Toby Young with Boris Johnson and school pupils at the opening of his West London Free School in 2011. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The £1.1bn question: should we have the right to know why some schools succeed and others don’t?

My teacher friend requested information about free schools from the DfE under FoI law. After a year and a half of appeals ruling in her favour, the DfE still refuses to release the information. Now it’s going to court. 

By the time you read this, I’ll be in court. No, they haven’t finally caught up with me for that free cross-stitch kit I prised off the front of a sewing magazine in Worcester’s biggest Tesco in 1991 and shoved up my sleeve (although I would like to apologise unreservedly for that). Instead, I will be sitting in the glamorous surroundings of court 12 at Field House in London, exper­iencing something called a first-tier tribunal.

But let’s rewind. The story starts in October 2012, when my old friend Laura Mc­Inerney, a teacher-turned-education PhD student, asked the Department for Education (DfE) a simple question under freedom of information (FoI) law. Could it publish the applications made by everyone who wanted to open a free school and the letters accepting or rejecting them? Similar information had been available prior to 2010 and since the coalition was proposing to spend £1.1bn on the free schools programme, it would surely be in the public interest to see how the money was being spent.

Such disclosure seemed particularly important, given the autonomy of free schools. Outside local authority control, their founders are more able to experiment with their management and curriculums – which can encourage either free-thinking and entrepreneurism, as Michael Gove hopes, or rampant amateurishness and expensive disasters, as their critics allege. The National Audit Office found that £700,000 had been spent on schools that had passed the application stage but never opened and £241m had gone to schools in areas where there was no need for extra places.

The DfE shuffled its feet for a bit, then announced that handing the information over would encourage people to copy the best applications. (Horror!) Worse, scrutiny of the forms could lead to the “embarrassment, harassment or even ridicule of applicant groups”. (Which makes me think: if Gove really wants to protect Toby Young from ridicule, he should have a quiet word with him about how weird it looks to make more than 100 edits to your own Wikipedia page.) The department concluded that these factors outweighed the public interest of releasing the information.

After a year and a half of ever-higher appeals ruling in Laura’s favour, the DfE still refused to release the information. Michael Gove told an education select committee that he would do “everything possible” to stop it. “I do not think that people who made applications on the basis that those applications would be treated in confidence, and who may, if they have been unsuccessful, expose themselves to the risk of intimidation, should be exposed to that risk by my actions,” he told the Labour MP Pat Glass on 18 December 2013.

Here’s the thing: I’m looking at one of the original free school application forms right now and at the end it says: “Please note, all information provided on this form will be published on the Department for Education website . . . Submission of this form will be treated as consent, from both you and anyone else whose personal data is contained in this form, to the sharing of this information, as set out above.” It even mentions that the applications will be subject to FoI law.

I’ve been involved only tangentially up to this point and my role in the court case is to be Laura’s “FoI friend” because she’s representing herself. (I will be passing her notes like they do in Judge John Deed. If she’s lucky, some of them may even be relevant to the case.) But the process has made me remember something that Ben Goldacre – who is also running a campaign for transparency; in his case, the publication of all clinical trial data – once said: “It seems to me that a lot of the most important stuff in this world has a large tedium shield erected around it.”

The principle behind our freedom of information is a beautiful one: that the public interest is usually best served by knowing what our elected representatives are doing with the money we give them. How is any normal person – sorry, Laura, but you know what I mean – supposed to wrestle with the pages of legal arguments riddled with impenetrable jargon I’ve seen generated by this case? The DfE certainly doesn’t seem to think that FoI laws are the domain of the average citizen – one of its arguments is that Laura is “burdensome”. This makes me feel pretty damn burdensome, as it happens. She’s researching a PhD on free schools and is asking for the best available information on free schools. By this logic, every pupil in the country is even now burdening their teacher with their irritating desire for knowledge.

So why does this small, technical fight in a dusty courtroom matter? Because every new government comes to power mouthing platitudes about openness and transparency and then promptly discovers that it would really rather operate in secret, if that’s all the same to you.

Whether you agree with the free schools programme or not, it is a giant experiment – and if it goes wrong, there’s no chance for the children involved simply to start the experiment from scratch. The big bundle of documents we’ll be taking to court includes an Ofsted report on the al-Madinah free school in Derby. Not the one from October 2013 that labelled it “dysfunctional” and inadequate in every category, but the pre-opening report, which raised serious questions about its child protection arrangements, first aiders and fire exits.

Some free schools, such as al-Madinah, will crash and burn. Others will thrive, like the three-quarters that were rated good or outstanding in their first Ofsted inspection. But why would you want to stop anyone from trying to find out which are which as soon as is humanly possible? We’ll find out in court.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 04 June 2014 issue of the New Statesman, 100 days to save Great Britain

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is Scottish Labour on the way back, or heading for civil war?

There are signs of life, but also recriminations.

The extraordinary rise of the Scottish Tories and the collapse in SNP seat numbers grabbed most of the headlines in the recent general election. Less remarked on was the sudden, unexpected exhalation of air that came from what was thought to be the corpse of Scottish Labour.

In 2015, Labour lost 40 of its 41 Scottish seats as the SNP rocketed from six to 56, was wiped out in its Glaswegian heartlands, and looked to have ceded its place as the choice of centre-left voters – perhaps permanently – to the Nationalists. But while the electorate’s convulsion in June against the SNP’s insistence on a second independence referendum most benefited Ruth Davidson, it also served to reanimate Labour.

The six seats grabbed back (making a total of seven) included three in the West of Scotland, proving that the Nat stranglehold on Labour’s territory was not quite as secure as it had seemed. There is, it appears, life in the old dog yet.

Not only that, but the surprise success of Jeremy Corbyn across the UK has stiffened Labour’s spine when it comes to insisting that it, and not the SNP, is the rightful home of Scotland’s socialists.

Corbyn was largely kept south of the border during the election campaign – Kezia Dugdale, the leader at Holyrood, had supported Owen Smith’s leadership challenge. But in August, Corbyn will embark on a five-day tour of marginal SNP constituencies that Labour could potentially take back at the next election. The party has set a target of reclaiming 18 Scottish seats as part of the 64 it needs across Britain to win a majority at Westminster. The trip will focus on traditional areas such as Glasgow and Lanarkshire, where tiny swings would return seats to the People’s Party. Dugdale is no doubt hoping for some reflected glory.

Corbyn will present himself as the authentically left-wing choice, a leader who will increase public spending and invest in public services compared to the austerity of the Tories and the timidity of the SNP. “Labour remains on an election footing as a government-in-waiting, ready to end failed austerity and ensure that Scotland has the resources it needs to provide the public services its people deserve,” he said. “Unlike the SNP and the Tories, Labour will transform our economy through investment, insisting that the true wealth creators - that means all of us – benefit from it.”

The SNP has benefited in recent years from the feeling among many north of the border that Labour and the Tories were committed to differing shades of a similar economic programme, that was starving public services of cash and that paid little attention to Scottish desires or needs. But as the Nats’ spell in government in Edinburgh has worn on, first under Alex Salmond and now Nicola Sturgeon, with little being done to tackle the nation’s social problems, patience has started to run out.

Dugdale said yesterday that she “looked forward to joining Jeremy in August as we take our message to the people of Scotland”. That’s not a sentiment we would have heard from her before June. But it does raise the future spectacle of Davidson’s Tories battling for the centre and centre-right vote and Labour gunning for the left. The SNP, which has tried to be all things to all people, will have to make a choice – boasting that it is “Scotland’s Party” is unlikely to be enough.

The 20th anniversary of the referendum that delivered the Scottish Parliament is almost upon us. Then, Scottish Labour provided the UK and the Westminster government with figures of the stature of Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Donald Dewar and George Robertson. That was a long time ago, and the decline in quality of Labour’s representatives both in London and Edinburgh since has been marked. The SNP’s decade of success has attracted much of the brightest new talent through its doors. Young Scots still seem to be set on the idea of independence. Labour has a credibility problem that won’t be easily shaken off.

But still, the body has twitched – perhaps it’s even sitting up. Is Scottish Labour on the way back? If so, is that down to the SNP’s declining popularity or to Corbyn’s appeal? And could Dugdale be a convincing frontwoman for a genuinely left-wing agenda?

There may be trouble ahead. Yesterday, the Scottish Labour Campaign for Socialism – whose convener, Neil Findlay MSP, ran Corbyn’s leadership campaign in Scotland – accused Dugdale of “holding Corbyn back” in June. A spokesperson for the group said: “While it’s great we won some seats back, it’s clear that the campaign here failed to deliver. While elsewhere we've seen people being enthused by ‘for the many, not the few’ we concentrated on the dispiriting visionless ‘send Nicola a message’ – and paid a price for that, coming third in votes and seats for the first time in a century. In Scotland we looked more like [former Scottish leader] Jim Murphy’s Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn’s – and that isn’t a good look.”

While the group insists this isn’t intended as a challenge to Dugdale, that might change if Corbyn receives a rapturous reception in August. We’ll learn then whether Scotland is falling for the high-tax, high-spending pitch that seems to be working so well elsewhere, and whether Scottish Labour has jerked back to life only to find itself staring down the barrel of a civil war.

Chris Deerin is the New Statesman's contributing editor (Scotland).