Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1-19)
RT HON
MICHAEL GOVE
MP AND DAVID
BELL
28 JULY 2010
Q1 Chair: Good morning. Welcome
to this sitting of the Education Committee, which is on the responsibilities
of the Secretary of State for Education. I would like to welcome
him and the Permanent Secretary from the Department to our deliberations.
Secretary of State, thank you for your letter responding to my
letter about the Sure Start children's centres report. In fact,
we will have a full point-by-point reply in the autumn, for which
I am grateful. I also thank you for clarifying the position on
the Early Years single funding formula, for which we are also
grateful. Secretary of State, how much of the information that
you gave the House on 5 July was accurate?
Michael Gove: I
sought to give as much accurate information as possible about
those schools that were going ahead as part of Building Schools
for the Future and about those schools where, sadly, we were not
able to continue construction. Before making my statement, I sought
to ensure that the accuracy of what I said to the House was as
great as possible. As you and the Committee will know, there were
some regrettable errors; I took the opportunity on the following
Wednesday to apologise to the House for the errors that were made,
which were wholly my responsibility.
Q2 Chair: Thank
you for that. You will have seen the transcript of yesterday's
evidence and know that Mr Byles was asked specifically about the
suggestion that BSF had procured schools at three times the cost
of commercial buildings. When asked if that was accurate, he quite
specifically said no. Could you respond to that?
Michael Gove: Yes; the information
that BSF buildings cost three times what commercial buildings
cost was information that we had received from Partnerships for
Schools. My Department had e-mailed Partnerships for Schools—actually
prior to the Queen's Speech—in order to get a comparison
on a cost per square metre basis. The average cost of a Building
Schools for the Future school is £1,800 per square metre;
we asked for comparisons with other buildings, and there were
commercial buildings that cost between £500 and £600
per square metre. That information was provided at my Department's
request from Partnerships for Schools explicitly for use in a
House of Commons debate. It was considered to be a valid comparison
by that body, so I felt that it was appropriate to use it in the
House of Commons. There are a number of comparisons that can be
drawn. You can draw comparisons, as I think I did, for example
with the cost of building schools in Ireland, which is a broadly
comparable jurisdiction in a number of ways and has gone through
similar property processes. The cost of building a school there
is something like two thirds of what Building Schools for the
Future costs. It is also the case that, in conversations with
Tim and other professionals at Partnerships for Schools, I have
been reinforced in my conviction that we can procure schools much
more cheaply than has been the case in the past. I am grateful
to Tim and his hard-working officials for having worked with my
team at the Department for Education in order to identify some
of the cost reductions that we can make, which will feed into
a broader capital review.
Q3 Chair: Thank you very much.
When asked about waste, Mr Byles acknowledged that there was some
and then immediately said that a lot of it was down to EU procurement
rules. Do you accept that analysis, and is there anything that
can be done to ensure that there aren't these alternative models,
which are created at great expense and then have to be scrapped—as
Mr Byles put it, thrown in the bin?
Michael Gove: There are two very
good points there. The first is the existence of EU procurement
rules. It is certainly the case that EU procurement rules add
delay and cost to the process of procuring schools. One of the
reasons why I invoke that comparison with Ireland—it is
one of the reasons why we have looked at Sweden—is that
there are other European Union countries that can procure schools
at a significantly lower cost. It is the case, in conversations
that I have had with Mr Byles and his highly professional team,
that they have emphasised to me that while European Union procurement
rules are certainly a burden it is also the case that there are
other things that we can do in order to lower the cost of schools,
whether or not we use the procurement model that Partnerships
for Schools has used in the past or an alternative one. There
are changes that we can make to planning laws and to building
regulations. It is also the case that there are changes that we
can make to the other regulatory rules that the Department has
cleaved to in the past. For example, there are regulations governing
the environmental sustainability of buildings—BREEAM regulations—which
are for schools being rebuilt or refurbished, and have to be passed
at a particularly high threshold. I am very committed to ensuring
that new schools, and indeed all new buildings, are environmentally
sustainable, but the current regulatory framework is prescriptive
in the wrong way, and there are other ways in which we can simultaneously
lower costs and have greener buildings, perhaps by having a greater
degree of system building and standardisation in the procurement
of schools. But this is work that is going on with the capital
review, and I have to say that I've been heartened and encouraged
by the professionalism and commitment that Tim and his team and
Partnerships for Schools have shown in this process.
Q4 Chair: Thank you very much
for that. Any analysis of BSF would accept that there was a lot
of waste, but that things have improved. One of the fears, with
the review team coming in, would be that some of the lessons that
have been learned might be lost if every effort is not made to
capture what has been learned in the last few years. Are you thinking
of a completely new start? To what extent will you ensure that
the lessons are learned?
Michael Gove: I do want to have
a system that is significantly more cost-effective. When I made
the announcement on 5 July, I did so after a great deal of thought.
It was not an easy announcement to make, because, inevitably,
I was in the business of disappointing hopes. There are people
who wanted to see new schools in their area, who had been promised
new schools by the last Government and who would not see new schools
in the way and on the timetable that the last Government had promised.
I did not take that decision with any pleasure or any relish,
but looking back at the history of Building Schools for the Future,
it's clear that the whole process was, to my mind, misconceived.
One of the fundamental flaws of Building Schools for the Future
is that it operated on an area-wide basis, and two flaws flowed
from that. Flaw one was that within a given local authority there
might be some schools in an advanced state of dilapidation but
other schools in respectable—not ideal, but respectable—buildings,
all of which would be refurbished and repaired. In another part
of the country, you would have schools in an advanced state of
dilapidation that would not have their needs addressed by this
programme for years to come. I know, Mr Chairman, that in your
constituency, in Withernsea, there is a school in an advanced
state of dilapidation that was not covered and wouldn't have been
covered for years by BSF. So that was one concern—that BSF
didn't target schools in the most need as effectively as possible.
Indeed, towards the end, one of the ways in which Building Schools
for the Future was meeting targets was by allocating money to
local authorities on the basis not of need, but of a local authority's
readiness to meet some pre-set criteria. The other area in which
I felt that we needed to change related to the fact that the whole
procurement model meant that everyone had to sink a huge amount
of cost into the process before bricks were laid and before transformation
could take place. So you had anything between £7 million
and £10 million being spent in the procurement process on
setting up a local education partnership. Once local education
partnerships were set up, you would have a process of procurement
that led, to my mind, to duplication. In terms of capturing some
of the benefits that have accrued—some of the insight—Tim
and his team at Partnerships for Schools are highly professional.
They are collaborating with our capital review, and the expertise
and experience—hard won—that the team has secured
is being quarried by our capital review team. The cordial and
productive relationship that the Department and PfS has will inform
the capital review in the future.
Chair: Thank you. May I now go to Tessa?
Q5 Tessa Munt: Might I ask you
a slightly more general question? I want to know what your vision
is for education. I want you to imagine that, inconveniently,
I have a two-year-old, a four-year-old, a seven-year-old, a nine-year-old,
an 11-year-old, a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old.
Michael Gove: Congratulations.
Tessa Munt: Thank you. They're a handful.
I want you to imagine that, more inconveniently, some of those
children live in a city and some live in a rural area. I want
you to tell me what your vision is for the children who are already
in the system and those who will go into the system and through
it.
Michael Gove: The first thing
to say is, well done on having such an extensive and, I am sure,
happy brood. The second thing to say is that each of your children's
needs will be specific and individual, so in spelling out what
a general vision is, you have to acknowledge that each of your
children will be special and talented in a particular, individual
way. In terms of what my overall vision for education is, I've
used the phrase before: I want children to become authors of their
own life story. The reason I use that phrase is that I think that
education is a process of emancipation, of liberation. One of
the problems that this country has had historically is that we've
been very good at educating a minority—the gifted and talented—quite
well, but the majority of children have not been educated as well
as they should have been. The days have gone, if they ever existed,
when a society could survive by having an elite who were well
educated according to a particular set of narrow academic criteria,
and others who were simply allowed to become hewers of wood and
drawers of water later on. I think that's fundamentally a narrow
and an unjust view of education. I also think it's no longer economically
sustainable, so what I would like to do is to ensure that every
child has an experience at school that enables them not just to
get the qualifications that mean that they can choose the jobs
or the university course that suits them and fulfils them. I also
want children to spend their time at school gaining access to
what I believe is their inheritance—the best that has been
thought and written. School should be an enjoyable time. Horizons
should be extended. Children should have an opportunity to encounter
worlds and ways of thinking that take them outside their environment,
whatever it is, so at the end of compulsory schooling, yes, children
are equipped to work well and yes, children are able to make their
own economic choices, but they also feel enriched. They're able
to enjoy music and literature. They're scientifically literate,
so they can reject bogus arguments put forward by people who are
attempting to seduce them into lazy ways of thinking. They can
analyse what politicians and people in power say and know what's
rubbish and what's sensible. Above all, they can be happy, confident
citizens and parents in the future. That is my overall vision,
and obviously how it's implemented is one of the things we'll
discuss in the course of the next hour.
Q6 Tessa Munt: Can I get you to
home in slightly on the issues of faith and business?
Michael Gove: On faith, we know
that faith schools are popular. We know that in those areas where
faith schools exist, they tend to be over-subscribed. I think
it's no secret that I myself have two children who are at a faith
primary school, which is doing an outstanding job. But I also
recognise that there are some people who explicitly do not want
their children educated in a faith-based setting, and one of the
principles behind our education reforms is to give people the
maximum amount of choice, so that those people who may not necessarily
have a very strong religious faith but believe that the ethos
and values of faith-based education are right for their children
have that choice. Others, who want a different approach, can take
it as well. One of the most striking things that I read recently
was a thought from Richard Dawkins that he might want to take
advantage of our education legislation to open a new school that
is set up on an explicitly atheist basis. It wouldn't be my choice
of school, but the whole point about our education reforms is
that they are, in the broadest sense of the word, small "l"
liberal. They exist to provide that greater degree of choice.
However, one of the things that I do recognise is that there are
concerns about social cohesion, integration and inappropriate
faith groups using education as an opportunity to push their agenda.
That is why, when I was in opposition, I asked a number of questions
about the way in which public money was going to certain groups,
in order to ensure that it didn't go to extremist groups, and
it is why the Permanent Secretary and I and officials have been
working to ensure that the regulations that govern faith-based
education are such that we don't have groups with an extremist,
a fundamentalist or a narrow agenda taking schools over. It is
also why we have been quite clear that you cannot have, in the
science curriculum, creationism taught as though it were scientific
truth. As far as business goes, it is a huge area. Business can
play a bigger role—I've been talking to Bob Wigley at Business
in the Community about this—in providing governors for schools.
One thing that business can do is ensure, as part of its corporate
social responsibility thinking, that it encourages more business
people to play a role in acting as school governors. Business
can also play a critical role in helping us to improve vocational
qualifications. One of the things that we've got wrong over the
last 150 years is the quality of vocational qualifications in
this country. I would like the business community to play an even
bigger role in making sure that we have high-quality vocational
qualifications to rank alongside those of countries such as Germany.
Business can play a role in educational improvement. There are
organisations such as Serco, Tribal Group and others that play
that role, but it is important that they are effectively regulated.
Q7 Tessa Munt: I want to ask you
a little bit about the role of business specifically in the sponsorship
of schools and other aspects such as the role of private and independent
schools in the mix.
Michael Gove: On business sponsorship,
some business organisations have been very effective academy sponsors
and some individual business men have been very effective academy
sponsors. If I were to single anyone out, it would be Lord Harris—Phil
Harris—whose chain of academies in south London has transformed
educational opportunities for young people. His first school,
the Harris CTC, was the first school to be ranked outstanding
in every area by Ofsted. More than 83% of its children achieve
five A* to C at GCSE, even though it has a higher than average
proportion of children from poorer backgrounds. The other schools
that Phil Harris has taken over have done phenomenally well. Yes,
he applies a businesslike mind and businesslike terms of organisation
to make sure that the school group runs efficiently, but he is
driven by a passion for education. Anyone who visits the schools—I
hope that those members of the Committee who have not will take
the opportunity to do so—cannot help but be impressed by
what a visionary individual can do by turning round schools that
have had an appalling record. I visited Falconwood, one of the
schools that he took over, where they used to have boarding across
the windows so that visitors who walked down the corridor could
not see what was happening in the classroom because the behaviour
of the children was so poor. The school stopped at 12 on Friday
because it was run in the interests of the teachers, not the students.
Now that he has taken it over, that school has been transformed.
Attainment is improving. Poorer children who were effectively
written off now have the chance of a better education, thanks
to him. To my mind, he is a hero. On the broader issue of the
role of the private and the independent sector, we need to say
to public schools, "Yes, you are charities. The provision
of education is a charitable purpose." But we must recognise
as a society that we need to do more collectively to raise attainment
for all children. That is why people such as Anthony Seldon at
Wellington who has sponsored an academy or the governors of Uppingham
who have played a big role in supporting people like David Ross
and academies in other areas are to be applauded. When Andrew
Adonis was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools,
he said that what we wanted from independent schools was a sort
of DNA transfer into the state sector to help raise attainment.
That is absolutely right.
Q8 Nic Dakin: I want to take you
back to your statement in the House on 5 July. You said that there
were nine meta-stages of the BSF process, but yesterday Mr Byles
said that that was describing the process right at the beginning,
and that it had been significantly refined, and was much more
effective and down to five stages. Were you rather over-egging
the pudding at that point?
Michael Gove: The nine meta-stages
are the stages through which all the schools that are going ahead
have had to go. We produced a document containing the authoritative
list of those school projects that were going ahead. It listed
the stages through which local authorities had to go before procuring
schools. It was subdivided into nine stages, and the document
was signed off by Partnerships for Schools and the Department
for Education. No one would deny, however you slice up those stages,
that the process has been intensely bureaucratic, nor would anyone
deny that Tim Byles has been a highly professional chief executive
of Partnerships for Schools. He has worked within a framework
laid down by the previous Government in order to try, within those
constraints, to make it significantly more efficient.
Q9 Nic Dakin: When Mr Byles was
saying that it was simplified, and that it was only five stages,
was he right to obviously over-simplify it?
Michael Gove: There are different
ways of looking at it. There were nine meta-stages through which
all the schools that went ahead—that on 5 July we were glad
to allow to go ahead—had gone through. There were also nine
stages in the process that still operates at the moment. How you
divide each stage depends on where you look. I shall find the
detail in the document that was signed off by Partnerships for
Schools, and come back to you.[1]
Q10 Nic Dakin: You also mentioned
a school that had to have its whole building reconstructed because
the corridors were too narrow. Was that school built under BSF
or a different programme?
Michael Gove: It was built under
a predecessor programme, a PFI programme. When I was informed
of that, I took the opportunity to correct the record in the House.
Q11 Nic Dakin: So it has been
corrected? May I turn to the terms of reference for the James
review, and how it has been set up? My interest in sixth-form
colleges is registered. The terms of reference for the James review
omits sixth-form colleges, where 150,000 16 to 18-year-old learners
receive their education. The Prime Minister's announcement on
FE funding, which was welcome, also omitted sixth-form colleges.
In the light of that, and of the advice to sixth-form colleges
that BSF will deal with their future capital remit, don't you
feel it would be helpful to include them in the review of capital?
Michael Gove: Yes, I think it
certainly would be, and I am anxious to ensure that sixth-form
colleges are involved in the review. I have been very impressed
by the way in which sixth-form colleges operate. Around 40% of
sixth-form colleges are ranked as outstanding by Ofsted. It is
interesting that they are some of the educational institutions
that have been most independent of both local and central government,
and it is interesting that they have a particularly good record
when it comes to raising attainment for children from underprivileged
backgrounds. The success of sixth-form colleges reinforces in
my mind the belief that a greater degree of autonomy and independence
can generate fantastic results. It is certainly the case that
we can learn from sixth-form colleges about effective procurement,
and I certainly want them to be involved in the capital review.
I will ask the capital review team to ensure that its work is
informed by sixth-form college principals and the great work that
they have done.
Q12 Nic Dakin: Of course, FE colleges
generally have received a lot of investment over the last seven
years, and there must be lessons to be learned from that too.
You helpfully mentioned in your answers to earlier questions the
issue of dilapidation of buildings, but the terms of reference
for the capital review as I read them—I may have read them
wrongly—do not include consideration of additional places,
surplus places and dilapidated buildings. Do you feel that those
terms of reference should be widened to pick up such issues? They
seem to be heavily focused on new providers and new schools, rather
than on the issues that you highlighted in your earlier answers.
Michael Gove: The review team's
terms of reference were drawn widely to ensure that they took
account of our stated priorities. I shall make two points. One
of the documents that I have read during the last two weeks while
I have been considering how the capital review should go forward
was a report produced by the Office of Government Commerce. It
analysed how the primary capital programme—the programme
of capital investment for primary schools—had gone. It rang
alarm bells before the last election, saying that there was a
significant problem—a critical problem—with the failure
of government to provide sufficient basic-need places for children
coming on stream in primary schools. I was struck by the fact
that although that alarm bell had been rung, action had not been
taken before the election. One of my priorities—I have stated
this clearly, and I know that the capital review team is aware
of it—is to make sure that we provide a sufficient number
of places for children at primary level in future. The point about
dilapidation was made earlier in response to the Chairman's question.
In my conversations with the capital review team, it is certainly
the case that it is aware of my priorities in these areas.
Q13 Nic Dakin: That is additional
to what is in the terms of reference as written, which is very
helpful. Finally, may I pick one area where there has been concern
as to why some schools have been included in the list? I was pleased
that Mr Byles was able to confirm yesterday that the list is finally
correct, and we are all very happy about that, but I understand
that schools in Salford and Wigan were part of the same LEP process,
yet some are going ahead, and some are not. That seems very confusing.
Michael Gove: It is confusing,
and in a way that is one of the factors about the whole Building
Schools for the Future programme. It was designed in a way that
was almost a conspiracy against the public to prevent them from
understanding what was going on. You can have joint LEPs, but
with local authorities at different stages in the procurement
process. The whole language of BSF, PfS and LEPs is bound to be
confusing to most people outside, when what they want is a government
who get on with repairing schools that are in a poor state. That
is what we are aiming to do. The shadow Secretary of State made
the point that there were two mistakes in the list. One related
to a school in North Tyneside—Monkseaton. We said that work
had been stopped, but he said that the school was open, so there
must have been a mistake. Actually, the work that had been stopped
at Monkseaton was ICT work, as distinct from rebuilding work.
The fact that the shadow Secretary of State, a very gifted politician
at the top of his powers, who had been in charge of this for three
years, could make a mistake like that shows that the BSF process
is one that can defeat even the most talented of us, and he has
my sympathies. The document that was backed by both PfS and the
Department lists the stages: remit stage, pre-procurement stage,
notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, to
which we are all subscribers, dialogue, close of dialogue, preferred
bidder, financial close, operational LEP with one wave of investment
and then operational LEP with more than one wave of investment.
That final point touches on your question—where there are
at least two, perhaps three, local authorities. There are at least
two LEPs, perhaps three, where more than one local authority is
involved.
Q14 Lisa Nandy: I want to follow
on from Nic's questions. Yesterday, we had Mr Byles here. We asked
him about how the decision was taken to stop schools that had
reached financial close, and whether that decision could have
been taken on other grounds, such as the state of school buildings
or pressure on school places, or where there had been decisions
to close schools because of the anticipated Building Schools for
the Future money. He told us that he had drawn up a number of
lists against different criteria, which were then sent to you
for decision. Do you think that the decision to stop the projects
on the basis of whether or not they had reached financial close
was fair?
Michael Gove: I do think it was
fair, yes. Again, the advice that officials give is necessarily
covered by privileged status, so that advisers can speak freely
during the process. Tim was candid in talking to you yesterday,
so I think it is fair to run through the process. It was never
the case that I received advice about, for example, choosing to
apply a different set of criteria, other than where local authorities
were in the procurement process. As I just said in response to
Mr Dakin's questions, the procurement process is perhaps not the
most simple process ever designed by government, and so in drawing
the line, you had to decide whether or not you drew it at financial
close, or at close of dialogue, or at some other point along the
way. The reason why we chose financial close was that it seemed
to us clearest that if a contract had been signed, that was a
binding commitment; but prior to that, if no contract had been
signed—this was the legal advice as well—there was
no requirement to follow through. By drawing the line where we
did, broadly 50% of projects went through and broadly 50% of projects
were stopped. Before the general election, the last Government
had said that, overall, they anticipated a 50% reduction in capital
expenditure in the first three years of this Parliament, so in
that sense, we drew the line where the law would lead you to believe
was the most appropriate place to draw it—these are always
judgments; you can never be scientifically accurate about it—but
we also did it in accordance with the broad capital envelope laid
out by the last Government. Of course, people would understandably
be disappointed, but that seemed to be the basis on which the
decision could be taken.
Q15 Lisa Nandy: You also talked
about the capital review and that you would be considering issues
of particular concern, such as the state of school buildings and
the pressure on places. Will you also consider cases where school
closures are planned, partly as a result of anticipated Building
Schools for the Future work?
Michael Gove: My two priorities
are to consider pressure—basic need pressure, where they
need pupil places—and, as you mentioned, dilapidation. However,
it is also the case that some local authorities have put in a
great deal of work, and that work should not be set at nothing.
It is clearly the case that people have worked very hard to identify
the educational needs in their area and, in some cases, they will
have done some work on design and so on, which we can develop
and build on. The future decisions that we take will inevitably
be influenced by that. They will also be influenced by the basic
organising principle behind the coalition Government, which is
that we want to target disadvantage as well. One of things behind
Building Schools for the Future—one of the processes—was
that it was designed to address disadvantage. I do not believe
that it did so as effectively as it should have done, but I think
that is a noble aim, and it is one that will guide us as well.
Q16 Lisa Nandy: Finally, Nic also
talked about some of the confusion that has been caused by the
way in which this has been decided and announced. Before coming
here today, I was contacted by schools from all over the country
that are still in a considerable state of confusion about the
decision that's been taken. Nic mentioned Wigan and Salford—Wigan
is obviously the borough that I know best and have an interest
in. I think that it is a really good example of where, whether
or not the decision was non-discriminatory—on the face of
it, it doesn't appear to be because Wigan and Salford, as I understand
it, were at exactly the same stage in the process—Salford's
schools are going ahead and Wigan's aren't. Yesterday, when Mr
Balls came and gave evidence to us, he said that there are two
criteria for "fair". One is about the factors that have
been taken into account; the other is whether or not the decision
is non-discriminatory. Do you accept that there are schools that
are still entirely confused—"devastated and heartbroken",
in the words of one teacher from Waltham Forest—about the
decision that has been taken; and do you also accept that there
is a need to talk to those schools and to those local authorities,
to ensure that they understand the criteria on which that decision
was taken?
Michael Gove: I understand that
there will be people who are heartbroken by the decision, but
the decision was taken by me on the basis of saying, "We
need to draw the line here. These are the principles. It's a rules-based
decision." Then, I said to officials, "Will you tell
me which schools fall on either side?" So it wasn't the case
that I was saying, "I'll put Wigan here and Salford there."
I said, "If we use the existing system that we have inherited
and if we apply strictly fair criteria, then let's inform those
schools, local authorities and relevant constituency Members of
what happens." As I say, it is an inherently confusing system—not
of our design—so moving away from it will necessarily involve
confusion. The one thing that I would say is that, prior to this,
there were lots of local authorities that were in a state of confusion
about how BSF worked. One of the things that I've been struck
by in the letters that I have received from Members of Parliament,
local authorities and others is that many of them have said, "We're
sorry that our school isn't going ahead, but thank you for ending
BSF. The waste, the bureaucracy—it was a total waste of
our time and an immensely frustrating process. Please put something
simpler in place." Now it is my job to ensure that we can
get the money, if at all possible, as quickly as possible to those
schools that are in the greatest need. And I do sympathise with
the schools in that position.
Q17 Lisa Nandy: I want to push
you on this, because there are still schools that are in a considerable
state of confusion. In fact, having looked through the paperwork
for one of those examples in detail, I am completely confused
about how one set of projects has been categorised as going ahead
and one set hasn't. You said in the House that you would go and
apologise to those schools where the projects are not going ahead,
but I would suggest that it is just as important that you talk
to the people who are still entirely confused about the situation
as it stands. I gather from some of the media reports that you
are being pursued by a chicken, about the Sandwell closure. I
suggest that, rather than campaigns like that, what we really
need is for those people who are still in a state of real confusion
about this decision to understand why it was taken. I am not suggesting
that those decisions are all wrong. What I am suggesting is that
it is very difficult for those schools, those local authorities
and those parents, staff and children to understand why that decision
has been taken, and that does need to be addressed.
Michael Gove: I do understand
exactly what you say, and it is confusing for many of them, but
the system—the BSF system—was not one that I designed.
I wish that the system that had been designed had been a lot simpler.
Then, the distress that was felt by your constituents and by others
would not be felt. Partnerships for Schools and the Department
have been in touch with local authorities and with individual
schools to explain to them the nature of the procurement process
and why some people fall on either side of the line. Lots of parliamentarians
and lots of other people found the process inevitably bewildering.
I will not mention the city involved, but I had a meeting with
some Members of Parliament from another significant city who were
led to believe, as the local authority was led to believe, that
they were in one stage of the process when in fact they weren't.
Now it's understandable that there should be that sense of disappointment,
but that is a consequence of this process, which led many people
to believe that they were closer to securing buildings than was
actually the case. I deeply regret that a complex situation led
to that confusion. As for the chicken, it's nice of you to ask
about it, but my children were delighted when it showed up outside
our house. "Will it lay an egg?" my little daughter
asked, and I said, looking at the precise physiognomy of the chicken,
that I was not sure that that was likely to happen, but the Daily
Mirror can produce miracles, I am sure.
Q18 Liz Kendall: I want to go
back to the advice that was given and the decision on Building
Schools for the Future. As you know, yesterday Tim Byles said
that PfS "advised the Department that it would be wise to
validate the information with each local authority before publication
due to the inherent risk of errors. The advice was not followed".
Later on, he confirmed that that advice was given through officials,
so I want to ask Mr Bell, did his officials receive that information
from Partnerships for Schools and did he pass it on to the Secretary
of State?
David Bell: There were conversations
at official level between the Department and Tim Byles, in which
Tim Byles did warn of the risk of errors—in fact, the sort
of errors that he described yesterday: the name change of a school,
perhaps, or a parliamentary boundary being redrawn and so on.
At no point during that conversation was the risk of misclassification
error identified, as turned out to be the case with Sandwell,
which Mr Byles apologised for yesterday and previously. The Secretary
of State was told about the risk of errors in the list, of the
sort that Mr Byles and I have described. Officials did not put
to the Secretary of State the option of checking the data with
local authorities, on the grounds that they believed that the
kind of errors that we have just described were capable of being
checked without validation with the local authorities. The Secretary
of State, being advised of potential errors in the list, asked
for the data to be checked, and Partnerships for Schools was tasked
with the checking of that information. Colleagues and Partnerships
for Schools confirmed, at various stages after that advice to
the Secretary of State, that they were double-checking and triple-checking
the data, but, as we have all seen, subsequent events demonstrated
that it was not sufficient to remove all the errors in advance
of the first statement to the House of Commons.
Q19 Liz Kendall: Why do you think
errors were still made? Obviously there has been a lot of discussion
about the list being rushed through and there being very little
time for checking over 700 schools. How much time did Partnerships
for Schools have to check over 700 schools?
David Bell: In a sense, the decision
was not rushed at all, because some of the earliest conversations
I had with the Secretary of State and the new ministerial team
were about what we were going to do with Building Schools for
the Future. There were many conversations—the Secretary
of State has acknowledged this morning that he asked for a number
of different cuts of the data to understand what the potential
consequences were. This was a very detailed, very careful process.
Throughout that time, PfS was checking data and providing new
cuts of that data to the Secretary of State. PfS said that it
was checking the data all the way through, so I do not think that
there is any question that there was some sort of last-minute,
rushed process of checking the data. To a large extent that was
going on. In relation to your first point about how this happened,
PfS acknowledged that it made some human errors in relation to
the misclassification of Sandwell schools, and there were some
errors in some of the data that the Department gave to PfS for
further checking, so there were errors there. There is absolutely
no argument about that and we accept responsibility for those
errors not having been corrected before the Secretary of State
made his announcement.
1 See reply to Q13. Back
|
