RT HON ALAN JOHNSON MP

19 JULY 2006

  Q120  Chairman: The Prime Minister is in the Financial Times this morning calling on a whole new view of how we run departments, and some of us believe that with the turnover in civil servants, whether it is under the name of continuous professional development or what else, on the one hand you have got the ministerial team moving fast, but you have got a pretty turbulent and fast-moving civil service these days?

  Alan Johnson: I think we have to accept that people want to make their mark and then move up and move onwards. There is the capability review actually published this afternoon, which will be a lot about how my Department operates and organises on a very technical basis. I would instinctively, like you, think that if you have a got a good team of people you want that team to stay together, but I recognise the realities both of the civil service professional career development and, as I say, of ministerial reshuffles.

  Q121  Chairman: You, like me, have had a career outside this place, and there are not many organisations that would run in the real world with that turbulence of management of all kinds.

  Alan Johnson: I do not think the turbulence is there in the civil service to the same degree as you are mentioning for ministers. It is true, I think, that when Charles Clarke left David Miliband left at the same time, Ivan Lewis left at the same time, there was quite a churn there, but that is the benefit of the Permanent Secretary and the civil service. Incidentally, when I was a postman working in Slough, there was an 87% turnover of staff, I seem to remember, but that is another story.

  Q122  Chairman: Not in the senior management. Let us get on with it. This is the scrutiny committee of the Department, and we can only do that job properly if we have the data and we know about expenditure in a proper form over time so we can compare year on year. Particularly when a new government comes in, as in 1997, it is very important for us to be able to track and, if your Annual Report does start regularly changing its format but crucially changes the way it presents data, that puts us at a great disadvantage. This most recent publication has caused us a lot of problems, and I have been in correspondence with you about that. We were not consulted on that. We are the main scrutiny body for your Department. Why were we not consulted, do you think?

  Alan Johnson: Let me add my apologies to those of David Bell and Jon Thompson. You should have been consulted. I think my reply of 10 June sets out some of the reasons why there was some movement, there were some technical reasons, but your general point is absolutely right, we should try to ensure that you are comparing like with like, and we will do our very best to make sure that happens.

  Q123  Chairman: Some of my colleagues are going to come back to that a bit later, but what are your priorities? This Government has been in power since 1997, education has been a priority from the very beginning. What do you think now? Nine years in, what are your priorities, what do you think the big challenges are now?

  Alan Johnson: Improve attainment, close the social class gap. It is as simple as that.

  Q124  Chairman: What do you say then to the head of the school I visited on Monday, a very challenged but hard working and not in any special measures school just here in Bermondsey and 50 feeder schools unable to cope with a number of young people turning up at 11, unable to read and unable to deploy the right resources to actually get them to read English? Is that not pretty awful?

  Alan Johnson: Yes, and it is a crucial part. I see Key Stage 2 and English and maths at age 11 as crucial in all of this, not least of all because of the amazing statistic, I think it is, 66% of children who get to Level Four in English and maths will go on to get five decent GCSEs, whatever their social class background, and if they get five decent GCSEs 70% of them will go on to get two decent A levels, and if they get two decent A levels 90% of them will go to university, so it is crucial, and we have made huge improvements since 1997. Indeed, I was looking at something that the National Federation for Educational Research did in the mid-sixties which influenced Kenneth Baker and the Conservative Government that showed that, on that precise measure of primary school children, there had been absolutely no improvement for 40 years, 20 years either side of the 11 Plus it just flatlined. There was an amazing complacency about poor results at any level but at that crucial level. So, we have to redouble our efforts and keep this improvement going. It is an incredible improvement, and it is not me that has done this or our Department, it is teachers and head teachers that have transformed the situation, but we need to go much further.

  Q125  Chairman: Why are these 11-year-olds pitching up in our schools, after a career in the primary sector, unable to read and why can they not have enough resource to tackle it: because unless they can understand the curriculum they can have no access to the curriculum? It is crazy, is it not, that children pitch up at 11, they are identified as unable to read properly and they are not taken into some intensive situation that gives them the skills to then open up the curriculum? If they sit there in regular classes unable to participate, it is going to lead to unhappiness, stress, chaos, is it not?

  Alan Johnson: Yes, it is fundamental, but we do need to put in the resources. I would argue the resources are there. The whole idea of developing personalised learning, and we are waiting for Christine Gilbert's report on this, is to ensure that if you see the signs at Level 3 you need to put that extra effort with those individuals, and it might be over a variety of different reasons. It might be because of family problems, there might be pastoral care involved there; it might be that they need extra time, Extended Schools will give us help there as well; it may be for specific reasons about attendance that need to be the resolved, but, whatever it is, it needs to be much more personalised and, I agree with you, much more intensive to ensure you get that child that is looking at Level 3 as if they are going to have problems at Level 4 to make that attainment leap.

  Q126  Chairman: The first inquiry that we did when I became Chairman of this Committee five years ago was on early years, and the settings we looked at, there was this great emphasis on personalised assessment, so you knew how a child was developing very clearly, very carefully, a written report every week, every month so there was real understanding of the child's educational needs. When I visited that school on Monday they said they do not read those; it does not come in the right form. They are too busy to even look at it, and it does not come in the right form. They say, "Look, there is a whole folder with pictures and things." Surely there is something wrong with the transition from primary school into secondary school if that is the real nature of personalised assessment?

  Alan Johnson: I would like to know more about this school and this head teacher, their circumstances and their definition of being under too much pressure, or whatever the reason was. We have gone on the latest polls survey from somewhere like 18th in the world for age 11 reading ability to third in the world, and that is not by accident, that is because of the concentration on literacy and numeracy. We are on a journey here and we have made a huge amount of progress on this journey, but I was at a school yesterday in Nottingham where teachers were saying to me, "Ease up a bit", and there was even a view that league tables ought to be abolished. You have heard this many times, but I accept the pressure and the extra intensity and the stress it puts on teachers, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. The whole kit and caboodle from Ofsted, from league tables, from the concentration on tests and exams and, if anything, we need to intensify that rather than relax, for the very reasons you say. We are up to 75%; we need to go much higher.

  Q127  Chairman: What I am in a sense trying to push is: is this not something the Department could take as a real priority under your leadership that absolutely targets these kids that still are at the bottom of the pile and cannot get off the bottom unless they can have access to language. Is there not a campaign that you could put your name to so that across Departments there was a real carrot and stick for everyone involved—families, background, the welfare system—actually leading up to this prioritisation of access through language?

  Alan Johnson: Yes, Chairman, but I do not have to put my name to this, it is already there. It is called Every Child Matters, it is called Sure Start, it is called tackling these cross-overs between a black child from a poor background and a less bright child from a richer background at age 22 months when that kind of cross over occurs. It is tackling all of that right the way through the system. As I say, I think age 11 is a crucial position there, but it is keeping kids on at school rather than leaving school. All of that is there. It is the focus of the Government. I would love to say it is somehow Johnsonian, but it is not, it is what this Government has been about since 1997. This is part of the point I was making in my maiden (which two people may have read) when I first came in that, because we have been in for nine years (and it is not just in education it is in other areas as well), people say, "You have been there nine years, you must be in the land of milk and honey after the first term and then you just sit back and relax", but it is a constant process with constant challenges and, as I say, it is a journey. As I said, that is one of my priorities, improving attainment and closing the social class gap.

  Chairman: That is why I was pushing on closing the social class gap. Let us move on. Paul.

  Q128  Paul Holmes: In the Chairman's initial comments you have already touched on this one. The presentation of statistics in departmental reports was started specifically for select committees back in the 1980s so that they could oversee what departments were doing. Clearly, if select committees and MPs and journalists and the public and the educational world are going to make the maximum use out of that information to see how the Government (in this case the education department) are doing, they need to have consistent figures. We have already had this exchange with the Chairman. Charts on real terms expenditure which have been in the 2005 report and earlier ones suddenly disappeared from this year's without anybody knowing that that was going to happen. In response to a letter the Chairman sent to you, you have given some detailed answers to those and you have provided some of the statistics in the format we requested. Have we on the record now got from you a clear commitment that in future you think the Department or its future secretaries of state as well should maintain a consistent format for reporting this information?

  Alan Johnson: We should. If we are changing any format, we should consult the select committee and explain to them why we are doing it and have a dialogue about that. So, yes, not a problem, and I quite understand the difficulties you have because I had the same difficulty when I came into this job of comparing data, and whilst the letter explains some, I think, understandable technical reasons, there is an acceptance by my Permanent Secretary and myself that we really need to work harder at this and we need to work with you.

  Q129  Paul Holmes: Again, in view of the earlier question from the Chairman about the turnover of people at the DfES, both civil servants and politicians, do you feel that future people who occupy the post that you do should follow the same principle as well?

  Alan Johnson: I will make a commitment that this Department must get this right. This is a really important committee. I know all select committees are important, but the work of this Committee I think has been exceptional, and there is no reason why we should not ensure that any changes to any statistics are discussed with you, explained to you, cleared with you before the changes. I think it would have saved at least 20 minutes of understandable questioning at two hearings if we could have done that.

  Q130  Paul Holmes: In the tables that you did provide in response to the letter from the Chairman of the Committee you point out in the explanatory notes that this causes extra problems, that the longer the series goes on the more you have to have explanatory footnotes, and so on. Nonetheless, you were able to do it when asked, so you accept that, whatever explanatory footnotes have to be added and however complicated the explanations get, it is still worth sticking to one format?

  Alan Johnson: I want to give you the information in a format that is easy for you to do your job of scrutinising my Department. Whatever that means and however many footnotes are there, that is what needs to be done, and I do accept that, yes.

  Q131  Paul Holmes: You specifically in one or two of the new charts you provided point out that it is a bit difficult to do this because the answer will depend partly on how local government provides grants and top-ups to sixth forms, for example, but that has always been the case. In social services in all sorts of areas, local government often provide a considerable top-up to what the government formula provides, so that difficulty has always been there. It is not a new one. People have met that before.

  Alan Johnson: I accept that, but why do we not carry on this exchange until we get to perhaps a valid point and perhaps one you can make in response. I have not got a grasp of all those tables in detail but the general thrust of your question is absolutely right. We should be presenting information to you in a way that you can easily compare it with the record of the past, and I accept that completely.

  Q15  Paul Holmes: One final very specific one on this theme. A number of the charts that your Department and other departments have produced over the years will start in 1999, running up to 2005-06, and so forth. Why 1999? Surely if we are looking at how your Government has performed, the start date should always be 1997, which is the position you inherit at that point?

  Alan Johnson: Most of the statistics I have got start at 1997 in terms of improvements at every level (capital expenditure, number of teachers, number of support staff). I guess I can see the sub-text of your question, which would be the first two years of carrying on from a previous government. I do not want to play tricks like that, and I am quite sure no-one in the department would want to, but we have to deal with that sub-text and explain why we are using 1999 and, if there is no good reason to use 1999, we ought to be using 1997 because I tend to think our records should be reflective from when we came into government.

  Q16  Paul Holmes: Again, you feel that ought to be good practice that everybody else in your Department should follow as well?

  Alan Johnson: Other departments can speak for themselves; I am talking about this Department.

  Q134  Mr Chaytor: I would like to ask about the Gershon efficiency savings. The target for the Department is 4.3 billion by the 2007-08 financial year, and these savings appear to be of two kinds, the cashable and the non-cashable. Could you explain to us, Secretary of State, what is the difference between the two terms?

  Alan Johnson: The cashable are the ones you can get your hands on pretty easily and it is money you can bank; so that the 1,400 job cuts are cashable, which we are well on our way to achieving. The non-cashable are savings that can be made, efficiency savings at the front-line, in schools throughout the country where the freeing up of that time allows more time to be spent on teaching. We are not looking for it to be money that we bank or bring back in, we are looking for greater efficiency, we are looking for the resources, the incredible increase in resources that we are putting into education, to actually show potential benefits, which I think they have but there is always more you can do there, but that is basically the difference.

  Q135  Mr Chaytor: In the 2006 Annual Report it does not use the term "cashable" and "non-cashable", it uses "recyclable" and "non-recyclable". Do we assume that that means the same?

  Alan Johnson: I would assume it means the same, but if there is a difference in that I will drop you a line.

  Q136  Mr Chaytor: When the Permanent Secretary came to the Committee on 14 June he told us that all of the 4.3 billion would be non-cashable. Is that absolutely right?

  Alan Johnson: I think that is right. I am just wondering. I am not absolutely sure whether the cuts in staff are part of the 4.3 billion.

  Q137  Chairman: They are not.

  Alan Johnson: They are not. So they are all non-cashable, yes.

  Q138  Mr Chaytor: They are all non-cashable?

  Alan Johnson: Yes.

  Q139  Mr Chaytor: But in the Annual Report it says, of the 4.3 billion, 3.2 billion is recyclable and 1.1 is non-recyclable?

  Alan Johnson: Maybe "recyclable" and "non-recyclable" do mean something different. My understanding is that the 4.3 billion is non-cashable.