COMMITTEE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS:
THURSDAY, 24 JANUARY 2002
ROOM 152, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Present:
Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Roy Beggs MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr John Kelly MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
In Attendance:
Dr Andrew C Peoples
Ms Hilary Bogle
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Apologies:
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Joe Byrne MLA
Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA
Meeting opened at 2.20pm in open session.
1. Apologies
Apologies are detailed above.
-
Draft Minutes of 17 January 2002
Mr Kelly asked that the minutes be amended to reflect in detail the concerns
raised by both himself and Mrs Nelis regarding the Chairman and Deputy Chairman
meeting regularly with the Minister on an informal basis. It was agreed that the
draft minutes of the meeting on 17 January 2002 would be amended and considered
at the next meeting on 31 January 2002. Following further debate, the Clerk was
directed to enquire as to the procedures in other Committees re meetings between
Chairmen and Ministers.
Action: Clerk
-
Matters Arising
It was suggested that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should meet with
the Minister around particular matters. Such matters should be raised in advance
by the Chairman at Committee meetings and he would then report back to the Committee,
as was the current procedure, on the outcome of the meeting.
Members noted that the finalised transcript of the evidence session with
NATFHE, Annex 1, was available in the Committee Office. In addition, the Clerk
had obtained a transcript of the evidence from Mr Gordon Davis, a recent participant
on the New Deal Programme. This was also available for members’ reference in the
Committee Office, although it was confidential, as part of the evidence had been
taken in closed session.
Members noted the NISRA Report ‘An analysis of Sickness Absence in Northern
Ireland Departments 2000/01.’ Members noted that the Department for Employment
and Learning (DEL) had the second highest average of available man days lost as
a result of sickness absence of all government departments in 2000/01, and that
this represented an average loss of 17.9 days per year for each member of staff.
Members agreed that this should be kept under review as this was having a detrimental
effect on service delivery within the Department.
Members noted that the Taskforce on Employability and Long-Term Unemployment
were to have an Action Plan prepared by the end of March 2002. It was agreed that
a response to the Minister should be drafted for consideration at the next meeting.
In addition, the Committee would request the draft Action Plan from the Department,
and seek a period of at least two weeks in which to scrutinise and respond.
Action: Clerk
Members noted a joint Press Release (May 2001) from the Departments of Enterprise,
Trade and Industry and Social Development respectively, launching two Economic
Taskforces to counter unemployment and poverty in the West Belfast and Greater
Shankill areas. Members agreed that the respective Chairs of the Taskforces, Mr
Padraic White and Mr John Simpson, should be asked to brief the Committee to inform
their deliberations on the draft Action Plan from the Taskforce for Employability
and Long-Term Unemployment.
Action: Clerk
Prof McWilliams stated that there was still some uncertainty as to the total
amount of money surrendered by DEL in the December 2001 Monitoring Round, especially
regarding the £10.5 million surrendered which had been earmarked for student loans.
The Clerk was directed to draft a paper for consideration at the next meeting.
Action: Clerk
-
Committee Responses
Members considered the Committee’s draft response to the Committee of the
Centre’s European Inquiry. It was agreed that the response should be amended to
more precisely reflect the time spent by the Committee on European-related matters
and that it should be issued to the Committee of the Centre, Annex 2.
Action: Clerk
Members considered DEL’s draft Service Delivery Agreement (SDA), together
with a Committee Office Note and an Assembly Research paper, which provided an
evaluation of the main issues arising. Members agreed to call officials to brief
the Committee on the draft SDA at the next meeting on 31 January 2002. If this
was not possible, the briefing should be arranged for 7 February 2002 and the
Clerk would request an extension to the deadline for the Committee’s response,
to take account of the outcome of the briefing. Members requested questions for
this meeting.
Action: Clerk
-
Correspondence
Members considered a detailed response from the Minister to queries raised
by the Committee regarding the New Deal Programme. Members agreed to request further
information on the introduction of a waged element within the Preparation for
Employment Programme and whether this was specific to Northern Ireland; the current
caseloads for New Deal Personal Advisers and an update on both the absentee and
vacancy rates for JobCentre staff involved in the delivery of New Deal.
Action: Clerk
Members considered information from the Minister in relation to Individual
Learning Accounts (ILAs) and noted that there was still no evidence of fraud involving
either providers or ILA holders in Northern Ireland. The Committee agreed to write
to the Minister requesting details of the progress of the current review and the
timescale for completion, given that the previous Minister, Dr Farren, had indicated
that the scheme was being suspended rather than abolished.
Action: Clerk
In addition, the Clerk was to determine whether the ILA scheme had been
reintroduced in Scotland and to follow up on the information still outstanding
from the Department.
Action: Clerk
Members considered the accounts of Further Education Colleges, provided
by DEL for the financial year 2000/01, which indicated a much less favourable
position overall than in the previous year. Members agreed to request an oral
briefing from DEL officials before deciding on the way forward.
Action: Clerk
In addition, the Chairman was to write to the Comptroller and Auditor General,
highlighting the Committee’s concerns regarding the further education sector in
general and to determine the extent of the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s powers
of scrutiny in this area.
Action: Clerk
The Clerk was directed to obtain further information from DEL on the funding
mechanism for Further Education Colleges and to determine the financial impact
of the proposed merger between the University of Ulster and the Northern Ireland
Hotel and Catering College.
Action: Clerk
The Clerk was directed to prepare a brief summary of the Accounts for a
future meeting and to ascertain the possibility of professional expertise to advise
the Committee on FE College accounts.
Action: Clerk
The Committee considered information from DEL on managerial salaries in
Further Education Colleges. It was noted that the total cost of managerial salaries
had not increased since incorporation.
Members considered a consultation document from DEL on ‘Statutory Backing
for Trade Union Learning Representatives’ and agreed that the Chairman should
write to the Department offering the Committee’s broad support for the proposals,
Annex 3.
Action: Clerk
Members noted correspondence from the Committee of the Centre, detailing
research commissioned by Research Branch in the Office of the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), which was within the remit of the Committee for
Employment and Learning.
Members considered information from the Chairman of the Committee for Education,
detailing funding provided by the Department of Education to the Northern Ireland
Business Education Partnership (NIBEP). Prof McWilliams declared an interest as
her husband was currently seconded to NIBEP. It was noted that NIBEP was still
under funded, relative to Scotland for example, and that this was causing difficulties
for the organisation in meeting the targets stipulated in its Business Plan.
Members agreed, in principle, to hosting a seminar in Parliament Buildings
on ‘Increasing Access to Higher Education’ by Universities UK. The Clerk was directed
to establish the cost of the event for the Committee’s consideration, and to take
the matter forward.
Action: Clerk
Members considered a letter from the Principal of Stranmillis College, regarding
the temporary closure of the Henry Garrett Building for health and safety reasons.
It was agreed to request an urgent briefing from DEL on their action taken to
date, including their proposals for a longer-term solution to the accommodation
problems at Stranmillis.
Action: Clerk
-
Legislation
Members considered DEL’s response to a query raised by the Committee during
its consideration of the draft Statutory Rule under the Pneumoconiosis, Etc. (Workers
Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001.
It was noted that no provision had been made in the original primary legislation
for an automatic annual increase in line with inflation. Members had no objections
to the policy implications of the legislation at this stage.
Members considered a pre-draft Statutory Rule under the Employment Rights
(Increase of Limits) Order 1999, to increase the limits applying to certain awards
of industrial tribunals and other amounts payable under employment legislation.
Members had no objections to the policy implications of the legislation at this
stage.
Members considered a pre-draft Statutory Rule under the Maternity and Parental
Leave Etc. Regulations 1999, which was subject to the confirmatory procedure in
the Assembly. The proposed legislation was to enable parents of children born,
or placed for adoption up to five years before 15 December 1999 to take parental
leave up until 31 March 2005. Members had no objections to the policy implications
of the draft legislation at this stage. The Clerk was to determine whether this
was a parity measure and also to request information from DEL on their implementation
of European Union directives in general.
Action: Clerk
-
Any Other Business
Members considered the Minister’s response to the Committee’s Report on
their Inquiry into Education and Training for Industry. It was agreed that the
response was broadly supportive and positive and that members would decide next
week on how best to take this forward.
Members considered a response from the Minister on DEL’s progress against
targets set out in their Annual Business Plan 2001/02. Given the fact that a number
of key targets had not been met, members agreed to ask for a briefing from officials.
In addition, the Department was to be asked for further written information on
performance against targets from October 2001 to date.
Action: Clerk
Members noted that the Recovery Plans in place for several Further Education
Colleges had been received from DEL and were held in the Committee Office for
members’ reference. It was noted that these were confidential documents. Members
directed the Clerk to arrange a briefing from officials on the Recovery Plans,
in conjunction with the Further Education College Accounts.
Action: Clerk
Members considered correspondence from the Department detailing the outcome
of the first stage of the quinquennial review of the Labour Relations Agency.
The Clerk was asked to acquire responses made during the consultation process
and explore the possibility of acquiring professional expertise to evaluate the
current proposals.
Action: Clerk
Members considered the recent coverage in the press relating to the advertisements
for governors of Further Education Colleges. It was agreed that the current requirements
could be seen to be constricting the number of applications, especially from those
with a local community perspective. The Clerk was asked to request a breakdown
from DEL on the composition of current governing bodies, any stipulations relating
to their composition and whether governors received any remuneration.
Action: Clerk
Members agreed that both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should accept
the invitation to meet with DEL’s senior management team on Wednesday 30 January
2002, to discuss next year’s Annual Business Plan.
Action: Clerk
The Chairman updated the Committee on the key issues discussed at the recent
meeting of the Chairpersons’ Liaison Group. Members noted that there had not as
yet been any agreement on the potential sanctions to be imposed on any member
who divulges the contents of an agreed Committee Report before it had been debated
in the Assembly.
It was agreed that correspondence received by Prof McWilliams on the fixed
term contracts policy at the University of Ulster should be put on the agenda
for discussion at the next meeting.
Action: Clerk
-
Date and Time of Next Meeting
On Thursday 31 January 2002, at 2.00pm in Room 152 Parliament Buildings.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4.35pm.
Dr Esmond Birnie, MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning
31 January 2002
ANNEX 1
NORTHERN IRELAND
ASSEMBLY
_________________________
COMMITTEE FOR
EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING
________________________
Further and Higher Education and Training
________________________
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
(National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher
Education)
Thursday 8 November 2001
NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
___________
COMMITTEE FOR
EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING,
___________
Further and Higher Education and Training
___________
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Thursday 8 November 2001
Members present:
Dr Birnie (Chairperson)
Mr Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Beggs
Mr Byrne
Mrs Carson
Mrs Nelis
Witnesses:
Mr J McKeown )
Mr D Kenny ) National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education
Mr W McCann )
The Chairperson:
Good afternoon, Gentlemen. From the National Association of Teachers in
Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), I welcome Jim McKeown, regional official,
David Kenny, regional secretary, and Wesley McCann, regional chairperson. This
is the first time that you have attended a formal evidence session, although you
kindly hosted an informal lunchtime meeting. We are pleased to have you here today.
In the past year and a half or so, several issues that relate to staffing
and staff conditions in further education have been raised in Committee. We are
keen to pursue such issues with you and to get your perspective on the strategy
and approach for further education.
Mr McKeown:
I thank the Committee for inviting us here and for granting us an opportunity
to speak. The Committee will have seen our submission to the ‘Inquiry into Education
and Training for Industry’ and, therefore, will be familiar with many of our views.
However, we wish to revisit some of those issues, especially in the light of your
report’s recommendations. Many of the issues that we have raised have been addressed
in those recommendations, and we are happy to respond to any queries that the
Committee might raise.
NATFHE is a UK-based union with approximately 67,000 members in further
and higher education institutions. We have 19,000 members in universities, mainly
in England. In Northern Ireland, we have 2,100 members, the majority of which
are in the further education sector. However, we also represent staff in the university
colleges and have around 100 members in training organisations.
I am NATFHE’s full-time official; David Kenny is the regional secretary,
a post held by a senior lay representative in the region; Wesley McCann is both
our current regional chairman and a representative for higher education in Northern
Ireland on NATFHE’s national executive council. After I speak about further education,
Mr McCann will focus on some of our concerns about higher education.
I congratulate the Committee for commissioning the inquiry. It was a massive
undertaking that has proven a worthwhile exercise. The report contained more than
40 recommendations that set a policy agenda grounded in facts. The Committee produced
a wealth of information that will be used by policy-makers for some years to come.
The report greatly enhances our understanding of further and higher education
in Northern Ireland, taking our knowledge beyond mere impressions and anecdote.
The document also shows the enormous amount of good that is being done by
both further and higher education institutions and training organisations. I wish
to preface my remarks by recognising that our services do a great deal of good.
However, that is not to say that everything is perfect. Indeed, we feel that things
could be done better.
We are studying the report and examining the contributions of the various
respondents. I should like to focus my remarks on one of those contributions.
Among the key contributors to your inquiry was the Department for Employment and
Learning. One issue that arose in its evidence was the development of further
education under incorporation. Departmental officials presented the view that
incorporation is bedding down and is having a positive impact on meeting strategic
Government objectives. We do not share that view, for a number of reasons. The
Department has based its evidence on two factors. First, more money has been put
into further education, which must have improved the service. Secondly, there
has been an increase in student numbers, which is also linked to an improvement
in the service. Where has the extra money gone that has been put into the service?
The Department has indicated that 52% of additional resources have been put into
the sector.
In the three years since incorporation, around 198 full-time lecturers have
been made redundant, as have 31 part-time lecturers. That means that a further
£5 million per year is released for use in the further education sector, and that
is available for uses other than salaries. The extra money has not gone into the
classroom; it has gone into administration. The present system is incredibly wasteful.
Indeed, the Committee’s recommendations point to the need for co-ordination of
support services. The current system is an absolute nonsense. Each college has
its own personnel, finance and human resources sections. More and more people
are being recruited to support those services. We need co-ordination across the
sector, and the extra resources must deliver courses.
Your report looked at literacy and numeracy problems that affect adults.
In Northern Ireland, 250,000 adults are estimated to be at level 1 or level 2
on the international adult literacy scale. The Education and Guidance Service
for Adults (EGSA) and the Basic Skills Unit make some provision for that. We only
make provision for around 5,000 students, which is 2% of the numbers that need
to be addressed. On the one hand, we have a massive need in our community to get
people to a skills level that will make them attractive to employers and gain
them employment. However, on the other hand, we are using scarce resources to
create administrative empires in our colleges.
It would be wonderful to have a "Rolls-Royce" administration service
in our colleges. However, is that the way we should be going when the need is
in classroom delivery? We have lost 700 full-time teachers from the further education
sector in the past 10 years. We had 2,400 full-time teachers less than 10 years
ago; that figure has fallen to 1,700, at a time when student numbers across the
sector have increased. The Department is correct to say that student numbers have
increased. However, that trend was evident before incorporation. There is a growing
awareness in our society that qualifications and skills are necessary for employment,
and people will try to obtain training through our further education colleges.
Our class sizes are increasing, course tuition time is being cut to the
bare bone, and the course administrative burden is being handled by a dwindling
number of full-time teachers. We desperately need the resources that the Department
and the Government are making available to be put into the classroom. The only
way that that can be done is to revisit current administration arrangements.
One of the Government's strategic objectives is to address the skills agenda
and regional development. We cannot do that while our colleges operate on the
present model for incorporation, which is a competitive model. Our colleges vigorously
compete with one another. For example, we understand that East Tyrone College
of Further and Higher Education seeks to recruit students from Omagh, which takes
away students from Omagh College. The Belfast Institute of Further and Higher
Education (BIFHE) has taken students away from the East Antrim Institute of Further
and Higher Education in Newtonabbey. Rivalry exists among the colleges. There
is no rivalry at the level of staffing, but there is rivalry at the level of college
leadership. That is evident.
NATFHE encourages and promotes the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges
(ANIC), and believes that it should act as a co-ordinating body for the sector.
However, the two major colleges — the North West Institute of Further and Higher
Education and BIFHE — are not party to ANIC. The result is that comments are made,
and impressions are given, about the sector that show that it is divisive and
that games of one-upmanship are played. That presents a bad image to employers,
which we cannot afford to have.
We need a strategic approach. NATFHE has worked with employers to try to
form a strategic approach to the determination of pay and terms and conditions
of service. That has been quite successful. The employers, in an attempt to keep
BIFHE on board, set up an arrangement to give the institute an automatic seat
on the negotiating committee. As that committee deals with about 65% to 70% of
the institute’s overall budget, one would have thought that it would be important
for the institute to participate in that forum. The director of BIFHE has not
attended the past 12 meetings of the lecturers’ negotiating committee, which leads
me to question BIFHE’s level of commitment to a strategic approach to the advancement
of further education.
The Department for Employment and Learning, by way of a co-ordinated, strategic
approach, has recognised that the incorporation model is problematic. That is
why the Department has recently started to earmark considerable sums of money.
Around 17 different earmarked funds have been set up, such as access funds and
collaboration funds. The Department tells the colleges that if they want the money,
they must use it to meet the wider social objectives as established by Government
— NATFHE supports that view. That really should not be necessary, but, given that
the sector does not have a central driver, that approach seems sensible.
The Committee’s report refers to centres of excellence. The notion behind
that concept is that there are certain objectives and goals that our society would
like to achieve. The Government are telling colleges that if they want money to
work towards those goals they must do it on their terms. NATFHE thinks that that
is a sensible approach, but there needs to be centralised co-ordination and strategy
for the entire sector.
Another example relates to colleges’ development plans. Each college must
produce a development plan. NATFHE is aware of 17 different development plans.
Those plans are not in the public domain. Local people are unable to contribute
to the plans, and, when a college’s development plan is requested, that request
is refused on the grounds that it is market sensitive, and, therefore, not in
the public domain. NATFHE thinks that those plans should be in the public domain
and would like to see a strategic plan for the sector, which colleges must follow.
NATFHE also has serious concerns about openness and accountability. Further
education is a public service. However, under the Further Education (1997 Order)
(Commencement) Order (Northern Ireland) 1998, the governing bodies are the employers
and the developers of development plans. Basically, they run the show. In NATFHE’s
experience, colleges are run in the same way as secret societies. Staff representatives
on governing bodies are excluded on the merest pretext. Student representatives
play very little part in the governing bodies. Governing bodies delegate all sorts
of responsibilities to principals, including, in some cases, the appointment of
lecturers. Members of governing bodies also nominate their successors. Openness
and accountability is required.
The previous Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett, moved on
that issue, as a result of several scandals in the further education sector in
England and Wales. He broadened governing bodies to include more staff representatives
and more community representatives. He abolished the provision that at least 50%
of the governors must come from a business background. That relaxation in England
and Wales has helped the colleges, and we would like to see similar movement here.
However, the colleges are in the process of reconstituting their governing bodies
for the next four years, and it is to the current model that we would like to
see some changes.
We have raised some serious concerns with the governing bodies of five colleges.
In two instances, we did not even get the courtesy of a reply from the governing
body. In one college, a problem with conduct and the stewardship of resources
has been ongoing for more than a year. We are concerned that the governing body
is not openly addressing those issues. In another of our colleges, we have serious
concerns about a failure to operate procedures to deal with harassment and grievances.
There is a serious lack of morale among senior staff, and a feeling of employment
insecurity.
Those issues are well known both to the governing bodies concerned and in
the local community, but we see very little action by the governing bodies to
deal with those problems. There is no external body to which to complain. We have
raised issues with departmental officials, who tell us that they are matters for
the governing body. If the governing body does not wish to address an issue, very
little can be done about it. We need an ombudsman; your recommendation goes some
way towards meeting that need. There has to be some institution or body that can
enquire into what is happening in our colleges when the need arises.
The current model for incorporation has to be revisited. Northern Ireland
plc cannot afford to have 17 competing institutions. We need institutions that
are in harmony with one another and with other providers, such as the schools.
Chapter 11 of the Burns report is all about linkages between schools and further
education. Our further education colleges have a bad image among parents in regard
to link courses. Schools used further education colleges for years. They would
send along a bunch of difficult pupils to the tech for a day in order to get some
peace. That has done our sector no favours. We need constructive links between
schools and colleges so that children of all abilities can come into the further
education sector, see what is available, and be able to develop as a result.
At the other end of the spectrum, your report identifies the close links
between the further education colleges and the universities. Those are important
links on which we have to build. With the introduction of foundation degrees,
there is a need to strengthen that process.
We would argue that the Government are currently minded to set up two forums
to deal with the links between further and higher education and schools. The Further
Education Consultative Committee has recently been abolished. The role of the
Training and Employment Agency has been extended to advise Government on further
education. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council (NIHEC) is
being revisited.
Our view is that we need a single, overarching, strategic planning body
for education and training in Northern Ireland. We would include the private training
organisations in that, as they should not be left out of the debate. There are
more than 100 of those organisations, which focus mainly on Jobskills and skills
training, and they cannot be marginalised. Issues concerning the skills and qualifications
of tutors in that sector must be looked at.
I have outlined our major concerns about incorporation. I shall conclude
with a point about staff in the further education sector. As I have said, we have
a dwindling band of full-time teachers. The number of part-time teachers in further
education colleges in the past decade has risen from 1,600 or 1,700 to around
2,700. It is difficult to give a precise figure because many are in and out of
employment.
That is a process of "casualisation". Part-time staff are employed
because they are cheaper to employ than full-time teachers. Colleges shed their
full-time staff and expand using part-time staff. We have concerns about the quality
of delivery when part-time teachers deliver perhaps 25% of our overall provision.
We in the sector need to rethink that. More full-time teachers must be employed
in the sector, and we need to ensure that part-time teachers are sufficiently
qualified and have opportunities for staff development so that they can contribute
as much as full-time teachers.
Our staff teach in poorly resourced colleges. Classroom subjects have benefited
from some of the additional money, especially areas such as information and communication
technology (ICT). Little additional provision has gone to areas such as engineering,
craft courses et cetera. The reports of the skills task force in Northern Ireland
show that a dearth of skills at the higher end is not the problem; rather, there
is a shortage in Northern Ireland of middle-level skills, such as technical and
craft skills. Our FE colleges are well placed to deliver in those areas, but we
need better resources to achieve that.
Workload is also a problem for our members. In the past decade, there has
been curriculum initiative after initiative — from GCSEs to NVQs and GNVQs. Now
we have AVCEs (Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education) and AS levels. I
am sorry for the use of acronyms — the workload associated with those seems to
rise in proportion to the number of letters in the acronym.
We are now at a point at which every student who joins a college enters
into a personal learning agreement with the college. That college is committed
to meeting the personal needs of that student. In the past, a teacher could mark
a bunch of assignments, but now he or she must comment in detail and give greater
support to individual students. Then there is the paperchase to meet the quality
assurance standards et cetera. Our teachers are suffering because of their workload.
We need to look at ways to slim down the bureaucracy in the sector.
Our colleges are well placed to meet the skills needs of Northern Ireland
plc. Indeed, we should harness the needs of regional development. We also must
address the massive problem of underachievement from which our society suffers,
and we need resources to tackle that. The problems of adult literacy will not
be addressed by using volunteers. Those students who have missed the education
boat the first time around will not sit in a classroom with 30 other students,
take out a "Janet and John" book to read and hope that they will start
from there — it does not work like that. Adult remedial support is given very
much on a one-to-one approach, and the needs of the individual are considered.
That is expensive, but it must be done.
Mr McCann will now remark on higher education, before the Committee members
question us.
Mr McCann:
I shall respond to how your report’s recommendations relate to higher education.
One recommendation relates to the need to continue to attract high quality staff
to our universities and colleges, and we commend that. I am sad to say that pay
levels in higher education are still low — the Bett report reckoned that they
fell 20% to 30% below comparable professions. There are problems in attracting
our most able graduates into higher education. In the two university colleges
— St Mary’s University College and Stranmillis University College — most of our
recruits are experienced primary and secondary education teachers.
They are not attracted into higher education because salaries have fallen
so far behind. The Committee also mentioned the issues of widening participation
and student finance in its report. We put on record our continued concern about
the burden of debt that many students face. Although the changes announced in
Northern Ireland will bring some improvements, they still fall a long way short
of addressing all the local issues. There is clear evidence that the threat of
student debt is discouraging certain groups from becoming involved in higher and
further education.
One particular problem within teacher training is that the Bachelor of Education
degree course is four years long. Students, therefore, incur fees, loans and debts
over those four years whereas students who take a three-year degree and who then
go on to do a post-graduate certificate in education have no fees to pay for the
post-graduate course. That is an anomaly that must be rectified. Many students
leave the new system only to enter the job market burdened with considerable debts.
In the press these figures are often calculated on a three-year basis, but that
overlooks the four years that many students spend at University. BEd degrees,
music and art degrees take four years. That is a heavy burden for a young person
to carry into the workplace. I hope that that group will not be overlooked.
We support your report’s recommendation that student numbers in Northern
Ireland should be increased. Although our two universities may be close to maximum
capacity, the two university colleges still have considerable scope for growth.
The teacher training colleges now diversify and there is growth into other courses.
At present, no additional funding is made available to the teacher training colleges
other than fees.
The Committee’s report drew attention to the weaknesses in the UK-wide system
of research assessment and quality assurance. This week I am undergoing the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) process and I am expecting a result
within the next 30 minutes. This is a bureaucratic, paper-heavy exercise
that should be slimmed down. NATFHE is, however, firmly committed to this information
being made available to students. We do not want to return to a system where universities
are not accountable to the public for the quality of their provision. The system
is in urgent need of change.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much. That was a powerful and well-summarised case. We have
heard some of those points before, but you have brought them together very well.
We are in open session, but if either you or Committee members wish to ask
questions about a particular college we can move into closed session. We can,
if you wish, ask you to return to discuss particular colleges confidentially in
future. We have heard reports about some of the cases you mention from other sources.
Mr Beggs:
Mr McCann and Mr McKeown both referred to the bureaucracy that
is involved in teaching. A local college lecturer told me that between a third
and a half of his time was spent on paperwork and not on teaching. Not only had
he to ensure that accurate reporting was done on the course work for the examinations
bodies, he also had to give an account to the Training and Employment Agency,
which is duplication. Is it an accurate assessment that a third of teachers’ time
is spent on paperwork?
Mr McKeown:
It varies from teacher to teacher and from course to course, but it is a
big problem. The best person to answer that may be Mr Kenny, who is a practising
teacher and who has experienced problems with the introduction of Curriculum 2000.
Mr Kenny:
Teachers spend much of their time doing repetitive administrative work.
The Department for Employment and Learning may ask for information, and the Training
and Employment Agency will ask for the same information shortly afterwards. That
is frustrating.
Further education colleges are geared towards providing examining bodies
with a wealth of information. It is not merely a question of ticking boxes: informed
judgements must be made, and that takes time. Less and less time is spent lecturing
and training students because of the emphasis on providing evidence of work, which
can only be done through forms. That is a real problem.
Mr Beggs:
Is there a solution?
Mr Kenny:
It should be possible to transfer information from one form to another on
our computers, but the system is unsatisfactory. Various bodies often ask me for
my curriculum vitae; however, when one has been teaching for a long time one often
forgets what is on it, and searching the computer takes time. It wastes a great
deal of time.
Mr Byrne:
Is the Northern Ireland model of incorporation good or bad? If it is bad,
what changes should be made to it? Are there difficulties with accountability
and transparency? Can you comment on press reports about inequity of funding between
full-time students in further education and those in grammar schools? What provision
will further education colleges make for vocational education and/or training
and/or higher education in future?
Mr McKeown:
Since 1998 we have moved away from the control of the education and library
boards, and I should not like to return to it. We advocate a change in the Further
Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; further education colleges should operate
as a sector and not as individual fiefdoms. If the Department’s role was more
centralising that could more easily be achieved. We see no reason why governing
bodies cannot be more open; they are, after all, public bodies.
Theoretically, minutes are available in libraries, but I assure you that
when we visit colleges we find the minutes of the governing bodies’ meetings hard
to track down. There is no reason why the governing body should not be open to
the public. Sometimes, of course, the details of individual members of staff must
remain confidential, but for the most part governing bodies should be open institutions.
I understand that in England there is consideration of having at least one public
meeting a year.
We want to see much more community representation on our governing bodies,
and there should also be more staff representatives in order to improve transparency.
Some of our colleges have only one member of staff on a governing body. The regulations
provide for student participation, but when we spoke to the students’ union we
got the clear impression that that is not always welcomed. That is sad, because
the colleges exist to serve the students and to listen to their views.
The unit of resource in further education is a major problem. Historically,
our colleges have been funded at a much lower level than grammar schools with
an equivalent number of students. It would be a great boost if we could achieve
that level of funding.
There is, however, another unit of resource in higher education. Approximately
10% of higher education in Northern Ireland is taught in further education colleges,
some of which see their future as polytechnics. We do not share that view. We
recognise the need for a good further education sector. We do not need to reinvent
polytechnics — Government did that and moved on from it.
In Scotland, approximately 40% of higher education is provided in the further
education sector. Therefore in campaigning for more places in higher education
in Northern Ireland, we recognise that the capacity already exists to pick up
on community needs through university colleges such as Stranmillis and St Mary’s
as well as through the further education sector. Your report identified approximately
3,700 students who left the University of Ulster a year ago to become part of
the brain drain because there were no places for them in Northern Ireland. Reducing
even that number would be a great advantage to the local community, because we
find that entrance level examinations for Northern Ireland universities are set
so high that the elite are to some extent creamed off. Many of our very able young
people who came through the secondary rather than the grammar school system —
and that provides us with another challenge — have reached a level of qualification
to go to university but do not have three A grades or two As and one B. They have,
however, a great deal of determination. Social deprivation may also have been
a factor in their initial level of achievement. They are exported across the water
because we have no places for them here. Something must be done about that.
If higher education in further education colleges is to expand, let it do
so on a level playing field with regard to resources. There is no reason why a
higher education student in a further education college should be funded at approximately
£2,200, while funding for a student who is doing a Higher National Diploma at
the University of Ulster is approximately £4,600. That inequity must be redressed.
The further education sector has two functions in society. One is as an
institution of second chance. People develop at different speeds. Before the age
of 16 they may not be terribly motivated or they may leave school to go to work.
Later in life, however, they may feel that they want or need other qualifications.
Our further education colleges exist to give people a second chance. They
should provide academic as well as vocational qualifications and courses. We can,
and do, do both. We are concerned about the pressure that the Department puts
on colleges with regard to GCSEs. Like it or not, GCSEs have a currency, as far
as parents and employers are concerned, that national vocational qualifications
(NVQs) and general national vocational qualifications (GNVQs) do not. Our colleges
are disadvantaged because they are being encouraged to shed GCSE provision. There
is a need for GCSEs, and we have a role in continuing to provide them.
Mr Carrick:
Can you explain the divergence of opinion between NATFHE and the Department,
as it, to use your words, regards incorporation as bedding down and as having
a positive effect? You spoke about the fallacy that more money is coming in based
on an increase in student numbers. You said that there has been a loss of 700
teachers over 10 years and that the increase in the number of students compounds
the problem. Are there other reasons to discredit the Department’s assessment
of the positive effect of incorporation and its bedding down?
Mr McKeown:
I have the highest regard for Robson Davison and Catherine Bell. I am not
criticising them; they are officials who are delivering a policy. The policy is
taking our colleges down the road of independent competing corporations. Officials
are stuck with that model — it is very difficult for the Civil Service to admit
that all this has been a mistake. Nevertheless, a mistake is what it has been.
In its submission, the Department justifies itself by saying that there
is more money and more students, and that therefore it is bedding down and the
policy is having positive effects. More students were already in the system, and
more money has been put into the sector. However, I have figures that show where
the money has gone. Before incorporation the ratio of teachers to support staff
was about five to one. The ratio today is one full-time teacher to one member
of support staff. That illustrates where the cash has gone.
Mr Carrick:
Can you provide other examples? That statistic is a stark example and it
forms a very persuasive argument.
Mr McKeown:
The Department says that incorporation is having positive effects. It wants
to deal with the skills agenda and regional development and it wants to develop
strategic objectives. There is not much evidence to date to suggest that our colleges
are meeting strategic objectives. Colleges will have to start meeting objectives
because the Department is starting to introduce earmarked funding that is geared
towards meeting strategic objectives. Hitherto, colleges have not been doing so.
Throughout the 1990s student numbers increased, but we are only scratching
the surface of the problem of the many people who have poor literacy and numeracy
skills. There is no real evidence that we are widening access and participation
among those people. The Department does not really produce statistical information
on students’ achievement. Where are the figures that show that before incorporation
the success rate in colleges was 60% and that it is now 75%? The evidence is absent;
in our experience students’ tuition time is being reduced while class sizes are
becoming larger.
We do not know the output figures across the sector. We want to see that
problem tackled. We must be careful about throwing out glib statistics into the
public domain that can give a totally wrong impression of the sector. Our further
education colleges deal with many young people who were not high fliers at school.
A great deal of work is done when they enter further education in adding value.
As a result, our young people may get passes, whereas the high fliers who go through
grammar schools achieve distinctions. Statistical information that monitors achievement
by colleges must take into account the true value that has been added to the abilities
of young people who go through the system. We do not think that we have anything
to worry about but we cannot say that incorporation has improved college outputs.
We simply do not know; but we do not think that it has.
Mrs Carson:
You have given the Committee a good insight into the problems of the colleges
and of the wide range of abilities in them. Have standards of literacy and numeracy
fallen? Is it the place of colleges to tackle students’ problems with literacy
and numeracy; or should that be done elsewhere? I have perhaps put you on the
spot with that.
Do you enter into a personal learning agreement with students? How do you
deal with students who have aspirations beyond their capabilities? Do you steer
students towards particular courses? How much time is involved?
Mr McKeown:
It is hard to believe that there is an adult literacy problem at this point
in the twenty-first century; unfortunately, it exists. A great deal of work is
done in schools, and the Burns review shows that much more is likely to be achieved.
If society is conscientious, that problem should reduce significantly as standards
rise in schools and elsewhere.
An estimated 78% of our workforce is under the age of 50, and many of them
can be termed low achievers. Our further education colleges — or someone in society
— must do something about that, because low achievers are much more likely to
be unemployed or in jail or to suffer the effects of other forms of social deprivation
and to face multiple barriers to employment. If we are serious about improving
standards we simply cannot disregard those people in the hope that their problems
will go away. With proper support they can make a meaningful contribution to society.
It does not require vast investment; it does, however, require some investment
and it also requires a commitment to giving them opportunities to acquire skills
to enter the job market.
Mr Kenny:
Every student must have an individual learning agreement. Many colleges
are faced with the problem of having to find enough students for a course to make
it viable.
That is a constraint. When playing the numbers game, one must decide whom
one will turn away, and that creates problems. In some instances students cannot
get onto their course of first choice and perhaps not even onto their course of
second choice. They end up on the next course available. Education is never wasted;
but we doubt whether such a system is the best way of tackling the skills shortage.
It will take a lecturer at least a week in the first part of the year to
deal with individual learning agreements. Each student must be dealt with individually,
and we must have key skills for all our students in application of numbers, communications
and information technology. Most of our students are at levels one and two; very
few are at level three, which is the A-level bracket. All the correct information
must be collated before one can make judgements, and one must know their GCSE
results. Some students may be in their twenties; some may not have done GCSEs.
It is a very time-consuming structure; it must, however, be done.
Mrs Nelis:
Your presentation makes for dismal reading. It shows that a very important
sector of education is being mismanaged. I agree that we must look very seriously
at the model of incorporation. From what you have said today, it seems that it
has not worked. There must be an evaluation; in any other sector that would have
been done long ago because public money is involved.
You say that the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges (ANIC), which
the Committee will meet shortly, has failed to provide the leadership, cohesion
and unity of purpose that is so important for the 17 colleges. Indeed, two of
the largest colleges are outside NATFHE. What could replace it? John McKinley,
the new director of the Peace II fund, assured me that there is no duplication
of Peace II funds. What is your opinion?
Mr McKeown:
May I take the second part first? I am not an expert on Peace funds and
I cannot say whether there is duplication. I cannot help you with that.
Our comments about ANIC should not be interpreted as an attack on any individual
member of staff of that body. We know that the staff of ANIC are professional,
hard-working people; we have a good working relationship with them and we wish
them well. When we say that ANIC has failed we mean that it has not brought the
colleges together in a co-ordinated way. We wish it were not so.
We are not asking for ANIC to be scrapped and replaced by something else.
We want the two colleges that have gone their own way to recognise that it is
not in the best interests of our sector for them to sit outside and blow raspberries
at the rest of us; because that, metaphorically speaking, is what they do. We
feel that those two colleges should be told that they are a part of the sector
and that they should act in a co-ordinated way.
Divergence in the sector gives rise to practical difficulties. Let us say
that the Department wants to set up a curriculum initiative to do with the promotion
of software engineering. It did something similar with the Lecturers into Industry
initiative. You will recall, Mr Chairman, that we were party to the instigation
of that important scheme.
Committees are set up for software engineering, and engineering for tourism
and construction. In those committees, someone has to be appointed from ANIC,
BIFHE and the North West Institute. When a committee is set up for any kind of
initiative across the sector it must have representatives from each of those colleges.
The end result resembles a conference rather than a committee. Some people who
attend those committees pursue an individual agenda rather than one for the wider
social good. That is neither helpful nor necessary. They are public sector institutions
that get the vast bulk of their funding from the public purse. They should do
the public’s bidding, as expressed through their elected representatives.
We are not suggesting that ANIC should be scrapped. Your recommendations
refer to centralised support services et cetera. We think that ANIC should be
expanded to take over those services, and that there should be a centralised support
service for the sector, with ANIC and all the colleges involved.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. I am sorry that we ran over time, but that shows that Members
were interested in what you had to say. You have presented a very powerful and
cogent case. The Committee shares many of your concerns, and we shall consider
them. We have heard similar comments from a variety of sources.
Thank you for your previous written submissions. We may want to talk to
you again in the near future. We could pursue some areas of the details in a closed
setting. We wish you, the FE staff, the university colleges and teaching bodies
well. We know that you do valuable work for our society and economy.
Mr McKeown:
I thank the Committee for its time and courtesy. It has done extremely valuable
work to date, especially in its report.
ANNEX 2
Northern Ireland
Assembly
Committee for Employment and Learning
Response to the Committee of the Centre’s European Inquiry
The Committee for Employment and Learning welcomes the opportunity to
respond to the Inquiry being undertaken by the Committee of the Centre into the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the current approach of the Northern Ireland
Assembly and the Institutions of Europe. The Committee regards this as a very
prevalent cross-cutting issue.
Structure of the response
We have been asked to respond to the questionnaire prepared by the Committee
of the Centre, which takes the following form: -
-
What are the main areas within your remit where the European Union has had
an impact?
Employment issues i.e. the Employment Tribunal System – Industrial Tribunals
and Fair Employment Tribunals.
Where there is EC Legislation Directives this results in our Legislation
being amended, for example :-
Terms of Employment
Work-Life Balance
Hours of Work
Consultation of Employees (redundancies)
Powers of Unions
Adoption of best practice e.g. other countries initiatives, EU funding
packages. In November 2001 the Department for Employment and
Learning received £21 million of European Social Funding for
employment and training projects.
-
When your committee is dealing with
-
Legislation
-
Inquiries
-
Policy
-
Funding
-
Other
How is it made aware of any EU aspect?
This is picked up through explanatory notes, research briefings,
departmental briefs, literature and web searches.
-
Approximately how many items of EU business has your Committee dealt with
since Devolution in relation to:
-
Legislation -
Three pieces of Secondary Legislation
-
Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland)
1998
-
Fixed Term Worker Regulations – Enabling Clause in GB
Employment Bill
-
Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2001
-
Inquiries - Two Inquiries with some reference to EU perspective
(i) Student Finance in Northern Ireland
(ii) Education and Training for Industry
-
Policy - referred to in seven Committee Responses – see
10.
-
Funding - Two – see 10.
-
Other - None.
-
(a) How often does your Committee discuss EU related matters?
EU matters would be referred to bi-monthly/monthly
-
How long, on average, would they last for?
Five to ten minutes.
-
What committee do you see as the lead committee on EU affairs?
Committee of the Centre
-
Do you feel that your current source of EU information is sufficient, i.e.
from department, research information, and explanatory notes in a bill?
No. It is the Committee’s experience that the information provided tends
to be reactive not proactive, it is clearly seen that there is a need to be in
at the early stage to have any influence or impact. There is no central, user-friendly,
source to access EU information.
-
How can your committee improve and enhance contacts with the European Commission?
Guidance Notes should be drawn up outlining the process. There should
be one source of high quality proactive early warning information for all Committees
in the Assembly.
-
Should there be a secondee scheme (e.g. Whitehall, Brussels)?
Yes – could be considered.
-
What use is made of the NI Executive office in Brussels?
Very early days to make a substantive response. As the office in Brussels
is there to support the Northern Ireland Executive primarily for departments and
ministers. It is our understanding that its remit does not include briefing and
informing committees.
10. Additional information/comments
-
To date, the Minister for Employment and Learning has not attended
any Council of Ministers meetings.
-
The Department for Employment and Learning’s Financial Audit Support Team
(FAST) undertakes some 70 audits each year of EU projects and Intermediary Funding
Bodies. Such audits are undertaken based on a risk analysis or at the request
of the Department’s European Unit when it identifies a cause for concern in a
particular case. Following a FAST audit report the European Unit or the relevant
Intermediary Funding Body has responsibility to follow it up. Such follow up is
monitored by FAST, which produces a quarterly management information report
for the Head of Finance and European Division.
-
The expenditure within the Department for Employment Learning on the PEACE
I Programme includes a 25% match funding contribution paid by Government. The
overall EU contribution, as a percentage of Departmental Expenditure including
PEACE, in the financial year 1999-2000, was 8.48%.
-
Funding is allocated to the following Programmes under the remit of the
Department for Employment and Learning :-
-
Northern Ireland Single Programme –
Management, Entrepreneurial and Workforce Training
Training in New Technology
Training for the Tourism Industry
Targeting Community Needs
Pathways to Employment
Skills Development
Actions for Equal Opportunities
Actions for Special Target Groups
Research, Evaluation and Publicity
Training Infrastructure
Training for the Food Sector
-
PEACE I Programme –
Boosting Growth and Retraining for Peace
Action for Jobs
Improving Accessibility and Quality of Training, Education and Employment
Services
Accompanying Infrastructure and Equipment Support
Co-operation between Public Bodies
Sub-Programme 7 : Technical Assistance
Sub-Programme 8: Flagships
-
Community Initiatives –
Now
Horizon
Integra
Youthstart
Employment Technical Assistance
Interreg II
Konver
Retex
-
The Committee’s Recommendations, in the Report on the Inquiry into Education
and Training for Industry, stemmed from the poor position of Northern Ireland
relative to other European Countries, for example :-
Recommendation 1
Further additional funding and resources should be made immediately
available to support literacy and numeracy development schemes to correct the
poor levels of adult basic skills in Northern Ireland. These schemes should include
provision for both personal development and social skills training.
Recommendation 2
Initiate and fund research into developing effective models of workplace
basic skills development and the effective sharing of best practice.
-
The Committee for Employment and Learning has responded on the following
areas which interface with European funding, strategy and legislation :-
-
Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment)
Regulations (NI) 2000 - Response to the Department for
Employment and Learning – 9 November 2000.
-
Executive’s draft Programme for Government (October 2000) and
Public Expenditure Plans 2001/02 – Response to the Committee
for Finance and Personnel – 9 November 2000.
-
Proposals to simplify and speed up Equal Pay Industrial Tribunal
cases – Response to Department for Employment Learning – 28
February 2001.
-
Urban Regeneration and Community Development in Northern Ireland – Response
to the Committee for Social Development Inquiry – 5 July 2001.
-
Single Equality Bill for Northern Ireland – Response to the First Minister
and Deputy first Minister – 5 July 2001.
-
Improving Rights for Disabled People – Northern Ireland Executive
Response to the Disability Rights Task Force – Response to the
Office of the First and Deputy First Minister – 29 November 2001.
-
Employment Tribunal System – ‘Routes to Resolution: Improving
Dispute Resolution in Britain’ issued by the Department of Trade
And Industry – Response to the Department for Employment and
Learning November 2001.
(h) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
1981 (TUPE) – 10 January 2002.
-
The Committee recommends that the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels
adopt a policy of support for all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
-
The Committee recommends that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have
a dedicated proactive Information Service on European issues for Committees and
Members.
Dr Esmond Birnie, MLA
Chairman
24 January 2002
ANNEX 3
Northern Ireland
Assembly
Dr Esmond Birnie MLA, Chairman
Committee for Employment and Learning
Ms Carmel Hanna MLA
Minister for Employment and Learning
Adelaide House
39/49 Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8FD 31 January 2002
Re: Consultation Paper – Statutory Backing for Trade Union Learning Representatives
The Committee for Employment and Learning debated this document at their
meeting on Thursday 24 January 2002.
The Committee is broadly in agreement with these Proposals to provide Statutory
Rights for Union Learning Representatives. This will ensure they have the same
rights to paid time off for their initial training and to carry out their duties
as those enjoyed by shop stewards and other union representatives, at workplaces
where a union is recognised for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee
will keep further developments under review.
Yours sincerely
Dr Esmond Birnie, MLA
Chairman
