Balls had full backing of Treasury for BSF committments

Reading Time: 2 minutes
Public Services

The permanent secretary at the depertment for education has backed up Ed Balls's claims that all capital funding announcements when he was schools secretary.

Michael Gove’s claim yesterday that all Ed Balls’s spending plans when schools secretary “were based on unsustainable assumptions and led to unfunded promises” have been undermined by the permanent secretary at the Department for Education, who has written to Mr Balls to confirm that all capital funding announcements made when he was a Minister – including the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme – had the “appropriate cover” of the Treasury.

The education secretary’s scrapping of the BSF, which will result in 719 school redevelopments being axed, also undercuts George Osborne’s pledge in the Budget last month that “there will be no further reductions in capital spending totals”.

Mr Balls, one of the frontrunners to be the next leader of the Labour Party, had written to David Bell asking him to confirm all announcements were made with prior arrangement of the Treasury; future waves of BSF announcements were part of the Pre-Budget Report settlement; all capital projects had the full agreement of the department’s chief accounting officer; and no Ministerial direction was ever requested.

In his reply to the shadow education secretary, Mr Bell wrote:

During your time as Secretary of State, I can confirm that the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) worked closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that appropriate cover was provided for all spending decisions…

If any actions on this, or any matter, were in breach of the requirements of propriety or regularity, I would have sought a Ministerial Direction. I can confirm that I made no such requests during your time as Secretary of State.

Describing the scrapping of the BSF programme as a “tragedy” for teachers and parents who would have benefited from new facilities, Mr Balls told the Commons that Labour would continue to fight to “save our new schools” and called yesterday “a black day for our country’s schools”.

No related posts.

48 Responses to “Balls had full backing of Treasury for BSF committments”

  1. Anon E Mouse

    Mr.Sensible – If the money is not available it’s only because for 13 years Labour lied about “Boom and bust”, people believed it (I did) and the money has gone – that’s what Liam Byrne said. Labour blew the lot.

    The BSF program was a nightmare – one school had a meeting every week for over two years just to get approved – typical New Labour quango type silliness – those days are mercifully gone now.

    The money will now go further without the bureaucracy that has been cut and if there is no money left blame Labour.

    It’s like Forgemasters Mr.S – Labour had no right to go around promising money they didn’t have – it was taxpayers money, not theirs. What is worse is that Forgemasters won’t go to the bank for the money and Richard Caborn, who worked there for 20 years set up the deal – that stinks.

    Answer me this Mr.Sensible. As a lifelong Labour voter (until Brown was forced on the party) I never agreed with 90 days detention, ID cards, Iraq (for the reasons given only – not the war)the 10p tax fiasco, the Bin Tax, the Labour job’s tax via NI, HIP’s, decreasing the number of MP’s, a proportional voting system, increase in tax on cider and the Gurkahs.

    The coalition has answered and acted on every single item I just listed.

    My guess is the public in Britain agree with the coalition on these matters, yet the Labour Party, led by that hypocritical countess toff, Harriet Harman, continue to argue for increasing prison sentences and more state control.

    Labour is on the wrong side of the curve I’m afraid (as you yourself appear to be) and the sooner the leadership starts to get it the better for general opposition in this country…

  2. Mr. Sensible

    Mr Mouse, what about the ‘Free Schools’ then? Where’s the money for them? You have not answered that.

    And Forgemasters was not a grant; it was a lone, presumably to be repaid over a certain period. And that would have helped to create private sector employment.

    And since we list some of those things you do at the end.

    I do not support 90-day detention, but think we need control orders.

    I am in 2 minds about ID cards.

    I supported the Iraq War based on evidence available at the time.

    And I do not support the coalition’s blatent gerrymandering with regard to cutting the number of MPs. It will not, as they claim, ‘cut the cost of politics.’

  3. Anon E Mouse

    Mr.Sensible – The money that was available will be better spent and after Harriet Harman’s own office spent £72000 EACH on “Peace Pods” (their name) I don’t think the coalition can go wrong. F*%king Peace Pods? With our money?

    Who cares if cutting the number of MP’s costs less? I just want smaller government so to me less MP’s can only be a good thing. If you want MORE government Mr.S you are truly in a minority!

    Regarding Forgemasters PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE (I have been asking for weeks now dude) tell me why they can’t just go to the banks like every other company? Why not? The government isn’t a bank, it’s a government.

    Tell me why you want to give hard earned taxpayers money to a private company, that by coincidence I’m sure (Yeah right…) was one an ex government minister worked in for 20 years…

    Don’t you think the £80million would be better spent on schools rather than lining the pockets of the Forgemaster’s management?

  4. Building Schools for the Future – It’s flaws and how the coalition should respond.

    […] the claims to the contrary from the Labour party the scrapping of Building Schools for the future was a breaking of a promise […]

  5. Building Schools for the Future – Its flaws and how the coalition should respond. | Con-Dem Nation

    […] claims to the contrary from the Labour party, it is simply not true that the scrapping of Building Schools for the future […]

Comments are closed.