---

Shrewsbury Sixth Form College

This is a subject that I feel passionately about. The college is a major centre for learning in my constituency, and during the next 15 minutes I have a tremendous opportunity to share some of our experiences of co-location with the Minister and to ask for clarification on certain elements of Government policy. I start by stating my admiration for the teachers, lecturers and staff of the sixth-form college, who do a tremendous job—I am always in awe of what they achieve. The Minister will know of the tremendous results of the college's pupils. That is primarily down to the professionalism and hard work not only of the teaching staff but of the assistants, management and everyone involved. That is not the problem. There is no doubt that sixth-form colleges need investment. I was taken around the sixth-form college by Mr. Robert Bland, one of the governors, and I was shown the dilapidated state of some of the rooms. I have no doubt that both colleges in Shrewsbury—the sixth-form college and Shrewsbury college of art and technology—need significant investment. Funding comes from the Learning and Skills Council. The LSC will allow a community such as mine to apply for funding for only one project at a time, and there is no alternative to that. In our case, the principals have decided to go ahead with a co-location proposal to scrap the Shrewsbury sixth-form college in the town centre and co-locate that college with another—Shrewsbury college of art and technology—in London road. That is the proposal, and the LSC has told our community that it can have £30 million if we co-locate both colleges on London road, which the principals of both colleges want. However, there is no alternative for the community; there is no alternative for me; there is no alternative for the council; and there is no alternative for the thousands of my constituents who object to co-location in London road, which is in a highly residential area of Shrewsbury. If the proposal does not secure planning permission, the governing bodies will have to go back to the drawing board. It is much better always to have a back-up plan when trying to secure such an investment, rather than putting all one's eggs in one basket—co-location or nothing—and then having to go back to the drawing board and start discussions all over again. I disagree with co-location on London road, because it is a highly residential part of the community and it will pull the students away from the town centre, where they have become are an integral part of its life and character. My hair is going grey as a result of the controversy; over the last year, I have had to grapple with this issue more than any other. There is huge dissatisfaction among the teachers at the sixth-form college, who are not convinced by the educational case for co-location. My first question to the Minister is this. What is Government policy on co-location? Is it something that the Government want? Do they want to see colleges co-locating? Is there an educational case for co-location? Ninety-three per cent. of the teachers at the sixth-form college have written to me stating that they do not want co-location. They want independence; they want to be able to carry on as they have done for generations past and make a tremendous success of it. What is Government policy on co-location? I want to share with the Minister the problems that the community has had in that regard. For the benefit of this debate, I shall mention the three most important people involved in the project. I shall read statements from a Shrewsbury resident who is a parent of three school-age children, a governor who was forced to resign from the sixth-form college over the issue and a lecturer at the sixth-form college. The parent states that"““the professional bodies the Highways Agency and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment have issued numerous and wide-ranging criticisms of the co-location plans (HA issued a TR110 directing that planning permission not be granted until all the HA's concerns have been addressed and CABE rated the plan's environmental strategies as 'poor', the lowest possible rating).””" I was so concerned about the views of the Highways Agency that I held a public meeting, attended by more than 150 members of the public. The agency has stated on record that it has serious concerns about the prospect of the co-location going ahead in London road, because that would have major ramifications for the A5 and Emstrey island, for which it is responsible. Do the Government share my concerns? I ask the Minister for a guarantee that such a project cannot go ahead as long as the Highways Agency continues to have those professional concerns. The parent goes on to say:"““Despite all this, the principals continue to attempt to force their project through. At times there has been scant regard for free speech and democracy (SSFC Code of Conduct issued Nov 07 prohibiting staff from speaking to the media without the Principal's permission), and undue pressure has been brought to bear on individuals, including yourself, (you'll remember the co-location meeting minutes of late Jan 08 which said 'MP will be placed under pressure at appropriate points to curb his random tendencies').””" Those are the minutes of the meeting of the governors of the sixth-form college. They were leaked and given to my office. I am extremely concerned that the governors and principal of the sixth-form college have tried to stifle debate among teachers at the college who object to the proposals. I come now to the governor of the college who was forced to resign, for whom I have great admiration, Mr. David Holmes, who is head of civil engineering for a major British company. He was forced to resign because he objected to the proposals. He had the temerity to write to my borough council and say that he did not think that the plans were right and that, as a resident, he wanted to voice his concerns. He said that he very much hoped that planning permission would not be given for the project to go ahead. He made the mistake of saying in his letter of objection to the council that he was a governor of the college, and he was forced to resign. Is the Minister happy for governors of colleges to be forced to resign if they object to planning applications? Mr. Holmes says:"““I was requested to resign by Philip Morris (clerk) and he told me that this was as a result of a meeting between Bill Dowell””—" the principal—"““and Robert Bland (chair). I assumed that this had been with broad support of other governors but I subsequently learned that they had not been consulted at all. This is another example of the unassailable power base of the principal””." Mr. Holmes says:"““There are 16 governors…2 are elected by parents, 2 by staff, 2 by students and 2 are councillors and so have some accountability through the ballot box. This means that 50 per cent. are not elected in any fashion.””" I am very concerned about that. What plans does the Minister have to make governors of important learning institutions, such as that sixth-form college, more accountable to the people whom they purport to represent, such as students, teachers, the MP and the local community? It is of great concern to me that so many of the governors are appointed rather than being directly elected to their posts. Mr. Holmes says:"““There is no means of holding the governors to account in any meaningful fashion. They do not answer to a single electorate. Parents, for example, can only elect 2 out of 16, a very small proportion””." He says that the principal told him that there were ““high levels of accountability””. He says:"““When I asked him who could hold the governors to account he could only come up with the LSC””." Of course the principal says that the governors can be held to account by people going to the LSC, but if someone goes to the LSC, it says, ““No, we can't hold the governors to account. You have to go to the governors.”” That is ludicrous. It allows the whole governing body to be totally unaccountable. Mr. Holmes goes on to say:"““The introductory documentation (emailed to you on 13 May) for a person seeking to be an elected parent governor is now intimidating and virtually demands a person who is willing to accept and support all governor decisions without question. Dissent and debate do not appear encouraged. This stifles any fresh thinking.””" I am trying to speak in a non-partisan way. I would like clarification from the Minister on those points. I am deeply concerned about the lack of accountability in the governors and the principal, and the fact that everything is somehow falling through that lack of accountability. Many of the teachers at the sixth-form college feel extremely intimidated if they say anything against the proposals. I have had some 14 meetings with teachers from the college. They have come to see me here at the House of Commons, and I have gone to see them. They are desperately concerned about what is happening. One of the lecturers—of course, I will not reveal her name—put the following questions directly to the Minister:"““Staff at SSFC met with Bill Rammell in summer of 2007””—" a meeting that I organised for them—"““who advised them to continue talking to their governors. This was not facilitated by governors and ultimately led to staff passing an overwhelming vote of no confidence in their governors.""In the light of advice from John Denham's office that staff should speak to their governors following an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them, what is the response to the fact that these same governors have now refused to engage in direct communication with staff on urgent and pressing issues?””" The Department has told teachers that they must go and speak to the governors if they have a concern, but the governors have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to talk to the teachers."““Those staff who feel compelled to voice their opinions have been and continue to be threatened by disciplinary action; is it acceptable that this situation exists and how does this best serve the interests of democracy?””" We all came into politics for different reasons. I came into politics because of an insatiable belief and interest in democracy, and I will stand up for the interests of every constituent of mine and their right to object to things that affect their daily or professional life in any way they like without threat of intimidation. I am extremely concerned that the trade unions representing those lecturers have not done more to make the management of the college realise that they cannot treat professional lecturers in that way. If we are to make co-location a success, those lecturers are the most vital ingredient. The lecturer concluded:"““Why, if the college is so committed to this project on the overwhelming grounds of the 'educational case', have the directors been unable to convince the college staff of the validity of their educational case?””" Those are the points that have been made, and I shall conclude with a few brief remarks. I feel strongly that we need investment for our two colleges in Shrewsbury, but I hope that the Minister will tell me a few facts about the future of the LSC. I have had run-ins on the issue with the LSC chief executive, who came to see me at the House to discuss my concerns. I know that the LSC will be reformed; perhaps the Minister can tell me something about that. I am greatly concerned that Government are giving such autonomy and power to quangos such as the LSC, which make decisions from very far away without knowing the problems of the geography of places such as Shrewsbury, the feelings of my community—the community is overwhelmingly opposed to the move—or the principals, lecturers, teachers, parents and staff, who are also overwhelmingly opposed to co-location. I need an assurance that the Minister will take a personal interest in all the professional problems that the teachers have experienced. My final plea is given everything that I have said, will he at least consider meeting teachers at the sixth-form college to hear their concerns at first hand, because they can put their case far better than me? I could also arrange for them to visit the House of Commons. Furthermore, will he take on board my concerns about the way in which the LSC has put my community in a straitjacket by saying, ““You can have £30 million, if you co-locate your colleges in London road, or you have to go back to the drawing board.””? That is not acceptable. My constituents and I want funding and investment for both colleges at their existing, separate sites.