The Scottish Government

Working Group - Accountability and Governance

Minutes of Meeting on September 1, 2005, at3pm in Room 2.06, Europa Building, Glasgow

Attendees:

Aileen McKechnie (Chair)
Margaret McLachlan (Secretariat)
Col Baird, FAED
George Reid, FAED
David Caldwell, University Scotland
Neil Cuthbert, ASC
Sandy Watson, Interim Chair Angus College
Jennifer McLaren, SFEFC
John Cassidy, EIS
James Alexander, NUS Scotland
Ian Graham, John Wheatley College

Apologies:

Fiona Farmer, AMICUS
Linda McKay, Falkirk College

1. Introduction

Welcome from Chair and introductions.

2. Update on the Review

There are 4 workstreams for the Review; The Difference Colleges Make, Staffing and Learning Environments, Accountability & Governance and Colleges' Strategic Future.

The other three workstreams have recently held their initial meeting.

Board Chairs were issued in July with a survey on how Boards have changed over the last two years. The due date for returns of this survey is 9 September and analysis of the responses will be made available to members at the next meeting.

The Review team has visited several College Principals and is currently organising visits to college stakeholders to discuss the difference colleges make.

A meeting with NUS Scotland has been arranged for Wednesday 7 September about research which is being undertaken. They will be looking at student/learner representation in colleges, gaining views on learning and teaching, the learning environment and accountability and governance.

A meeting with SFEU has also been arranged to discuss SFEU's research project on Quality and Diversity.

3. Initial Discussion Paper

• The remit of the group is to "build on the work of previous reviews and examine the arrangements for accountability and governance in Incorporated Colleges". It was noted that the ongoing survey of governance and accountability activity would be completed by the next meeting and would be discussed then.
• ASC has agreed to prepare an initial paper on their thoughts and recommendations on the particular issues identified in the remit of the group.
• Ministerial Powers of Intervention need to be considered as a matter of urgency and a further meeting will be arranged for the end of September to discuss the group's recommendations which will be put to the Core Group prior to their meeting in early October.
• It was generally felt that Ministerial powers of direction should remain as the status quo so long as it does not affect the colleges' status as charities. Questions were however raised of the likely overlap of responsibilities of Ministers and the Charity Regulator. The Executive are meeting with the Charity Regulator shortly and will also look at this issue of dual powers. The ASC met recently with the Regulator.
• It was suggested that the term of office of the student representation of the Board should perhaps be extended until November to allow the student unions time to re-elect a representative at the beginning of a student term.
• It was agreed that it would be good to hear from Student Participation in Quality Scotland (SPARQS) about quality assurance. NUS agreed to provide details regarding the SPARQS event arranged for October.
• John Wheatley College agreed to host one of the working group meetings and to arrange for student union representatives to be present.
• The idea of the right of colleges to be represented in other areas, for example, to sit on the New Community Health Partnership Board was raised. The Executive agreed to clarify the statutory status of colleges within community planning. A query was raised about LEC representation on college boards if the Network structure were to change.
• There was some discussion about the regulation of the sector and the potential for overlap of jurisdiction. It was agreed that this should be looked at as a discrete piece of work.
• The length of board membership for chairs of college boards was discussed as the changes to the rules for board members could prove problematic for them.
• The length of board membership of staff members was discussed. The numbers of staff representatives which ere reduced at the time of incorporation was also raised.
• It was considered that the role of the Accountable Officer should be more defined and that new appointees should receive some form of induction which should include advice on their relationship with SFEFC and their relationship with the Chair of the Board. This should be added to the 5th bullet point of item 9 in the Initial Discussion Paper.

Timescale

It was highlighted that the difference in timescales for completion of the workstreams is due to staff resources and that the timelines have not been ranked in order of importance but in order of urgency.

Although there may be some scope to extend the deadline of mid February 2007 slightly due to uncertainty around timing of the Spending Review, every effort should be made to meet this timescale, given the increasing importance of being able to defend existing baselines.

It was agreed to keep the timetable under review and bring forward where appropriate. It was agreed to have a further meeting in September to discuss the charitable status issue.

The value of a Stakeholder Conference was discussed. The Executive to consider further.

List of Action Points

Analysis of responses to survey of how Boards have changed over the last two years to be made available for next meeting. ( Col Baird)

Meeting to be arranged for end of September to deal with Ministerial Powers of Intervention. (Margaret McLachlan)

ASC to prepare an initial paper on their thoughts and recommendations on the particular issues identified in the remit of the group. (Neil Cuthbert)

NUS to provide details regarding the SPARQS event arranged for October. (James Alexander)

Executive to clarify status of colleges within community planning. ( Col Baird)

The role of and relationship of the Accountable Officer to be added to the 5th bullet point of item 9 in the Initial Discussion Paper. ( Col Baird)

Investigation into the broader regulatory landscape to be undertaken, looking at the regulation of the sector and the potential for overlap of jurisdiction. ( Col Baird)

A revised remit and timetable to be produced. (Margaret McLachlan)

Secretariat to liaise with John Wheatley Collegeregarding arrangements of the working group meeting being hosted by the College. (Margaret McLachlan)

Margaret McLachlan

FAED
ETLLD

September 9, 2005

WORKING GROUP: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE IN INCORPORATED COLLEGES

Purpose

1. To provide a basis for members to discuss how the group should complete its work.

Background

Earlier Review

2. The 2002/03 review followed investigations by the Auditor General for Scotland and the Parliament's Audit Committee of the governance and financial management of Moray College. Both recommended that a review of governance and accountability within the Scottish FE sector should be undertaken. Ministers agreed to the recommendations and a consultation paper (structured around those aspects on which the Auditor General and the Audit Committee particularly focused) was issued in May 2002.

3. The Ministerial Report on completion of the review in March 2003 stated that:

"Ministers intend to keep under ongoing review governance and accountability arrangements in the further education sector. Given the range of measures which are proposed as a result of the current Review, and others which are already in train, Ministers see it as important to assess the impact of these and to make any further necessary changes in the light of that. Ministers therefore will further review the impact of the above package of changes after two years."

4. The Executive is currently analysing the responses to a consultation paper issued in July 2004 on the implementation of two commitments in the Ministerial Report - reducing the maximum length of board membership and removing the restriction of local authority employees/members chairing FE boards.

5. The Executive wrote to the chairs of incorporated colleges at the end of July 2005 asking them to return a survey by September 9 to build up a picture of how Boards have changed over the last two years. The returns will form part of the evidence base for the Working Group's future considerations. A copy of the questionnaire is attached as an annex.

Ministerial Powers of Intervention

6. The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 received Royal Assent on 14 July 2005. It will create a single framework for charity registration and regulation in Scotland, modernise fundraising activities undertaken in Scotland and establish the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR). There are several steps to be taken before most of the provisions can be implemented. The Executive aims for OSCR to assume its new powers and responsibilities by the end of April 2006, with the result that this issue must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

7. Ministers may by Order disapply the usual requirement under the Act that charities are entirely independent of Ministers. The current powers of Ministers to intervene in the affairs of colleges could without such an Order affect colleges' status as charities.

Current Powers of Ministers to Intervene

8. The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 gives Ministers powers to:

• establish, merge or close colleges
• change the name of a college
• issue a Direction to a college board (which must be complied with)
• remove any or all members of a college board where there has been mismanagement, and then appoint new members
• decide on how the assets of a college, once closed, should be disposed

Remit

9. The remit of the group is to "build on the work of previous reviews and examine the arrangements for accountability and governance in Incorporated Colleges including:

• whether boards should be responsible for appointing their own membership, including the chair of the board
• strengthening learner participation
• enhancing the capacity of board members
• whether the chair and other board members should be remunerated
• the roles of, and relationships between, the chair, board and principal to ensure maximum quality oversight, including the Board's ability to obtain independent advice
• whether there is a continuing need for powers of Ministerial intervention
• the composition of the boards, including whether more needs to be done to ensure diversity and the current statutory requirement for 50% of board members to have capacity in "industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession

10. Views of members are invited on the remit of the group, recognising that further matters are likely to be identified as the group's work progresses.

Timescale

10. It is envisaged that the activities will principally involve research, interviews with stakeholders, a written consultation exercise and a consultation conference for college board members and other interested parties. This workstream is generally not time critical, so the aim would be to complete it by February 2007. The exception to this is consideration of the continuing need for Ministerial powers of intervention.

1 September 2005
First meeting of Working Group to agree process for review and scope of work, including preliminary consideration of research needs

End September 2005
Meeting of Working Group to consider need for Ministerial powers of intervention; take stock of recent reviews, and if necessary identify further research requirements.

April - May 2006
Interviews with stakeholders

End May 2006
Receive research, if appropriate

End June 2006
Meeting of Working Group to consider research and frame consultation questions

End August 2006
Issue consultation paper

October 2006
Stakeholder conference

December 2006
Meeting of Working Group to consider analysis of consultation responses.

mid January 2007
Meeting of Working Group to discuss draft report.

mid February 2007
Final meeting of Working Group to agree report.

11. Views of members are invited on the proposed timescale for the group's work and on how regularly the group should meet.

Research

12. Possible research which could be commissioned include:

• comparing accountability and governance models for providers of further education elsewhere in the UK and internationally and for public services in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK; and comparing UK corporate governance models.
• analysing the current composition of college boards, including skills mix, gender balance etc.
• survey of college board members (and focus group discussion) on governance and accountability issues.
• survey of college staff and learners (and focus group discussion) on review issues, which could incorporate a governance and accountability 'strand'.

13. Views of members are invited on the research needs of the group.

Interviews with Stakeholders to Discuss Ministerial Powers of Intervention

14. Views of members are invited on which stakeholders the Reviews Team should meet to discuss whether Ministers should continue to be able exercise powers of intervention.

Reviews Team: Scotland 's Colleges
August 2005

ANNEX

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

Governance and Accountability in Scotland 's Colleges

This survey aims to look at how Boards have changed over the last two years, following the publication in 2003 of the Report of the 'Ministerial Review of Governance and Accountability In The Further Education Sector'.

Some of the main recommendations of the Report are listed at A-G below, followed by a number of questions which we would like you to answer.

Your assistance in completing this questionnaire is very much appreciated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. "Consider future independent involvement in Board appointment process."

1a) Has your College recruited new board members since April 2003?

1b) If yes, please say how many, and give the basis for their appointment (eg their specific skills or background, or their position as a staff or student representative)

1c) Did you commission external involvement in the appointment process? For how long has this been your Board's practice?

1d) If yes, please describe the role and expertise of the external body or person.

B. "Encourage college Boards to achieve a more diverse and representative balance of membership, taking account gender, race, age and disability."

2a) To what extent does your Board's appointment process take account of issues of diversity and equality?

2b) In broad terms, how would you describe the diversity of your Board in comparison to 2-3 years ago?

C. "Ensure that the appointments process followed by all college Boards are consistent and follow good practice in public appointments."

3a) How is your Board made aware of what constitutes good practice in public appointments?

3b) Please describe each of the main steps in your appointment process. (If appropriate, please feel free also to attach a copy of your Board's recruitment policy.)

3c) Please describe any changes to your Board's recruitment policies and procedures over the last 2-3 years?

D. "Make greater use of powers to co-opt individuals with specialised skills and expertise."

4a) What use does your Board make of its ability to co-opt individuals with specialist skills and expertise to committees of the Board?

4b) Has your use of this facility increased over the last 2-3 years?

4c) Can you please provide any examples of where co-option has taken place.

E. "Better utilise the public spiritedness and expertise of Board applicants by looking at the scope to encourage unsuccessful applicants to offer their skills to another college."

5a) Do you advertise Board vacancies centrally on the ASC web site?

5b) Do you make unsuccessful applicants aware of Board vacancies in other colleges?

5c) Do you liaise with other colleges when seeking to recruit Board members?

5d) Describe any difficulties your Board has faced in attracting applicants of the desired calibre. Have these increased or improved in the last 2-3 years?

F. "Introduce a national training programme for Board members."

6a) How helpful has the introduction by the ASC of revised Board Member training arrangements been?

6b) Are there any ways in which you consider training arrangements could be further enhanced?

6c) How many of your Board members have participated in the Board Member training of any sort?

G. "Examine the training arrangements for Secretaries to Boards and ensure that the role of the Secretary is defined in guidelines to Boards."

7a) From your point of view, and from your Board's, how successful are current arrangements for the training for Secretaries to the Board?

7b) As Secretary to the Board, do you consider that your role is sufficiently defined and understood?

General Comments

Please feel free to use this space for any additional comments relating to the questions above, or to any other aspect of college governance and accountability.

Finally, please give the following details:

NAME OF COLLEGE………………………………………………….

YOUR NAME ………………………………………………………….

YOUR POSITION………………………………………………………

PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY FRIDAY 9 SEPTEMBER TO: ANNA KYNASTON, FURTHER & ADULT EDUCATION DIVISION, SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE, EUROPA BUILDING ,450 ARGYLE STREET , GLASGOW G2 8LG

[1]http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/education/govandaccfe.pdf

[2]http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/feaccount.pdf

[3]http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/lifelonglearning/febm-00.asp

[4] This must be for a charitable purpose.