Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Angela Constance on further education provision in Glasgow. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement; there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on the important matter of college governance in Glasgow. Members will be aware that this morning I laid an order before the Parliament to remove from office the chair and members of the board of Glasgow Clyde College and to appoint a new chair and members in their place. The order came into force this morning.
Glasgow Clyde College serves students from across Glasgow and beyond. It is a significant enterprise, which employs nearly 1,000 staff and has an annual budget of nearly £30 million. Its board, like all college boards, is responsible for the overall functioning of the college and the experience of its students.
Ministers rightly have high expectations of colleges and their boards, because staff, students and the people of Scotland have high expectations. Colleges are vital to the success of our country and its people, and college boards are key to that success. Boards are responsible for governing to the required standards. That includes identifying and controlling the main risks to effective delivery. Governance is also about sustaining and developing the college, to ensure that it thrives and flourishes.
The overwhelming majority of boards recognise the importance of their job, the extent of their responsibilities and the impact of their actions. The fact that members are volunteers in no way diminishes the importance of what they do, nor does it diminish our expectations for delivery.
In light of its important role and responsibilities in a priority area of public service, the sector itself has developed a code of good governance for Scotland’s colleges, which sets out the standards that are required. It is important that all college boards adhere to the standards. However, at Glasgow Clyde College standards fell short of what was required. Matters first came to my attention in February, when the principal was suspended. That is, rightly, a matter for the college, as the employer. Concerns were then expressed to me, and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, by students, staff and wider stakeholders. The nature of the concerns was such that we took them seriously and addressed them appropriately.
The funding council undertook an investigation, having established that there were grounds to do so. My officials subsequently sought detailed information from the college. A series of meetings took place between May and September, which involved Scottish Government officials, the funding council, the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board and me. There has also been extensive correspondence between the funding council, the board and the Scottish Government, in which we made clear our concerns and sought to understand the facts. We provided the board with the opportunity to make its case, and we considered its responses carefully.
I have concluded that the board failed on a number of counts. Those are set out fully in the policy note that accompanied the order that was laid before Parliament. I will highlight the four key areas of board failure.
First, the former board allowed its relationship with student representatives and the wider student population to deteriorate. It did nothing to address that problem and does not accept that there is a problem. The board allowed its working relationship with student leaders to deteriorate until they no longer took an active role in the board. Indeed, the relationship with students broke down to the extent that no student was prepared to stand for election to the board. The board made no attempt to repair the relationship and does not—even now—acknowledge that there was a breakdown in its relationship with its student body.
Secondly, the board incurred significant amounts of expenditure without seeking appropriate prior approval. There are clear rules on how colleges can spend public money, which include limits on how much can be spent without a competitive tender. Beyond those limits, colleges must get approval from the funding council. At Glasgow Clyde College, those rules were breached. In fact, the board committed to three times more expenditure than the rules allowed—more than £90,000. In total, the board has committed more than £200,000 on legal and professional fees. In short, it has mismanaged its finances.
Thirdly, the board failed to consider serious concerns about governance that the principal raised in February this year. To date, those have not been addressed. The board took no action to understand the concerns that the principal had raised in writing before her suspension, although they covered matters of propriety, process, procedure, conflict of interest and behaviour.
Finally, the board did not discharge a number of its functions appropriately. At important meetings, it operated without proper agendas, papers in advance of meetings and minutes that recorded discussions and decisions. It operated without a board secretary in place. That position is pivotal to helping any board to govern properly but was not filled for several months. The board also improperly delegated an executive function to a board member in relation to how it conducted disciplinary proceedings.
All that meant that board members could not provide the stewardship that is expected at a multimillion-pound public sector organisation. Consequently, they missed some obvious signs that their decisions were not robust. In short, the board set itself up for failure because it took decisions without proper consideration.
There was extensive engagement with the college to understand the matters that were brought to our attention. Those matters were serious and complex. It was right to consider them fully and we did so. We also provided the board with the opportunity to make its case, and we considered its response carefully. Inevitably, that took time, but it was right that we carefully considered matters and the information provided to us by the board before we reached a conclusion. In particular, it was vital that we took into account the best interests and needs of students and staff at the college. Having done so, I am clear that the board repeatedly breached its grant conditions and mismanaged its affairs through collective board failure.
Despite everything, the board showed no sign of recognising the seriousness of our concerns. It refused to take responsibility for the situation that had arisen through its own failings. I could no longer be confident that the board had the capability, capacity or willingness to move things forward, including to restore crucial relationships with students, staff and other important stakeholders.
Therefore, I have removed all the members of the Glasgow Clyde College board today with immediate effect. I have not taken that action lightly. In their place, I have appointed a new chair—Alex Linkston—and new members. They have the skills, experience and personal commitment necessary for improvement. I am grateful to them for stepping in and I am pleased that, in Alex Linkston, the college and its board will have a highly respected and well-qualified leader.
I am confident that the new board will forge a positive relationship with the college’s students and staff, which will allow Glasgow Clyde College to focus fully on supporting students to achieve their ambitions and to ensure that it plays a key role in the life of Glasgow and its people, and its economy. That is no less than what the Government, the public, the wider college sector and—most importantly—the students and staff at the college should expect, and deserve.
We all have an interest in ensuring that we can continue to build a strong, sustainable and successful college sector. We must consider what lessons for good governance across the sector may be learned from the situation. There may well be lessons for the wider sector, the funding council and Government to learn.
Therefore, I announce that I will chair a task group with Colleges Scotland and the SFC. It will be a practical, purposeful and focused effort to provide additional assurance on the quality and resilience of college governance. The group will consider and take account of best practice in other sectors, and it will produce recommendations for improvement by early next year.
However, my focus today is on the interests and needs of students and staff at Glasgow Clyde. Colleges such as Glasgow Clyde are vital to our aspirations to create a stronger and fairer Scotland with a strong, sustainable economy. Glasgow Clyde deserves and needs a robust, reliable and resilient board, and today I have taken the necessary steps to provide just that.
That ends the cabinet secretary’s statement. Any member who wishes to ask a question should press their request-to-speak button now.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement.
In her statement and in the policy note attached to the order, the cabinet secretary provides clear evidence of governance failure at Glasgow Clyde College. It is true that a variety of concerns has been raised repeatedly and for some time by staff, the student association, trade unions and the National Union of Students Scotland about issues in the college, and the cabinet secretary has made the case for the action that she has taken today.
However, such action is extreme and unusual and bears more examination than a short statement allows. The cabinet secretary has said that she will form a task group to find out what lessons can be learned for the wider further education sector, which is under enormous pressure as a result of regionalisation, forced mergers and budget cuts. Will she ensure that the unions that represent staff and the organisations that represent students are also involved in the task group’s work along with Colleges Scotland and the funding council? Moreover, will she ensure that the Parliament is fully involved in the examination of these issues through the Education and Culture Committee or otherwise?
I thank Mr Gray for his comments and I am glad that he acknowledges that the policy note—the statement of reasons for what is indeed an unusual action—makes a clear case and sets out clear evidence of continued and repeated failures of governance. I accept that the action is highly unusual and, of course, I welcome the opportunity to be scrutinised by parliamentarians in the chamber this afternoon. I have also spent this morning engaging with parliamentary colleagues across the chamber and, indeed, other stakeholders, and I recognise that the Education and Culture Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have a very important role to play in scrutinising the decision that I have made on behalf of Scottish ministers.
I will also endeavour to ensure that all interests are represented as we take forward our work and reflect on what we can learn from this incident. Although the incidents at Glasgow Clyde College are isolated to that particular college, it is important that the Government and the funding council reflect on what more we can learn and how we ensure the highest possible standards across the sector. I give this Parliament a commitment that I will continue to have such dialogue as is seen to be appropriate by Parliament’s committees, this chamber and members.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for notice of the statement and, indeed, for taking the time to discuss the issue with Liz Smith and me earlier today.
I am very pleased to note that the cabinet secretary acknowledges the importance of an audit trail in the use of public money. We also welcome the setting up of a task group with Colleges Scotland and the Scottish funding council, particularly given the other very serious issues that the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee is looking at in relation to North Glasgow College and Coatbridge College.
I have a number of questions for the cabinet secretary. What are the implications for the way in which the Scottish funding council operates, given its role in the funding of Glasgow Clyde College? Does the cabinet secretary know of any other colleges that are failing to comply with the code of governance and where financial mismanagement is suspected? What action will be taken to clear the names of those who have been suspended inappropriately? Most important, will the cabinet secretary assure the chamber that the staff and the students will get full support from the Government and all of us so that the college can continue providing the excellent education and training that Scotland’s colleges offer? What action can be taken to ensure that those who have been removed do not go on to be employed again in our public sector? What action should have been taken by the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board, which had significant responsibilities in relation to the serious issues at Glasgow Clyde College that we are discussing today?
Let me be clear that all those who were members of the board during the relevant period—February to July 2015—have been removed, except the principal. We recently held elections for the student positions, and the student representatives are unaffected, because they were not on the board at the time of concern. Two staff representatives were recently elected. The representative who was re-elected was associated with the previous board’s failings and has been removed from the board. The representative from the non-teaching side has not been removed from the board because they are newly elected to their position.
On Mary Scanlon’s question about the consequences and repercussions for individuals, those who have been removed from the board of Glasgow Clyde College and are named in the order that I laid in Parliament cannot be a member of any other college board, the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board or the Scottish funding council. It has been a big decision. I have taken it cautiously and I have given it all due consideration, because the implications for individuals are, as I have outlined, indeed significant.
I am glad that Mary Scanlon welcomes the establishment of a task force. I pay tribute to the work of the Public Audit Committee and Audit Scotland, which have both recently produced helpful reports. The Government will respond to the Public Audit Committee report by the end of this month.
As I indicated in my statement, the situation has arisen as a result of poor governance and I have concluded that the people responsible for that poor governance were those in whom trust for decision making at Glasgow Clyde College was vested. Nonetheless, we will all have to look at how we respond to difficulties when they arise. There may well be important lessons for the Government, the Scottish funding council, the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board and the wider sector. It is important that we all reflect on our roles, but I must be clear that I am in the chamber today because of repeated incidents of mismanagement and poor governance in one particular college board. That is what we are having to respond to.
As members would expect, a large number of members want to ask questions. I ask for brief questions. It would also be helpful if the cabinet secretary could be succinct.
I thank the cabinet secretary for a copy of the letter on this serious issue that was sent this morning. Given that she has announced a task group review, why was the decision to replace the board taken now, rather than after the review concludes? Given her comments, particularly those in reply to Iain Gray, I assume that she will agree to attend the Education and Culture Committee to discuss the matter.
Absolutely. I will attend the Education and Culture Committee and any other committee of the Parliament as and when I am requested to do so. I take my responsibility to appear before committees very seriously, just as I take my responsibility to be accountable to the Parliament very seriously. There is absolutely no issue there.
I will endeavour to keep Parliament and all relevant committees duly informed as we progress with the task group’s work. We will work up the remit for the task group, which I will personally convene. I hope that that work can continue apace collegiately and in partnership with all the stakeholders involved. Once we have fully scoped out the work, I will be able to provide more precise information.
Mr Maxwell asked why now. As I hope that I have indicated, we have given the matter very careful consideration, taking into account the comments and views of the board. Given that we have concluded that the board is failing, it is not in the interests of staff, students or indeed the wider sector to allow matters to continue. We know from correspondence and from meetings that the board’s actions have had a negative impact on staff and students alike. I am very grateful to staff for their continued professionalism and commitment in what has undoubtedly been a very difficult time.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and acknowledge its significance for Glasgow Clyde College staff and students, who have continued to sustain the work of the college throughout this extremely difficult time.
I am immensely proud of the work of Clyde College, which was formerly Cardonald College, the quality of its teaching and support staff and the talents of its students, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will regret the fact that it is in the public eye because of the present difficulties rather than because of that proud record.
Will the cabinet secretary outline how she plans to support staff, students and the local college communities to rebuild morale and give people confidence that Clyde College is a high-quality place in which to work and learn?
I certainly acknowledge Ms Lamont’s on-going interest in the matter.
I again pay tribute to the staff of Clyde College for their dedication in what has been a difficult time. I know that, like Ms Scanlon, Ms Lamont has raised issues to do with the suspension of the principal. I must acknowledge that that is entirely a matter for the college board, and it will be a matter of priority for the new college board to take forward. Quite rightly, as a minister I have no locus in such employment matters, but I am concerned about the serious governance issues that were raised by the principal before her suspension that have not been resolved.
The new chair of the board will start work tomorrow. He will be in the college to meet senior members of staff and others and start the process of rebuilding relationships. The new term has not long started and it is time to reset relationships and move forward. We must continue to remember what the priority is: the priority is students. They must be at the heart of the college experience and all decision making about that process. Alex Linkston, the new chair, will have an interim, informal board meeting next week, but that work starts tomorrow.
The cabinet secretary said that there had been mismanagement of Glasgow Clyde College’s finances. Is that having any on-going impact on the college or on the other two colleges in the Glasgow region?
No. The policy statement attached to the order outlines what the financial mismanagement concerns were. They were in and around the board incurring expenditure beyond agreed limits and not acting in accordance with its procedures or with procedures that are laid out by the Scottish funding council. However, the financial issues as detailed should not have an impact on the other two colleges in the city.
I thank the cabinet secretary for making the statement and for early sight of it, and for her engagement with Opposition spokespersons this morning. As Iain Gray indicated, what has been done is an unusual and regrettable step and we all acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and the need to act.
The cabinet secretary referred to the breakdown in the relationship with student representatives and the wider student population. Can she give more detail about the basis of that breakdown and offer reassurances that learning and courses will not be affected? Given the drastic nature of the decision to remove the chair and the board, does she agree that one of the primary tasks for the task group will be to consider what checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure that the sort of issues that have been identified in this case can be addressed without the need in the future for a minister-directed clear out?
I agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the task force to look at the checks and balances. There are important distinctions between the responsibilities of non-executive board members and executive employees of the college, and it is important that people understand those respective roles. Within those roles, there are checks and balances and we will want the task force to ensure that all is well in that regard. We will also want to look at matters such as financial control.
Liam McArthur asked for a bit more detail about the breakdown in the relationship with the student board members and the student association. The student association executive has written about the treatment of two student board members who were inappropriately excluded from a board meeting in February. One student member has stopped attending board meetings. Although the individuals who are involved might well have different accounts of who said what and who is responsible for X, Y and Z, board members have a duty of care to each other. The board did not demonstrate sufficient insight or resolve that its members would, in the future, make the relationship with students a priority. Engagement and working collaboratively with the student body is not an optional extra.
It is, of course, regrettable that ministers have had to take such unusual action. Looking forward, we want to minimise any possibility of ministers having to come to the chamber again in similar circumstances.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that Glasgow Clyde College’s Langside campus is located in my constituency. Will she expand on the assurances that she gave to Johann Lamont and Liam McArthur that the decision will not affect the staff and students at the Langside campus or at the other two campuses?
A competent, credible and well-led board is, fundamentally, in the interests of all staff and students. In the press release that the Government issued today, we list the new appointments—I have mentioned Alex Linkston, who is the former chief executive of West Lothian Council. Other members of the newly appointed board have backgrounds in human resources, business, governance and the university sector, and there are also people who have previous non-executive experience. I am assured and confident that once members look at the details in the biographies of the individuals, they and Mr Dornan will be confident that the new board will be able to lead the college appropriately.
Given the extraordinary sequence of events that led to the deterioration of the relationship between the board and the students, is the cabinet secretary confident that the relationship will return to normal? Have there been any cases in any of the other boards of student associations passing motions of no confidence in the chair, of student representatives being excluded from board meetings, or of students refusing to participate in association elections?
I am not aware of any other such examples. If members have any examples of, or concerns about, bad practice, poor governance or financial irregularities, I encourage them to bring them to my attention. I will not stand by and watch poor governance in the sector. The students must be at the absolute heart of decision making. As I have said, involving students in the making of board decisions is not an optional extra.
Five members still want to ask questions and I intend to take them all, which will have an impact on the debate that comes after. Therefore, I urge the members whom I call to keep their questions brief.
Members have talked about checks and balances. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the regional board has a central role to play in relation to checks and balances? Is there anything that it could have done before now to provide checks and balances in the system?
The regional board will continue to work closely with Glasgow Clyde College and will help it to play a full part in achieving its ambitions for the region. It will do all that it can to help to rebuild the governance arrangements.
The cabinet secretary will be aware from the recent staff survey that poor morale and unhappiness are not limited to Glasgow Clyde College. I welcome her comment that she encourages people to come forward. A constituent who is a college lecturer in Glasgow came to see me this week to express his dismay, unhappiness and anger at the cuts, the merger process and the unaccountability of management. However, he was worried about the repercussions if he were to come forward. I ask the cabinet secretary to promise anonymity for him and other whistleblowers if they come forward and give evidence to her review.
Yes—of course. I answered questions on the matter from members in the chamber yesterday. I am aware of the Unison survey and will engage with Unison shortly. I regularly meet all trade unions that have interests in the education sector, and I am aware from the experience at Glasgow Clyde College that members of staff were concerned about the position but felt vulnerable in raising concerns. I am sure that Mr Macintosh will agree that ministers always act with the utmost discretion in such areas.
The cabinet secretary has alluded to the fact that this is a worrying time for students at the college. The pupils at Boclair academy, in my constituency, attend the Anniesland campus of Glasgow Clyde College. How will the change in college leadership reassure students?
I am confident that we now have the right mix of individuals of the right calibre in position as new board members. They understand the priority that we attach to quality learning experiences for students, and they are individuals who have proven track records and who respect and understand how to engage students, staff and the wider Glasgow community.
Given the money that was spent in breach of the rules—in particular, the £200,000 that was spent on legal and professional fees, which is a lot of money considering that the total that was requested for the college’s student support funding was £423,000—the affair could have a significant impact on college finances. What is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure that the malpractices do not leave the college and its students at a financial disadvantage?
I say to Mr Pentland and Parliament that this Government will do everything to ensure that malpractice has no impact on students.
I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm that she is not aware of any college other than Glasgow Clyde College and the former Coatbridge College, where the situation is very different, that has problems with responding to the code of governance or with suspected financial mismanagement.
I am acutely aware of events at Glasgow Clyde College and at the colleges that have been named and, to some extent, shamed by the Public Audit Committee. I mean not so much the colleges as the individuals who were involved in senior managers receiving severance payments at quite shocking levels. I am not aware of other concerns, but I always stand ready to listen to concerns from parliamentarians or individuals in the sector.
Previous
HM Naval Base Clyde (Spending)