REPORT PREPARED FOR HEC BY DEBORAH SHEPHERD AND NOVA GRESHAM
, JANUARY 2007
SUBJECT: INTO
Introduction
This is very much an interim, summary report based
on the research done by Deborah and picked up by Nova (on Tuesday this week).
It follows an initial report to HQ by Deborah in November 2006. Its purpose
is to alert members to what we see as a real threat in the HE sector and to
ask for national support in campaigning against it.
1. What is INTO?
INTO is the umbrella name of a number of companies
owned and run by one Andrew Colin For information, check out the websites of
INTO University of East Anglia and INTO University of Exeter . These companies,
in partnership with Universities, are privatising the recruitment of overseas
students and providing all initial teaching of English with the objective of
allowing students to enter degree courses. The Exeter site talks of ‘experience’ — actually,
there is none. Mr Colin claims to have around 300 agents in the middle and
far east who will recruit students to the Universities who sign up in partnership
with INTO, and the University of Newcastle have confirmed that they have seen
the list of agents, and that not all of them will work exclusively for INTO.
It
should be noted that other companies are also looking at doing similar deals
for the recruitment of international students (probably using many of the same
agents as INTO). These deals do differ in that they do not propose the transfer
of staff, seek control over teaching or include a third party company involved
in property development for profit. These companies include Kaplan International
(a subsidiary company of the Washington Post who already have active deals
at Glasgow , Nottingham and Sheffield ), and Study Group International, who
we understand have approached a number of UK Universities. More work needs
to be done on these companies to find out the extent to which this privatisation
trend has already infiltrated the HE system and to assess the likely effect
on our members over the long period. At some point a decision will have to
be made about the extent of UCU’s opposition to specific
schemes and operators in our sector.
Current negotiations at Newcastle University
, are looking very dangerous indeed. We know very little about what happened
at University of East Anglia last year, but have been made aware that both
staff who were transferred and colleagues who still work for the University
have expressed concerns about the quality of teaching and effect on their academic
freedom. The Exeter deal with INTO was concluded at the end of 2006, by which
time the Exeter office could only intervene to improve pension arrangements.
That argument continues at Newcastle , with the position of the Local Association
being that they are fundamentally opposed to such deals, and seriously concerned
about the specific proposals they are being presented with by the University
and INTO. It is very possible that a local dispute will be need to be declared
in relation to this issue, should the University maintain its current position,
that is a refusal to negotiate properly with NUCU before the deal is done.
Staff
have been transferred under TUPE at both UEA and Exeter but it is clear from
the Newcastle situation that INTO will only guarantee terms and conditions
for one year. That is, unfortunately, legal because INTO is setting up two
joint ventures. One venture (JYl) will administer the entire operation and
employ any new staff required and another venture (JV2) for existing staff
which is 51% owned by the University, in order to satisfy the requirements
for continued membership of USS (an issue raised by NUCU). While TUPE rules
would ensure our recognition agreement for these staff was transferred, there
are no plans to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement for the first
joint venture. In the most recent correspondence with ELT staff at Newcastle
, the transfer date is given as 1st February this year, before the Council,
who meet on the 5th February, has even made a final decision to proceed. We
believe this is likely to be a breach of IIEFCE guidance on due diligence in
such situations. Management are refusing to hold at the status quo ante as
requested by the Branch under their recognition agreement, to allow time for
further meaningful negotiation and say the University will only consult, not
negotiate with us to resolve matters since this is all they are legally required
to do. There is a Joint Negotiating Committee between UCU and Newcastle University
taking place on 2nd February, where this will be discussed further and NUCU
have submitted a number of questions in advance of that meeting, to which we
require answers. This whole venture is a serious challenge to the Union ’s
policy of opposing the privatisation of educational provision, whether in the
HE or FE sectors. Andrew Colin has said that INTO has approached some 13 HE
institutions. We do not know who they are, although Oxford Brookes and Liverpool
are rumoured to be on the list.
2. Who is Andrew Colin ?
A search of his Directorships, linked
to his involvement with UEA INTO, says that he is an ‘educationalist’.
We can find no supporting evidence to back up this description. All the evidence
suggests that he is a property developer. He is a Director of some 40 active
companies, most of which are involved in property development, several dormant
companies, and is an ex-Director of around 20 other companies. What is clear
from a sifting of the entries at Companies’ House and of the annual reports
and accounts is that many of these companies are set up simply to hold assets
of buildings and to trade with each other. The net effect of the inter-company
trading is to minimise and/or avoid Corporation Tax.
Most of these companies
have shareholdings of £100 or even £1 — in
other words, the series of small companies bury the information on the real
trading situation because ‘small’ companies do not have to lodge
turnover figures on their accounts. For instance, the company involved in a
huge regeneration project at the Elephant and Castle in London is absolutely
tiny. This may not look particularly relevant to the HEC but the Union may
wish to consider its position with regards to this kind of operation being
the recipient of profits acquired through the use of public funds in the sort
of joint ventures being proposed.
There is a confirmed link between Andrew
Colin and a very large investment management company called Smith and Williamson
(Holdings) Ltd which had a group turnover of £464m in 2004. This may
well be one source of his companies’ investment
capabilities.
Apart from the political policy angle, it is clear from the company
accounts of this myriad group that Andrew Colin opens up and closes down companies
with alarming regularity. Worse, loans, mortgages and debentures are traded
between companies (all legal). Deborah’s report on Newcastle shows that
the University will be handing over the land to another Andrew Colin property
company (Espalier) for free on the condition that a new teaching/accommodation
building will be erected and rented back to INTO Newcastle (the name for the
2 joint ventures). At Newcastle the University is commit to renting the property
for 35 years at above the market rate, currently estimated to be 500k per year
should the venture fail, and INTO Newcastle be dissolved. However, it is not
clear what happens if Espalier mortgages or even sells the land (and, later,
the buildings)?
A vast file of information now exists on the basis of our initial
research at Exeter and Newcastle and this has been provided . However, we believe
this issue now requires a clear statement from national level on UCU’s
opposition to privatisation in HE provision and more specifically on the INTO
deals. What is set out above is, as we say in the Introduction, a summary of
the current situation, a general alert and a request for assistance to make
the issue a national priority. A further paper is attached for the consideration
of the HEC in relation to specific support required by Newcastle UCU in their
ongoing campaign.
Nova Gresham RSO Exeter Deborah Shepherd RSO Edinburgh