Select Committee on Education and Skills First Report


The Work of the Committee


3. Now that it has responsibility for children's services, the scope of the DfES's work is immensely broad and our remit to scrutinise its work is similarly wide. This presents many challenges; it is not possible for us to examine every policy initiative that emerges from the Department, even if we wanted to. What we have tried to do since we first met in July 2005 is to look at issues across the whole range of the DfES's responsibilities. In pursuit of that aim, we have reported on or taken evidence on 19 different subjects in the period up to December 2006.

4. Even on those subjects on which we do take evidence, it is not possible in the majority of cases for us to write a report. Some subjects are in any event not necessarily best monitored by the standard model of inquiry. For example, for many years the Committee has taken evidence twice a year from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, in order to make sure that it keeps abreast of what is happening throughout the country's schools. We decided in the 2005-06 session that we should institute a similar arrangement for examining children's issues, a whole new area of work for the Department in the last three years or so. There is no equivalent organisation to Ofsted covering the whole of children's services, although of course Ofsted itself does now have an expanded inspection role in this area, so we have sought to address the issue in other ways. In 2005-06 we took evidence from officials on Children's Trusts and from the Minister of State for Children and Families on a whole range of issues. We aim to develop this approach in the coming year.

5. We also held follow-up session on two inquiries that our predecessors conducted just before the 2005 general election. These were on Teaching Children to Read and on Prison Education. We think this follow up work is important, as it has proved with our public expenditure inquiries. We think that it is important for the DFES and others to know that we do not forget about a subject once a report has been published, but will keep a watching brief to examine whether progress is being made.

6. Another method of proceeding that we have made good use of during the year is the holding of seminars before we call for evidence in order to work out the potential scope of inquiries and to bring into focus the most important issues. We have found this an invaluable tool for our work. On one occasion we held a seminar at the end of an inquiry, to help to bring the threads together before taking evidence from the Minister and drafting the report. This was very useful, and we will certainly aim to hold similar sessions in future when appropriate. The seminars have undoubtedly helped to make our inquiries more effective.

7. Altogether the Committee held 62 meetings in session 2005-06, taking formal evidence at 49 of them and producing five reports, as well as holding eight informal seminars. This meant two meetings a week for virtually every week of the session. Despite this, and the inevitable clashes with other Parliamentary business, Members recorded a 76% attendance level, demonstrating our real commitment to scrutiny of the Department..

Main inquiries

8. Amongst the 19 areas that we looked at, two inquiries in particular dominated the session. These were the inquiries into Special Educational Needs and into the Schools White Paper Higher Standards, Better Schools for All.

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

9. There had been no inquiry into Special Educational Needs (SEN) in the previous Parliament, and we decided early on that such an inquiry was overdue. It certainly struck a chord, as we received more than 240 written submissions from organisations and individuals. We had an extensive programme of oral evidence, and visited schools in Essex and Darlington. Our report[1] identified serious flaws in the SEN system with regards to consistency of provision, the statementing process and teacher training. It called for a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide a broad range of support for youngsters with SEN—including the provision of Special Schools—and recommended a set of minimum standards so that parents would no longer have to 'fight' to achieve a better outcome for their child.

10. The Government response to the report was very disappointing.[2] It did set out a statement of Government priorities, which was welcome, particularly its commitment to invest in and improve the workforce and to require a diverse range of high-quality provision across all local authorities. However, on a number of significant issues it did not accurately portray recommendations that we made, and the Government's failure to even consider changing the current statementing process was a real missed opportunity. As we said at the time, despite clear evidence that the process is not working as it should, the Government relied on the argument that 'no-one has a better alternative'. This is not acceptable. If the system is not working properly it is the Government's duty to look for a better way forward.

11. The report was debated in Westminster Hall on 26 October 2006,[3] when a large number of Members from across the House, both Committee Members and others, supported the conclusions that we had reached. The Minister in replying to the debate apologised for the tone of the response, but gave no indication that the Government would change its views.

12. This was a significant inquiry in its scope, in its public profile and in the recommendations that it made. We will be looking for further opportunities to tackle the Government on its response to the report in the year ahead in an attempt to make progress on a number of very important issues for children and young people with special needs.

THE SCHOOLS WHITE PAPER

13. Our report on the Schools White Paper also had an extremely high profile, because we undertook our inquiry in a highly politicised atmosphere in the House during the run up to debates on the Education and Inspections Bill. The process was therefore quite tense at times and, as will be seen from the fact that an alternative draft report was proposed by three Members, the Committee did not arrive at unanimous conclusions. However, the report did make a difference. The Government did make changes following publication of our report, and we have no doubt that our inquiry led to a significant improvement in the proposals.

14. Particular changes arising directly from our report include:

15. The inquiry did hold potential dangers for the Committee. This was the first report that we considered after the 2005 election and, given the volatile political climate, the possibility existed that divisions would be created within the Committee that would make its future work extremely difficult. Fortunately, that has not happened. The committee members work together very effectively as a team, and we make every effort to ensure that we reach our conclusions by consensus whenever possible.

Public expenditure

16. Planned central Government expenditure on education for 2006-07 is £71.435 billion.[4] This is an enormous sum of money, and it is clearly one of our most important duties to examine how well it is being spent. For that reason, and because of the financial planning cycle, we produced two reports on public expenditure issues.

17. Our predecessors pursued the issue of the school funding process in two reports at the end of the last Parliament. We have followed them, looking closely at the proposed change in the school funding formula. This is a very important area, as almost half of total DfES expenditure is on the Designated Schools Grant, the money gives to local authorities to pass on to schools.

18. We have also looked very carefully at the Gershon efficiency savings programme. This is due to deliver savings of £4.3 billion from the DfES over the course of the programme. Very little of these savings will come as cash in hand, however, and we have been pursuing with the department the question of how useful it is to quantify what are basically service improvements in money terms. Persistence is certainly a virtue here; the Department can be in no doubt that we shall return to these issues again and again, and that degree of engagement requires an effective response from them.

19. In our most recent report, we criticised the Department for constantly changing the format of its Departmental Annual Report from year to year, making it very difficult to track changes over time. The DfES had also left out one of the key tables which is essential to help us track changes over time.. The Secretary of State has responded in a very positive way. The Committee staff and advisers have held discussions with officials at the DfES about how to address our conclusions and we are promised the opportunity to see certain parts of the next DAR in draft to make sure that they provide the information we need. We welcome both of these constructive moves on the part of the DfES. This is a key part of our remit and we are determined to discharge it as well as we possibly can.

Wider public engagement

20. An issue that has given rise to much debate since the election is that of how to engage the public more effectively in the political process. This is an issue that we have taken seriously, as education is a service which impacts directly on the lives of a very large proportion of the population.

21. We have been able to engage with those beyond our usual audience in education by addressing issues which have a direct relevance to people's lives. Our inquiry into SEN received 240 memoranda, of which approximately half came from individuals, and it was clear that many people whose children had special educational needs did take a close interest in what we were doing. On top of that, we had the opportunity to work with Radio 4's You and Yours programme to discuss issues relevant to the inquiry. The Chairman took part in a panel discussion and phone-in live on air, and subsequently 700 people gave comments to us via the programme through telephone calls, e-mails and letters.

22. We tried another form of outreach in our sustainable schools inquiry. We established a consultation exercise facilitated for us by Teachers' TV through their website. Teachers, governors and other school staff were invited to give their views on what they wanted from the Building Schools for the Future programme, and 148 people responded. Teachers' TV is also preparing a documentary on the inquiry process, which it intends to screen in conjunction with the publication of the report later in the year.

23. We believe that these exercises have been extremely successful in gathering comment for our inquiries that we would not otherwise have received. They have also helped to raise the profile of the Committee's work with the population at large, enabling people to see Members of Parliament working in a serious and non-partisan way on issues that are of real significance, and so helping to increase appreciation of the select committee system. We are in no doubt that these consultations have been of great value to our work, and will be aiming to undertake similar projects in the coming year.



1   Third Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2005-06  Back

2   DfES, Government response to the Education and Skills Committee report on Special Education Needs (October 2006) Cm 6940 Back

3   Official report, cols 489-536 WH Back

4   DfES, Departmental Annual Report 2006, Cm 6812, Annex A Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 8 February 2007