Corporation Minutes 3 July 2025
Minutes of a meeting of the board of Leicester College Corporation
Held on 3 July 2025
Present: Danielle Gillett (Chair), Robert Radford, Lesley Giles, Nicky Randall, Shabir Ismail, Jackie Rossa, Cahn Kataria, Lee Soden, Zubair Limbada, Tom Wilson, Neil McDougall*
In Attendance: Louise Hazel Director of Governance and Policy, Amanda Scott Director of HR, Kully Sandhu Vice Principal, Jane Parkinson Director of Finance, Rachel Hall Director of Apprenticeships and Commercial (item 4)
*Joined meeting online via Teams
Declaration of Interest
1.1 Staff declared an interest in agenda item 9.1; Shabir Ismail and Louise Hazel declared an interest in item 9.2; ELT members and Jane Parkinson declared an interest in item 14. It was noted that Jane Parkinson was on the Board of the St Phillip’s Centre. It was also noted that Shabir Ismail was on the Board of East Midlands Housing.
Apologies for absence
2.1 Apologies for absence were received from Vipal Karavadra, Alex StaceyMidgely, Sophie Strevens-Robinson and Debi Donnarumma. Kyle James, Chloe Bakewell and Louisa Poole were absent.
Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising
3.1 Members of the Corporation received and approved the minutes of the meeting on 3 April 2025.
3.2 Members of the Corporation received and approved the confidential minutes of the meeting on 3 April 2025.
3.3 Members of the Corporation received and approved the confidential minutes of the Special meeting on 15 May 2025.
3.4 Members of the Corporation received and approved the notes of the away day on 6-7 June 2025.
3.5 In response to a question as to whether the SU sabbatical role had been considered, it was confirmed that this was included in an action plan from the away day and would be considered in the new academic year.
Employer survey
4.1 The Director of Apprenticeships and Commercial presented the results of the employer survey. The following points were highlighted:
4.1.1 The report presented the findings from the first Employer Survey for 2024/25, focusing on employer feedback about apprenticeship programmes. Further in year surveys would be conducted.
4.1.2 90% of employers expressed satisfaction with the recruitment process and apprentice matching. Given the complexity of the process, this was felt to be a good outcome.
4.1.3 Generally feedback was positive but where satisfaction was slightly lower, actions were planned. 83% of respondents felt the training plan met their needs, indicating a need for better communication and adaptation to operational requirements. Planned actions included structured consultations and user-friendly training plans.
4.1.4 Only 81% felt their feedback was considered in shaping the training plan, so formal agendas for initial meetings to enhance co-development would be introduced.
4.1.5 While 89% agreed apprentices understood the program goals, actions were planned to reinforce these goals through ongoing discussions and a simplified workplan for apprentices.
4.2 Governors made the following comments and asked a number of questions including:
4.2.1 Where would feedback from employers through other routes be captured? Discussions with the hospital about pharmacy apprenticeships raised at the stakeholder dinner had been followed up.
4.2.2 Were areas with lower scores being followed up with individual employers? The survey was anonymous so this was not always possible but all employers would be contacted through the review process.
4.2.3 Given that satisfaction was high, was there confidence that the balance was right in making changes while not affecting existing good practice? Some staff were already adopting good practice; the changes were designed to bring areas that needed further work up to that level.
4.2.4 What was the return rate? This was about 30%; a higher rate was desirable.
4.2.5 The return rate was good. Several of the issues highlighted were common issues. Some providers were also looking at how apprentices were being developed so they could have better conversations with their employers about their apprenticeships. Noted.
4.2.6 Were there any areas which had better practice and what was being done to develop staff? All training plans were checked and some were strong, some needed further development. CPD in the area was personalised to provide more support where needed.
4.3 Members of the Corporation thanked the Director of Apprenticeships and noted the responses to the employer survey.
Partnerships and projects report
5.1 The Acting Principal presented the partnerships and projects report. The following points were highlighted.
5.1.1 The current partnerships and projects were described. These covered a range of activities and some locally focussed activity.
5.1.2 Partnerships included with the DWP and Jobcentre and UHL through sector based work programmes, and with the City Council on a Tourism Ambassador programme. The College was also focussing on areas of government priority; the rail and security programmes addressed local and national issues. A social care bootcamp had been approved.
5.1.3 LSIF funded projects had been completed successfully.
5.1.4 A series of bids and tenders were underway for future projects and funding opportunities.
5.1.5 It was proposed to continue the subcontract with the National Space Centre (NSC). This had proven very successful with excellent retention and achievement and students progressing to positive destinations. It was proposed to continue the subcontract in 2025/26. Delivery would be on a 50/50 basis to make use of the specialist facilities at the NSC and SMC and the College would retain a management fee.
5.1.6 Other strategically aligned subcontracting opportunities were coming up and the Corporation’s view on exploring more subcontracting, within the 10% income threshold previously agreed, was invited.
5.2 Governors asked the following questions:
5.2.1 How close was the current level of subcontracting to the agreed maximum? It was small, around 1%; the only subcontracting was with the NSC.
5.2.2 In the proposed arrangement with the Tigers Foundation, would the College be subcontracting to the Tigers? It would.
5.2.3 The paper was not clear; it included subcontracting and a range of projects, each of which reported on different things and student numbers and outputs were not clear. Could this be reframed for the next meeting to be clearer on the extent of subcontracting and the income. Noted
5.2.4 Who set the £100k threshold? The DfE.
5.2.5 Was there any sense of a change in view from the current government as to whether subcontracting was a good thing, given the increasing emphasis on collaborative working? Historically there had been high volumes of subcontracting in the sector some of which was poor quality; these concerns remained. HE was now experiencing similar scrutiny of subcontracting and tighter controls.
5.2.6 The potential partnership with the Tigers would be a good strategic move.
5.2.7 Any proposal should have a risk register and an indication of how 4 any risks would be mitigated
5.2.8 Had any analysis been done of the various partnerships’ contributions to the bottom line? A contribution analysis was done during the planning process for the courses offered. The aggregated impact was included in the curriculum plan.
5.2.9 It would be helpful to have more detail on the financial implications which were not clear in the curriculum plan. Noted.
5.2.10 There were moral and ethical concerns about some subcontracting because the funding did not always all go to the learner experience. The College was already stretched in terms of quality; was there capacity to take on additional subcontracting and ensure high quality, particularly given the students were high risk learners?
5.2.11 If it was possible to make the contract with the Tigers work, this might be very helpful in reducing the likelihood of some students becoming NEET and encouraging more to come back to Leicester College.
5.3 Members of the Corporation:
5.3.1 Noted the report and the existing and planned partnerships
5.3.2 Approved the continued subcontract with the National Space Centre.
5.3.3 Approved the continuation of arrangements for rail and security programmes.
5.3.4 Approved the exploration of an additional CCTV programme, subject to any proposal being brought back for final approval.
5.3.5 Agreed there was some appetite for exploring more subcontracted delivery where there was a clear strategic rationale and provided it remained below the agreed limit.
5.3.6 Approved the Subcontracting and Tendering Policy and Subcontracting Statement.
Finance report (period 10) and summer reforecast
6.1 The Director of Finance presented the finance report (period 10) and summer reforecast. The following points were highlighted.
6.1.1 The year to date result was an EBITDA surplus after restructuring costs of £1,640k compared to the budgeted surplus of £1,744k.
6.1.2 The R10 data return showed that 16-19 learner numbers were above allocation overall despite an under recruitment to T level courses. The College would receive an additional £649k in-year growth funding, which represented 67% of the funding due.
6.1.3 The College would fall short of its ASF target as a result of the ring fencing of tailored learning. The under achievement was estimated at £250k in the spring reforecast but had been increased by a further £150k in the summer reforecast.
6.1.4 Apprenticeship income was expected to exceed £5m and the target within the summer reforecast had been increased by £100k.
6.1.5 Key movements in the summer reforecast included additional income from the grant for employer national insurance (NI) contributions; extra 5 funding to assist with pay and recruitment pressures; and additional apprenticeship and high needs income. Areas of reduced income included the ASF and tuition fees; the costs of the NI increase and a non-consolidated pay award had been factored in with a net negative adjustment of £31k.
6.1.6 Overall, the expected EBITDA after restructuring costs would decrease by £31k, from a surplus of £1,944k to £1,912k.
6.1.7 The College would meet its bank covenants and achieve a ‘good’ financial health rating, following the spring reforecast.
6.2 The Chair reported that this had been discussed in detail at F&GP and at the Committee’s request, a slightly revised version was presented to the Corporation which now showed a more favourable position.
6.3 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions:
6.3.1 At 28 days, was the number of cash days a concern? 25 cash days was considered the recommended level.
6.3.2 Did cash ever drop below 25 days? No. The FEC had recently issued new benchmarks which raised the benchmark number of cash days to 40 although this was considered ‘aspirational’. The College would need to continue to monitor cash carefully.
6.3.3 There were some months which it was at 40 days. Agreed. The funding profile was now more even.
6.3.4 This also reflected the improved financial position the College was in. The team should be congratulated on this.
6.4 Members of the Corporation noted the period 10 finance report and approved the summer reforecast.
Risk Management Strategy 2025/26
7.1.1 The Corporation’s role in the management of risk as set out in the Risk Management Policy was reiterated.
7.1.2 The current approach to risk management had been adopted in 2023/24. The Audit Committee had reviewed the approach and the proposed risk register at its last meeting. It had also considered documents prepared by RSM which set out the wider risk environment and emerging risks for the sector which helped with horizon scanning.
7.1.3 It had been good to note that the emerging risks were covered within other strategic risks. The main change related to the separation of the previous curriculum and quality risk into two risks; the risk appetite around quality was minimal.
7.1.4 The proposed approach including the Risk Management Policy, Risk Appetite Statement and Risk Register and assurance map had been discussed in detail by the Audit Committee. They would enable the Committee to provide assurance that the College’s systems and risk management, control, governance processes and arrangements for 6 securing economies and efficiencies. The Risk Appetite statement had been amended to take out the specific risks; these would be covered in the Risk Register which would remain a live document.
7.1.5 Risks had also now been allocated to committees to enable them to scrutinise specific areas of risk and reduce the potential for surprises.
7.2 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions:
7.2.1 Why did the residual risk remain red for quality of provision despite the planned actions? There would be a series of actions to reduce risk further but these had not yet been completed and so the risk would be amended to reflect those actions once complete.
7.2.2 Was there sufficient acknowledgement of risk around partnerships and collaboration given the focus on this by the current government? It was an evolving landscape and partnerships would be ever more important. As the year progressed it might be necessary to review the risk level but it was felt to be appropriate for now.
7.2.3 It was not the Corporation’s role to score the risks but to question and challenge management on their assessment of risk level.
7.3 Members of the Corporation thanked the Audit Committee for its work, accepted the recommendation of the Committee and approved the Risk Appetite Statement, Risk Assurance Map and Risk Register for 2025/26.
Plans for 2025/26
8.1 The Acting Principal and Vice Principal presented the Curriculum Delivery Plan for 2025/26. The following points were highlighted.
8.1.1 The plan set out the College’s curriculum offer and funding for 2025/26.
8.1.2 Contribution rates and potential areas of efficiency were reviewed during the planning process. Several courses were revised for next year; new T levels would be introduced in legal services, accountancy, followed by cyber security, lab tech and health.
8.1.3 There were a number of the assumptions underpinning the plan including that overall 16-19 recruitment would be slightly higher. There would be no tolerance for T Levels meaning that, as one of the larger providers, the College would be more vulnerable to clawback. This had been factored in.
8.1.4 The policy context was included. The ASF was a higher risk area as 68% of the ASF would go to devolved areas and the College was in a non-devolved area. There would also be an impact from the change to the basic rate (from £7.40 per hour down to £6.00 per hour).
8.1.5 The successful boot camp application in social care would have job
8.1.6 outcomes attached to this. Employment programmes and ESOL provision was aligned to welfare reforms.
8.1.7 Qualification reform continued and the College would need to prepare for the lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) in 2027.
8.1.8 The cost of living and the impact on adult participation remained a risk.
8.2 The Chair of CSQI commented that the Committee had discussed the plan and confirmed it was well thought through and sensible given the curriculum and assessment review which could see further change.
8.3 Members of the Corporation approved the Curriculum Delivery Plan for 2025/26.
8.4 The Deputy Principal presented the budget for 2025/26 and two-year financial plan. The following points were highlighted:
8.4.1 Overall, the proposed budget for 2025/26 showed an operating surplus of £780k and £772k in 2026/27 with an EBITDA of £2.5m moving to £2.4m in 2026/27.
8.4.2 Total income for 2025/26 was forecast to increase by £4m to £58.6m compared to 2024/25, mainly due to increases in 16-19 income. Apprenticeship income was also budgeted to increase marginally. However, other income streams such as ASF, HE and fees in general were held at 2024/25 levels.
8.4.3 Forecast pay expenditure in 2025/26 would increase by £2.6m. This reflected the increased delivery and pay award pressures. A 4% award had been included for planning purposes.
8.4.4 Total non-pay expenditure was budgeted at £16.8 million. This included 3% inflationary costs with some additional increases to cover cyber security and estates maintenance.
8.4.5 Capital expenditure of £1.8m was included, £1.1m of which was from the capital grant of £2.2m for the next two years.
8.4.6 The budget for 2025/26 included an assumption of achieving the income and expenditure outlined. The College would need to slip by £900k to fall into ‘requires improvement’ financial health.
8.4.7 The key risks facing the College were described.
8.4.8 Financial health under the DfE criteria graded the College as ‘good’ in 2025/26 with a point score of 190. The planned budget met all the banking covenants.
8.5 The Chair reported that F&GP had considered the budget including the assumptions. The Committee’s view was that it was a sound plan although it might be subject to change. The Committee had requested further detail on pay costs to inform future discussions.
8.6 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions:
8.6.1 The outturn was relatively low. The College still needed to think about some back up plans if it was not achievable. Noted.
8.6.2 The AoC’s view was that future funding years would be less favourable than this although there might be some further developments which would unlock other funding.
8.6.3 Producing a larger surplus was always going to be challenging given all the additional costs that needed to be factored in.
8.7 Members of the Corporation
8.7.1 Approved the financial plan for submission to the DfE.
8.7.2 Approved the 2025/26 budgeted Income and Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow contained within the plan.
8.7.3 Approved the Capital Expenditure Budget for 2025/26.
8.7.4 Noted the 2026/17 financial plan and its assumptions.
8.8 The Principal presented the Operating Statement for 2025/26. The following points were highlighted.
8.8.1 The KPIs and objectives in the Operating Statement flowed from the Strategic Plan and were linked to the Risk Register.
8.8.2 Actions and progress would be monitored on a termly basis.
8.9 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions:
8.9.1 The statement did not include specific targets so it was hard to approve it at this stage. Approval to the statement framework and planned actions was sought; the targets would be brought to CSQI for discussion and added at a later stage.
8.9.2 The plan did not make reference to the leadership restructure. This would be added once approval had been given this evening.
8.10 Members of the Corporation approved the Operating Statement for 2025/26 subject to the addition of specific targets.
Jane Parkinson, Kully Sandhu and Nicky Randall left the meeting.
Pay Award - Confidential
Shabir Ismail and Louise Hazel rejoined the meeting
Following Agenda items were taken out of sequence
10. Leadership Structure - Confidential
External Governance Review
11.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented a paper on the External Governance Review. The following points were highlighted.
11.1.1 It was a requirement that the Corporation undergo external reviews of governance every three years. A review was now due.
11.1.2 A draft scope had been discussed by the Search and Governance Committee.
11.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:
11.2.1 Would the acronyms be understood? The reviewer should have understanding of the FE sector and so would be familiar with the acronyms.
11.2.2 Would it be sensible to use a different reviewer from last time? The Search and Governance Committee’s view was that it would.
11.3 Members approved the scope and timeline for the external governance review.
Governing Documents
12.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented proposed changes to the Instrument and Articles of Government and the Standing Orders. The following points were highlighted.
12.1.1 Changes to the Instrument and Articles were following advice to all colleges from the Department of Education and the Charity Commission that the clause limiting the voting rights of governors aged under 18 be removed as this also limited their ability to fulfill their responsibilities as charity trustees.
12.1.2 The revised Standing Orders included the new Associate role which had been discussed and agreed by the Search and Governance Committee.
12.2 Members
12.2.1 Approved the revised Instrument and Articles of Government
12.2.2 Approved the revised Standing Orders.
Fraud Policy
13.1 The Director of Finance presented a revised Fraud Policy for approval. The following points were highlighted.
13.1.1 A new offence of ‘failure to prevent fraud’ was introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This held large organisations criminally liable if an associated person committed a fraud intended to benefit the organisation.
13.1.2 Following discussion at the last Audit Committee, it was agreed that an earlier than usual review of the Fraud Policy was needed and a revised policy should be approved to ensure the College had an up to date Fraud Policy in place when the new requirement came in effect.
13.1.3 A new checklist had also been produced and the risk assessment would continue to be reviewed annually.
13.2 Members noted their responsibilities in respect of the new offence and approved the revised Fraud Policy.
Business Cycle 2025/26
14.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented the Corporation Calendar and Business Cycle for 2025/26. The following points were highlighted.
14.1.1 The calendar and business cycle were similar to that adopted in the 10 current year with some slight changes.
14.1.2 Additional meetings would be called if needed including to appoint new senior postholders.
14.2 Members of the Corporation:
14.2.1 Approved the Corporation Calendar and Business Cycle.
14.2.2 Approved the Committee Terms of Reference.
Governor Visit Reports
15.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the governor visit reports.
Progress Report Operating Statement
16.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Operating Statement Progress Report.
Governor Appointments
17.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Governor appointments report.
Items from Audit Committee: Risk Management Update
18.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Risk Management Update.
Dates of Future Meetings
30 October 2025
20 November 2025 (special)
11 December 2025
29 January 2026 (provisional)
16 April 2026
5/6 June 2026 (Away Day)
2 July 2026