tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/public-accounts-committee-7110/articlesPublic Accounts Committee – The Conversation2016-06-13T11:40:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609082016-06-13T11:40:48Z2016-06-13T11:40:48ZThe truth about migrants and the NHS<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126339/original/image-20160613-29238-xigwuk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=doctors%20waiting%20room&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=148769519">Robert Kneschke/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Announcing her decision to defect from Vote Leave to the Remain campaign, Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston claimed: <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comment-leave-s-health-claims-are-shameful-x75m2hm2m">“If you meet a migrant in the NHS, they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue”</a>. How right she is. </p>
<p>Migrants fall into two groups: those who are visiting temporarily, and those who are resident. People from the first group who use the NHS have been dubbed “medical tourists”, taking advantage of free health care. But such visitors now <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-worth-making-health-tourists-pay-for-nhs-care-52607">have to pay</a> for the care they receive. </p>
<p>Visa and immigration applicants from outside the European Economic Area have to pay an annual “health surcharge” if they plan to stay in the country for more than six months. Those staying less than six months have to pay 150% of the cost of hospital care. EU visitors have to show their European Health Insurance Cards when using the NHS so that their home countries can be billed for their care. These arrangements mean that visitors are no more a drain on the NHS than they are on restaurants or West End theatres: they’re paying for the services they receive.</p>
<p>Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the <a href="http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/80468/Eurohealth13_1.pdf">“healthy migrant effect”</a>. </p>
<p>This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for <a href="http://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/working-paper-series/working-paper-005">outpatient referrals</a>. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. </p>
<p>Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/free-movement-and-the-eu-referendum">higher employment rates</a> than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work. </p>
<p>If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS. </p>
<p>So immigrants to the UK are more likely to be healthy and more likely to be working. The opposite may be the case for emigrants from the UK. Around 1.2m Britons live in other <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/free-movement-and-the-eu-referendum">EU countries</a> – mainly in Spain, Ireland, France and Germany. While some of these emigrants have moved to work, many have chosen to retire overseas. And retirees are more likely to make use of the health system, simply because they are older. On balance, then, the UK benefits from “healthy immigrants”, while exporting “unhealthy emigrants” for other health systems to deal with.</p>
<h2>Are you likely to be treated by a migrant?</h2>
<p>Not only are migrants more likely to working, they are very likely to be working in the NHS. According to statistics collected by the <a href="http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a>, the NHS is more reliant on “foreign trained” staff than are other EU countries (see figure). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126182/original/image-20160610-29216-1l86deo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2014, 28% of doctors working in the UK were trained abroad, compared with an average of just 9% across the other countries. Thirteen percent of nurses are foreign trained, compared with 2% elsewhere. Some of these are trained outside the EU, but <a href="http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp">11% of doctors</a> and <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-nhs-staff/">4% of nurses</a> working in the NHS are from other European Economic Area countries (EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).</p>
<p>The Public Accounts Committee has been very critical of <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/nhs-staff-numbers-15-16/">evident failures</a> in NHS workforce planning. This has meant that overseas recruitment has been essential to fill shortfalls in staffing. Leaving the EU will make the situation worse, particularly in shortage specialties such as emergency care and general practice, severely constraining our ability to recruit overseas staff.</p>
<p>The Leave campaign claims that Brexit will allow us greater border control, above and beyond the higher entry barriers the UK already has by not being part of the Schengen area. These restrictions are likely to reduce immigration from other EU countries, which may reduce use of the NHS, but will also reduce NHS income received directly from such users or via taxation.</p>
<p>More worryingly, Brexit would reduce access to a pool of staff that we need to draw from to address NHS workforce shortages. There also may be adverse consequences for UK emigrants and holidaymakers, if the other EU countries retaliate by making it more difficult to retire abroad or ask us to surrender our European Health Insurance Cards.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Bloor has received project funding from the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme and the European Union. The views expressed are her own. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street has recived project funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, and the European Union. The views expressed are his own.</span></em></p>Migrants have been accused of ‘clogging up the NHS’. But where would the NHS be without them?Karen Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of YorkAndrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437452015-06-24T05:15:08Z2015-06-24T05:15:08ZHow the new spending chief can tackle tax without being a prat<p>Meg Hillier, Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, has been elected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. In what is arguably one of the biggest jobs available to an opposition MP, she is in charge of overseeing all public spending by the government. And she has big boots to fill as successor to Margaret Hodge who became known for her lively investigations into tax avoidance and evasion.</p>
<p>Hodge’s chairmanship of the committee offers some important lessons for Meg Hillier. Hodge included among her titles both <a href="http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2013/02/06/53361/tax-prat-year">“tax prat of the year”</a> and <a href="http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/taxation-awards/winners-2014">Tax Personality of the Year</a> when in office. This was because she shone a spotlight on the tax industry, despite not having a background in tax, leading to admiration from some and disdain from others.</p>
<h2>The job at hand</h2>
<p>The PAC has no oversight of either the development or merits of any particular policy: its focus is purely on whether the policy has been carried out <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/role/">effectively and economically</a>. Its evolution into the scourge of tax administration seems to have been <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/taxation/">partly deliberate choice and partly happy accident</a>. Hillier will have HMRC’s performance on the agenda, particularly its performance in the digital age as it <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413975/making-tax-easier.pdf">moves to “abolish” the tax return</a>.</p>
<p>Under Hodge, reports on Starbucks, Google and Amazon’s <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/716/71605.htm">tax arrangements</a>, on marketed <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/788/788.pdf">tax avoidance schemes</a>, and on the Big Four accountancy firms <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc870-i/uc87001.htm">and their role in tax avoidance</a> in particular, moved the debate on tax from the pages of specialist journals into the wider public discourse.</p>
<h2>A tax prat?</h2>
<p>So why was Margaret Hodge’s attempt to bring debates around tax into the public eye so unpopular with the tax profession? The “tax prat” article accuses her of “idiosyncratic and ill-informed views about tax avoidance” which were “marginalising the Public Accounts Committee” and which “made it a joke to those who understand the subject”.</p>
<p>Does a failure to understand the arcana of tax legislation mean that an elected official is unable to comment on the way the legislation is framed? One of the talking points from the tax avoidance hearings that she led was the practice of the Treasury using secondees from accountancy firms in tax policymaking roles. In particular the patent box <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc870-i/uc87001.htm">and the controlled foreign company rules</a> – both means for companies to pay less tax under certain circumstances. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86160/original/image-20150623-19368-1lmpny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Margaret Hodge MP.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Labour</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The suggestion was that the same senior officials, seconded from accountancy firms to help develop legislation, then returned to their companies and were named in advertising material promising to help companies use it – to make “more economical use” of tax losses and in the “preparation of defendable expense allocation”.</p>
<p>The tax profession found this an affront to their professionalism and expected the public to understand that they were acting with professional integrity, even if the public were unable to understand the results of their actions.</p>
<h2>Speaking a different language</h2>
<p>Hodge’s period at PAC raises the question of whether discussing these issues is solely the business of the tax professional and how to achieve democratic accountability when elected representatives barely understand the legislation they are being asked to pass. </p>
<p>In researching the coalition government’s <a href="http://sls.sagepub.com/content/24/2/203.full.pdf?ijkey=LsrQNQzVKu6uwID&keytype=finite">progress towards its four tax objectives</a> of a greener, fairer, simpler and more competitive tax system, I noted that the tax profession and the wider public had different understandings of these terms. I went on to consider whether the general public’s dissatisfaction with the results of tax policymaking are being disregarded by the profession because they literally are not speaking the same language.</p>
<p>It is not enough for the tax profession to retreat into a bunker and dismiss anyone who doesn’t understand its language as being ineligible to take part in its debates: tax belongs to all of us. As HMRC’s raison d'etre <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/about">says</a>, it is “responsible for making sure that the money is available to fund the UK’s public services and for helping families and individuals with targeted financial support”. Surely this, by definition, affects everyone. More people should therefore have the right to a seat at the table where tax is discussed.</p>
<p>Margaret Hodge also brought up the issue of morality when it comes to tax policy, despite being criticised by professionals for it. At the height of the controversy <a href="http://economia.icaew.com/business/april2013/unrepentant">she said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I keep hearing it is ridiculous to talk about tax as a moral issue and that it is a simple legal issue. But if it was that simple, you wouldn’t have a bunch of lawyers and accountants making a ruddy fortune out of it, would you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The task for Hillier will be to find a way of bridging the gap; of helping the tax profession learn that they must consider politicians and the general public not as tax prats but as engaged citizens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Bradley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lessons for Meg Hillier from her predecessor Margaret Hodge in overseeing the government’s public spending.Wendy Bradley, PhD student of tax simplification and better regulation, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380702015-02-26T06:20:57Z2015-02-26T06:20:57ZUnregulated expansion of higher education costing millions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73075/original/image-20150225-1814-1azktuk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Left unregulated. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Students and teacher via Africa Studio/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whatever the sector, regulation generally takes a while to catch up with markets. This is particularly the case when markets are dynamic and fast-moving – regulators always appear one step behind nimble-footed and innovative entrepreneurs. The publication of <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubacc/811/811.pdf">a new report</a> by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) into financial support for students at alternative higher education providers, underlines this disconnect. MPs have been scathing in their criticism of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in providing public support for students at the new so-called “alternative providers” – without much in the way of risk assessment and control.</p>
<p>There are now around <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/reg/desig/overview/">140 alternative</a>, private higher education providers, run both as charities and companies, who operate differently from the traditional, grant-funded universities and don’t receive direct public money. The major allegation from MPs is that BIS permitted an expansion of financial support for students at these institutions which was too large and too rapid. Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, the amount of public money paid in grants and loans to students at these institutions rose from £50m to around £675m. The department also allowed £3.84m of taxpayers’ funds to be given to ineligible EU students. MPs said the department has been:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Unable to quantify how much money has been lost when it has funded students who have failed to attend, or failed to complete courses, or were not proficient in the English language, or were not entered for qualifications, or where courses themselves were poorly taught.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although the PAC concedes that BIS has now tightened up on its controls, it says progress has been snail-paced. Nor does the department appear to have the kind of effective collective memory that suggests that it could learn from its mistakes. Past policies such as the introduction of <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/544/54402.htm">Individual Learning Accounts</a>, which suffered similarly from poor controls, appear not to have led to a better departmental performance this time around. </p>
<h2>Reforms but no bill to monitor them</h2>
<p>The PAC’s scathing treatment of civil servants in this report may be over the top, for the real culprit is the coalition government. It introduced <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31384/11-944-higher-education-students-at-heart-of-system.pdf">major funding reforms</a> – not least to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-willetts-s-keynote-speech-on-international-higher-education">encourage alternative providers</a> as a means of generating competition for traditional universities and colleges – without willing the regulatory means into being. An expected higher education bill to provide the regulatory architecture and controls to complement market-boosting ministerial decisions <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-regulation-still-needed-to-prevent-cashpoint-colleges-27293">never materialised</a>. The sector in England still waits, in limbo, for such a bill and hopes for early legislative moves after the general election. </p>
<p>The government has acknowledged there is a problem and, in late January, the higher education minister, Greg Clark, <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/January%202015/29%20January/1.BIS-Higher-Ed.pdf">made a statement to parliament</a>, outlining steps to improve regulation of alternative providers. This included stipulating that they will need to be re-designated every year rather than just indefinitely. </p>
<p>Yet a major consequence of this absence of primary legislation is the failure to establish a regulator for higher education that could both enhance and yet control competition. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has exercised regulatory powers over universities and colleges since its inception. But this has been on the basis of it being a funding agency, with the ability to attach conditions to its financial allocations to institutions. </p>
<p>As the financing of higher education institutions moves sharply away from recurrent operational taxpayer-funded grants from HEFCE towards a system based on student tuition fees, so HEFCE’s regulatory powers have become debilitated. Nor does it have the wherewithal it used to enjoy to rescue failing providers. </p>
<p>HEFCE needs to be able to operate with explicit, regulatory authority, not just as a funder, and with the capacity to consider the suspension or otherwise of student loans and grants. This may be hard on students attending institutions that fall into poor standing, but ultimately should be in their interests. A suggested <a href="http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-regulating-higher-education">financial compensation scheme</a> and levy for students in failed providers, backed by a national regulator, would help.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf">Higher Education Commission</a> and <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/HigherEdRegulationReport.aspx">Universities UK</a> have both called for primary legislation to establish HEFCE as a national regulator. </p>
<h2>What next for alternative providers?</h2>
<p>Having an empowered national regulator and framework will not answer all the questions about alternative providers. These include debates on whether they should be regulated in exactly the same way as other colleges and universities, not least to provide a level regulatory “playing field”. The alternative is that they should receive special regulatory attention, at least for quite a while longer, on the grounds that they represent most risk to the system and to students. </p>
<p>The PAC report does not refer to the long history of “alternative providers” nearly always needing access for their students to public loans and grants. In the US, for example, <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-benefits-from-huge-federal-subsidies-to-us-for-profit-colleges-30233">federal student finance known as “Title IV”</a> grants for accredited for-profit and other similar private providers has become these colleges’ primary source of funds. Private competitive challenge to established institutions nearly always requires public funding of some kind, usually channelled directly to the student as consumer. Exercising proper regulatory oversight of this expenditure is not easy, but is still achievable.</p>
<p>There is little doubt that higher education, in England and other countries, is undergoing a transformation. In part this is inspired by technology, through <a href="https://theconversation.com/mooc-and-youre-out-of-a-job-uni-business-models-in-danger-9738">digital and similar online innovation</a>. But it is also the consequence of new providers challenging the status quo by seeking markets in places where traditional institutions have been reluctant to go and creating business models based on convenience and cost that challenge the priorities of incumbent universities. Working adults have been particularly well-served by such new providers. </p>
<p>The key issue, not addressed by the PAC, is how do we encourage innovation and competition – and aid the expansion of higher education to all who can take advantage of it – but with adequate regulatory oversight. <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2014/news88571.html">HEFCE’s current review of quality assurance</a> might provide one clue. Regulatory pluralism in which several or more quality assurance and accreditation agencies, albeit monitored centrally, serve different higher education markets, nearly always allows insurgent new providers to gain the regulatory start that they need.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger King is affiliated with the Higher Education Commission and was co-chair of its inquiry 'Regulating the new landscape of higher education. </span></em></p>A committee of MPs has launched a scathing attack on the way students at alternative higher education providers have been funded.Roger King, Visiting Professor, School of Management, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/360012015-01-09T06:13:03Z2015-01-09T06:13:03ZHow much is too much to pay headteachers?<p>The huge salaries of school “super-heads” and some university vice-chancellors has once again come under fire, this <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/report-whole-government-accounts-2012-13/">time by MPs on the Public Accounts Committee</a>. UK headteachers<a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-are-uk-headteaYESYESchers-the-highest-paid-33570"> are among the highest paid in the world</a>, with good pension packages.</p>
<p>The chair, Margaret Hodge, and her committee pull no punches in <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubacc/678/67802.htm">their report</a>, asking some hard questions about pay levels in the public sector more generally, and demanding the Treasury to “get a grip” on the high pay of education’s leaders. Their report says that the state has been slow in:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>identifying and addressing seemingly excessive pay awards for some roles in the education sector, such as university vice chancellors and “super-heads” and has only recently started to collate information in areas such as the academy sector. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>They argue that the remuneration packages offered to senior public servants undermine messages about the need for pay restraint for the public sector. </p>
<h2>Academies slip through the gaps</h2>
<p>Given the <a href="https://theconversation.com/4-000-down-20-000-to-go-the-academies-drive-gathers-pace-26028">Coalition’s drive towards greater school autonomy</a>, devolved budgets and other freedoms, it is unsurprising that pay levels are high at academies as they compete to attract the “best” heads with proven track records of raising standards. </p>
<p>As in other state-funded schools, it is the governing body of academies that determine pay levels of their staff. But academy chains are not subject to the many constraints and rules over pay and conditions that face other state-funded schools. A <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326163/RR366_-_research_report_academy_autonomy_Final.pdf">report by the Department of Education</a> in July 2014 found that 24% of academies had used their new freedoms to change staff pay structures and that 84% of academies specifically link staff pay to performance. </p>
<h2>Good leaders in short supply</h2>
<p>National pay scales for heads in state-funded schools were spelt out by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279038/140207_23rd_Rpt_CM_8813.pdf">School Teachers Review Body</a> in 2014, but these don’t apply to academies. For state-funded schools, salary size is broadly linked to the size of the school and can vary along an pay spine known as the <a href="http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/hr-heads-ISR-faqs.pdf">individual school range</a>. The minimum salary is now £43,232 a year and the highest on the inner <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-are-uk-headteaYESYESchers-the-highest-paid-33570">London pay band is £114,437</a> </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/headteacher-performance-effective-management">recent research</a> into headteacher performance management by the National College of Teaching and Leadership, at schools where governors or boards have responsibility for salary levels, shows that governors will often “go the extra mile” to reward their heads, for example moving them up two incremental points rather than one. Governors doing the recruiting know that good educational leaders are in short supply, especially for certain kinds of schools, such as small primary schools and Catholic schools. </p>
<p>In addition, the move towards a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-school-systems-need-to-be-more-like-the-tour-de-france-24604">self-improving school system</a>, exemplified by the growth of academy chains, school federations, teaching schools and school-to-school support, is requiring a certain type of leadership. </p>
<p>In England, we currently have about 1,000 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/national-leaders-of-education-a-guide-for-potential-applicants">National Leaders of Education</a>, who are heads of schools graded by the inspectorate Ofsted as “outstanding”. A growing number now <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22907760">possess knighthoods</a>. Such leaders will be needed in spades if a self-improving school system is to have any chance to succeed. To improve schools you need outstanding leaders – and not only at headship level. </p>
<h2>How much is too much?</h2>
<p>Multi-academy trusts, federations and chains will continue to grow and their outstanding leaders will continue to be able to demand high salaries. We <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/headteacher-performance-effective-management">know that governing bodies</a> of state-maintained schools are more prepared to agree to “generous” pay rises when they are aware of the real dangers of their heads being “headhunted” by a local academy. </p>
<p>But governing bodies do not always have a good idea of what is the “going rate” for headteachers, since local authorities are no longer in a position to offer such information. </p>
<p>Good heads deserve to be paid well but perhaps £200,000 a year – the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622724/Headteacher-sees-salary-shoot-200-000-year-means-earns-Prime-Minister-thanks-loophole-means-running-one-school.html">salary of one academy headteacher</a> in South London – is a little over the top.</p>
<h2>Huge pay disparities</h2>
<p>It’s worth situating this within wider discussions about the growth of inequality and income disparities. <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/exploring-the-school-leadership-landscape-9781472506634/">Data from the School Workforce Survey</a> shows that academies tend to have heads who are paid well-above the national average, some £2,500 per year more than other schools. </p>
<p>But their teachers tend to earn below average teacher salaries, often being young and inexperienced – or as the more cynical might say “cheap”. Teacher turnover rates can be high too in some of the more challenging schools, even if they are run by super-heads.</p>
<h2>Different performance measures</h2>
<p>Perhaps we should develop clear criteria for effective leadership that go beyond Ofsted’s definitions of success. Good schools led by good leaders will want to be assessed by other, more rounded measures such as pupil voice, enjoyment, self-esteem, confidence and resilience. </p>
<p>Leaders should be working towards a rounded or whole education. But as education researchers John Smythe and Terry Wrigley have argued, there is a real concern that “in the discourse of the new leadership, even the term ‘leading learning’ has been reduced into monitoring attainment”. They also criticise that “the complexities of social justice are viewed very narrowly through the lens of reducing attainment gaps.” </p>
<p>Those school leaders who buck this trend and are brave enough to change things positively are exceptional – their schools are truly outstanding and they deserve their high salaries. </p>
<p>In a profession that prides itself on collaboration, collegiality and teamwork, where moral purpose is the order of the day, and where it’s been shown consistently that pay is not a great motivator, one wonders why such high salaries are offered and accepted by heads, super or otherwise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36001/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Earley has previously worked on research projects funded by the Department of Education and the National College for Teaching and Leadership (formerly NCSL). He is a member of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society. </span></em></p>The huge salaries of school “super-heads” and some university vice-chancellors has once again come under fire, this time by MPs on the Public Accounts Committee. UK headteachers are among the highest paid…Peter Earley, Professor of Education Leadership and Management, London Centre for Leadership in Learning, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/180192013-09-10T13:35:16Z2013-09-10T13:35:16ZBBC payoff executives have saved taxpayers millions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31082/original/93swzpmq-1378805694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whac-a-mole: current and former BBC grandees at the Public Accounts Committee yesterday.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA Wire</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Unedifying” was the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10297416/BBC-in-civil-war-over-generous-pay-offs.html">label</a> the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee gave to the spectacle of some of the BBC’s most senior figures - past and present - squabbling over who knew what about big redundancy payments. Others have found sharper descriptions for their collective performance in parliament this week.</p>
<p>It is a situation rich in paradox.</p>
<p>First, Mark Thompson, the former director general and now chief executive of the New York Times, seems likely to have to carry the executive pay scandal as the legacy of his BBC tenure. Yet he has done more to deal with the issue than most. </p>
<p>When he <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/thompson_mark.html">took the job in 2004</a> he inherited 17 executive directors, all highly paid and enjoying a 30% bonus scheme. He cut the bonuses to the same level as other staff, forced executive directors to forfeit a month’s salary a year and greatly reduced the number of senior managers and the salary bill in the organisation.</p>
<p>The contentious payoffs for which he has been criticised will <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/bbc-hearing-pieces-of-silver">save the BBC</a> and the licence fee payer many millions a year more than they have cost. But this is not how he’s likely to be remembered.</p>
<p>Then there’s Mark Byford, the former deputy director general whose <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319644/BBCs-Mark-Byford-redundant-given-1m-pay-off.html">redundancy payment</a> of nearly a million pounds has crystalised the debate about excessive BBC payoffs. A man who has devoted his life to the BBC, he agreed to go early to symbolise how seriously the BBC was taking the task of reducing senior management and costs. It’s a gesture which seems to have had the opposite effect.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31085/original/cpsvy8zf-1378809003.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mark Byford: big payout for long service.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, the BBC Trust which was introduced in the wake of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/huttonreport">Hutton crisis</a> and resignation of the BBC chairman and director general (full disclosure: I was director of news at that time). The argument for the new governance arrangements was to put clear water between the executive and the trustees and to prevent the chairman and his board having to manage the conflict of being both regulators and cheerleaders. It hasn’t worked. As the Select Committee hearing showed, any water between the Trust and the Executive is distinctly muddy and the conflict of role remains.</p>
<h2>What happened?</h2>
<p>There is more agreement between the arguing factions than may appear. What’s not in dispute is that the BBC Trust set the management an aggressive target to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14048330">reduce the number of managers</a> in the organisation and, consequently, the salary bill. An original three-year plan was later reduced to 18 months, placing more pressure on the executive team to make the savings swiftly. </p>
<p>As a consequence, <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/severance_benefits/severance_benefits.pdf">more than 300</a> “senior managers” left the organisation on redundancy terms – most of them on minimal contractual terms, but some of long-standing service being paid so-called “sweeteners” to leave early and quietly. And this was the point of contention.</p>
<p>All agree the trust’s targets were met and the money saved – some £19m a year ongoing. It seems clear that management prioritised speed of exit over short-term cost – an approach which achieved the objectives set but which, in hindsight, is open to question. The challenge, however, should be over managerial judgement – and the economic balance of interest - rather than casual accusations of impropriety, cronyism or cover-up which have been too freely bandied about.</p>
<p>One of the weaknesses of Britain’s select committee system is it encourages MPs to play to the gallery rather than focus on forensic analysis. Soundbites ready-baked for the next day’s headlines are never far from committee members lips. So when Thompson explained the mathematics of the redundancy scheme, (delay would have cost an extra £1m a month) the chairman could only answer: “We’ll have to agree to differ”. The finances of the scheme did not fit the story she wanted told.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31084/original/7t593mgs-1378808928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=914&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Margaret Hodge: playing to the gallery.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At one point she declared she wanted “no more lies” – although it’s far from clear there had been any. Parliamentary privilege permits language which in public might be litigious. All good fun for the crowds watching, but not the best way of pursuing the truth.</p>
<p>However what became very clear from the hearing was the complexity of responsibilities and process between the executive team and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/">BBC Trust as regulators</a>. As a consequence it was hard to pin full responsibility on anyone. This goes to the heart of the real problem.</p>
<p>As we saw in last year’s self-inflicted BBC <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/22/savile-crisis-bbc">crisis over Jimmy Savile</a>, internal communication and clear accountability is now a major problem for the organisation. Yes. It is a big, complex matrix of responsibilities – that is tough to manage at the best of times (and these certainly aren’t the best of times). But in such places and at such times clarity and simplicity are at a premium and too easily lost in a fog of emails, advisors, phone calls and loose consultation.</p>
<h2>Where does this leave the Beeb?</h2>
<p>This spectacle has left the door open for those <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1946b0d0-18a9-11e3-bdb6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eU9CrdFf">who argue</a> the BBC should be regulated by Ofcom and managed by a single board with a majority of non-executive directors. That would be simpler, but Ofcom could not have intervened over this issue and, to date, the non-executive directors have been largely invisible, with the exception of former Barclays boss, Marcus Agius.</p>
<p>If the current oversight arrangements are to be made to work they will need a thorough overhaul – something which it’s not clear that chairman Chris Patten has the appetite to do. And at some stage the tension between expecting the BBC to compete against global commercial media giants but be run like a Whitehall department must be resolved.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the new director general Tony Hall is acting swiftly but has a huge task. He has already <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tony-hall-bbc-beeb-people-2214342">put in place measures</a> to prevent any repeat of over-generous payoffs. He has identified the need for a simpler management with clear accountability. And he has recognised there needs to be a culture change throughout the organisation which bridges the gulf between management and programme making. </p>
<p>Then, before Charter Renewal in three years time, his team must offer a vision of the BBC which can inspire support from public and politicians alike and lay to rest these ghosts from the past. He deserves the space and time to do it. And we should all wish him luck. He needs it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18019/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Sambrook was part of a Cardiff University team commissioned to provide a media analysis report for the BBC Trust in 2012. He is a former BBC Executive. </span></em></p>“Unedifying” was the label the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee gave to the spectacle of some of the BBC’s most senior figures - past and present - squabbling over who knew what about big redundancy…Richard Sambrook, Professor of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.