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.

 

2. 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

 

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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: -

1. 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.

2. When your committee is dealing with

1. Legislation

2. Inquiries

3. Policy

4. Funding

5. 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.

1. Approximately how many items of EU business has your Committee dealt with since Devolution in relation to:

1. Legislation -

Three pieces of Secondary Legislation

9. Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland)

1998

2. Fixed Term Worker Regulations - Enabling Clause in GB

Employment Bill

3. Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal

(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations

(Northern Ireland) 2001

1. Inquiries - Two Inquiries with some reference to EU perspective

(i) Student Finance in Northern Ireland

(ii) Education and Training for Industry

2. Policy - referred to in seven Committee Responses - see 10.

3. Funding - Two - see 10.

4. Other - None.

1. (a) How often does your Committee discuss EU related matters?

EU matters would be referred to bi-monthly/monthly

2. How long, on average, would they last for?

Five to ten minutes.

1. What committee do you see as the lead committee on EU affairs?

Committee of the Centre

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Should there be a secondee scheme (e.g. Whitehall, Brussels)?

Yes - could be considered.

5. 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

9. To date, the Minister for Employment and Learning has not attended

any Council of Ministers meetings.

2. 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.

3. 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%.

4. Funding is allocated to the following Programmes under the remit of the Department for Employment and Learning :-

1. 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

2. 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

3. Community Initiatives -

Now

Horizon

Integra

Youthstart

Employment Technical Assistance

Interreg II

Konver

Retex

2. 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.

3. The Committee for Employment and Learning has responded on the following areas which interface with European funding, strategy and legislation :-

1. Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment)

Regulations (NI) 2000 - Response to the Department for

Employment and Learning - 9 November 2000.

2. 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.

3. Proposals to simplify and speed up Equal Pay Industrial Tribunal

cases - Response to Department for Employment Learning - 28

February 2001.

4. Urban Regeneration and Community Development in Northern Ireland - Response to the Committee for Social Development Inquiry - 5 July 2001.

5. Single Equality Bill for Northern Ireland - Response to the First Minister and Deputy first Minister - 5 July 2001.

6. 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.

7. 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 -29 November 2001.

(h) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations

1981 (TUPE) - 10 January 2002.

2. The Committee recommends that the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels adopt a policy of support for all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

3. 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

17 January 2002 / Menu / 31 January 2002