“The 2013/14 audit of North Glasgow College: Governance and Financial Stewardship”
Agenda item 4 is on the section 22 report on the 2013-14 audit of North Glasgow College. I seek colleagues’ views on the responses received.
We are publishing our report on Coatbridge College today. There are similarities between the issues at that college and those at North Glasgow College, particularly in relation to Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council guidance. Given our work on Coatbridge College and the wider college sector, as well as the response that we have received from Paul Johnston, we have covered many of the issues that were of concern at North Glasgow College. Therefore, I am quite happy to leave the matter there.
I do not see where we can go from here. I suggest that we note the report. I agree with Mary Scanlon that the issues that the SFC and the Government are addressing here are similar to those at Coatbridge College.
11:45
I agree with my colleagues. Laurence Howells of the Scottish funding council wrote to the clerk. I just want to pick up on the part of his response on severance payments. We still have not had the full breakdown of the table that we were promised in—I cannot even remember when that was. Was it October or November? It was some time in the autumn.
It is not acceptable for the Scottish funding council not to provide the committee with information that we have asked for. The only point that I would add to those of Mary Scanlon and Colin Beattie is that we should write formally to Laurence Howells to say, “Give us the information.”
Through the work of this committee, issues affecting several different colleges have been highlighted to the Government, to the extent that it is now reflecting on how to address some of those matters. Indeed, a task force is looking at the situation. We should recognise the progress that the committee has made and, as colleagues have said, just leave the matter there for the moment.
Laurence Howells’s answer to our question about support and issuing guidance and so on was extremely weak. I will not use the word that I have used in private, but that weakness gives me cause for concern about whether the organisation is fit for purpose.
We have requested the information to which Tavish Scott referred on a number of occasions; we have also asked to receive complete information. This is not the first time as committee convener that I have had to highlight that information has not been received from the Scottish funding council. We will once again write to it and remind it of the importance of providing such information and how helpful that is for the committee in carrying out its responsibilities. Laurence Howells should reflect on that.
I also support Richard Simpson’s comments about the Scottish funding council’s response. It did not reissue the guidance; rather, it only reminded the colleges of the guidance. Given that the SFC was processing more than £53 million-worth of public money as part of the severance arrangements, reissuing the guidance would have been more effective. Now that the horse has bolted, it is simply not good enough for the SFC to say that it will look at doing that in future. That was a serious failing on the SFC’s part, which we have recognised in our report on Coatbridge College. Given the resources available to the SFC, it would not have been beyond it to have carried out what would have been a pretty minimal administrative task and included a copy of the guidance.
Do members agree to note the correspondence, taking into consideration our recommendations in the Coatbridge College report?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the Scottish funding council to remind it of the information that we require in respect of the table that was mentioned.
Previous
Section 23 ReportNext
Section 23 Report