§ Mr. Barry PorterTo ask the Lord President of the Council, in exercising visitorial jurisdiction over universities, in connection with petitioners referred to him, what procedures are adopted; whether there are any plans to change the procedures; to what categories of persons petitions are delegated before any decision is promulgated; how many petitions have been referred to him since 1979, with what type of matters, breaking the answer down between substantive and procedural matters, these petitions dealt; what procedure is adopted for disseminating the results of visitorial decisions amongst universities; how many visitorial decisions have been referred to the court for review since 1979; and what were the results.
§ Mr. WakehamThe procedure adopted is informal and matched to the circumstances of the individual case. Where it appears that the visitor has jurisdiction, the process begins by obtaining the university's comments on34W the petition and, where appropriate, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comment on the observations of the university. The opportunity is sometimes given to the parties to appear at an oral hearing.
There are no plans to change the procedures themselves, except that, under the Education Reform Act 1988, when the relevant provision comes into force, matters relating to the employment of staff will no longer fall within the visitor's jurisdiction.
The decision in relation to petitions for which the visitor has jurisdiction is always taken by the Lord President personally and no decision is delegated to another person.
The number of petitions submitted since 1979 in respect of universities for which the Lord President exercises responsibility is 65.
The majority (42) were complaints by students about various aspects of their academic assessment, 11 concerned complaints by academic staff about their employment or dismissal, six concerned complaints by students about disciplinary proceedings and the remainder concerned various matters relating to the Government or administration of the university.
The decisions are normally disclosed only to the parties and are not disseminated to other universities.
Two decisions have been the subject of applications to the courts for judicial review. One such application was dismissed by a Master of the High Court and the other by the Court of Appeal.