School Governors

Debate between Anne Main and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a really good question, to which there are two answers. If you have everything corralled off into stakeholder groups, you are—are you not?—limiting the number of people who you can recruit. By definition, the pool is necessarily smaller. If you say that you must have parent governors or local authority governors—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I have waited quite a while before saying anything, but may I now issue a gentle reminder to the hon. Gentleman? Quite a few hon. Members seem to be speaking directly to him rather than through the Chair. I have not had any input into this matter, so I advise the hon. Gentleman to direct his comments through the Chair.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a really important point, Mrs Main. I am suitably chastened.

If a governing body is recruiting from a relatively small pool, it will, by definition, be harder to recruit. That is my first point. My second point is whether we need to have 20 people sitting around the table. Should we not be looking at smaller governing bodies?

Governing bodies should recruit people from outside the education field as well, because it is imperative that schools have a better relationship with businesses, thereby improving career opportunities for their pupils. Part of a governing body’s role is to provide an interface between the school and future employment and further and higher education.

Let me now focus on the role of the chairman and the need for them to be properly trained and, possibly, remunerated. If we want someone who is going to spend quality time with the head teacher and who is able and willing to challenge them and to support them when they are implementing necessary changes, we need someone who has the commitment, the appropriate professional skills and, if necessary, the reward. I want to put on the table now the idea that we should be remunerating people. This is not a new idea, and it has been advanced by others, not least the chief inspector at Ofsted, and we need to consider it very carefully.

Another element of the role of the chair is whether or not they have been formally assessed. We need to introduce a system in which assessment is rigorous. We do not want a few old friends gathering around for a cup of coffee, slapping one another on the back and saying, “Hey, you have done a really good job.”

The other key person in a governing body is the clerk, and they must be someone who is capable of taking notes, ensuring that meetings run properly and advising the governing body on its statutory responsibilities and any other legal implications of its actions. I have seen too many governing bodies struggle without such advice and make inappropriate and sometimes quite useless decisions.

An issue that I have already raised in relation to one of the reports is whether, when parents have lost confidence in the school governors, they should be able to dismiss the governors en masse. That would be a final accountability mechanism that was not necessarily used often, but which was an ultimate threat. Such a mechanism would ensure that governing bodies were mindful of the need to interface properly with the parent body.

Those issues are important with respect to the chair and other aspects. On the structure of governance, I want to focus on three areas. First, it would be sensible to think in terms of more federal structures for governing bodies. The evidence is—this certainly shows up in the academies programme—that where we have governing bodies looking after more than one school, the likelihood of outstanding schools being developed is much higher. That is a statistical fact and one that we need to note. However, it is also important that we bear it in mind that good schools can spread best practice to the schools that need to improve, and through a federal or a partnership model of governance, that might happen more often and more readily. It seems to me that that is a direction of travel that has already started with the academies programme, but it should be promoted.

Private Finance Initiative

Debate between Anne Main and Neil Carmichael

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael]

I think that you are absolutely right if you agree with me that we need more accountability in the procurement and specification systems.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He is making an interesting speech, but I keep hearing “you.” I do not want to disrupt the flow, but I am aware that it happens sometimes.

[Neil Carmichael]

Thank you for being so understanding, Mrs Main. This is such a complex subject that you have to marshal your thoughts clearly.

The discussion of procurement leads me to the next big issue—the competitiveness of the tendering process. One of the difficulties is that there are not often enough bidders. That is not surprising, because the bidding costs are sometimes far too high. We therefore need to think about the competitive process and the bidding issue together. I believe that the answer is to make the contractual arrangements and the contracts simpler and more adaptable. You cannot alter a system as complicated as this by looking at one part of it and making some changes, because that will have consequences further down the line, but I think that bidding costs are indeed too high, largely because contracts are too rigid and too few organisations are looking into that as a mechanism.

One or two Members have mentioned income streams. That is a really good point. Most schemes with strong income streams have worked rather well. Those with no proper measure of income or service have not worked so well. We need to divide the concept of the private finance initiative into those schemes with strong and reliable income streams and those mainly to do with service and operation. The difficulty is that we apply the strict definition of the private finance initiative to virtually everything, when we have a much more flexible phrase—public-private partnership. That is what we should be thinking about, so that we do not get ourselves tied up in knots.

[Neil Carmichael]

Thank you very much. [Laughter.] You know, it is always great when someone makes a point in opposition that proves the point that is being made. If you keep changing the specifications, you will increase the complexity, making it harder for those who are procuring to understand, and the bidding process just goes awry. The real problem is that various organisations have not specified clearly enough and have not stuck to the specifications as first announced. Therefore, there have been far too many changes, sometimes as late as just before contract signing. That is what I am getting at. It is totally unacceptable. It wastes huge amounts of money—millions of pounds—and it puts off other bidders because, of course, they think to themselves, “Where are we in this? It’s a movable feast.” That is not what we want. We need to bolt it down, and that is why I emphasised the importance of specification. It is a really important point, and my hon. Friend has just proved it. If you keep changing the specification, you will always end up having a problem with a contract of any description. That is where I stand on that issue.

Finally, I want to mention the ridiculous business about light bulbs, car parking at hospitals and so on—the sort of things that we must get away from. That is really important. It is what the Treasury and indeed any organisation involved in such a situation should be moving away from. It is not acceptable; it causes a huge number of problems. It is nonsense to argue that an income stream for a hospital will be the car park for the patients who turn up to it. That needs to be stated. We need to get a grip on what the hospital is actually for and apply the logic of the contract to that. That is the answer to the second point made by my hon. Friend.

In summary, PFI has a role to play, but we must be imaginative about making sure that it works better. If we are going to be spending more than £200 billion on our infrastructure alone in the next decade or so, we will have to appeal more effectively to the private sector to dip into its pocket. Properly modified, PFI can do that. That does not mean that we should not be looking at rebates, and it does not mean that we should not be concerned about what is on or off the balance sheet and so on. It does mean that we must apply value for money on the scheme and ensure that it works for those who need it.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before Dr Thérèse Coffey makes her very eloquent speech, I am sure she will bear in mind that I have had very little to do with PFI schemes, and I would appreciate it if she were mindful of that.