Examination of Witnesses (Quesitons 140-159)
RT HON
ALAN JOHNSON
MP
19 JULY 2006
Q140 Mr Chaytor: So 4.3 billion is
non-cashable but the 1,800 job losses will be cashable on top
of the 4.3?
Alan Johnson: Yes, 1,900 if you
count Ofsted.
Q141 Mr Chaytor: Can we have some
clarification of this and how the 4.3 billion is divided, because
we have got two categories. We have got the 4.3 billion, which
is divided into recyclable and non-recyclable, then we have got
the total amounts of which the 4.3 billion is non-cashable and
the equivalent of 1,800 job losses is cashable?
Alan Johnson: That is my understanding.[1]
Q142 Mr Chaytor: When are we going to
find out how all this is going to be achieved in detail? You have
got to do it by the end of the next financial year, but will there
be some kind of interim public statement as to how?
Alan Johnson: I think the National
Audit Office are due to say something, but the Office of Government
Commerce keep a regular track of this, and they are quite satisfied
that we are on track.
Q143 Mr Chaytor: But is that currently
public information?
Alan Johnson: I will find out.
That must be a pretty long letter.[2]
Q144 Mr Chaytor: In terms of the non-cashable
savings, the squeezing out of productivity in the schools, what
will be put in place to assess how that increased productivity
is measured in terms of attainment or, your other objective, closing
the social class gap?
Alan Johnson: There are various
technical ways to ensure that we are getting those savings. I
think the Permanent Secretary Jon Thompson went through some of
them. Measuring productivity is much harder. There is a piece
of work going on as to how you can measure productivity more accurately
or, indeed, at allsome would argue there has not been any
success in measuring it at allto see whether we can find
a mechanism to do that. I do not think we are there yet.
Q145 Mr Chaytor: If teachers, as
a result of the Workforce Reform Programme, have less contact
and more preparation time and it does not lead to improvements
in attainment, the question is why has it been done in the first
place? Is there going to be some systematic monitoring of the
Workforce Reform Programme, the introduction of IT on overall
levels of attainment?
Alan Johnson: Yes, there is a
monitoring programme to make sure of the effect the investment
(and that includes the investment in giving half a day to teachers
to prepare, analyse and plan) is having on the absolute reason
why we are all in existence, which is to improve attainment.
Q146 Mr Chaytor: Finally, when the
non-cashable 4.3 billion has been achieved will the process stop
there or will there be a permanent revolution in non-cashable
savings?
Alan Johnson: There will be a
permanent concentration on value for money, and that is not going
to stop. Of course we have got the Comprehensive Spending Review
coming up, so in that sense there will be a permanent revolution.
There will never be a period where we will say, "That is
fine now. We think we have got the right level of efficiency",
but at the same time we need to be concentrating on the resources
that teachers need. We have got a very good social partnership
working with most of the teachers' unions and are moving on to
issues like, for instance, the turnover of head teachers and how
we can tackle a problem that is not right at the moment. It is
a constant process.
Q147 Chairman: We would be more confident
about real saving if we could get some real examples in schools
and colleges: what savings have been made and what has happened
to the resources that have been saved? There are no examples of
that at the moment, we have been given none, and you do lay yourself
open to charges that these are fantasy savings rather than real
savings if we cannot see, because we know, your predecessors have
said, they will be made by schools and colleges, the bulk of these
Gershon reform savings. So, when can we have some examples of
what savings have been made and where have the resources been
shifted to?
Alan Johnson: I would have thought
you would have some examples now, particularly on procurement
and on freeing up teacher time and that being used more productively.
I will see whether we have got some examples. It comes back to
your original question about who is monitoring this, whether it
is the National Audit Office or the Office of Government Commerce
because, I accept, we should not be just be setting targets and
saying everything is hunky dory if we cannot provide examples
of that.[3]
Chairman: We now move seamlessly to school
funding. Rob Wilson is going lead on that.
Mr Wilson: Thank you, Secretary of State,
for coming today. I know how busy you are in the Department, and
on top that you have also got your leadership campaign to run.
Chairman: Fortunately, Rob, there is
something wrong with your microphone. We cannot quite hear what
you are saying!
Mr Wilson: I have to say, I have got
a few quid on the outcome, so I am interested. When Tony Blair
steps down next year and you take over as Prime Minister, would
your priority be, as his was: "Education, education, education"?
Q148 Chairman: Stick to the education.
Alan Johnson: Yes, I think so.
I would probably classify it more as "learning, learning,
learning", but it is the same thing expressed in a different
way.
Q149 Chairman: Would that mean significant
extra funding for schools, for example? Do you think extra funding
is needed even at this stage?
Alan Johnson: I think the extra
funding that has gone in has been phenomenal. I certainly do not
think, in terms of where we are moving to education as a percentage
of GDP, that we are there yet, we will be at something like 5.4%
next year, so I do think investment is important, yes.
Q150 Mr Wilson: You do not think
we are quite there in terms of extra investment that is needed,
but you cannot say at the moment how much further you think we
need to go?
Alan Johnson: We have got the
Comprehensive Spending Review coming up, and that is a process
that will be taking a lot of my time over the next year. It is
absolutely the case, as I think has been mentioned at previous
hearings of this Committee, that the level of increase in expenditure
that we have seen since 1997, which has been quite phenomenal,
can probably not be maintained, but I very much hope that we have
got increased funding.
Q151 Mr Wilson: It is interesting,
because your rival for the top job, the Chancellor, thinks that
funding per pupil in schools should rise from £5,000 a year
to £8,000 a year at current prices, and that means an extra
£17 billion worth of investment into schools. Do you agree
with him? Do you think that is practical?
Alan Johnson: What the Chancellor
said is that our long-term aim is to match the "per pupil"
spending in the state sector with that in the independent sector
and to bring it up to 8,000. Actually we will be at the level
of capital expenditure by 2011. So, all of this is remarkable
and no previous government has got to this level of expenditure
and investment in education, and I certainly agree that with that
long-term aim. I think it is too crucial.
Q152 Mr Wilson: So you are in agreement,
£17 billion extra into school funding?
Alan Johnson: I am in agreement
with a long-term aim of matching "per pupil" spending
in the state sector with the independent sector.
Q153 Mr Wilson: Is that an aspiration
or a pledge?
Alan Johnson: That is an aim.
Q154 Mr Wilson: So it is an aspiration?
Alan Johnson: It is an aim.
Q155 Mr Wilson: We do not want to
give politicians the name of being shifty, so we will move on.
Has your Department done anything about the aim that the Chancellor
announced in his budget to get to this considerable increase in
funding in schools? Has there been any research undertaken, for
example?
Alan Johnson: It is a long-term
aim. What we are doing is concentrating on the money we are putting
in at the moment, the extra investment at the moment. We are very
pleased that the Chancellor has set the long-term aim, I think
it is consistent with everything we have been doing since 1997,
and, of course, the short-term aim by 2011 and matching capital
expenditure is very important. We are also thinking very carefully
about how public schools can contribute here. There is a very
important Charities Bill in front of the House at the moment and
the independent sector has charitable status. There are issues
there around their facilities and how they could be used to help
close this social class gap in the state sector. That is what
we are concentrating our mind on at the moment.
Q156 Mr Wilson: Can I move on then.
The Department has made growing use of "velcroing" spending,
as it were, to the pupil, and we were talking about the £5,000,
£8,000 just a moment ago. Have you had a chance, as I am
sure you have not had, to look at one of the amendments I tried
to make to the Education Inspections Bill which would have velcroed
an extra 30% to disadvantaged children?
Alan Johnson: I have studied it
carefully. The first thing I did when I came into office was to
say, "Can I see Rob Wilson's amendments to the Education
and Inspections Bill", but unfortunately that was eight weeks
ago, so it has slipped, so, no, I cannot remember that, the velcro
amendment.
Q157 Mr Wilson: Can you see the advantages
of Velcroing an extra 30% in terms of funding to the back of disadvantaged
pupils?
Alan Johnson: I think you are
making a really serious point here, and I think it came up at
the session that David Bell and Jon Thompson had with you. How
can we get a statistic, a determinant, that would follow as accurately
as you would like, and I think this Committee made the point that
there needs to be more work on this, but I hope in some of the
responses we have reassured you that the velcro is there but it
would be good to have a better method and a better determinant
of how that money can follow absolutely. I think the point you
made is that in many affluent areas there are pupils who are disadvantaged,
so it is much harder to identify them in those situations, and
I tend to agree that, but David and Jon explained some of the
difficulties about that at their session. I do think that is a
serious point.
Q158 Mr Wilson: Are you doing any
work, because the only measure that I could find was free school
meals? Is the Department doing any work on ways of better evaluating
deprivation?
Alan Johnson: I think this comes
into our review of school funding, and I think this is a good
opportunity to see whether we could better focus that money on
disadvantaged pupils.
Q159 Mr Wilson: So there is work
on-going?
Alan Johnson: Yes.
1 1 Ev 51 Back
2
2 Ev 51-52 Back
3
3 Ev 52 Back
|