HC Deb 27 June 1997 vol 296 cc1131-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

2.31 pm
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)

First, may I place on record my gratitude to the Minister for taking part in this debate? I imagine that taking part in an Adjournment debate on a Friday afternoon is not popular when one must travel back to the valleys afterwards. I also thank him for allowing my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) time to speak. I am also pleased that Madam Speaker saw fit to choose a debate on further education, which is a crucial issue that we face over the next five years in government.

The vital sector of further education is now marked by gross underfunding, anarchic organisation and an almost complete lack of strategic planning. Enormous powers are vested in principals who run further education colleges, rather than in local education authorities or boards of governors. Morale among staff is extremely low and there is an increasing and creeping casualisation of the work force through casual labour. Those factors have already led to a strike at Southwark college, which has been going on for some weeks.

About two weeks ago, I attended a meeting with further education staff from across Greater London in the House of Commons. During the course of the meeting it became clear that, if there were widespread disruptions and industrial stoppages at colleges across Greater London over the summer, it would come as little surprise. The combination of factors, especially underfunding and the failure to resolve the national dispute that has been going on for four years. is coming to a head, and Southwark may be the first college to enter an industrial dispute. The lecturers whom I met from Lambeth, South Thames, Barking, Hackney and many other colleges, particularly in central London, face the prospect of taking industrial action in the near future.

The root of the problems in further education goes back to 1993, the period of incorporation under the previous Government. Incorporation really meant taking colleges away from local education authorities and making them independent. At the same time, colleges were encouraged to increase the numbers of students enormously. The problem was that resources were not made available to cover that, so the previous Government introduced a "growth fund". That meant that in theory, every extra student was paid for directly by central Government. But because of the increasingly parlous state of the economy, the Conservative Government ran out of money, and in November 1996, in their last Budget, they did away with the growth fund. That plunged further education into an increasingly desperate financial struggle.

In addition, the Government introduced convergence—a policy that still exists, although I hope that it will soon be ended. It aims to bring each college's average level of funding—the ALF—within 10 per cent. of the national average.

That will hit London colleges especially hard, because in London there are high numbers of poor students, students on benefit, students who, for instance, do not have English as a first language, and various other problems that are rare outside London but common in London. So London colleges face increasing difficulties because of the convergence policy. Lambeth, for example, stands to lose £4 million, purely through convergence. That will mean cutting staff and increasing class sizes.

The general cuts, not just in Greater London but across the board and across the country, have led to reductions in staff at the vast majority of further education colleges. The more experienced staff are leaving further education, perhaps to take early retirement or because they are affected by various other developments. Basically, they are getting out of the sector and leaving it behind, because of stress, low pay, low morale and heavier and heavier work loads. There have been enormous efficiency savings in further education. That means cuts, and heavier work loads for the people who are left.

Meanwhile, the use of casual lecturers is becoming increasingly prevalent. Education Lecturing Services is the biggest company providing casual labour to colleges. Casual labourers are imported by colleges, which usually close courses and then invite Education Lecturing Services to provide casual teachers to take the same courses. The new casual teachers have much lower rates of pay, and do not have the same protection as full-time or permanent part-time staff. That leads to friction within the colleges.

An example is provided by Havering college of further education, the nearest college to my constituency of Hornchurch. I am sure that my two neighbouring hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Romford, will agree when I say that at Havering there is probably the potential for an industrial dispute.

The latest plan that the principal has decided to adopt is to close the hairdressing course. That will not set the world on fire, but a lecturing service called Central is to provide casual lecturers to run the course, and the big problem, the worry for local people and for lecturers at the college, is that the practice may spread to other courses.

My two hon. Friends and I questioned the principal about that. Like many principals, he wields enormous power without reference to anyone in the college. He said, and I believed him, that he did not want to extend the policy to other courses, but that he might have no choice. He did not mention any specific courses, but one thinks of engineering, building, history and many other courses in which it would be easy to make enormous cuts by introducing companies such as Education Lecturing Services. I hope that that course does not have to be followed.

Among full-time lecturers a national dispute has been going on since 1993, yet it has had no coverage to speak of in the press for the past three years. The lecturers' union, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, tried to strike in 1993, but was undone by the previous Government's anti-trade union legislation, especially that passed in 1993. It had to call off industrial action to try to stop the ending of the old agreement between lecturers and employers.

As soon as incorporation took place, the new independent colleges said that they intended to terminate the national agreement, the silver book agreement, and move to local agreements—something that has happened in many other sectors of the economy. They did that, and introduced lower rates of pay and much longer hours.

Throughout the country, some lecturers who are still on the silver book agreement have not had a pay increase for four years. Colleges are now starting to sack lecturers still on the agreement. A quarter of all lecturers in further education are on the silver book agreement, and they are faced with either the sack or being left on the same level of pay from now on if they remain in the sector. One of my constituents who works at Barking college is faced with the sack, as are many other lecturers there.

Casualisation is convenient for principals who want to break union organisations and attack terms and conditions, which many do. Many wield massive and overweening powers, and can more or less do what they want in colleges without reference to anybody else. The boards of governors have become self-perpetuating oligarchies that rubber-stamp the decisions of the principals and pass them back. That has led to considerable abuse of power in many colleges.

A notable example is Stoke college, where the principal, Neil Preston, has just been dismissed for gross misconduct. Among other things, he paid for overseas trips for himself and the marketing director of the college, Helen Chandler, with money from the college. In December, they both went on permanent sick leave and were found running a pub in north Wales. There you have it. If we hand great powers and financial options to principals, such a situation can develop.

The FE sector is in real danger of starting to come apart at the seams. That is very dangerous for the present Government, who have rightly put education and welfare to work at the top of their agenda. Further education must play a powerful part in the process. If FE is unable to take on strategic planning or central organisation, so that it can be organised in the correct way to provide welfare to work and a proper pattern of education, we shall have major problems.

There has been an enormous drop in standards in the past few years because of the problems that I have outlined. Ten years ago, the average FE student would have 30 hours of teaching or class contact time every week. That figure has now dropped to only 15 hours a week. A year ago, the Further Education Funding Council commented on the increased use of casual lectures and said: This increased casualised work force reduces costs, but such changes in staffing are not always in the best interests of the students. Only rarely do these staff engage in curriculum development, student support and guidance activities, extracurricular activities and formal staff and in-service training. The FEFC was concerned that that development went too far and would undermine standards. The evidence is that standards are already well on the way to being undermined.

There are solutions which are quite apparent and can be taken on by the Government. Many have been outlined by the lecturers' union, NATFHE. The union has been beaten back over the past few years by incorporation and the activities of anti-union principals, but it still plays a reasonably determined role in trying to protect its members' positions, rights and pay.

First, we need the return of some form of democratic accountability in colleges. The Labour party has proposed that two members of the local education authority should be appointed to the boards of governors of FE colleges I do not think that that goes far enough, as we need far greater LEA control over colleges. I would put colleges back under the aegis of the LEAs, to get more strategic planning into further education.

There is a crucial need for more resources. NATFHE estimates that it will take £2 billion to return colleges to the standards operating in 1990. I do not think that the Treasury will cough up £2 billion, but that does not mean that we should not keep asking for extra money. Any extra resources would be very valuable within the sector.

More strategic local and regional planning is also needed. Prior to the election, the Labour party suggested education and training boards, which is a good idea, with representatives from the colleges, local education authorities, unions and employers. It was also suggested that representatives of the training and enterprise councils should sit on the boards. I do not go along with that suggestion. The TECs have a poor record. We should look more to FE colleges and other institutions to provide the training, rather than TECs, which have done extremely badly.

I also want some sort of national inquiry into further education, along the lines of the Dearing report, although I shall bear in mind the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister told me yesterday that Helena Kennedy QC is to report on further education next Wednesday. That is worth bearing in mind, and the FE sector will certainly be looking forward to that report providing some solutions to our problems.

I want part-time staff to be directly and properly employed by the colleges, rather than their being employed on a part-time, casual basis. Finally, a return to national collective bargaining would not only restore the rights of lecturers and their representatives in NATFHE and the other unions, but give a great boost to morale in the sector, particularly among the part-time lecturers who have been hit hard. If we follow such a programme, we shall start to return further education to the standards that our students deserve and the standards and planning that we shall need in the next five years if we are to complete the programme that the Labour party has outlined.

2.45 pm
Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford)

I shall take a few minutes to draw the attention of the House to a constituency case that illustrates the problems described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).

My constituent worked for some 27 years at Waltham Forest college in east London—he was a senior manager. He was devoted and loyal and made a valuable contribution to that college. In March 1997, he was dismissed. The dismissal letter said: I am writing to formally give you 3 months notice of the termination of your appointment. It continued: You will not be required to attend the college or carry out your normal duties during the period of your notice. That sounds bad enough, but what happened was that he was called into the office—as he thought, to discuss the European funding that he had secured for the college—only to be sacked on the spot for no apparent reason, told he had five minutes to clear his desk and escorted off the premises, along with a colleague who was given similar treatment. He was not even allowed to say goodbye to his staff and colleagues.

That is a disgraceful way to treat people. How humiliating for that professional and sensitive man. The college has admitted that it breached procedures and contracts, yet it has done nothing to repair that damage. My constituent has not been reinstated or even been able to appeal. The college will communicate only through solicitors.

Something has gone seriously wrong with the governance not only of Waltham Forest college but of colleges throughout the country, where similar tyrannical actions have taken place. I simply cannot imagine that such autocratic and arrogant behaviour occurred when the colleges were administered by local authorities.

My constituent has been traumatised by the experience. His health and that of his family have suffered. He still cannot believe that this has really happened to him.

Further education colleges do a great job for our communities, but the staff are now demoralised and fearful of their future, not knowing who will be the next to be sacked. FE colleges should be at the heart of the Government's welfare-to-work programme, but before that happens the governance and structure of the colleges must be put in order.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate the situation, not only at Waltham Forest, on which I will happily provide information, but in colleges throughout the country. If the fat cats in charge of these colleges will not or cannot put their house in order, the Government must do it for them.

2.48 pm
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

I welcome this debate, but I regret that it has taken place at this time of the week, with such a small attendance, because it is an issue of major importance. I hope that, after the publication of the Kennedy report next week, there will be another opportunity to discuss it with a wider group of Members.

Before I became a Member, I had the responsibility of managing the shambles of the internal market in further education in one of the United Kingdom's largest colleges, so I speak with some feeling on the subject. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) have identified many of the key features affecting colleges.

There are two colleges in my constituency: Bury college, a large tertiary college, and Holy Cross college, a Catholic sixth form college. In the past three years, they have both received excellent inspection reports, met all the targets set by the Further Education Funding Council and kept their budgets in balance, but they face enormous difficulties in sustaining the quality of education.

Bury college faces a cut of £1 million to sustain the present level of provision. That is typical of colleges throughout Britain. Every college in Britain, other than very small or specialist colleges, is getting cuts in budgets—sometimes cuts of 10, 20 or even 31 per cent. That cannot continue.

It is important to refer to the internal market, because even if the market in further education is not as glamorous or as well known as that in the health service, its effects have been equally damaging. A nightmare of bureaucracy has been created, and more and more time is spent on processing information of dubious value and reliability and less and less time on teaching.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch referred to the importance of strategic planning. If the Government do not intervene in the funding of colleges, two things will happen. First, there will be a series of bankruptcies and closures within the next 12 months, as possibly more than half the British colleges are running a deficit. That cannot be sustainable, and many colleges will close if no action is taken. Secondly, college closures, as we have already seen in Greater Manchester, will have a devastating effect on students' careers, families and prospects.

It is crucial that we bring an element of strategic planning to the internal market in further education, to manage the crisis and ensure that, where rationalisation is necessary, it is effected in a planned and thoughtful way, for the benefit of staff, students and the community.

2.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on choosing the subject of further education for what I believe is his first Adjournment debate. I welcome the short, but valuable, contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon).

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch described in detail the problems that beset some colleges in the further education sector. He gave examples of apparent bad management, generating poor morale among lecturing staff, and referred to issues of accountability and, of course, funding. It is obvious that much of the blame for such features in what, overall, has been a remarkably resilient sector should be laid at the door of the previous Administration.

I do not want to dwell too much on past mistakes and attitudes. Instead, and before I address the specific points made by my hon. Friends, I believe that it would be helpful first to set out the new Government's philosophy—vision, if you like—for further education. I hope that my hon. Friends will remember that we have placed education at the centre of our agenda. It is critical to the future of our nation and to our economy. Within that agenda, further education has a tremendously important role to play in creating the learning society that we want to establish.

Further education is a route whereby effective learning, and therefore new opportunities, can be offered to more and more people. It has the capacity to increase economic potential and reduce the numbers of those who are socially excluded. The Government believe that colleges will play an increasingly vital role in creating a society based on partnership and shared community values rather than on narrow self-interest. For example, the contribution of post-16 providers including, crucially, further education colleges, will be vital to the effective delivery of the new deal. That is our vision.

I believe that that message has already been taken on board by colleges, governors, principals, teaching staff and students. I know from my recent meetings with those involved in further education, from my visits and from my postbag that the sector appreciates the new emphasis that the Government have placed on partnership and the fact that, so far as we are concerned, further education will no longer be the forgotten sector.

To turn to the important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, I noted his suggestion that colleges need to become more democratic and accountable to their local communities. The Government and I believe that. At present, colleges can co-opt on to their governing bodies only up to two members with local government connections. The Government support such co-options, but believe that they do not go far enough. Generally, such co-options are helpful in increasing the sense of partnership with the local community. In the coming months, we shall consider carefully whether we need to, and how we can, enhance the links between colleges and local authorities. The Further Education Funding Council is discussing precisely that subject with the Local Government Association.

The fundamental issue at stake is the incorporation of colleges and the consequent requirement on them to assume responsibility for their pay and conditions of service, which is embodied in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. In effect, teaching, internal organisation and management, including pay and conditions of service contracts, have become the responsibility of the principal and the governing body set up to conduct a college. Moreover, as things stand, the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in local matters concerning further education institutions, such as contractual arrangements, are limited. He has certain statutory powers to intervene under section 496 of the Education Act 1996 when satisfied that the governing body is acting or proposing to act "unreasonably" in the strict sense in which that word has been interpreted by the courts, or under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in the event of mismanagement or breach of duty by the governing body of an institution.

Although we cannot officially become involved in the detail of particular local disputes, the Government wish to encourage a spirit of partnership between employers and employees in further education, as elsewhere. That can only be for the good of colleges, staff and students. Managements who behave in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford had better understand that this Government will not put up with such arrogance or with high-handed, insensitive attitudes that do nothing to improve morale or to provide high-quality training and education for our young people.

In the few moments left, I wish to add a few words about further education funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch will not be surprised to hear that I have received many representations on the issue. We are addressing it, but I say frankly that it is not an easy task. A central feature of the methodology is that the FEFC guarantees colleges 90 per cent. of their previous year's funding in return for delivering 90 per cent. of their previous year's activity. That provides colleges with some stability year on year to enable sensible planning. The colleges can and do bid for more funding units at slightly more marginal rates if they are convinced that they can recruit and retain more students.

The FEFC has informed colleges of their allocations for the 1997–98 academic year. In finalising those allocations, the council has tried to ensure that the transition to funding arrangements that do not include the demand-led element has been as equitable as possible. I realise, however, that those allocations will require colleges to take difficult decisions to live within their budgets. We will consider urgently over the coming months the future funding of further education. During that time, we will listen carefully to the views of colleges, and of their representatives bodies, as well as to those of the funding council. In the meantime, we will consider the funding of the sector as the need arises. The definition of what is required will be subject to a great deal of public examination after the publication next Wednesday of the report by Helena Kennedy QC on further education.

The matter will be subject to even greater scrutiny after the publication in July of Sir Ron Dearing' s inquiry into the future of higher education, certainly the most important report on higher education since the Robbins report of 30 years ago. It will be a critical time for discussion about further and higher education. I believe that it can play a crucial role—a much bigger one than it has done—in providing proper and robust training for our young people and to improve the competitiveness of this country. If we do not get that right, we will not be competitive, we will lose jobs and we will slip down the international leagues. We cannot afford to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.