Spend, spend, spend? - the mismanagement of the Learning and Skills Council's capital programme in further education colleges - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Contents

7  Next steps

104. We were keen that our inquiry, even in the short time available, did not solely consider what had gone wrong, but also looked to the future. The LSC noted that work was underway to implement Sir Andrew Foster's recommendations, as shown in the table below.[167]
Foster review recommendations (in italics) followed by extracts from Learning and Skills Council memorandum

Recommendation 1 The priority business is to agree how the present demand-led approach can be replaced by a needs-based approach with explicit priorities and choice criteria. These should inform the necessary decisions about the future capital programme. The LSC support the move to a needs-based approach. We have now worked with stakeholders to develop new criteria and designed a process by which future bids for capital funding will be prioritised. We expect the first stage of the prioritisation process to be finished by the end of June in order for the LSC to approve a small group of college projects to proceed this summer.

Recommendation 2 To this end there must be an early and open process of engagement and consultation between DIUS, the LSC and the college sector. A panel of college principals should be identified to work with LSC officials and DIUS representatives. This grouping should confer with the Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges' Forum, the 157 Group, the Local Government Association, local authorities and Regional Development Agencies. Since the report the LSC have already started a consultation process including the use of a reference panel of college principals and representative college groups convened by the AoC and we are also consulting widely with Regional Development Agencies and local authorities.

Recommendation 3 The process must be grounded in fully accurate and detailed information about capital schemes in the pipeline. There should also be a preliminary mapping of potential needs indicators to assist the discussion process. The LSC now has detailed information on all existing capital schemes and those in the pipeline. We have engaged Grant Thornton to independently verify the accuracy of the information currently held. We have also worked with specialist advisers who will independently apply the agreed criteria to projects in the pipeline to provide confidence that the resulting proposals will be fairly determined.

Recommendation 4 A realistic assessment is required, founded on excellent information, of individual colleges that have incurred expenditure, with high expectations, but have no guarantee of final approval for their proposals. A balanced approach is urgently required to expedite clarification of their position. It should include a process of structured self-assessment against agreed criteria. Experience in other public sector settings suggests this would benefit the colleges themselves and help to move things forward quickly. This focused on a realistic assessment being required of individual colleges that have incurred expenditure, with high expectations, but have no guarantee of final approval for their proposals. An initial assessment of costs already incurred by colleges with Approval in Principle has been carried out. LSC regional finance teams are working with these colleges to establish their financial position and to address any cash flow issues. The LSC has given a commitment that no college will become insolvent as a result of capital project delays. The LSC and DIUS are developing a policy position on how to deal with the legitimate costs incurred by colleges where their project may not now proceed in the near future.

Recommendation 5 In order to achieve speedy implementation, it will be essential to have a blended approach of open consultation with the sector, matched by a small dedicated project management group which drives a highly organised programme across LSC and DIUS levels. It must restore confidence with its professional approach and urgency of action. There is a need for balanced reflection and consultation for the first task and excellent project management skills for the second. In response a joint project team involving LSC and DIUS staff was set up with David Hughes appointed to take personal responsibility for LSC's capital programme, with the additional support of a senior finance director within the LSC. The LSC will be making further changes to the way the capital programme is managed which will help in this transition year from the LSC to the SFA and YPLA. We hope to be able to announce these changes, along with wider management arrangements shortly.

Recommendation 6 Talks should be held with HM Treasury to reinforce the importance of skills development in the context of national economic recovery and to review resourcing for the continuing capital programme. It is essential that a robust recovery plan is demonstrated. The Budget on April 22nd saw an announcement of further funding for capital projects.

Recommendation 7 Future development must take place in the context of a comprehensive and competent financial strategy that supports needs-related planning. The LSC is working with DIUS, colleges and stakeholders to assess the priority needs for the future. This assessment will provide, by Spring 2010, clarity on future needs and funding requirements. On this basis, a new financial strategy will be developed for the SFA, YPLA and local authorities to take forward in the discussions for the next spending review.

Recommendation 8 Active consideration must now be given to the future working arrangements of the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People's Learning Agency. Key issues for resolution include: the formulation of a robust investment strategy, the development of best-practice procurement methods in the light of experience in other public sector programmes and approaches to the engagement of partner organisations. The nature and management of their relationship with DIUS and DCSF must be clarified and it will be essential to design a regulatory function that inspires confidence within and beyond the FE sector itself. Discussions are underway with DIUS, DCSF and local authority representatives about the future arrangements for capital in the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People's Learning Agency. The new arrangements include regulation and oversight of capital by DIUS and DCSF, a new financial strategy and best practice procurement methods.

Future prioritisation of projects

105. On 4 March the then Secretary of State announced in a Written Ministerial Statement that projects at eight colleges which had been deferred at the December Council meeting —Stoke-on-Trent, Coulsdon (Surrey), West Kent, Liverpool, Solihull, Northampton and two in Bolton—had been given Approval in Detail. He added that he had asked the LSC "to consult with the Association of Colleges and the FE sector to advise me on ways of prioritising schemes in the future programme."[168] The Minutes of the LSC Council meeting on 22 April 2009 revealed that there had been some disquiet about how this decision was taken:

Council members were grateful for the further detail contained in the circulated paper but some felt that they should have been furnished with this information at the time of being asked to approve proposals in order to give full scrutiny to the implications. One member confirmed that he would not have approved the eight projects had this information been available at the time.[169]

106. There is now clearly a very substantial funding gap: David Hughes, National Projects Director stated in April that "the current plan [is] for the LSC to approve projects in June 2009 that required £500 million in grant, in the expectation that their total costs would be around £750 million"[170]; this compares to £2.7 billion of schemes which had already received Approval in Principle and £3 billion of schemes which had bid for Approval in Principle but not yet received it.[171] Hence, as the Association of Colleges put it, "the capital budget will still be insufficient to fund many valuable projects."[172] The LSC admitted in its memorandum that "It is clear that the urgent and greatest need projects will not include the majority of college projects which either have Application in Principle approval, or have been seeking such approval."[173] Hence the need for a rational prioritisation process.


107. DIUS explained on 5 May 2009 that in "order to determine which projects will be funded, the LSC are consulting with the sector on prioritisation criteria and they have established a reference panel of college principals convened by the Association of Colleges to inform the approach for prioritising schemes."[174] The Capital Reference Group met for the first time on 29 April under the Chairmanship of David Hughes. It included representatives of DIUS, DCSF, LSC, AoC, various FE and sixth form colleges and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC).

108. According to the Minutes of the meeting David Hughes set out the next steps to be taken, noting that "the main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the process for agreeing and applying the new prioritisation criteria." The prioritisation process was also discussed:

There would be a four stage process: the readiness assessment, the assessment against priorities, a ranking of projects and a fourth stage in which the planned programme would be assessed. […]

The priorities were grouped in five areas with an initial suggestion as to indicative weightings: education and skills impact (currently 20% of the total), contribution to local economic regeneration (15%), co-dependency with third parties (15%), condition of the estate (20%) and value for money (30%). A total of 20 criteria would be used to rank projects within these 5 categories.

The process would be tested in the next few days in a dry run.

The aim was to complete the readiness assessments by 15 May 2009. The aim was then to complete the assessment against priorities by 22 May 2009 so that recommendations could be made to the LSC Capital Committee meeting around the 26 May 2009. The Capital Committee recommendations would be taken to the LSC National Council for authority to proceed on 3 June 2009. [175]

109. The first stage of the process, the "readiness assessment" is also being referred to as the need to be "shovel-ready". Dr John Blake, who was at the 29 April meeting, commented:

I think they have made a good start in terms of being more open and more transparent and more involving […] They were talking at the first meeting about the process to be used to decide how the extra money that is available this year will be allocated on 3 June at the National Council meeting. It was an objective process. It was much more needs-based than previously. I think if a number of colleagues have got a concern it still has the risk of being about first-come, first-served, which is what we feel has happened so far. Shovel-ready basically means you have to have been lucky in the capricious process that got you this far in the LSC capital funding process to date so the 30 or 40 colleges who were successful may not be the most needy but they may be the ones who just happen to be ready this August.[176]

110. Martin Doel of the Association of Colleges was keen to emphasise that the role of the Capital Reference Group was to draw up criteria rather than choose between competing bids:

First and foremost, you need to understand the role of the Reference Group. It is to inform the criteria that will be used. It is not to have one set of principals judge upon another set of principals' projects to see which will go forward. It is to produce an objective set of criteria and to inform that process so that they are applied in a way that is fair, transparent and can be seen to be proper.[177]


111. The Association of Colleges identified two particular issues in which certainty was urgently required:

112. The Association of Colleges pointed out in its memorandum that, while making quick decisions could be risky "there are a large number of colleges where quick decisions are essential to ensure that governing bodies and Principals can schedule works in the summer holidays either to start building or to carry out emergency works on abortive projects."[180]


113. When we took evidence on 20 May we were told that the LSC Council meeting on 3 June would be key in taking matters forward. Martin Doel of the Association of Colleges emphasised:

The line will be how much money there is for allocation on 3 June [...] [T]he next thing we really do need to think about is what happens to all of those colleges that do not receive the go-ahead or the prospect of going ahead? The word we have so far is that there will be no new starts on current plans until 2011, and funding for that is uncertain.[181]

114. This was clearly set out in a letter to college principals written by the acting Chief Executive on 24 April:

We want to be as inclusive as possible in consulting on this, but also have very tight timescales to meet in order to deal with these urgent issues; our aim is to finalise by 15 May in order to have new projects approved at the 3 June National Council meeting. This is very ambitious and will require close co-operation with all colleges, but it is one which we were keen to offer to Government to secure the new funding.[182]

115. However, after we had taken our oral evidence, there were further delays. The acting Chief Executive wrote an open letter to college principals on 1 June:

As stated in my letter of 24 April, we had originally intended to have identified new projects to take to the Council meeting on 3 June for approval. However, many more colleges have put forward a case for their projects to be considered as 'shovel ready' than expected, and so unfortunately we are not in a position to ask the Council on 3 June to approve individual projects. The Council will instead consider the evidence from PWC regarding the readiness assessment and the prioritisation process to inform a judgement about which colleges will advance. Therefore, no immediate announcements will be made as to which colleges have gone through to the next stage of the process; we will make that announcement later in the month.[183]

The letter continued:

that next stage will be a tough value for money challenge to the colleges that come out of the prioritisation process as those with the greatest need. To ensure the largest number of colleges can still benefit from these funds, more colleges will be chosen for that stage than can be funded according to the size of their original bids. The challenge for colleges will therefore be to radically reduce the cost and the scope and sourcing of the funding of their projects. [...] We will expect all colleges on the short list to come back with revised bids and plans by the end of the month, which will need to be capable of implementation this autumn, quickly.

116. And it concluded with an apology:

I recognise that the LSC is not in an ideal position in relation to this issue, so I want to thank all of you for your understanding and cooperation in helping us to take forward these challenging and urgent tasks.


117. Finally, on 26 June, the LSC announced that 13 Colleges—Barnsley College, Bournville College, Furness College, Hartlepool College of Further Education, Kirklees College, Leyton Sixth Form College, Manchester College—Wythenshawe, North West Kent College, St Helens College, Sandwell College, South Thames College, Tresham Institute of Further and Higher Education, Corby and West Cheshire College—had "progressed to the next stage of the process" and been put on a "shortlist", meaning that they had first passed the readiness assessment and then the application of the five criteria: education and skills impact, contribution to local economic and regeneration priorities, co-dependency, current condition of estate and value for money. [184]

118. The announcement letter, from Chris Banks, confirmed that "for those colleges unsuccessful in this round there is now no prospect of getting their projects funded this CSR" and continued:

We and our partners in this process are determined to ensure that the funds we have available achieve the greatest possible improvements for learners across the country and maximise the leverage of other funds into the sector. I am acutely aware that there are going to be many sorely disappointed colleges up and down the country which have good projects which we cannot fund in this round and it is imperative that we show them that we have done everything possible to reduce the costs of the 13 which we are inviting to progress.

To ensure these funds have as wide an impact as possible, more projects have been identified at this stage than can be funded according to the size of their original bids. Each college must now substantially reduce the cost and scope of their projects and review other sources of funding.[185]

119. A Written Ministerial Statement made by Kevin Brennan, Minister for FE, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs warned "All 13 colleges will receive funding only if the overall cost is reduced." [186]


120. As it turns out 2008 was indeed a once-in-a-generation opportunity for FE capital expenditure, though not in the way that the LSC and DIUS intended. We are now left with a situation in which funding is scarce and worthy cases cannot be prioritised. Out of over 180 projects submitted to the LSC—of which a significant proportion had received Approval in Principle—only 13 have proceeded to the next stage of consideration. Even they have all been asked to "substantially reduce the cost and scope of their projects and review other sources of funding". For the others there is "no prospect of getting their projects funded this CSR."

121. This is a difficult situation for all concerned. LSC is making its best efforts to address this prioritisation in a fair way but given the inadequacies of the demand-led process our inquiry has identified, we believe the prioritisation and criteria on which future funding should be committed should take account of all factors relevant to the bids available. This includes the impact of the capital project on the added value of the college's programmes and the vocational development of its student body as well as the impact of the project on the regeneration of the area in which it sits as well as the potential areas from which it recruits its students, not simply the chronological status of bids at the time the programme was put on hold. We therefore have concerns about the application of the readiness gateway which we do not believe should be applied in the future when making decisions about funding.

122. LSC must move to a position where it can show its working on the extent to which the existing budget is committed, the value of projects being considered and how projects have been evaluated. It is particularly disappointing that the announcement of further delays was made only two days before the long-anticipated 3 June Council meeting and we recommend that LSC immediately takes steps to set out the timetable for the remainder of the evaluation process.


123. The Association of Colleges stated in its memorandum:

Colleges in these circumstances have a legitimate claim for compensation from the LSC for money they spent in good faith up to the moratorium in December 2008 and for committed costs that they are still incurring, for example on temporary accommodation. In March 2009, AoC carried out a survey of the 79 Colleges with approvals in principle and another 120 Colleges carrying out feasibility studies to establish some facts. 168 Colleges responded to the survey (an 80% response) and reported the following:

124. One College with Approval in Principle, West Cheshire, submitted written evidence to us, which set out the cost—both financial and non-financial—of the delays in receiving funding:

£5 million has already been invested by both the College and the LSC.

Buildings have deteriorated with the majority having a very limited lifespan (probably two years) as per an updated survey undertaken by consultants in 2006. Maintenance programmes have been limited to health and safety activities only as the buildings are due for replacement and this was agreed with the LSC.

The College has already vacated 12,000 square metres in order to build on its footprint due to local political pressure, Green Belt and EMV8 regulations. After discussions with the LSC, feasibility and enabling work has started so the College could meet the agreed planned programme in our applications in principle and in detail (e.g. a substation has been moved). Progress was discussed with the LSC on 14th January 2009 and requested information was subsequently provided to them.

Students are in temporary buildings and off site (virtually all of our 16-19 year olds spend at least some time in temporary accommodation). These are not long term solutions and are costly.[188]

125. We note the 2009 Foster Review's comments that some colleges continued to celebrate provisional approval as if it were final approval, even when the warning signs of a funding shortage had become apparent (Foster refers to this as the "champagne moment" culture.)[189] Graham Moore of the 157 Group stressed:

If you get approval in principle you then have to spend a large tranche of money to get to approval in detail because this is a fully costed contract where if you get the money you sign the contract and you start work the following day, the 'shovel-ready' concept which we hear about […] In our case it would cost about £5 million. We had spent £2.7 million when we were told to stop and other colleges were in the same situation […] I do not think any corporations felt that they were taking significant risk, in fact it was a requirement: if you wanted to get AiD and you got AiP you could do nothing but spend that money. That was absolutely essential.[190]

126. Discussions about compensation are ongoing. The LSC memorandum stated that "The LSC has given a commitment that no college will become insolvent as a result of capital project delays. The LSC and DIUS are developing a policy position on how to deal with the legitimate costs incurred by colleges where their project may not now proceed in the near future."[191] And a letter from Siôn Simon, then FE Minister, to college principals was placed on the DIUS website in March:

The LSC monitors financial risk in colleges and there are well established procedures for dealing with any college judged to be at risk. If you are concerned that your college may be at significant risk financially, you should speak to your local LSC who will organise a discussion with their financial advisers and will agree with you a plan to ensure that the college is not put at risk of not being able to meet its financial obligations. [192]

127. Martin Doel of the Association of Colleges stressed the need for clarity:

The key point for us will be what clarity colleges will have on the funds returned to them and how that will be treated on their balance sheets in order that they can begin to work out their own responses to the situation that they find themselves in and having that clarity going forward.[193]

128. Geoff Russell, the acting LSC Chief Executive, told us:

The LSC has clear rules that set out what colleges are allowed to spend money on at each of the stages. The external advisers that we have appointed are assessing that very issue for each college and we will have the position for each of them within days. Once we know who is going forward, we will turn to the issue of sunk-costs. We will do it in a sympathetic way, because clearly the LSC shares a great deal of responsibility for this.[194]

129. The Minutes of the Capital Reference Group meeting on 29 April 2009 shed further light on the issues which remain to be resolved:

David Hughes stated that LSC would pay fee support in line with the usual arrangements but needed to address three issues on sunk and abortive costs:

  • accounting for costs incurred. LSC was working with AoC and audit firms on this issue.
  • cash flow issues. LSC would use its financial intervention procedures to ensure that colleges in financial difficulty received short-term support.
  • the extent of its responsibility for costs incurred before the moratorium. Lambert Smith Hampton would review the position in every college after which further consideration would be given to this issue.

This work would take place in parallel with the assessment process but run slightly behind it. Phil Head added that some of the sunk costs incurred, for example in buying or improving land, would not necessarily be abortive if a project did not happen.

Points made in the subsequent discussion:

Peter Corrigan [Worthing College] said that the systems used by LSC to assess financial health needed to be adjusted to take account of these circumstances.

Merydydd David [Reaseheath College] said that some costs incurred after the moratorium, for example on temporary accommodation, were legitimate and consideration should be given to being able to claim some of these costs from the LSC.

Julian Gravatt [Association of Colleges] said that the current plan was for the 2009 accounts direction to colleges to be issued in May 2009. Further guidance on the sunk costs issue might need to be issued in June 2009. [195]

130. The Acting Chief Executive's letter of 1 June confirmed that work was still underway:

For those projects that will not be taken forward in this stage, we will consider maximising the longer term value of costs incurred, the accounting implications, borrowing flexibilities and other ways to help resolve problems. The latter will include pursuing with stakeholders whether there may be a role for the LSC in encouraging discussions with the sector and private sector financing partners. [196]

131. The matter was discussed again at the Capital Reference Panel Group meeting on 15 June with frank discussions between LSC and college representatives:

David Hughes explained that LSC finance staff were collecting additional information on costs incurred by colleges to date to allow an assessment of any LSC liability. This process needed to be completed by 30 June. All 209 colleges who had completed questionnaires had been contacted in the last couple of days. He said that LSC would pay its fee contribution in line with the Capital Handbook and had put some funds aside to pay further costs to mitigate the impact of spend on financial health. Phil Head added that a further round of payments for fee contributions would be made on 22 and 29 June 2009—assuming that colleges had supplied the necessary paperwork—and would cover fees incurred up to the end of the LSC 2008-09 financial year (i.e. until 31 March 2009).

John Blake asked how large a contribution would be made by LSC to total project costs. David Hughes said that the policy was still in discussion but the plan might pay a higher share to colleges further down the track. He made it clear that there was not enough money to simply pay for all of the development costs incurred by every college. John Blake pointed out that LSC had taken nine months to assess one college's project. [197]

132. The Ministerial Statement made on 26 June warned that reimbursement of costs would be "limited to those appropriately incurred within the terms of the capital programme." [198]

133. Press reports indicate that the Association of Colleges has been considering legal action, with Martin Doel, Chief Executive, quoted in the Financial Times as stating "I think we're prepared to look at judicial review as a possible way of addressing some of these issues."[199] The 157 Group memorandum similarly stated "Legal action may be inevitable if college corporations/boards are to fulfil their fiduciary responsibilities."[200] This problem has been anticipated by the LSC, as the Council's December minutes stated "Members asked that a clear action plan be in place to respond to any legal challenges arising from its decision to carryover project approvals from its December 2008 meeting until March 2009."[201]

134. The commitment that "no college will become insolvent as a result of capital project delays" does not go far enough. DBIS will now need to work with the LSC to ensure that compensation arrangements for sunk costs are settled as a matter of urgency and the presumption must be that those colleges which incurred significant expenditure moving from Approval in Principle towards Approval in Detail have those costs fully reimbursed. Funding for this should not be top-sliced off the overall capital budget.

Capital Innovation Fund, Small Projects Fund and alternative funding

135. One suggestion made by colleges was that a 'capital innovation fund' should be established "so that people can find alternative means of funding their projects in the meantime, perhaps on a scaled-down size or through refurbishment, in order to meet their essential and immediate needs, and in order to respond to the demands that have been placed on them in the face of the recession."[202] The Association of Colleges expanded on this in its memorandum, arguing for a "small amount of Government funding to support college innovation in the following areas":

  • redesign of projects on a more modest scale to meet immediately pressing needs;
  • project funding involving a larger amount of borrowing, perhaps supported in some way by a college's home Local Authority;
  • sale and leaseback of facilities involving commercial partners;
  • shared use of facilities with other education institutions; and
  • further examination of the use of HEFCE capital funding for colleges.[203]

136. The NAO Report noted that the LSC and HEFCE had been discussing "how to simplify cross-sector capital procedures"[204] and the Association of Colleges noted that "Many of the schemes which have been delayed are in Colleges which provide a significant amount of higher education for example City College Norwich, Blackpool and the Fylde College and Grimsby Institute for FE and HE."[205]

137. The latest announcement by the LSC mentioned the possibility of a "small projects fund which would begin this autumn" though it linked this to "savings" in the successful colleges' projects which could be reinvested. It also stated that the LSC was "pursuing other routes of funding by exploring the potential for collective approaches to private financing and borrowing. Early discussions with partners are encouraging and we will again work with the Capital Reference Panel and other groups to move this forward." [206] The Minutes of the Capital Reference Panel on 15 June provided a certain amount of further detail on how a small projects fund would work. David Hughes, National Projects Director explained that "the small fund proposal was designed to support projects on a reduced scale and that the work exploring private financing options might help others." [207]

138. The Minutes of the 15 June meeting confirmed that work was also underway on alternative funding sources:

Stuart Howie of Price Waterhouse Coopers introduced himself and explained that PwC had been commissioned by LSC to conduct a quick scoping study on alternative funding sources for projects, for example ways to make debt cheaper, asset backed vehicles and possibilities for identifying revenue streams associated with investment. He said that workshops would be held in the following week to explore options. In a brief discussion on the work, members suggested that PwC look at the historic attempts to use PFI in colleges, alumni, loan support funding and guarantees and VAT issues etc.[208]

139. In its response to the announcement the Association of Colleges commented that "AoC wants to help colleges explore alternative ways of funding projects and we will be running a series of events this year to help them do so—including a summit in July. Colleges have a long history of innovation and resourcefulness that they can tap into when seeking alternative funding streams, given the chance." [209]

140. The Department and the LSC should be making every effort to help those colleges which will not receive funding in this spending round. We therefore endorse the proposal by the Association of Colleges for a small amount of government funding to support colleges in raising alternative finance for their projects and welcome the announcement by the LSC of the creation of a small projects fund. We see the potential involvement of HEFCE as particularly relevant given the ever-increasing amount of HE delivery via Further Education and the growing convergence between Higher Education and FE in the future for which the Capital building programme is designed. We also see considerable potential to involve local authorities in some projects, given firstly the role of FE colleges in local regeneration and skills development, secondly, the access local authorities have to capital funding, and, thirdly, the authorities' role in 16-19 provision from 2010. Furthermore, colleges should be assisted to share best practice and contacts or to reduce the overall cost of their projects through shared use or redesign. We recommend that funding both for an innovation fund and for small projects is not contingent on the successful 13 Colleges making savings and is not 'top-sliced' from the LSC capital budget.

167   Ev 45 Back

168   HC Deb, 4 March 2009, col 55WS Back

169   LSC, National Council minutes, 22 April, para 12.2 Back

170   LSC, Capital Reference Group minutes, 29 April 2009: "assuming an average grant rate between 65% and 70%" Back

171   See para 14 Back

172   Ev 37, para 9 Back

173   Ev 47, para 5.7 Back

174   HC Deb, 5 May 2009, col 160W Back

175   LSC Capital Reference Group minutes, 29 April 2009, Section 1 Back

176   Q 142 Back

177   Q 144 Back

178   Ev 37, para 9 Back

179   As above Back

180   Ev 38, para 10 Back

181   Q 146 Back

182   Letter to College Principals from Geoff Russell dated 24 April 2009 [not printed] Back

183   Letter to College Principals from Geoff Russell dated 1 June 2009 [not printed] Back

184   HC Deb, 29 June 2009, col 73WS Back

185   Letter from Chris Banks, Chairman of the LSC, 26 June 2009 [not printed] Back

186   HC Deb, 29 June 2009, col 73WS Back

187   Ev 39, para 15 Back

188   Ev 35 Back

189   2009 Foster Review, para 39 Back

190   Q 124 Back

191   Ev 45, para 3.6 Back

192   Letter from Siôn Simon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Further Education, to College Principals, 23 March 2009 [not printed] Back

193   Q 130 Back

194   Q 232 Back

195   LSC, Capital Reference Group minutes, 29 April 2009, Section 5 Back

196   Letter to College Principals from Geoff Russell dated 1 June 2009 [not printed] Back

197   LSC, Capital Reference Group minutes, 15 June 2009, Section 6.1 Back

198   HC Deb, 29 June 2009, col 73WS Back

199   Financial Times, 14 March 2009, p 4 Back

200   Ev 44, para 2.3 Back

201   LSC, National Council minutes, 17 December 2008, para 5.10 Back

202   Q 146 Back

203   Ev 38, para 11 Back

204   National Audit Office, Renewing the physical infrastructure of English further education colleges, HC (2007-08) 924, July 2008, Ev 38, para 1.13 Back

205   Ev 38, para 11 Back

206   Letter from Chris Banks, Chairman of the LSC, 26 June 2009 [not printed] Back

207   LSC, Capital Reference Group minutes, 15 June 2009, para 5.2 Back

208   LSC, Capital Reference Group minutes, 15 June 2009, para 7.1 Back

209   Association of Colleges, Press release, AoC responds to LSC capital programme statement, 26 June  Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 17 July 2009