an interest in its work. That accountability must be reflected in the responsibility for approving the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer. I therefore have a problem with the amendment in principle. Secondly, it is not appropriate for a Select Committee to be responsible for approving the appointment and conditions of service of an employee of a public body that is part of Government. That is not the purpose of Select Committees and they do not have the structures to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Photo of David Laws David Laws Shadow Secretary of State (Children, Schools and Families)

I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised. As the Minister accurately said, to some extent we are rehearsing the arguments that we had in relation to Ofqual, where we also sought to involve Select Committees in that way. I therefore have the feeling that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 500, in schedule 11, page 197, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 498.

Amendment 307, in schedule 11, page 201, line 24, leave out ‘this or any other’ and insert ‘any’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 291.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.