Merry-go-round of Ministers has repercussions

I am grateful to freelancer and former TES journalist, Adi Bloom, for this interesting fact

Between the start of July and the end of October last year [2022], there were four new education secretaries, as well as a succession of junior ministers. And, between them they held 133 events labelled “introductory meeting to discuss the organisation following the ministerial reshuffle”.

This paralysis no doubt was replicated across government. Adi has written a witty piece on her LinkedIn page about the current Secretary of State’s possible icebreaker meeting with the key trade union (professional association) general secretaries of the teacher groups that readers might with to search out. In passing, I wonder whether Secretaries of State ever hold such meeting with trade unions representing the non-teaching staff in schools that now outnumber teachers?

Anyway, the essential point is whether this rapid turnover of ministers may have contributed to the government’s challenges over public sector pay. Might a Cabinet with more experience of their department, running to more than a few days tenure, have anticipated the implications of public sector pay review bodies controlling pay rises each year and a rapid an unpredicted increase in inflation better than seems to have been the case.

Might ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Education, that had been in post for some time, and thus more secure in their portfolio, have both had better relations with civil servants in order to have been able to ask questions about pay policy and recruitment and retention of the teacher workforce and have struck up some sort of rapport with teachers’ leaders? Possible as a scenario, but unlikely I grant you, but impossible with such a rapid turnover of minsters?

Much must also depend upon the character of the individual as Secretary of State, and their willingness to create inter-personal relations with key players in the education landscape. The absence of the Secretary of State from the ASCL conference, plus a relative lack of appearances in the media raises the question as to whether the present incumbent of the top job at Sanctuary Buildings isn’t one for the limelight. Some that have held the office or Secretary of State have enjoyed the public nature of their role while others, were rarely seen in public, and their stewardship goes largely unremembered.

We have now entered that phase of the life of a parliament where it becomes more of a challenge to create policy, except in areas where ministers have direct control. Intermediaries can now drag their feet secure in the knowledge that a general election is likely to be no more than 18 months away, and that the present government isn’t likely to be returned with the same majority as a present, even if it is returned at all.

Equally, ministers can leave difficult decisions to their successor to deal with. It’s worth recalling that under the coalition’s fixed term Parliament Act there would have had to have been an election this year. Perhaps the current Prime Minister might use that as an excuse for an autumn election is next month’s local elections are really frightful?

Minister’s business experience useful?

Will schools in financial difficulties receive the Flybe treatment from Kelly Tolhurst MP, the new Minister of State for Education? In her career the Minister has served as a PUS – or first rank of the ministerial ladder – across three departments, plus a couple of months over this summer in the Whip’s Office, where she had previously served in a junior role in 2018. Kelly Tolhurst, MP for Rochester and Strood in Kent is possibly best remembered for being the Minister sent out explain the refusal to bail out the airline Flybe when it ran into turbulent financial conditions at the start of the covid pandemic.

“Unfortunately, in a competitive market, companies do fail, and it is not the role of Government to prop them up.

Given the time of year, the nature of Flybe’s business and fleet, and the routes that it flies, sufficient alternative transport arrangements should be available, either with other airlines or by road and rail.”

Hansard 5th March 2020

Hopefully, the new minister will be more understanding about the financial position of schools as they wrestle with the present financial crisis. As her role at the in the Business Department involved responsibility for small businesses, the MP should be well aware of the challenges that schools will face. As a supporter of the free market, she may well want to see whether the Department is spending its cash wisely on issues such as teacher recruitment and SEND.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the constraints of a national Funding Formula that can be ignored when times are good may also need to be something to be considered, especially the differences between maintained schools and academies when it comes to shifting cash around.

As an MP for Rochester, Kelly Tohurst will know of the stark differences between the town’s schools, where some are comprehensives that are operating alongside selective schools, and will as a businesswomen understand both the costs of re-organising the system nationally to benefit the few rather than the many, and the links between the school system and the need for a modern skilled workforce, something some of her predecessors may have seemed less concerned about.

As in other areas with selective schools, private secondary schools are thin on the ground in the Rochester area of Medway Council and that should be a warning to any government thinking of expanding selective education. The cost to the state of parents switching from private education to state selective schooling should be enough to dissuade any government from taking our school system back to the nineteenth Century as means of creating a twenty first century growth economy.

The Secretary of State should be familiar with issues such as youth offending and the variations between different groups and their schooling. I would hope that this will be a serious consideration for the new residents of Sanctuary Buildings, perhaps more so than under recent inhabitants.

Finally, I would again make my please for Jacob’s Law, whereby children in care are guaranteed a school pace within 14 days of the State taking over parental responsibility. This needs the promised change in the administration of in-year admissions and would befit the education of these children often taken from their families with no say in the matter and dumped in a different part of the country.

Are Ministers responsible?

Should the Secretary of State for Education resign over the exams fiasco? I guess your answer depends upon your view on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

Back when I was a mere lad studying at the LSE, the leading case on the subject was only about 12 years old. This was what has become known to historians as the Crichel Down affair. It resulted in the resignation in 1954 of the then Minister of Agriculture following a public inquiry that was critical of his Department over the handling of parcel of land acquired for wartime use, I think for an airfield.

Mr Dugdale resigned, telling Parliament that “I, as minister, must accept full responsibility for any mistakes and inefficiency of officials in my department, just as, when my officials bring off any successes on my behalf, I take full credit for them.”

Such resignations, although honourable, are rare, and most Ministers tend to try and tough it out after something has gone wrong that is until their continued occupation of ministerial office becomes such an embarrassment to the government that the Prime minister makes it known that they should quit. Many, of course, don’t survive the next reshuffle.

This is a Prime minister that can be ruthless when he wants to be, as we saw in the run up to last year’s general election. However, I guess there have been so many mistakes this year since the start of the pandemic that any loss of a single cabinet minister might trigger demands for other heads to roll. Perhaps as with the changes to PHE, Ofqual’s days are numbered, and, perhaps, it will be returned to the DfE, much as happened to teacher training a few years ago.

What happens with the GCSE results between now and the weekend, and the cost of any bailout of universities resulting from the fallout of the A level –U-turn may well seal the fate of Mr Williamson.

Following on from the Crichel Down affair, the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, suggested that ministers should not be held responsible for actions that they did not know about or of which they disapproved. However, they still needed to tell parliament what has happened, so that the legislature can discussed with full knowledge of the facts. I expect the Education Select Committee to hold a hearing sooner rather than later. At present, all we have is trial by media.

Ought the Secretary of State have known about the consequences of a policy of preventing grade inflation when there were no examinations to mark? Is knowing in principle, but not asking about the consequences a defence? The court of public opinion seems to think not. If it became clear that a minister had been briefed of the consequences, resignation would seem inevitable.

More likely we will lurch towards the beginning of September with the hope that re-opening of schools would be another disaster. If it is, then surely changes will be necessary.

Since writing this post, the Head of the Qualifications Agency has departed, as has the Permanent Secretary at the DfE. This is the highest civil service post in the DfE. By early evening on the 28th August no Minister has resigned.