It's time to hold ministers to account for their waste of public money, starting with Gove

The mass expansion of academies and free schools, regardless of need, shows the incompetence and extravagance of the Education Secretary.

All eyes are fixed on decisions about the level of public spending in the Spending Review later this month. But how well - not just how much – public money is spent is an equally essential part of sound government finances.   

The Chancellor’s obsession with the politics of austerity and spending cuts means he is overlooking waste, inefficiency and ineffectiveness across government. Labour should make value-for-money central to its Spending Review response and to its alternative for government. We must expose every department to the full force of a value-for-money strip search starting with the inefficiency, incompetence and extravagance of the Education Secretary.

After three years, the evidence on cost simply doesn’t support the government’s flagship policy of mass academies. The independent Academies Commission, in the most in-depth study of the academies and free schools programme so far, found substantial progress among many Labour-era 'sponsor academies', but no marked evidence of improvement in more recent waves. My questions in Parliament have revealed that none of the free schools inspected by Ofsted have been classed as 'outstanding', and a third have been judged as 'requires improvement'. So not only is an academy no quick fix, it is often no fix at all. And it certainly can’t be used as the only answer for under-performing schools.

But the financial performance of policy also demands close scrutiny. Publicly-funded education must come with a guarantee that the public pound is being well spent and that government, parents and pupils are getting good value for money. This is not currently the case.

After axeing investment in the re-build of 735 schools under Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010, it took Michael Gove another two years to identify 261 schools he judged in need of the most urgent repairs. Even by the end of this year, 18 months later, building work will still not have started on over 90 per cent of these school projects.

Meanwhile, money has been made immediately and plentifully available for free schools. We face a crisis in school places, with a quarter of a million more needed by the start of the 2014 school year. Yet evidence suggests new free schools are not all being targeted at the areas that most need school places. More than half of the first wave were opened in the country's least deprived areas and recent research by the National Union of Teachers has suggested that millions of pounds are being wasted on new free schools in areas that already have excess places. Such decisions fail the test of good public policy and good public spending.

The government’s ten-fold expansion of academies and free schools brings other value-for-money risks. Academies and free schools receive more direct public money but they have less financial accountability. It is harder to follow the public pound through the system and this can lead to misuse of public money. Examples of malpractice are growing.

The head of the second largest academy provider E-ACT recently stood down after serious concerns were raised about financial irregularities and extravagance. Before that, the CEO of the Priory Federation of Academies Trust was forced to resign after siphoning off school funds. Lax controls and light-touch reporting requirements add to the risk that public money may be misspent in free schools and academies.

There is also no sound control over salary escalation in the academies system, with top pay starting to spiral up. The CEOs of E-ACT and the Priory were earning £300,000 and £200,000 a year respectively when they stood down, while data from the School Workforce Census reveals that the average pay for academy and free school principals is now almost £7,000 a year higher than other school heads. No one becomes a better head or does a tougher job just because the structure of their school changes.

The National Audit Office also reports academy costs being driven up by the lack of local authority bulk purchasing power which has resulted in many schools spending more money on buying their own services such as insurance and ICT (NAO, Managing the expansion of the academies programme, p. 36) Some academy chains are outsourcing school management functions to private companies, including services from the profit-making arms of their own sponsors or academy trusts. The risks of inefficiency, profit-taking and conflicts of interest are all obvious but obscured by a lack of public reporting and almost no school-level financial data for local authority maintained schools on the one hand, and academies and free schools on the other.

This lack of transparency makes it all but impossible to know whether or not individual academies and free schools are providing value for money, especially compared to established schools that choose to remain a part of the local education authority.

If people see or suspect that public money is being misspent or failing to bring the benefits that politicians claim, they lose faith in the policy. And if the Chancellor won’t hold his cabinet colleagues to account for their waste of the public’s money, then Labour must.

Education Secretary Michael Gove leaves 10 Downing Street in central London on November 21, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

John Healey is the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne and was formerly housing minister, local government minister and financial secretary to the Treasury

Getty
Show Hide image

The economic and moral case for global open borders

Few politicians are prepared to back a policy of free movement everywhere. Perhaps they should. 

Across the world, borders are being closed, not opened. In the US, Donald Trump has vowed to halve immigration to 500,000 and to cap the number of refugees at 50,000. In the UK, the Conservative government has reaffirmed its pledge to end free movement after Brexit is concluded. In Europe, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic are being sued by the EU for refusing to accept a mandatory share of refugees.

Even Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has followed the rightward drift. Its general election manifesto promised to end free movement, and Corbyn recently complained of the “wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe”.

Among economists, however, a diametrically opposed conversation prevails. They argue that rather than limiting free movement, leaders should expand it: from Europe to the world. Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, likens the present system to leaving “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”.

Economists estimate that allowing migrants to move to any country they choose would increase global GDP by between 67 and 147 per cent. A doubling of GDP (a $78trn increase) would correspond to 23 years of growth at 3 per cent. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund estimates that permitting the entirely free movement of capital would add a mere $65bn.

The moral case for open borders is similarly persuasive. As the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman writes in his recent book Utopia for Realists: “Borders are the single biggest cause of discrimination in all of world history. Inequality gaps between people living in the same country are nothing in comparison to those between separated global citizenries.” An unskilled Mexican worker who migrates to the US would raise their pay by around 150 per cent; an unskilled Nigerian by more than 1,000 per cent.

In his epochal 1971 work A Theory of Justice, the American philosopher John Rawls imagined individuals behind a “veil of ignorance”, knowing nothing of their talents, their wealth or their class. It follows, he argued, that they would choose an economic system in which inequalities are permitted only if they benefit the most disadvantaged. The risk of being penalised is too great to do otherwise. By the same logic, one could argue that, ignorant of their fortunes, individuals would favour a world of open borders in which birth does not determine destiny.

Yet beyond Rawls’s “original position”, the real-world obstacles to free movement are immense. Voters worry that migrants will depress their wages, take their jobs, burden the welfare state, increase crime and commit terrorism. The problem is worsened by demagogic politicians who seek to exploit such fears.

But research shows that host countries gain, rather than lose, from immigration. Migrants are usually younger and healthier than their domestic counterparts and contribute far more in tax revenue than they claim in benefits. Rather than merely “taking” jobs, migrants and their children create them (Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian immigrant, is one example). In the US, newcomers are only a fifth as likely to be imprisoned as the native born. A Warwick University study of migration flows between 145 countries found that immigration helped to reduce terrorism by promoting economic development.

In a world of open borders, the right to move need not be an unqualified one (the pollster Gallup found that 630 million people – 13 per cent of the global population – would migrate permanently). Under the EU’s free movement system, migrants must prove after three months that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student, or have “sufficient resources” (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be “a burden on the benefits system” – conditions that the UK, ironically, has never applied.

But so radical does the proposal sound that few politicians are prepared to give voice to it. An exception is the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who argued in 2016: “Inevitably, in this century, we will have open borders. We are seeing it in Europe already. The movement of peoples across the globe will mean that borders are almost going to become irrelevant by the end of this century, so we should be preparing for that and explaining why people move.”

At present, in a supposed era of opportunity, only 3 per cent of the global population live outside the country of their birth. As politicians contrive to ensure even fewer are able to do so, the case for free movement must be made anew.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear