Subordinate Legislation
Public Services Reform (Recovery of Expenses in respect of Inspection of Independent Further Education Colleges and English Language Schools) (Scotland) Order 2012 [Draft]
Welcome back. Item 2 is evidence on a draft order.
I again welcome the cabinet secretary, who has stayed with us. I also welcome Ken Muir, HM chief inspector of education, Education Scotland, and John St Clair, senior principal legal officer, Scottish Government legal directorate. Members have received a cover note that sets out the order’s purpose. The item gives members the opportunity to ask any technical questions or to seek clarification on the order. The committee will deal with the motion on the order under item 3.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make opening remarks.
I will provide some brief background information on the need for this affirmative Scottish statutory instrument.
In March 2011, the United Kingdom Government’s Home Secretary announced changes to the UK Border Agency’s licensing arrangements for any UK education provider that wishes to sponsor a non-European economic area student. The changes required privately funded colleges and English language schools to be subject to a more rigorous inspection of the quality of their educational provision as one element in their application to the UKBA for highly trusted sponsor status. That status entitles such colleges and schools to sponsor, and hence bring to Scotland to study, non-EEA students who have been given tier 4 status on the UKBA’s points-based system for student visas.
11:00
As part of the March announcement, the UK Border Agency stated that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, which is now part of Education Scotland, would inspect the quality of educational provision in those privately funded colleges and English language schools in Scotland as part of UKBA’s revised accreditation and licensing processes. Other educational inspectorates were identified to carry out such inspections in other parts of the UK. I should point out that the Home Office’s decision to identify HMIE was taken without any consultation whatsoever with the Scottish ministers, Scottish Government officials or, indeed, HM inspectors.
Whether Education Scotland carries out the inspections of independent further education colleges and English language schools in Scotland is wholly at the discretion of the Scottish ministers, those private establishments having no entitlement to be inspected. It is right and proper that our own inspectors from Education Scotland carry out the inspections, and they have indicated to me their willingness to do so. Our inspectors carry high national and international credibility, have experience of college inspections and know the Scottish scene well.
Private further education colleges and English language schools in Scotland are willing to be inspected by Education Scotland for commercial reasons and are prepared to pay for the costs of the service. The service is not available to them, however, because Education Scotland is not resourced to offer it to them free of charge. More significantly, section 72 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 precludes the Scottish ministers from charging for any inspections carried out under section 66(1) of the Act. It is my view that that restriction on charging is an
“administrative inconvenience”
and an
“obstacle to efficiency, productivity and profitability”,
as outlined in section 17(2)(b) and (d) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and hence a “burden”, as defined by section 17 of that act.
The order’s removal of the burden will remove an administrative inconvenience and allow Education Scotland to charge independent further education colleges and English language schools for inspection, which would not otherwise take place.
Other benefits will also accrue from the removal of the burden. If Education Scotland carries out those inspections, the charges payable in respect to the inspections will be retained in the Scottish economy, which would not be the case under provision by an alternative, non-Scottish provider.
Secondly, there is a risk that, if the independent further education colleges and English language schools were not able to access their preferred route of inspection by Education Scotland, they could cut back on their business, with resultant job losses for the specialist staff they employ and a significant loss to the wider economy through removal of students’ purchasing power. Alternatively, they might cease operations in Scotland altogether, with the same results.
Thirdly, the inspection programme will provide parity between independent further education colleges and English language schools and publicly funded colleges. The independent further education colleges and English language schools concerned will, for the first time, be subject to the same measures of quality as publicly funded colleges.
Finally, the inspection process, the resultant published inspection report and any further activity carried out by Education Scotland in on-going support and development will help to drive up the quality of the learning and teaching in independent further education colleges and English language schools, and assist those that are currently high-quality providers to be fully recognised as part of a high-quality Scottish education system.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.
Before I bring in Liz Smith, I will ask a question myself. You mentioned that the order will remove an administrative block to charging—which is welcome—but my question is about capacity. We have just spent approximately an hour on Education Scotland’s extra support and its additional work on curriculum for excellence. What capacity does it have to carry out additional inspections?
It has the capacity to do so and the resource will help it to support that capacity. I am confident that it can undertake this work. There are 23 colleges in Scotland seeking highly trusted sponsor status and they will require inspection. The intention is that they will be inspected this year and that that will be the round of inspections. Bill Maxwell assures me that that is within the organisation’s capability, given that the process will involve the same staff as those involved in inspecting the college sector. Perhaps Ken Muir would like to say something about that.
Ken Muir (Education Scotland)
We have considered the resource required. If the order is agreed to, we plan to begin the inspections before the summer. Most of the English language schools in Scotland operate during the summer holidays, which is convenient in terms of timescale. We would dovetail those inspections with the period before we start our reviews of the publicly funded colleges, either in the autumn or at the beginning of 2013.
It will give the inspectorate something to do during the holidays.
I am sure that it is delighted about that, minister.
Do you envisage that the college in question will be asked to pay the fee for the inspection? Will there be any occasion on which a college abroad that has sent a student across under, say, the Comenius project is asked to pay part of the cost?
That would be for the college with which such a college abroad is associated to decide. Our request in asking colleges to complete the application form is for them to make the application themselves.
So it will be the Scottish college that pays.
Yes.
Thank you.
The fee will be between £6,000 and £12,000, depending on student numbers.
I should probably declare an interest as a former employee of an English language school.
Absent from your remarks, cabinet secretary, was any suggestion of whether you believe the proposal is a good thing. You have been critical of the process, but I note from the briefing note that has been provided that you reference the kite mark and the economic importance of the institutions, so I presume that you do not have a difficulty with what is proposed.
I do not have a difficulty. There is another way of driving up quality, which is to restrict the use of the word “college”. I have appealed to successive UK Governments to allow that to take place—it is not within our devolved competence—and they have refused to do so. There is tight regulation of the use of the word “university”, but there is no corresponding tight regulation of the use of the word “college”.
Having said that, I am by no means against the proposal. I think that it will assist in driving up quality, and I have the highest regard for the inspectorate, so I think that the inspections will be worth doing. I just do not think that we could undertake them without charging.
You set out clearly what is an administrative block to being able to deliver the inspections and cover the costs. I note that paragraph 29 of the explanatory document states:
“No private interests are affected because whether to inspect independent further education colleges including English language schools was always at the discretion of Scottish Ministers and in practice was never done.”
I am struggling to understand why that is the case.
I really could not say, except that I suspect that it might well have been one of those issues in which we thought that there was another way of driving up quality. Our policy focus has been to restrict the use of the word “college”. However, now that inspections are to be done as part of the immigration regulations from the UK Government, it is perfectly reasonable to do them.
The serious challenges created by the economic situation have affected our colleges and universities in Scotland. It is important to have the kite mark and inspections because we rely on overseas students to support us to recoup some of those losses. I welcome the proposal, but I wonder whether the charges will affect the colleges in particular. The fees sound quite high. Have you held a consultation with the colleges to find out their views on the charges?
They are set on a full recovery cost basis. We have worked closely with the other inspectorate bodies in the UK to ensure that we are not out of kilter with their charges. In fact, Education Scotland’s charges are slightly lower than those of the other scrutiny bodies that have educational oversight in other parts of the UK.
The charges are certainly higher than what some of the colleges have been used to paying for kite marking but, as the cabinet secretary said, we are keen to ensure that the standards that we apply to publicly funded colleges are also applied to private colleges and English language schools so that we maintain high standards across the wider college system.
I know that Mr Malik is aware—because we discussed them in the past in another life—of the reputational issues that are involved. In India last year, it was represented to me on a number of occasions, sometimes quite forcibly, that some young people have fallen into the hands of unscrupulous entrepreneurs, and I heard about their experiences. That is why I believe that use of the word “college” is important and should be restricted.
The proposal will help to set to rest the minds of parents and others who send their young people to Scotland, because the private colleges will have the imprimatur of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education through Education Scotland.
I agree with you on that element of the process. However, colleges and universities face a number of challenges in relation to resources, international competition and issues to do with immigration, which are outwith our control. I am really just pleading the case for being careful about the level of charge that we make for the service, because we do not want to hurt institutions unduly.
Publicly funded colleges and universities are not affected by the order. Indeed, publicly funded universities are content with the situation, and for publicly funded colleges the inspection process is a well-recognised aspect for which they do not and will not pay.
The order will affect private enterprises, which I think would and should expect to pay for the validation that they will receive—and for the assistance that they will receive, because an inspection is a supportive process, whereby the college is given information that is of use to it. [Interruption.] My colleague from the legal directorate wants me to say that the consultation elicited no criticism of the level of fees. I am grateful to him.
My question is prompted by Mr Muir’s response to Hanzala Malik. Will inspections be fairly standard and uniform in scope? Will the package that is on offer from Education Scotland be pretty much the same across the board, or will it be up to colleges to tailor it to specific aspects of what they do?
We have met principals and senior managers from some of the colleges—indeed, we invited them to an event in December, at which we explained the quality framework that we plan to use. The quality framework is relatively standard but, consistent with the approach that we took to the new school inspection framework, we will offer the opportunity to tailor the inspection to take account of the type and size of the college or English language school. As you know, English language schools are significantly different from private colleges in many regards.
At the beginning of an inspection and in the documentation that we put out in advance of the inspection, we will try to elicit information about differences, which we will feed into the inspection process. Our ultimate intention is to provide the college with a report that states unequivocally the quality of the education that it provides. It is then for the college to use the report as it sees fit. All colleges have said that they would use the report as part of the evidence that they take to the UK Border Agency when they apply for a highly trusted sponsor licence.
Does that mean that you will at least keep a watching brief on how a college uses its report? You will provide the kite mark, so in a sense there is potentially a reputational risk for you.
I suppose that we are entering into a bit of a commercial enterprise. Given that colleges will pay for the privilege of inviting us to inspect them, it will be for them to do what they want with the report that we produce. A report will clearly indicate that we carried out inspections, and a college will be able to use it as it tries to attract students from other countries. It is entirely up to colleges to use reports as they see fit.
History is littered with examples of false claims being made, quotations being taken out of context and all the rest of it. In the general framework of the assurances that you are looking for, will you keep an eye on how your reports are used? I accept that colleges will pay for reports and that how they use reports will be up to them—but within certain parameters, I assume.
We have offered English language schools and private colleges on-going support from Education Scotland, just as we offer such support to publicly funded colleges and schools. We will be in a position to see what colleges have used. We have not explored the issue with colleges, but your question prompts such exploration.
The UKBA expects a four-year cycle of inspection. However, as Ken Muir said, there is an offer of continuous engagement—which is much closer to the model that we usually operate in Scotland—to ensure that we are aware of what is taking place.
I would not expect anyone who had been inspected, whether they had paid for it or not, to fail to draw attention to the availability and accessibility on the web of an inspection report that they were quoting. Anyone who tried to approach a report in the manner of a theatre review and take out only the bits they enjoyed would have to say that other bits were available.
Education Scotland has developed and continues to develop the format of inspections, including published inspections, to make them as helpful as possible. I encourage any members who have not engaged with the organisation to talk to Bill Maxwell, Ken Muir and their colleagues about how the process works, because it is constantly developing and evolving. In particular, the modern model of small school inspection is widely regarded as a tremendous success.
11:15
Now that we have received the Scottish Government’s briefing, I move to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the draft order. Scottish Government officials may not participate and the debate must last no longer than 90 minutes.
I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move motion S4M-02167.
The committee will be relieved to learn that I do not have another speech to make.
I move,
That the Education and Culture Committee recommends that the Public Services (Recovery of Expenses in respect of Inspection of Independent Further Education Colleges and English Language Schools) (Scotland) Order 2012 [draft] be approved.
Motion agreed to.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance. There will be a brief suspension.
11:16
Meeting suspended.
11:18
On resuming—
Repayment of Student Loans (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/22)
The next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. No motion to annul has been lodged on these amendment regulations and the Subordinate Legislation Committee determined that it did not wish to draw the Parliament’s attention to them. If there are no comments, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on these amendment regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 (Commencement No 1) Order 2012 (SSI 2012/21)
Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Commencement No 4) Order 2012 (SSI 2012/23)
Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 (Commencement No 2) Amendment Order 2012 (SSI 2012/42)
The next item is consideration of instruments that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on these orders?
Members indicated agreement.
As the committee agreed to hold the next item in private, we now move into private session.
11:19
Meeting continued in private until 11:30.