Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Leicester College Corporation

Held on 16 March 2022

Present: Jonathan Kerry (Chair), Harmeet Kaur, John Allen*, Chan Kataria*, Lisa Armitage, Akith Maluge, Shaun Curtis, Zubair Limbada*, Anne Frost, Ed Marsh*, Danielle Gillett, Jai Sharda*, Verity Hancock, Tom Wilson.

In Attendance: Louise Hazel - Director of Governance and Policy, Shabir Ismail - Deputy Principal, Debi Donnarumma - Vice Principal, Kully Sandhu - Vice Principal, Della Sewell - Director of HR, Zoé Butler - Director of Student Services and Marketing (item 7).

*Joined meeting online via Teams

1. Welcome

   • 1.1 The Chair noted the death of Simon Meakin and the Corporation took a moment to remember Simon.

2. Declaration of Interests

   • 2.1 Members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) declared an interest in items 4.2, 4.4, 5.3, 5.6 and 14. Student governors declared an interest in item 12 and Danielle Gillett and Anne Frost in item 16.

3. Apologies for absence

   • 3.1 Apologies for absence were received from Zoe Allman and Louisa Poole. Caroline Tote was absent.

4. Minutes of last meeting and matters arising

   • 4.1 Governors received and approved the minutes of the meeting on 15 December 2021.

   • 4.2 Governors received and approved the confidential minutes of the meeting on 15 December 2021.

   • 4.3 Governors received and approved the minutes of the meeting on 27 January 2022.

   • 4.4 Governors received and approved the confidential minute of the meeting on 27 January 2022.

   • 4.5 The Principal then reported on the Strategic Conversation that had taken place with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) in February. The ESFA had commented on all the work to support students and continue teaching and learning during the pandemic. The College had shared a series of challenges including staff recruitment and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on recruitment. The ESFA had set out the main areas of discussion in a letter following the meeting; this letter would be circulated.

5. Feedback from recent committee meetings

   • 5.1 The Chair invited Committee Chairs to provide feedback on recent meetings. The following points were highlighted:

     • 5.1.1 CSQI had met three times including two special meetings to look at Functional Skills (FS) and 16-18 Level 1 and 2 vocational achievement. The Committee had been assured that there had been intervention to improved FS. GCSE achievement helped keep 16-18 achievement up although vocational level 1 and 2 achievement was good and, in some cases, very good.

     • 5.1.2 The Search and Governance Committee had met several times to agree arrangements for the Principal’s compassionate leave. The last meeting had looked at succession planning and recruitment to the three vacancies, with the aim of improving the diversity of the board. All governors were asked to promote the vacancies through their own networks.

     • 5.1.3 The Student Liaison Committee had highlighted issues around managing expectations when it came to communications between students and staff, how lateness was handled through the disciplinary process and requests for more information about what students would be taught during their courses. It was also noted that concerns around security raised at a previous meeting had been addressed and the Director of Estates and Campus services had given an update on improvements.

     • 5.1.4 F&GP had reviewed the Period 6 accounts and reforecast and received an update on the 16-18 allocation for 2022/23. It had agreed changes to notice periods for some staff and to pay scales for support staff following the increase in the national living wage and had agreed a revised Sick Pay Policy. The Senior Pay Review had been discussed and would be returned to later in this meeting..

   • 5.2 Governors noted feedback from recent committee meetings.

6. Governor visit reports

   • 6.1 The Chair reported on a recent visit he had undertaken, shadowing construction apprentices during National Apprenticeships Week. The following points were highlighted:

     • 6.1.1 The apprentices were very positive about their support from the College and about their experience overall.

     • 6.1.2 The company employing the apprentices had invested heavily in apprentices and had a good relationship with the College.

     • 6.1.3 Louisa Poole had also shadowed another apprentice and also found it an interesting and very positive experience. Governors were encouraged to take up similar opportunities to engage with students and apprentices.

   • 6.2 Governors received and noted the visit report.

7. Safeguarding update including prevent

   • 7.1 The Director of Student Services gave a presentation on safeguarding and Prevent. The following points were highlighted:

     • 7.1.1 There had been 139 safeguarding referrals (109 students) to the safeguarding team since September 2021 compared to 106 referrals received for the whole of 2021/22.

     • 7.1.2 There had been a sustained effort to develop the College’s safeguarding culture to increase confidence in identifying concerns and supporting students with safeguarding and pastoral issues. The safeguarding network met regularly with good feedback from staff.

     • 7.1.3 There were still more safeguarding referrals for female students than for male students, which was a trend continuing from last academic year. Most (81%) students referred were under 18.

     • 7.1.4 Mental Health and Suicidal Ideation continued to be the highest reason for referral and made up 62% of the total referrals.

     • 7.1.5 A cross-College working group was looking at a Prevent strategy; the DfE self-assessment had been completed and work was ongoing.

     • 7.1.6 The first all-female student focus group had been held to discuss sexual harassment; this had been very positive and helpful. An allmale group would also be held with follow ups planned.

     • 7.1.7 The latest update to KCSIE required a policy on dealing with Low Level Concerns; a draft policy had been prepared and this would form part of the Safeguarding Policy going forward.

   • 7.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 7.2.1 The trend was showing an increase in the number of referrals, what might this be attributable to? A lot of work had been undertaken to raise the knowledge and confidence of staff in reporting safeguarding issues so it might be down to better reporting. The past two years had also been unusual with students not being on site. There were some new trends including around forced marriage.

     • 7.2.2 Had there been better or worse attendance with the network moving onto Teams? It was about the same; this would continue on 6 Teams with the aim of widening participation. Sessions were also recorded so staff could catch up if they were unable to attend.

     • 7.2.3 Was it anticipated that the Low Level Concerns Policy would result in an increase in cases? It was hoped that the policy would also raise confidence in reporting so it might, although it related to staff rather than students.

     • 7.2.4 Was it possible to speak to other colleges and see what impact this new policy was having? The FE safeguarding leads network enabled colleges to share information and so this could be raised with that group.

     • 7.2.5 Why was there was no comparison of data with previous years? A comparison was not yet possible because the data categorisation in CPOMS had been changed; this would be available in the future.

     • 7.2.6 Would the new Low Level Concerns Policy feed into the ‘cause for concern’ category? The collection of data in this category might lead to the addition of new categories in the future. The Low Level Concerns Policy might not feed into this category because it was about staff rather than students. These would need to be recorded separately and would not necessarily result in a safeguarding referral.

     • 7.2.7 What types of incidents would be covered by sexual harassment; were they mainly verbal or physical? The majority of these were outside the College. There was no sexual violence in College; most incidents involved inappropriate behaviour.

     • 7.2.8 What was the College doing to work with local organisations around forced marriage and to raise awareness with staff and students? It was working with the Forced Marriage Unit and training had been given to staff resulting in one referral already. This was an emerging area and while the safeguarding team knew how to respond, there was more to do to develop an understanding of the wider cultural issues.

     • 7.2.9 Could the Low Level Concerns Policy be amended to make clear what responding to any concerns ‘promptly’ meant? This would be amended to be more specific.

   • 7.3 The Director then gave a presentation on the latest Leicestershire counter terrorism local profile update highlighting the main issues for the College.

   • 7.4 It was asked whether the College did anything on online literacy, to help students understand how to be safe online. There was an online safety module as part of the student induction and an app quiz for staff to highlight some of the dangers associated with apps used by students. There was work to do throughout the year to continue to keep this in people’s minds.

   • 7.5 It was noted that work was being undertaken to refresh the reflection rooms.

   • 7.6 Governors noted the presentation, approved the Low Level Concerns Policy subject to the minor amendment proposed and thanked the Director for all the College’s work to keep students safe.

8. Sustainability update

   • 8.1 The Director of Estates and Campus Services gave an update on sustainability activities. The following points were highlighted:

     • 8.1.1 The College was continuing to work through the Association of Colleges (AoC) Sustainability Roadmap. Key actions were highlighted including membership of the Leicestershire Climate Partnership which the College would be chairing for a year, a College sustainability curriculum sub-group, and training from the Carbon Literacy Trust which would be rolled out.

     • 8.1.2 Utility consumption was down 8% on the high point in 2019/20.

     • 8.1.3 The College was moving from the ‘emerging’ phase of the AoC roadmap towards ‘established.’

   • 8.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 8.2.1 Whether there were targets for the impact the College wanted to achieve. These were being worked on and would be included in the Sustainability and Estates strategies. Work would also take place to develop a green dashboard.

     • 8.2.2 It was good to see progress; how did the College compare to other colleges and was there good practice that could be shared? The College was already working with several partners and was also represented at the AoC sustainability special interest group. It was still in the early stages and colleges were learning together and so could pick up and share good practice through that group.

   • 8.3 Governors noted the report.

9. Finance report (period 6) and sprint term reforecast

   • 9.1 The Deputy Principal presented the finance report (period 6) and Spring term reforecast. The following points were highlighted.

     • 9.1.1 The year-to-date result was an operating deficit after restructuring costs of £473k compared to the budgeted deficit of £99k.

     • 9.1.2 The College was not expecting to meet its 16-18 learner responsive learner number and funding target by the end of the year. There would be no impact in year but the 2022/23 allocation showed a reduction of 203 students with a reduction of £800k-£1 million in funding. There was additional funding for T levels and the TPS so overall the reduction looked to be around £250k less than 2021/22.

     • 9.1.3 Indications were that the College would also fall short of its AEB allocation. This has been reflected in the reforecast. The College was expecting to achieve around 90% of its allocation which was a considerable improvement on the previous year but there would be no change to the 97% tolerance level.

     • 9.1.4 Apprenticeship income was currently below target. The impact of COVID-19 on new starts in 2020/21 had resulted in fewer carry-ins for this year. The forecast suggested that there would be a further income shortfall of £79k.

     • 9.1.5 HE income was forecast to be below and a further reduction of £327k 8 in income had been included in the spring reforecast.

     • 9.1.6 The number of PMLD students was lower than planned and the allocation for the following year also showed a reduction. This was felt to be a factor of the pandemic.
       

     • 9.1.7 A spring reforecast had been undertaken. Overall, the expected Total Comprehensive Income after restructuring costs had decreased by £478k, from a deficit of £479k to a deficit of £957k. Positive movements included additional income from the Tuition Fund and some savings from non-pay costs including planned maintenance and premises costs, some of which would be moved into 2022/23.

     • 9.1.8 Pay was very tight; this would be reviewed further in the summer reforecast.

     • 9.1.9 The College continued to meet its bank covenants although the position was sensitive; it fell back into the ‘requires improvement’ financial health rating following the spring reforecast. Cash balances remained healthy although the capital plans and deficit would impact on the position. The bank remained supportive and discussions continued over the College’s position.

   • 9.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 9.2.1 The reduced 16-18 allocation would have a significant impact on next year’s budget. Was there any likelihood of there being an amelioration of any impact? Increases in pensions funding and T levels would offset some of the reduction. Other colleges were in a similar position but there was no indication that the ESFA would ameliorate the impact on colleges. If there was significant growth, an in-year business case could be made for additional funding.

     • 9.2.2 Did the £1m deficit include expectations about the increase in energy costs? It did; the energy contract was fixed up to the end of April. Some additional costs had been factored in but this would need to be looked at again for 2022/23.

     • 9.2.3 Were there any trends in the ability of debtors to pay? Most debtors were students and there were processes in place to support them to pay outstanding debts. There were no real issues with suppliers.

     • 9.2.4 There was the potential for several hundred refugees to come to the city from Ukraine. Noted; discussions had already taken place with the City Council over how the College could support their education needs in the same way that it had for Afghan refugees currently in the City. It now had an infrastructure in place do this. The first cohort could arrive in the next month or so.

     • 9.2.5 Did the College have any dealings with Gazprom? It did not.

     • 9.2.6 F&GP had discussed the sensitivity of the financial position and the impact on bank covenants. Would the summer reforecast be ready in time to inform discussions at the away day? It would, the summer reforecast would be considered at the next F&GP in May.

   • 9.3 Governors noted the period 6 finance report and approved the spring term reforecast.

10. T Level capital

    • 10.1 The Deputy Principal presented an update on the College’s bid for T Level capital funding during the Wave 4 funding round. The following points were highlighted.

      • 10.1.1 A previous new build project on waste land at Abbey Park Campus for electrical, plumbing and engineering, with an estimated cost of £6.6 million, had not been submitted because of the AEB tolerance decision and the financial implications for the College’s cash position.

      • 10.1.2 The costs of that project had now significantly increased to approximately £9.7 million and the Senior Leadership Team took the view that it would be unwise to proceed with that project.

      • 10.1.3 It was instead proposed to apply for funding for a refurbishment project to support Engineering and Manufacturing T Levels at APC B Block. The maximum grant available was £1.4 million; the College would need to match the grant to give a total project value of £2.5 million.

      • 10.1.4 The project would create a larger and upgraded workshop area to accommodate more advanced machinery and provide a better flow through for students. Classrooms on the first and second floors would be converted into more specialist provision space. This would all be delivered within the existing building footprint.

      • 10.1.5 The College would also need to invest to replace machinery which was outdated. It had been allocated a grant of £918,328 from the ESFA for upgraded equipment.

      • 10.1.6 The financial implications were a commitment of up to £1.25 million to contribute to the overall project cost and potential at risk costs of £80,000 for project design costs should the bid not be successful.

    • 10.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

      • 10.2.1 How the funding of the project related to the projected deficit in the reforecast? The College had sufficient cash to fund the project following the successful AEB business case. The capital costs would be depreciated over time.

      • 10.2.2 When the project would start. It would start in April 2023; the College would need to manage the disruption to teaching during the works.

      • 10.2.3 When the outcome of the bid would be known. This was likely to be July.

      • 10.2.4 Might there be an impact on the cost of the project from rising construction and material prices? It was possible but the College could still decide not to proceed if it became unaffordable. The project was also designed in stages and could be scaled down if necessary.

    • 10.3 Governors agreed to accept the recommendation of F&GP and approved the T Level capital bid.

11. Partnerships and projects report

    • 11.1 The Principal presented a report on the College’s partnerships and projects. The following points were highlighted:

      • 11.1.1 HE subcontracted activity continued to decline as planned.

      • 11.1.2 The two proposed new subcontracting arrangements agreed at the previous meeting would not now go ahead.

      • 11.1.3 Two new partnerships were outlined; these were not subcontracts. There was an opportunity to work with the Prince’s Trust over courses for 18-30 year olds seeking work; College delivery would be funded through the AEB.

      • 11.1.4 There was also a new partnership opportunity with RMF on rail track provision. RMF had been recommended to the College through another project and would provide personal track safety training for those students completing rail track programmes with the College.

    • 11.2 Governors noted the report and approved the new partnership work with RMF and the Prince’s Trust.

12. Student Union constitution

    • 12.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented a revised Student Union Constitution. The following points were highlighted:

      • 12.1.1 Changes were proposed to the election of student governors. Following a discussion at the last Search and Governance Committee around the role and election process for student governors, changes were proposed so that the Student Union President would not automatically also become a student governor. The rationale for this was to make the student governor role more manageable and to encourage participation and attendance at Corporation and Committee meetings.

      • 12.1.2 Other changes were to simplify the process for initiating new clubs and societies to encourage the establishment of more clubs and to permit the authorisation of electronic payments.

      • 12.1.3 The changes had been discussed with the current SU President.

    • 12.2 In response to question as to whether student governors were content with the proposed changes, they confirmed that they were.

    • 12.3 Governors approved the revised Student Union Constitution.

13. Corporation away day

    • 13.1 The Principal gave an update on plans for the Corporation Away Day. The following points were highlighted:

      • 13.1.1 The away day would be at Burleigh Court, Loughborough University.

      • 13.1.2 The agenda would include the strategic plan, with sessions looking at finance, staff pay, EDI, curriculum, sustainability and the estate.

    • 13.2 Governors noted the update.

      Verity Hancock, Lisa Armitage, Harmeet Kaur, Akith Maluge, Shaun Curtis, Debi Donnarumma, Kully Sandhu, Shabir Ismail and Louise Hazel left the meeting.

14. Senior pay review - confidential minute

15. Progress report on operating statement 2021-22

    • 15.1 Governors received and noted the paper.

16. Governor appointments and succession planning

    • 16.1 Governors received and noted the paper.

17. Complaints reports

    • 17.1 Governors received and noted the paper.

18. Dates of next meetings

    • 10/11 June 2022 – Away Day

    • 6 July 2022

19. Any other business

    • 19.1 Governors recorded their appreciation to Fayaz Chana who would be leaving the College.