Rutland and Tresham Colleges

HC Deb 28 March 2000 vol 347 cc23-9WH 11.30 am

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)

The purpose of this debate is to give voice to profound local concern, if not growing anger, about the proposed merger of Rutland and Tresham colleges—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton)

Order. Will those leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Duncan

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Those concerns centre on not only the proposed merger, but on the highly unsatisfactory way in which it has been processed by the Further Education Funding Council. I appreciate that the Minister will be slightly constrained in what he can say this morning, but the value of this debate is that, at least from now on, he and the Department for Education and Employment will be under no illusion about the strength of feeling locally and in nearby Stamford, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).

Rutland college is based in Oakham, the county town of Rutland. It is essentially a sixth form college for 16 to 19-year-olds, but also contains a small element of adult education; it has a capacity of about 600 pupils. As the only post-16 institution in Rutland, it is fed primarily by the three community colleges for 12 to 16-year-olds in the area: Uppingham, Vale of Catmose and Casterton. To its credit, Rutland college has generally produced good A-level results and it received a good report in a recent Ofsted inspection. It is a relatively popular institution, which sits on its own in the centre of a sparsely populated rural area.

Nothing that I say today should be considered as expressing anything other than a wish to see the college flourish in the years ahead. The origin of the college's desire to merge is entirely financial; any supposed educational benefits are secondary and utterly unconvincing. The whole unhappy episode was initiated by a glance in the crystal ball that alerted the college to the near certainty that it would face a financial deficit in future. There is no crisis now, but it is predicted that, next year or the year after, the college will suffer a shortfall of £100,000 or more. No one can blame the college corporation for taking steps to address that deficit. On the contrary, it has a responsibility to do so, and its chairman, Nigel Chubb, who is an experienced local figure in industry, can only be commended for trying to safeguard the future of the college. However, the preferred solution—a merger with Tresham college in Northamptonshire—and the steps taken to achieve it have set the issue alight.

Every interested party outside the college opposes the merger. Every secondary head teacher is opposed. The school governors are opposed. Most parents are opposed. Nearby Stamford college is opposed. Rutland council is opposed. I am opposed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who I hope will speak in the debate, is opposed. The whole world is against the merger, except the FEFC and Rutland college itself—and even the college is not unanimous.

There is no established pattern within which Rutland ever looks south to Northamptonshire. Rutland likes to be self-contained, where that is realistic, but if it wants to associate with a neighbouring area for any reason, it invariably looks to Stamford to the east, or to Melton to the north. People living in villages in the eastern half of Rutland shop in Stamford rather than Oakham. One of the local newspapers is the Stamford Mercury, which also has a Rutland edition. Indeed, the parliamentary constituency used to be Rutland and Stamford. Rutland looks to Lincolnshire or to Leicestershire, never to Northamptonshire.

Tresham is a college in Northamptonshire, with its campus and a series of sites in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. Last year, a grand total of three students from Rutland went to Tresham college. There is no natural link between Rutland college and Tresham college, and no natural link between Rutland and Northants. Tresham just happens to be there and is thought to be a suitable lifeboat in the face of Rutland college's imminent financial problem.

There is no educational rationale for the merger. Any suggestion that there will be educational gains is a specious and disingenuous justification for a merger that is driven by other reasons—indeed, those other reasons are pretty spurious too. Joining two institutions in such a way is a response to a completely perverse incentive: a financial incentive, which is perverse because it is a response to artificial structures such as the funding formula and the distribution of government money.

The funding formula is peculiar, a deficit is looming and Tresham is there. The colleges might be able to save £50,000 by merging. They think that, by joining together, they will be in a stronger position to lobby the Government for money. No doubt there will be no end of property deals and asset allocation—not to say asset stripping—to get the books in shape. At best, the whole project is merely financial; at worst, it is a most unenlightened response to the perverse incentives that emerge from a collectivist education system and its funding.

It is said that there will be no bussing of students between sites. Perhaps there will be teachers who can bring their expertise to both colleges, but they could do that anyway. Even if the Rutland-Tresham merger were the only option, it would not be an inspiring plan. However, it is not the only option, and the way in which the merger has been driven down this particular cul-de-sac is dubious, to put it mildly—indeed, such a comment would be far too mild. The truth is, I have never seen such a blatant case of bureaucratic bulldozing.

The Minister will no doubt have been assured that the FEFC has followed the proper procedures to the letter. That is not true. If the Minister has been told that, he has been misled. The audit trail of letters and meetings might make it look as though it has done so, but it has merely gone through the motions. I was not born yesterday and I did not come down with the last shower of rain. I am profoundly disturbed by the attitude of FEFC officials, who are clearly so bent on forcing the merger through that they have chosen to ignore all contrary points of view. With regret, I name Christine Frost as one who has incurred the universal displeasure of all those who are opposed to the merger. Her apparently unbending agenda amounts to questionable conduct.

One of the most aggrieved parties is Stamford college, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford. A few years ago tentative discussions were held between Rutland and Stamford colleges, but they were not pursued in detail, partly because the principals did not get on. That has now changed. Merging with Stamford is an obvious option, but it is a complete and utter distortion to say that it has been properly studied this time around as an alternative to Tresham. It has not. If the Minister has been told that it has, he should read the riot act as soon as this debate is over, because he will have been misled again. Stamford is a serious option and in all respects a far more logical one.

In its letter of 21 January to the principal of Stamford college, the FEFC said: Before arriving at this decision the committee carefully considered the implications for Stamford including the issues raised by the college under each of the Council's criteria. The committee recognised that there would be some impact on Stamford but did not consider this would be significant. The council's criteria—my elbow! In relation to the number and intensity of local objections to the merger, the letter merely said: These concerns will be recorded in the minutes and drawn to the attention of the Council. Let me translate that into real English. That section should have read, "I intend to go through the motions, ignore any objections, dupe the decision makers in the FEFC and press ahead anyway. PS—get lost."

The Stamford option is a compelling alternative. An established pattern of association exists between the two towns, and 200 full-time students already travel from Rutland to Stamford. Furthermore, the Learning and Skills Council, which will soon come into being, will link Rutland with Lincolnshire, so what is the point of preempting that development by creating a merger that will straddle two different learning and skills council regions? The Stamford principal is a go-getting and much-admired figure whose proposals have not been given a fair hearing. His plans have been dismissed, humoured and surreptitiously sneered at by the FEFC, which has not studied the Stamford option properly, but has only advanced the Tresham proposal.

The other aggrieved party is Rutland county council, which is being denied a proper chance to set and shape the future of post-16 education in the county. It is not pie in the sky Rutland nationalism for the council to have a dutiful wish to implement a responsible post-16 education policy for the only institution of its kind in the county. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in a policy letter dated 14 December 1999, encouraged the establishment of an LEA-maintained sixth form centre but there is no prospect of that happening if the merger proceeds.

Part of the FEFC's claim to have followed the rules fully is its so-called fact-finding visit to Rutland county council on 3 November 1999. Such a claim is deceitful, as the visit was neither billed nor conducted appropriately. The two main councillors concerned—one responsible for lifelong learning, the other the head of the education committee—were not even included. Those in Rutland were dumbfounded by the attitude of the representatives of the FEFC. Christine Frost has become public enemy No. 1, and there is no prospect of anyone in the area who is opposed to the merger trusting her again on such matters.

My dealings with the FEFC have been unsettling. I asked to see the chief executive, but I saw only others. I was promised an account of supportive submissions, but it was never sent to me. I secured an emergency meeting before the FEFC's meeting on 8 March, but I received no subsequent account of it. Hon. Members can therefore imagine my annoyance on first learning about the council's obdurate decision to recommend the merger from a journalist who had received a gloating press release from Rutland college. Only now that I am on the warpath has the chief executive invited me to see him.

The FEFC has shown complete contempt for any genuine process of consultation. It has gone through the motions with its mind made up and trampled over any objection with a shameful disdain. To my regret, I now have no confidence in the FEFC and I have formed an entirely negative view of some of those within it. Stamford college has lodged a formal written complaint. I was advised today that Rutland council intends to move a resolution, as soon as possible, to invoke the process of judicial review. I am almost inclined to issue a writ myself. Regardless of any legal outcome, the merger proposal remains deeply flawed.

It would be nothing short of negligence and administrative vandalism to go ahead with the proposal without considering the Stamford option again, and without allowing Rutland county council to consider the overall future provision of post-16 education. The merger is ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-considered. It has taken on a momentum of its own against the wishes of almost everybody who has an interest in quality education in Rutland. The FEFC should withdraw its recommendation. Failing that, the courts or the Secretary of State should stop it in its tracks and give wiser consideration to the bigger picture.

11.43 am

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for allowing me to intervene briefly in this debate, which I congratulate him on securing. My hon. Friend used strong language, which is entirely justified by some familiarity with the facts and the peculiar circumstances of the case.

My concern is threefold. First, as hon. Members will appreciate, I am concerned about the interests of my constituents. There are about 20,000 people in the town of Stamford, and those in the surrounding villages and small towns take the total population to between 30,000 and 40,000. The proposed merger threatens the de facto division of labour between Stamford college and Rutland college; that, in turn, threatens the future of certain courses at Stamford college, such as engineering and modern languages. It is important that the college should continue to offer those courses, but they will become unviable if only a few people are removed from them.

I am worried not only about Stamford college as an institution, but about the whole town and the surrounding area—especially given that Stamford's only state secondary school in the maintained sector does not have a sixth form. Stamford college is alone in being able to provide A-level courses in the maintained sector. Any reduction in its range of courses—especially the key, slightly harder subjects to which I referred—would therefore be an educational disaster for the people of the area. It is extraordinary that that has not been taken on board by those who have public responsibilities in that context.

Secondly, I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the travesty of procedure and consultation that has taken place, and about the extraordinary un-businesslike way in which it is proposed to proceed with the merger without having properly evaluated the alternative of a merger with Stamford. It is elementary business procedure to consider and evaluate the entire range of options before making a decision. Clearly, that has not happened in this case.

Finally, it is astonishing that the authorities should consider proceeding with the merger when public opinion as a whole—not merely that of the locally elected district and county councillors and the two local Members of Parliament—is overwhelmingly against it. If the views of local representatives are not considered to be worth hearing, why bother with the structure of democracy that we have in this country? In any case, the views of local educationalists should be dominant, and local head teachers are apparently unanimously opposed.

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and ask the Minister to instruct the bureaucracy to proceed with the case in the businesslike, straightforward, dispassionate and balanced fashion that we are entitled to expect of our public authorities.

11.47 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills)

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for raising the issue, and recognise the strength of the concerns that have been expressed by him and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take those concerns very seriously and recognise the importance of the matter to their constituencies.

It may be helpful if I explain a little of the context in which such decisions are taken. The Government regard greater collaboration as an important part of our plans for the further education sector. We want to encourage collaboration between the various providers in the post-16 world to raise standards and to provide better opportunities for all young people and adult learners. That is one of the key driving forces behind the Learning and Skills Bill that will shortly be introduced in the House. We aim to remove some of the barriers to effective collaboration between providers, which include schools and colleges.

Where appropriate, such collaboration will involve mergers. There is still too much wasteful competition between colleges in many respects, and small class sizes can mean that specialist provision is threatened because it is not cost effective to provide it. Mergers can help to resolve such situations and safeguard some kinds of specialist provision. Of course, we recognise that mergers can be highly sensitive issues locally. We have heard much this morning about the process that has been involved in this case, so it may assist the hon. Gentlemen if I explain the details of that process that were overlooked in their remarks.

Mergers between further education institutions must follow a set statutory procedure, which starts with local consultation with other further education providers, local authorities, local businesses, schools and other interested parties. The FEFC has a set procedure for considering mergers and it applies a set of criteria to all merger proposals. The criteria are: first, the educational benefits of the proposals to students, particularly the effect on access and choice; secondly, the implications of the proposal for the future development of post-16 provision in an area, including the potential impact on other further education providers; thirdly, the financial benefits of the proposed reorganisation, particularly in terms of the proposed merged institution's viability; fourthly, the extent of consultation and the consideration that has been given to alternative options—that should deal with some of the concerns that have been raised this morning; and, finally, the likelihood of the proposed reorganisation being successfully implemented.

Mr. Quentin Davies

On the penultimate criterion, will the Minister assure the Chamber that full consideration has been given to the possibility of a merger with Stamford college, and that that possibility has been evaluated as thoroughly as the merger between Rutland and Tresham colleges? Has a strategic plan been developed for the merger of Rutland and Stamford colleges? My information is that no such business plan has been proposed and that no such option has been properly evaluated.

Mr. Wills

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a few more minutes. I am about to explain that the process is not complete. It is important to complete my outline of the process, after which I should be able to enlighten him about where we stand in that process.

There is a statutory procedure that has to be gone through, after which the proposals and responses to the consultation are considered by the regional committee of the FEFC. That committee considers the local impact of the proposals and hears representations from those who oppose, and those who support, the proposals. In the case of the merger that we are discussing, I understand that the regional committee heard representations directly from Stamford college, Rutland county council and the community colleges of Lincolnshire before considering its advice to the reorganisations committee.

Mr. Duncan

I am sorry to interrupt, but it is not true to say that the representation from Rutland county council was properly heard. The meeting at which the Government suggest consultation took place was a complete and utter sham. It was billed as a basic chat, but it turned out to be the formal consultation, of which Rutland county council had been totally unaware. It was a disgrace.

Mr. Wills

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's account of what occurred, but it stands as a matter of fact that there was a presentation and the relevant bodies had an opportunity to make their views known.

The regional committee normally considers whether or not the FEFC should publish proposals in accordance with the statutory requirements placed on it by the Secretary of State. They require the FEFC to issue formal notices setting out the proposals, and to allow four weeks for comments. After that formal consultation period, the reorganisations committee decides whether or not to forward the proposals to the Secretary of State for a decision in the light of the responses. That statutory process provides ample opportunity for all concerned to make known their reservations about any proposal. I confirm that the representations made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton have been sent to the Department. We shall, of course, carefully consider everything that he and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford have said this morning.

When the proposals are sent to the Secretary of State, they are considered carefully, along with all the responses received during the statutory consultation process. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will be aware that mergers between further education colleges are considered on behalf of the Secretary of State by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that she takes into account all the relevant facts, including the wider strategic and local effects that the merger might have on the community and on other education provision. I assure both hon. Gentlemen that what they have said today will be taken into account by my noble Friend. If, after detailed consideration, she approves the merger, statutory instruments will be laid before both Houses to bring the proposals into effect.

The formal proposal from the FEFC for the merger betweeen Rutland college and the Tresham institute has only just arrived at the Department and my noble Friend will consider it in due course. We have not yet reached the decision-making stage. I am sure that the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Grantham and Stamford will understand that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposals before the Minister reaches her decision.

However, the Department is aware of the views of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on the matter, and they have been taken into account. He has made them known most forcefully, on this occasion and others, and we are considering them along with all the representations that we have received from interested parties. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved in correspondence and discussions with officials from FEFC, and I conclude by assuring him and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that their concerns have been well noted, and will be taken into account when my noble Friend reaches her decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We can move on to our next debate a little earlier than expected, as the Minister is in her place and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who is to initiate it, is also present.