 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Further Education and Training |
Further Education and Training Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 14 June 2007(Morning)[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]New Clause 1Intervention:
England
‘Before section 57 of
FHEA 1992,
insert—
“56A
Intervention: England
(1) This
section applies if the Learning and Skills Council for England is
satisfied as to one or more of the matters listed in subsection (2) in
the case of an institution in England within the further education
sector; and it is immaterial whether or not a complaint is made by any
person.
(2) The matters
are—
(a) that the
institution’s affairs have been or are being mismanaged by the
institution’s governing
body;
(b) that the
institution’s governing body have failed to discharge any duty
imposed on them by or for the purposes of any
Act;
(c) that the
institution’s governing body have acted or are proposing to act
unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the
performance of any duty imposed by or under any
Act;
(d) that the institution
is performing significantly less well than it might in all the
circumstances reasonably be expected to perform, or is failing or
likely to fail to give an acceptable standard of education or
training.
(3) If this section
applies the council may do one or more of the things listed in
subsection (5).
(4) If the
council does one or more of those things, it must at the same time give
the institution’s governing body a notice
stating—
(a) the matter
or matters listed in subsection (2) as to which the council is
satisfied;
(b) the reasons why
the council is so
satisfied;
(c) the reasons why
the council has decided to do that thing or those
things.
(5) The council
may—
(a) remove all or
any of the members of the institution’s governing
body;
(b) appoint new members
of that body if there are vacancies (however
arising);
(c) give to that body
such directions as it thinks expedient as to the exercise of their
powers and performance of their
duties.
(6) The directions that
may be given to a governing body under this section include a direction
requiring a governing bodyto make collaboration arrangements
(within the meaning of section 166 of the Education and Inspections Act
2006) with such bodies and on such terms as may be specified in the
direction.
(7) Directions may
be given to a governing body under this section despite any enactment
making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on
the body’s opinion.
(8) The council may not direct a governing body
under subsection (5)(c) to dismiss a member of
staff.
(9) But subsection (8)
does not prevent the council, where it considers that it may be
appropriate to dismiss a member of staff whom the governing body have
power under their institution’s articles of government to
dismiss, from giving the governing body such directions under this
section as are necessary to secure that the procedures applicable to
the consideration of the case for dismissal of that member of staff are
given effect to in relation to that member of
staff.
(10) A governing body
must comply with any directions given to them under this
section.
(11) An appointment of
a member of a governing body under this section shall have effect as if
made in accordance with the instrument of government and articles of
government of the institution
concerned.
56B Intervention
policy: England
(1) The
Learning and Skills Council for England
must—
(a) prepare a
statement of its policy with respect to the exercise of its powers
under section 56A,
(b) keep it
under review, and
(c) if it
considers it appropriate in consequence of a review, prepare a revised
statement of its policy.
(2)
When preparing a statement or revised statement of its policy, the
council must—
(a)
undertake such consultation as it thinks
appropriate;
(b) consider any
representations made to it about the policy to be set out in the
statement.
(3) The Secretary of
State may give the council guidance in relation to the exercise of its
functions under subsections (1) and (2), and in particular in relation
to the form and content of the
policy.
(4) It is the duty of
the council to have regard to any guidance given to it under subsection
(3).
(5) The council must send
a copy of the statement or revised statement prepared by it to the
Secretary of State.
(6) If the
Secretary of State approves it he shall lay a copy of it before each
House of Parliament.
(7) The
council must
publish—
(a) the
statement of its policy approved by the Secretary of
State;
(b) where the Secretary
of State approves a revised statement of its policy, the revised
statement.
(8) The council must
have regard to the statement most recently published under subsection
(7) in exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its powers
under section 56A in relation to an
institution.
56C
Directions
(1) This section
applies if—
(a) the
Secretary of State is satisfied as to one or more of the matters listed
in section 56A(2) in the case of an institution in England within the
further education sector,
and
(b) the Secretary of State
is satisfied that the circumstances are such that it would be
appropriate for the Learning and Skills Council for England to do one
or more of the things listed in section 56A(5) in relation to the
institution.
(2) In such a case
the Secretary of State may give to the council such directions as he
thinks fit as to the exercise of the council’s powers under
section 56A.
(3) Where the
Secretary of State gives the council a direction under this section, he
must at the same time give the council a notice stating the matter or
matters listed in section 56A(2) as to which he is
satisfied.
(4) The council must
comply with any directions given to it under this
section.
(5) Where the council does a
thing listed in section 56A(5) in relation to an institution in
compliance with a direction under this
section—
(a) the council
must give the institution’s governing body a copy of the
relevant notice under subsection (3),
and
(b) the requirement to give
a notice under section 56A(4) does not
apply.”’.—[Bill
Rammell.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
9
am
The
Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning (Bill
Rammell):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: Government new clause 2
—Intervention:
Wales.
Government
amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and
3.
Bill
Rammell:
It is a pleasure for us to reassemble in
Committee. I am sure that I express the collective wish of the
Committee when I say that I hope to continue with the rate of progress
that we saw on
Tuesday.
I
am pleased to introduce the Government new clauses and Government
amendments. More than £11 billion a year of public investment
throughout England and Wales reflects the importance of the further
education system to individuals in helping fundamentally to change
their lives. It also reflects the importance to employers and the
nation of providing the skills that are vital to secure a successful
and vibrant economy. Such investment must be protected in the interest
of learners and the public
purse.
In the past six
years, we have seen significant improvements. Success rates are up by
20 percentage points—a fantastic rate of progress. In the
current inspection cycle, more than 90 per cent. of colleges inspected
so far have been graded satisfactory or better. That is significant
progress, but we need to go
further.
The
policy intention in Wales is to raise the bar for quality in FE
provision by 2010, with 65 per cent. or more of FE colleges gaining
inspection grade 2 or above. We are introducing proposals that will
enable Welsh Ministers to initiate remedial action in relation to an
institution in the FE sector in certain prescribed circumstances, such
as when there is evidence that the provider is failing to meet the
needs of its learners or is performing significantly less well than
might be expected.
In
England, we have had Sir Andrew Foster’s report and our
“Further Education” White Paper. The Bill will help us to
take the action needed to continue to transform the FE system. Nowhere
is there a clearer demonstration of that transformation than in our
intention to ensure that there is sustainable development and
improvement in provision. During the debates in another place, Baroness
Morris said that
“we are
not against rigour or driving up standards.”—[Official
Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2007; Vol. 689, c.
1530.]
We want to go further
than that. The Government intend to ensure year-on-year improvements in
the available provision through a robust intervention strategy that
will provide the “ultimate deterrent” referred to by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) during
Second Reading.
As
well as supporting colleges and providers to develop and improve, we
will ensure that any pockets of
underperformance in the FE system are tackled quickly, robustly and
fairly. In saying that, let me be clear that we are talking about a
very small proportion of providers; overall, FE colleges are doing
extremely well. However, those intervention powers are vital if we are
to continue making important improvements in the UK’s skills
base.
Our commitment
to ensure that all provision is good or improving and to eliminate all
inadequate or unsatisfactory provision by 2008 remains firm. Crucially,
however, we have listened carefully to the thoughtful and constructive
debate on our intervention proposals during the Bill’s passage.
Indeed, I have had conversations across the Floor of the House with
Opposition Members. It is in the interests not only of learners but of
colleges and the reputation of the whole FE system that we get this
right, so I have taken full account of the representations that I have
received. The amendments that I have tabled, as they apply to England
and Wales, directly address those
concerns.
We need to
ensure that both the Learning and Skills Council in England and the
Welsh Ministers, as the bodies responsible for commissioning and
funding FE, have the full range of powers that they need to secure best
quality and best value for money. The recent report on collaboration
between schools with sixth forms and further education colleges shows
that there is a need in Wales to encourage and promote greater
collaborative approaches among post-16 providers. The provision for
Welsh Ministers to be given the power to direct governing bodies of FE
institutions to make specific collaboration arrangements with
maintained schools or other education bodies will directly contribute
to ensuring that that
happens.
Let me also
be clear that our White Paper commitment to eliminate inadequate
provision in England is unchanged. The LSC must have the power to
intervene if governing bodies do not take the appropriate action in
those rare instances in which a failure of leadership and management
leads to inadequate provision. The clause will give the LSC the power
to affect a move towards dismissal by enabling it to direct the
governing body to initiate dismissal procedures in respect of a
particular senior post holder. Our intention has always been that the
governing body would follow its usual dismissal procedures if the LSC
directed the dismissal of a post holder. However, in response to
concerns raised we have now made that explicit. I hope that that will
be welcomed by the
Opposition.
As we have
stressed during debates here and in another place, those powers of
intervention would be utilised only at the end of a long process that
allows time for colleges to improve. The LSC’s draft
intervention policy document was made available to Members, together
with the Government amendment tabled on 6 June. That draft policy sets
out the initial thinking and shows the procedures that the LSC would
follow before invoking any statutory intervention powers. It also sets
out very clearly the important safeguards that would be in place. The
LSC’s draft intervention policy document shows that intervention
would be considered only in serious cases and only where the college
had not tackled the problem that had been identified.
It might be helpful if I
summarise the four-stage process that we envisage. The first step is
the annual commissioning dialogue. Each year, the LSC discusses with
every college the full range of learning provisions offered and how
that contributes to delivering successful outcomes for learners,
employers and the local community. A review of the quality of provision
and the identification of areas for development is an integral element
of that dialogue and is an opportunity for both the college and the LSC
to highlight any concerns as they arise so that the appropriate
remedial action can be taken before problems
escalate.
Through that
discussion, however, and where supported by evidence, such as
inspection reports, success rate data or evidence of financial
problems, the second step is for the LSC to consider the capacity of
the college to address the underperformance robustly and swiftly, and
to determine whether it is appropriate to issue a notice to improve.
During the third step, the LSC would co-ordinate work with a range of
agencies to support the college in delivering the improvements required
by the notice to improve. Usually, we would expect that phase of
support and improvement to be completed within 12 months.
The fourth
and final step of the process would be intervention, if necessary.
Escalation to intervention procedures would be considered only where
the LSC was satisfied about one or more of the triggers identified in
proposed new section 56A(2) to the Further and Higher Education Act
1992, which might include the failure of a college to meet the relevant
conditions under the notice to improve. Exceptionally, intervention may
be triggered by circumstances that place immediate and serious risk to
learners and/or public funding, or by a direction by the Secretary of
State. In respect of any direction from the Secretary of State, let me
be clear that we have introduced a requirement for the LSC to supply
the governing body with a copy of the notice that it receives when
complying with a direction from the Secretary of
State.
I stress that
throughout each step of the process, if the governing body can
demonstrate that it is, or is capable of addressing the problems, the
LSC would not take action to exercise its statutory powers. I know, for
example, that much of the previous debate focused on specific concerns
about the proposed provisions as they might apply to the dismissal of
senior post holders, but, as I have just outlined, the prior steps of
the process are intended to support the college in managing and
securing its own quality improvement. That is very much the thrust of
our proposals.
In
bringing forward new clause 1, I have sought to make it clear that the
governing body, as the employer, is responsible for all decisions
regarding any dismissal, by giving the LSC the power to direct the
governing body to put into effect its procedures for considering the
dismissal of one of its senior members of staff. We would expect any
governing body that received such a direction to commission a full and
thorough investigation and to consider whether there is a case for
dismissal in the light of its findings. The governing body alone would
be responsible for the outcome of that process.
When we make new orders for the
instruments and articles to government to apply to further education
corporations in England, we will make them consistent with the
requirement to conduct an investigation to provide any evidence for the
consideration of dismissal
procedures.
However,
as the governing body would be obliged to comply with such a direction,
we believe that these powers still gives us the rigour and reassurances
that we need to ensure that any and all instances of failure in the
system will be challenged robustly and effectively. Of course, we would
expect that in the vast majority of cases, the governing body would act
without the need for external intervention. That is very much the
thrust of our argument. But if governing bodies are not robust enough
to deliver what we need, something should be in place to ensure that
that weakness is remedied. Most reasonable people would support that
conclusion.
I can
offer even greater reassurances in respect of some of the concerns that
have been expressed. In those rare and extreme circumstances where
intervention proves to be necessary, I have now also made explicit on
the face of the Bill the requirement for the Learning and Skills
Council to give the governing body notice citing which aspect of
section 56A(2) applies; the reasons why it is satisfied that this
applies; and to set out its reasons for the actions it proposes to
take. The governing body would then have the opportunity to respond
before any action was taken.
Again, if the governing body is
able to demonstrate that the problem is being or is capable of being
addressed, the Learning and Skills Council would not exercise its
statutory powers. In Wales, the Welsh Ministers are required to take
intervention action by order. Similar to the requirement for a written
notice from the Learning and Skills Council, this order of the Welsh
Ministers would explain which of the conditions for intervention is
satisfied and will satisfy the requirement for a written record of the
action taken and the reasons for
it.
As I said, the
Learning and Skills Council has set out its proposed intervention
policy document in draft to aid the discussions during Committee and
beyond. This draft is, of course, subject to the passage of the Bill
and the outcome of the consultation with the sector. This means that
all interested parties will have the opportunity to refine the policy
further before it is finalised and approved by the Secretary of State.
Once the policy is approved the Secretary of State will then lay it
before the House. Similarly, the requirement that Welsh Ministers
consult on their statement of policy will ensure that appropriate
consultation takes place with stakeholders, particularly further
education
representatives.
I
end by summing up the key points I have made in response to what is an
exceedingly important element of this Bill. Our goal of eliminating
underperformance from the further education system is a bold and
justifiable ambition. That is why I make no apology for saying that the
Learning and Skills Council must be able to intervene effectively in
those extreme circumstances where the college has not itself addressed
underperformance in a sufficiently rapid and robust
manner.
I must also
stress that the powers of intervention proposed by this clause are
wholly consistent with
employment and human rights legislation; they do not undermine the role
of governing bodies; and perhaps most importantly they safeguard the
interest of learners by supporting our ambition to eliminate poor and
inadequate provision from the further education system. We have a duty
to every learner in the FE system to make sure that they benefit from
high quality and ever improving provision. As my right hon. Friend the
Member for Torfaen said on Second
Reading,
“It is
wrong to assume that every principal in the country is
excellent—occasionally there will be
difficulties.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol.
460, c. 1010.]
We need the
powers to deal with that
situation.
The support
for a robust, fair and transparent interventions policy is clear and
there is a consensus on this issue. The Association of Colleges
supports this as do many Members of both Houses. Indeed, I have
received a letter from John Brennan in which he offers the
unconditional support of the AOC to this Government amendment as the
AOC now considers we have achieved a workable basis for LSC
intervention, which is compatible with employment legislation,
consistent with the moves towards self-regulation and will give
emphasis to the drive to embed within the sector a culture of
responsibility for its own standards and performance. Similarly in
Wales, I am pleased to say that Forum welcomes the fact that Ministers
have listened to its views
too.
I
should like to take this opportunity to thank the Association of
Colleges for its contribution to this amendment, and in particular for
its help in the development of the LSC’s draft policy document.
Through consultation, debate and dialogue we have achieved an
acceptable way forward. We have gone a long way to allay the concerns
of hon. Members and I therefore commend the new clauses and the
amendment to the
Committee.
9.15
am
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): It is
good to be back and considering these matters. John Ruskin, speaking of
19th-century industrial Britain, said
that
“the sky is covered
with gray cloud;—not rain-cloud, but a dry black veil, which no
ray of sunshine can pierce...It looks more to me as if it were
made of dead men’s
souls”.
I thought that we
ought to have some Ruskin to raise the standard of debate in the
Committee. When these proposals were first introduced, there was a
cloud hanging over FE colleges—perhaps not quite the same kind
as Ruskin’s, but certainly a dark cloud—which was why the
proposals were greeted with such hostility. Indeed, it was why members
of all parties in the House of Lords took the view that the powers
being granted were unnecessary. It would be quite inappropriate for a
dark cloud to hang over our successful further education
sector.
The Minister
listened and, as I said earlier in the Committee, he was
generous in allowing representations to be made to him and, more than
that, in entering dialogue with, as he said, the AOC, other interested
parties and Opposition Members. I pay tribute to the tone and tenor of
the way in which he has handled the whole Bill and particularly this
part of it. However, I remain largely unconvinced, and I shall explain
why.
The Minister has set out the
four elements of the process that would ensue should it become
necessary, in the view of those who will have the power, to intervene
in respect of an FE college and to take the very serious step of
dismissing its senior managers, governors or principal. I simply do not
believe, based on the evidence, that those additional powers are
necessary.
The
Minister generously started his comments by acknowledging that 90 per
cent. of FE colleges were deemed by Ofsted to be satisfactory or
better. He then, in my judgment with equal sagacity, said that the
Government were determined to drive up standards and eliminate
underperformance. But underperformance in the sector is rare, by
Ofsted’s and his own admission. There is no evidence that it is
growing and no evidence that Ministers have had to use their existing
powers to intervene in respect of college principals to deal with
underperformance.
As
the Minister knows, when I asked him how often the Government have had
to intervene using their existing powers to sack college principals
since those powers emerged in statute, he revealed that they have never
been used. Powers that have never been used are to be increased and
transferred to the LSC. Performance is deemed to be satisfactory or
better in the overwhelming majority of colleges and, where it is not,
we have been offered no evidence to suggest that it is due to
inadequate leadership or that the powers that the Government are
seeking to create would be likely to solve the
problem.
We
have reached a point at which a sensible and generous Minister is
dancing on the head of a pin. I say that because in the new clause
reintroduced following the defeat of Lord Adonis in the other
place—the first time that that gentleman had ever been defeated
in the Lords, though one fears he may have further disappointments to
face in coming weeks—the Minister seeks to amend the proposals
in such a way as to satisfy his critics. He has been generous, as I
have said, but the powers are now so qualified, so convoluted and so
byzantine that one wonders whether they are worth introducing at all.
So we have a Minister who has listened and reacted, but he is now
reintroducing a clause that, frankly, is not worthy of this Bill, this
Committee or this House. Ministers have powers at present and if they
choose to use them, they should use them. There is a need for a
long-stop power, where public money is involved and the public interest
is concerned. The Minister is right that standards and rigour of
quality are about learners and learners’ interests. Were there
no powers of that kind, and had the Minister brought through this
Committee a proposal to take such powers, he might have attracted the
support of Opposition Members. However, let us be clear; we
are talking about greater powers and their transfer to the
LSC.
I
have one or two further questions, as if my previous words were not
enough to damn the clause. First, the regulatory impact assessment
states that there will be an additional burden on the LSC in terms of
administering the intervention strategy. Will the Minister estimate the
cost of that additional burden and tell us whether new staff will be
involved to implement that strategy? Also, because he has a brilliant
team of civil servants assisting him, he must have a notional view of
how often those
powers will be used and how many colleges are in such a state that he
expects these powers to be implemented with regard to them.
Furthermore, what are the
proposed savings in the Department for Education and Skills of
transferring the intervention strategy to the LSC? There must be a
concomitant saving, and I am sure that the Minister has those figures
at his finger tips. How can we judge the effectiveness of powers that
have never been used? Why do powers that have never been used need to
be extended to college managers? I ask that question specifically
because this issue is not just about principals; it is now about senior
managers, too. Finally, does the Minister envisage these powers being
used more often, once they have gone to the LSC, than they have been
thus far?
I repeat
that the Minister has been generous. He has approached this matter with
good will. I have absolutely no doubts about his commitment to
improving standards. However, one does not get rid of underperformance
by taking these types of steps. One gets rid of underperformance by
celebrating excellence and examining how it can be exported and
emulated. That is the way to improve those colleges that still have
some way to go.
On
the basis of what we have heard and unless we hear much more, then I am
afraid that, with some hesitation because of the good dialogue that we
have had, that the Opposition may wish to test the will of the
Committee on this matter, subject to the debate that will now
ensue.
Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): I recognise and welcome the
steps forward that the new clause makes. It is significantly better
than the original draft of the clause in the Bill that first went
through the other place. Nevertheless, I must say that I have some
sympathy with the statements that the hon. Member for South Holland and
The Deepings has made. I am still not clear about the purpose of the
clause.
First, as the
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said and as the
Minister has acknowledged, the powers in the Further and Higher
Education Act 1992 have never been used, so why does the Minister want
to transfer those powers to the LSC? Is it because he believes that
they should have been used? If so, why did he fail to use them? How
many colleges does he envisage that the powers will be used on? I also
sympathise with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made
about the increased burden on the LSC, especially at a time when I know
that the Minister has been pushing hard to try to streamline the
administrative burden on that organisation.
Moreover, as we move forward
with Leitch, it is not immediately clear to me that the LSC is
obviously the body that should take responsibility for this matter. In
many colleges, the LSC contributes only 50 or 60 per cent. of the total
sum to run the college. If we are dealing with public money, and other
money that comes by way of contributions from individuals or private
industry, is it necessarily right, as we progress with Leitch and
expect more of a contribution from individuals and industry, to give
the power in question
to the Learning and Skills Council? What are the implications for
colleges whose governors are provided for by a charitable foundation,
such as those dealing specifically with disabilities and special
needs?
I would welcome
clarification on several points. I welcome new subsection (8), but I am
not really clear what new subsection (9) provides for. The Minister
said that it would force colleges to initiate dismissal procedures, but
will the Learning and Skills Council give in its direction the
employment law grounds for dismissal of the individual? It is not clear
to me exactly what is meant. I should also be grateful for more
clarification of new subsection (2)(d), which seems to be extremely
vaguely worded. I am not clear precisely what would constitute an
institution’s
“performing
significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances
reasonably be expected to
perform”.
Perhaps the
Minister will explain that a little more
clearly.
I shall
listen to what the Minister has to say, but I remain unconvinced about
the purpose of the clause. If the Conservatives press the matter to a
vote, we are minded to support
them.
Mr.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab): I rise to dispel
the impression that Labour Members are all sitting silently waiting for
the dawn of socialism on 27 June and that they all admire the
Bill. It is right to express a note of dissent on the new clause,
which, frankly, worries me.
I can see that a power of the
kind that the new clause provides for is necessary to deal with the
financial abuses that developed in the halcyon days to which the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings has referred—I was
going to call him my hon. Friend, because we used to go on joint
fishing expeditions to find small fish that had escaped the common
fisheries policy. As to whether I agree with him in this case, I must
point out that many of the financial abuses that the new clause would
allow the Learning and Skills Council to deal with were in the past
cleared up only very slowly, and often in face-saving ways. The new
clause would enable them to be dealt with more directly. My worry is
more general, because the Learning and Skills Council has considerable
powers and the colleges, in the main, dance to its tune.
I have been very concerned and
have written to the Minister, the Learning and Skills Council and
colleges about the fall of more than 1 million in recruitment to what
might be called leisure or non-vocational courses. An article in The
Guardian’s education supplement on Tuesday, entitled
“Why have adults suddenly decided to stay away from
colleges?” dealt with that. The leisure courses that they are
deserting are those that enrich the lives of older students, and have
traditionally been offered in the colleges or by the Workers
Educational Association, which is in a much weaker state these days.
Such courses might be dismissed as trivial, if they are on, for
example, local history. Some of the other types of courses affected
are
“distance
learning...courses that aren’t included in the National
Qualifications Framework and thus don’t attract public
subsidy...language and leisure
courses”
and even some
professional courses. Those all enrich people’s lives, but there
has been a fall in recruitment.
That aspect of the matter is in
effect covered by clause 20, which requires colleges to consult
affected groups, and the groups that I am concerned about have been
badly affected. However, this is an instance of the way in which
colleges all dance—indeed, have been forced to dance—to
the tune of the Learning and Skills Council, since it decided to
concentrate spending on vocational qualifications for those in the
16-to-19 and 19 and older age groups. That ties colleges down in a way
in which they have not been tied down before. The LSC, which controls
the purse strings, has adequate power to ensure that colleges comply
with Government priorities, and they are no more than
priorities—there is no mention of dropping courses, although
many have been dropped. To maintain courses, however, colleges will
need a degree of freedom, and we must ensure that they have more power
and responsibility than they would have if they were faced with the
threat of draconian intervention by the LSC.
I refer
particularly to new subsection (9), which the Liberals, surprisingly,
glossed over. They are not making a courageous stand for academic
freedom or college independence by saying that they will listen eagerly
to what the Minister has to say. Let us be clear about this: will their
party stand up for what it believes? Liberal Members cannot give us
their usual equivocation, saying, “On the one hand,
there’s A, on the other hand, there’s B, so let’s
wait to see what Minister says,” because he has already said it.
New subsection (9) is a threat to academic freedom. In effect, it says
that any lecturer who makes trouble and who is a bloody nuisance, and I
have known several examples at Grimsby college, which is now Grimsby
institute of further and higher education—
Mr.
Mitchell:
My hon. Friend should be aware that carers are
going to be asked to take more responsibility and to treat the old more
gently than he appears prone to
do.
One
lecturer who taught my daughter was, frankly, a nuisance in the
college, but he was right to raise questions about expenditure,
although he was eventually kicked out. If the LSC decides that a
college must push out a lecturer who attracts public attention, that is
another threat to colleges’ academic independence and freedom.
It is over-egging the threat to academic freedom to supplement the
powers that colleges already have—they were overused in the long
dispute over the silver book contract, when those who stuck to the old
terms of service were precluded from getting pay increases, which was a
restriction on them—with a power to allow outside intervention
against anybody who breaks surface and becomes publicly concerned, and
about whom there is some kind of agitation.
I can see the case for the
proposed powers in respect of financial abuses, which it is difficult
for governing bodies to control and which have certainly arisen.
Although I am glad that colleges now work in a much freer atmosphere,
financial fiddles are always possible and must be controlled, so the
LSC needs a power to intervene to deal with them. However, I cannot see
why we need such powers in respect of the courses that colleges provide
or the people they employ. That is a threat too far.
I will sit
down now, but not before demonstrating my own gutlessness, as distinct
from that of the Liberals, by saying that I will listen with eager
attention to what the Minister has to say to convince me on
this worrying
issue.
9.30
am
Bill
Rammell:
We have had a good exchange of views. The hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings started by quoting John
Ruskin and talking about clouds and
rain.
Bill
Rammell:
I actually thought that he had prior notice of
the torrential rain in Harlow last night and the fact that my house had
flooded, but that was clearly not the case. He went into a flight of
fancy that was not justified by the substance of our proposals. He
talked about hostility in the further education sector in respect of
our original proposals; given what actually took place, that was
unjustified. We rightly stated our desire to retain a power of
intervention, and there was then a reasoned debate with colleges and
representative bodies that expressed concerns on the issue. We reached
a conclusion with which the Association of Colleges, the body that
represents FE colleges, is extremely satisfied, so I am struggling to
understand why it does not satisfy the official Opposition.
We are right
to maintain that, in extreme circumstances and when all else has
failed, we need powers of intervention. Let me be clear, however, and
reiterate what I said at the beginning of the process: our strong
preference is for the college and the governing body to take
responsibility throughout the four-stage procedure for tackling
underperformance and for improving
performance.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Among the measures that will
be implemented before extreme action is taken, does the Minister
include sharing best practice with successful further and higher
education colleges? A successful one in my constituency, Havering
college, has a strong head and a stable governing body. It is
over-subscribed and has innovative courses; I am sure that it would be
only too pleased to share that good practice with an underperforming
college, to help to avoid the extreme action for which the Bill
provides.
Bill
Rammell:
I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. During the
four-stage process, there will usually be a period of about 12 months
for the college to improve following a notice to improve. It will be
down to the Learning and Skills Council, with the Quality Improvement
Agency and perhaps neighbouring colleges, to provide the support to
help the college and the governing body to tackle underperformance. The
proposals are not directed at trying to ensure that colleges fail; they
are crafted to ensure that the college takes responsibility for
tackling the problem itself. In addition, as the hon. Lady eloquently
set out, we will do everything in our power to ensure that others can
come in and support that
process.
Mr.
Hayes:
There are already well established procedures to do
just that. In extreme circumstances, such as a case of gross financial
mismanagement, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby identified,
or of highly inappropriate behaviour, the Secretary
of State can intervene and dismiss a college governor. As for
improvement, there are any number of bodies, ranging from the LSC to
the standards unit of the Minister’s Department, the Centre for
Excellence in Leadership, Lifelong Learning UK and the Institute for
Learning, that can help colleges in that respect. Why more
powers?
Bill
Rammell:
The hon. Gentleman was wrong in his assertion
that the proposed powers already exist. The Secretary of State does not
have the specific power to direct the starting of the process for the
dismissal of a senior post holder, which is an important deterrent. I
shall come on to explain that.
Sarah
Teather:
Will the Minister define “senior post
holder”? It obviously refers to someone beyond the level of
principal. How senior? Is the level of management defined in any
way?
Bill
Rammell:
It is. For the record, the scope of the power
would be limited to senior post holders designated under the
instruments and articles. Typically, that would include principals and
directors, not teaching staff or lecturers. I will comment on that when
I respond to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby. The contention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings, who is leading for the Opposition, is that the powers are not
necessary in any circumstances and that, in every eventuality, we
should trust the college and the college governing body to tackle such
problems. I think back to the experience in the late 1980s and early
1990s, immediately after incorporation. If the Government had had these
powers for intervention in extremis, there would not have been the kind
of problems and abuses that existed at that stage. For the record, the
Conservative party was in power then and responsible for such
issues.
The
hon. Gentleman said that the existing powers have not been used. I have
no problem with that. In fact, I hope that the new powers will not be
used. They are powers to deter and to ensure that the governing body
and the college take responsibility for their
actions.
I repeat that
we have had an important and reasoned debate. The Government have
responded to concerns that have been expressed, and we have managed to
satisfy the Association of Colleges, which has written to me explicitly
supporting our proposals. In those circumstances, I do not understand
why the Opposition cannot support our position, unless they are in the
business of opposition for opposition’s
sake.
The hon. Member
for Brent, East asked whether it was right that the Learning and Skills
Council should have responsibility for such matters given that there is
a policy thrust towards self-regulation. It is certainly the case that
the proposals that Sir George Sweeney made for
self-regulation—proposals that I asked him to put
forward—envisage circumstances in which colleges take greater
collective responsibility for self-policing, for want of a better
phrase. That would be good and healthy. Just as I want individual
governing bodies to take responsibility for dealing with poor
performance, I would regard it as a healthy development if colleges
collectively could take on that responsibility.
However, we
would still want to have the longstop power, in extremis, if a college
governing body, the Association of Colleges collectively or whoever
else has not dealt with an issue. Because of our responsibilities for
the public purse and the public interest and, most importantly, to the
learners who are affected, we would want longstop powers in
extremis.
Sarah
Teather:
I asked specifically about a situation in which
not all the funding is channelled through the Learning and Skills
Council. If the majority of the funding for a particular college were
no longer channelled through the council, would it be appropriate for
the council to be the body that directs the removal of governors or
college
principals?
Bill
Rammell:
Even under the demand-led approach that we are
moving towards—we envisage most of the funding going through the
demand-led process—there would still be a relationship with the
Learning and Skills Council. Funding would still come from the council.
If it will not have the ultimate power of intervention, and if we want
to protect the public purse and the public interest, who will take on
the
responsibility?
Bill
Rammell:
From a sedentary position comes the cry,
“The Secretary of State.” It is clear that through these
processes the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Learning
and Skills Council to tackle a problem of poor performance through
intervention. The Secretary of State also has the power to disagree and
stop the council from intervening. I believe that that provides the
public accountability reassurance requested by the colleges and by
Opposition
Members.
The hon. Lady
referred to subsection (9) and spoke about employment law and the
responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council. The proposals that
we have put forward make it explicitly clear that, under employment
law, the governing body is responsible for the situation. The
council’s responsibility is to identify poor performance, and,
if it has concerns about the conduct of a senior post-holder, to direct
the governing body to consider a dismissal procedure. However, under
contracts and employment law, the responsibility would reside with the
governing body.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby made several points. I shall
deal directly with his concerns because I know that he has a
long-standing interest in further education and adult education
funding. This Government have not cut funding for the further education
sector. We have increased funding in real terms by 50 per cent. during
the past 10 years. What we are rightly doing is shifting priorities.
Skills for life provision for people who have literacy and numeracy
problems has to be a priority. In addition, the roll-out of the train
to gain programme makes the incredibly radical commitment that, for the
first time in this country, if an adult in the workplace does not have
their first full level 2 qualification—the equivalent of five
GCSEs—the state has a responsibility and duty to step in and
ensure the relevant provision is provided. That is what we are doing
and where we are prioritising funding. I acknowledge that because we
are doing that much more, even with the increased funding in those
priorities areas, there is relatively less money available than there
has been for non-vocational education.
9.45
am
I
am not saying that those types of courses are not valuable; they are
incredibly valuable. However, in those circumstances and given that
there has to be a limit to how much money the Government can give, we
must ask the individual to contribute more. We need to shift the
culture of learning in this country so that individuals make that
commitment voluntarily. My hon. Friend referred to older learners. Even
with the changes that we have made, on the last available figures we
have double the number of over-60s studying at further education
colleges compared with 10 years ago. I hope that gives him some
reassurance.
Finally,
in response to my hon. Friend’s concerns about the threat to
academic freedom, I genuinely do not support the view that this
proposal is a threat to academic freedom. The powers will prevail in
tightly constrained circumstances and most certainly will not apply
when a lecturer complains about expenditure by a college governing body
or a principal.
Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): As the
student of the lecturer to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby referred, the situation that he mentioned was one that I
referred to on Second Reading. Having the Learning and Skills Council
in place would have been helpful then—it was pre-incorporation
at that time—because the governing body of the college
completely and utterly failed to deal with the situation. In fact, it
removed the lecturer and supported college management. If a body over
and above the governing body had existed to which that situation could
have been referred and to which the inquiry that was recommended by the
governing body could have been referred, the necessary action could
perhaps have been
taken.
Bill
Rammell:
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that,
from her previous experience before she was a Member of Parliament, she
brings great commitment and knowledge of the way that further education
colleges operate on the ground.
I meant to
refer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Brent, East about
56A(2)(d), which relates to the evidence base that will be used in
informing judgments. The evidence base will include inspection
judgments, and assessments against the LSC’s minimum performance
levels. The framework for excellence that is in development will, over
time, provide a more coherent and simpler framework by which the
performance of a further education college can be
judged.
9.46
am
Sarah
Teather:
I thank the Minister for that helpful answer.
However, I am still not clear about exactly what will constitute
“significantly less well” than would be expected in the
circumstances. Will there be a specific grade or a number of grades
over time under Ofsted? I am not clear about what safeguards colleges
will have so that they will not be forced into the
procedure.
Bill
Rammell:
I said earlier that the Learning and Skills
Council has published a draft intervention strategy. We will continue
to consult on that. Within that framework what constitutes poor
performance is clear. We will undoubtedly listen to concerns about the
degree to which we have got that right and will
ensure that the draft intervention strategy addresses those issues. As
I said earlier, that will ultimately be placed before the House. It
will be crystal clear in what circumstances poor performance will be
tackled.
We have had
an important debate. This issue and the matter of foundation degree
awarding powers have been the two most contentious elements of the
Bill. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Government have
listened and responded, and that they have given reassurance as to the
manner in which the powers will be used. We have to retain the right to
intervene in extremis—in exceptional circumstances in which a
governing body has not dealt with a major, fundamental concern. The
Association of Colleges says clearly and explicitly that we have
listened and got it right, and have found an acceptable way forward. If
the measure is acceptable to the AOC, I hope that it will be acceptable
to Opposition parties.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister has been dancing, albeit elegantly, on
the head of his pin. Section 57 of Further and Higher Education Act
1992 gives explicit powers in extreme circumstances to the Government,
through the Secretary of State, to intervene in a college in the way
that he has described. We have heard from the Minister that that is a
power that he never expects to use; that it is a deterrent, not a
threat. We have also heard that the LSC could be told by the Secretary
of State that it is not allowed to use the power in particular
circumstances. The power is not only unnecessary; it is not worthy to
be a part of the Bill. I think that we should test the mood of the
Committee as to whether it should remain in the Bill.
Question put, That the
clause be read a Second time.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause read a Second time
and added to the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 15 June 2007 |