Education department goes cap in hand to Parliament for emergency funds after £3bn 'overspend'

Presenting evidence, the Department said it was yet to consolidate finances of the growing number of academy trusts in England

Department for Education permanent secretary Jonathan Slater presents evidence to Parliament to request excess funding
Department for Education permanent secretary Jonathan Slater presents evidence to Parliament to request excess funding

The Department for Education has been forced to go to Parliament for emergency funding after exceeding its budget by over £3bn.

This is the second year in a row in which the Department has had to seek a vote for excess funds, fuelling claims that public money is being “wasted” through poor accounting.

Labour have accused the Department of breaching its budget – which stands at around £60bn in total – and failing to admit to the problem until the “last possible moment”.

The Government insists the matter is not indicative of a cash overspend, however, but rather a quirk of the accounting process, since the DfE and academy school trusts operate using different financial years.

Every year, Government departments that are about to exceed their expenditure limit must request an excess vote from Parliament to have more money granted to them.

In its annual Statement of Excesses, the Treasury said the DfE was the only government department to request excess funding this year.

The Department was unable to meet the statutory deadline for presenting its 2014-15 financial statements to Parliament, it added, when it overspent by £3.07bn.

Presenting evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, DfE permanent secretary, Jonathan Slater, said the problem had arisen because the Department was “not yet on top of” the consolidation of the growing number of academy schools and trusts in England.

Mr Slater said: “The Department is consolidating thousands of academy trusts that operate a different system of accounting from Government… because they are charities and we are not, they value their assets on a different basis than we do, to a different timeframe than we do.

“We need to put that right. We need their help. The problem is not that we are not getting their help. The problem has been that we are learning as we go.”

The comments come amid high debate over the accountability of academy trusts in England.

In a Select Committee report published last month, MPs said multi-academy trusts (MATs) had been able to expand too quickly, and warned there was not enough evidence to warrant their further expansion, as proposed by the Government.

The DfE has one of the largest accounts in Whitehall, in part due to the thousands of school buildings under its care.

Sex education to be made compulsory in all schools in England

The Treasury reported that in 2014-15 the Department overspent by over £3 billion, partly due to financing school building repairs.

In the 2015-16 financial year, the Department breached both its capital and resource expenditure limit by over £290m.

An NAO report last month recommended another £6.7bn was needed in order to bring all existing school buildings up to a “satisfactory” standard – a problem that is forecasted worsen as the majority of the school estate was built more than 40 years ago.

Commenting on the expenditures, Mike Kane, the shadow schools minister, said: “This is exactly what we have come to expect from a department riddled with accounting problems and totally unwilling to properly fund our children’s education.

“Theresa May needs to get a grip on her Department for Education which time and again is failing to account properly and putting education in this country at grave risk.”

A DfE spokesman said the accusations were “a complete misunderstanding of the accounting process”, however, but added that the issue “would not be happening again”.

He said: “It is misleading to describe this as a cash overspend – this issue refers to the way spending is accounted for. We conducted a review of the way we accounted for academy trust land and buildings and made a number of changes.

“The timing of this review meant that we couldn’t amend our budgets with the corrected accounting, giving rise to this issue. The Public Accounts Committee has accepted this explanation and we do not expect these issues to re-occur.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in