Academies run by
favoured 'superhead' received advance notice of Ofsted checks
Academies run by a superhead praised by the government for
producing schools that "outperform the rest" of the state sector had
secret advance notice of Ofsted inspection dates. Evidence uncovered by this
newspaper suggests that three schools in Norfolk, all overseen by Dame Rachel
de Souza, knew of impending visits by inspectors days, and sometimes weeks,
before Ofsted arrived. One school was even able to draft in teachers who had
never previously taught there to perform in front of inspectors, according to
whistleblowers. Another, keen to make good on the advantage, was said to be a
"hive of activity" in the days directly leading up to the inspection.
By law, schools can only be given half a day's notice of an inspection. De
Souza, a favourite of Tory ministers who was made a dame in the New Year
honours for services to education, became an Ofsted associate inspector earlier
this year, although the inspectorate denies this part-time role would have
given her access to schedules of upcoming visits. The revelations raise
questions about the credibility of Ofsted, which has come under attack in
recent years for becoming overly associated with the political goals of the
government, including the promotion of the academy model, where schools are
outside local authority supervision. Labour peer Baroness Morgan was removed as
chair of Ofsted in May to be replaced by David Hoare, a trustee of the UK's
largest academy chain, AET. GUARDIAN
SFO probes banks accused
of duping small firms over new government loan scheme
Banks are accused of misusing the Enterprise Finance Scheme
set up to provide government-backed loans to small companies who cannot get
access to traditional credit. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is looking at
claims that banks have used the scheme to pass companies’ risky loans onto the
taxpayer instead. It is also reviewing allegations that banks mis-sold these
loans by duping customers into believing that they would only be liable to pay
25 per cent of the debt if their company failed. Launched in 2009, the
Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme is designed as a lifeline for small and medium
sized firms who lack the security to get a bank loan. Under the initiative, the
Government guarantees to pay the bank 75 per cent of the loan if the borrowing business fails – making it less risky for the
bank by transferring the risk to the taxpayer. But companies claim they were
persuaded to take out these loans on the basis that the guarantee also covered
75 per cent of their own losses if their business failed. Firms which also had an
overdraft and therefore should not have qualified for the scheme say they were
persuaded to take out a government-backed loan on this basis - with the catch
that their bank overdraft was cut or removed. DAILY MAIL
Employment tribunal
cases drop 80% following new fees of up to £1,200, designed to end “frivolous
claims”
Last year the government introduced fees of up to £1,200 for
claimants to pay for tribunal hearings. But a TUC report says it has resulted
in a 79% fall in overall claims taken to employment tribunals, with women and
low-paid workers the worst affected. Their analysis of government figures shows
there has been an 80% fall in the number of women pursuing sex discrimination
claims, with just 1,222 women taking out claims between January and March 2014
compared with 6,017 over the same period in 2013. The number of women taking
pregnancy-discrimination claims fell by 26%. Race discrimination cases have
dropped by 60% over that period, while disability claims have fallen by 46%.
There has been a 70% drop in workers pursuing claims for non-payment of the
national minimum wage and an 85% drop in claims for unpaid wages and holiday
pay. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "It is not fair for the
taxpayer to foot the entire £74m bill for people to escalate workplace disputes
to a tribunal, and it is not unreasonable to expect people who can afford to do
so to make a contribution. For those who cannot afford to pay, full fee waivers
are available." But Bristol and Strathclyde university researchers say the
system is complex and claimants have found it hard to establish whether they
are eligible. GUARDIAN
Workplace Pension
fees merry-go-round: April 2015’s fee cap could save us £1bn, but pension
providers threaten to recoup it through other charges, passed on by employers
as lower salaries and dividends
The 0.75pc a year cap on charges will apply to workplace
pensions linked to the stock market. It is a Government initiative to tackle
“rip-off” levies that deplete customers’ savings. Ministers initially said this
new ceiling would transfer £200 million from insurance company profits “into
the pockets of savers”. But Royal London, which has 11m customers, calculated
that the sum passed to savers by the industry would be “monumentally higher”. Phil
Loney, CEO of Royal London, said: “We estimate the total reduction in long-term
insurer income may well reach £1 billion.” Pension companies such as Royal
London take annual fees for managing money saved into company schemes. The
charges can range from below 0.5pc a year to more than 2pc. Reducing the higher
charges to 0.75pc will allow savers’ funds to grow more quickly to the
detriment of pension providers. But Mr Loney said the charges cap could do more
harm than good, indicating that Royal London and similar providers might hit
employers with supplementary fees. These would fall outside the 0.75pc
government cap, which relates specifically to the management charges paid by
staff. Tom McPhail, head of pensions at financial services firm Hargreaves
Lansdown, said: “There could be a sort 'money-go-round’ where insurers put
extra charges on employers, who pass these on to staff in the form of lower pay
rises and to shareholders in the form of smaller dividends. If that happens
there will be little overall benefit to the people the Government is trying to
help.” Gina Miller, a campaigner for fairer investing and founder of wealth
manager SCM Private, said: “The charges cap must include all implicit and
explicit costs or it will be misleading”. TELEGRAPH