University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Letter to Chair Chris Chapman 08/06/10

July 17th, 2010 · No Comments

Tuesday, 08 June 2010

Christine Chapman – Chair, Petitions Committee

Dear Ms Chapman,

Thank you for asking me to respond to the Minsters letter dated the 5th May 2010

I have been heartened by the proactive and reforming public comments by the Minister regarding Higher Education, therefore, I am pleased that the Minster has announced a review into HE governance. However, I do not have enough information to be able to answer if this is going to address the concerns that I am raising in my petition. I am making the point that we have academics providing the service, the funding and the regulation; the result is purely academic in the interests of academia and not in the interests of the public or students. So I can give a cautious welcome to the appointment of somebody with knowledge of education but outside academia who is going to Chair the review.

However, to include others from with expertise in other areas such as industry, community and the economy in any review is not good enough; I suggest they may like the politicians simply go with the sanitised and often misleading version of the situation presented by academics for fear of looking stupid or inadequate. Any review must be balanced and based upon the experience both good and bad of students as consumers, and there should also be a process of inquiry into any unresolved allegations and public interest causes for concern, university staff should also be afforded the same opportunity.

Judging from the refusal of all my elected Assembly representatives to do the most basic advocacy on behalf of myself as a constituent or even afford the common courtesy of a reply, the crucial job of Assembly Members to hold the executive to account has broken down. That is why I submitted this petition. Therefore, is the Minister going to include the voices of informed and constructive dissent as members of the group to provide a sense of balance?

With regard to the other issues raised in the Ministers letter the answer is definitely NO he does not address the concerns in my petition which I would like to be included within the review. The letter contradicts and undermines his public statements and comments concerning the HE review. In my opinion the letter does not address issues of openness and accountability with regard to the public and puts students as vulnerable consumers at risk.

In brief, until the Auditor General can bypass HEFCW to investigate financial complaints from the public, the QAA is replaced by a statutory body, and student complaints are investigated by an independent Ombudsman. We continue to be fobbed off with sophistry and procedures that are mainly for display purposes only and do not address real world complaints or concerns.

At the heart of the problem facing the Minister and myself as a petitioner is a self serving mindset and mistaken belief that as universities are autonomous they must also be beyond reproach. As has been proved with the MP’s expenses scandal lack of public scrutiny only encourages the old adage that power tends to corrupt and we have a situation whereby absolute power has corrupted absolutely as universities abuse their autonomy and then hide behind the law. When will politicians learn that self regulation does not work?

The point that I am making with my petition and has been avoided by the Minister is that universities can remain autonomous and be introduced to the same 21st Century standards of accountability and consultation the same as other autonomous public services and authorities.

2. Role of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales  HEFCW

The statutory functions of HEFCW are set out in sections 65 to 81 of the Further and Higher

Education Act 1992 (the Act).

Re: Page 2 4th Paragraph

The framework of control under which the Council operates as an Assembly Government Sponsored Body (the Management Statement and Financial Memorandum) requires that the Council’s Accounting Officer ensures all public funds made available to the Council are used for the purpose for which they were intended by the Assembly Government and the legislation which governs the Council’s activities. In addition, the Council’s Audit Committee has a specific duty to monitor the effectiveness of controls established by HEls to ensure that public funding is safeguarded.”

And Page 3 paragraph 1

“HEFCW encompass the procedures that the Council have put in place to ensure adequate protection of the public funds it administers against financial mis-management by HEl s.”

I have complained to HEFCW about financial irregularities in breach of the Company Act 2005 and former DTI guidelines. The reply from HEFCW was and I quote “DTI guidelines are a matter for them”

This arrogant disregard for their duty to safe guard the public purse is also a matter for the Charity Commission under the Charity Act 2006 who I have persuaded to take on the role of regulator for Welsh Universities; English Universities will be regulated by HEFCE.

I have also made various complaints to Jonathan Morgan AM as Chair of the Audit Committee who has stated he has no power of inquiry into financial irregularities.

Paragraph 7

“The Auditor General for Wales has a statutory duty to examine and certify the accounts of the Welsh Assembly Government, its sponsored bodies and related public bodies in Wales.

Provision for this function in respect of HEFCW is required by Schedule 1 to the Act.

Additionally the Auditor has the statutory power to report to the National Assembly for Wales on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the funding with which those organisations have used, and may improve the use of, their resources in discharging their functions. In general terms the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 conferred new functions on the Auditor General for Wales rather than reducing or restricting the Auditor’s role.”

This comment is untrue and misleading, under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, the Auditor General for Wales has confirmed in writing that the public has no right of complaint and nor does the Welsh Audit Office have no right of inquiry or intervention in financial issues concerning a higher education institution HEI.

Auditors for the University of Wales Lampeter have on four occasions refused any inquiry into the unlawful payment of expenses. Auditors have also refused a similar complaint concerning the Federal University of Wales, and procedures for dealing with complaints concerning financial mismanagement have been ignored.

Therefore it is hardly surprising that in Page 3 paragraph 1 the Minister states that

“…the Auditor General’s 2009 report on collaboration between HEls concluded that HEFCW had generally managed the Reconfiguration and Collaboration fund effectively.”

Of course he did! What else could he say? It is not possible for anyone to make any complaint nor is it legally possible for the Auditor General to say anything different and therefore this comment cannot be accepted as a true statement that our money is appropriately spent.

Moreover, there is no mechanism, process, or procedure whereby a member the public can initiate the procedure in Page 2 paragraph 5 which states:

“Welsh Ministers may, subject to consulting with HEFCW and the institution, direct HEFCW in respect of the provision of financial support to an institution if it appears to Welsh Ministers that the affairs of the institution are being mismanaged. This power is provided for under section 81 (3) of the Act.”

The financial and managerial fiasco at the University of Wales Lampeter was concealed by HEFCW to hide its own failure on this issue. They also abused the Freedom of Information Act to conceal academic and financial fraud and allow students an opportunity to resolve long standing injustices including the abuse of people and power.

The Public Audit (Wales) 2004 took away the power of the Audit General to intervene and take over a failing higher education institution such as the University of Wales Lampeter. To suggest on Page 2 penultimate paragraph that

“ In general terms the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 conferred new functions on the Auditor General for Wales rather than reducing or restricting the Auditor’s role.”

Without allowing open public complaint and the right of direct inquiry by the Auditor General any ‘increase in powers’ is meaningless. The Auditor General would need to bypass HEFCW to ensure that our money is being appropriately spent and get at any problems.

In conclusion to this section, HEFCW does not do what it claims to do; we will have to rely on Charity Law and the Charity Commission under the Charity Act 2006 to do the job for us. They are the only organisation that can bypass HEFCW to make any independent inquiry, and has the power to remove a university’s charitable status.

3. Consultation Undertaken by HEFCW

Page 3 paragraph 2

The review of the University of Wales Lampeter by Haines Watts Corporate Finance was requested from HEFCW under the Freedom of Information FOI Act 2000 by me and the BBC in April 2009. This request was refused and is still subject to an inquiry by the Information Commissioners Office ICO.

Therefore, the public and Governors of Trinity University College were denied access to some very disturbing information which also meant that the Welsh Assembly were unable to make any direction under section 81(3) of the Act concerning financial mismanagement because HEFCW hid the information from them.  The report was published by HEFCW in December 2009 and is NOW available on the Council’s web site AFTER decisions were made, and in anticipation of being forced to disclose it by the ICO.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that withholding disturbing information while decisions are being made and preventing any form of scrutiny constitute a proper process of public consultation, and does he think this is in keeping with the UK governments drive towards more open and transparent government. Or has he been misinformed?

In my view it was a blatant stitch up and abuse of our rights under the FOI Act, HEFCW also refused a request for public consultation and obstructed any form of inquiry or scrutiny by the public, the media and the Welsh Assembly who has allowed itself to have the wool pulled over its eyes by a publically unelected and unaccountable Quango concealing its own failures.

With regard to the Lampeter fiasco, we the taxpaying public have every right to ask and be given a truthful reply to the questions of what went wrong and who is being held to account.

If we can’t, then the solution is simple; change the law so we can!  Who runs the country?

Page 3 paragraph 3

“All HEls in the UK are autonomous bodies, responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs, including the management of their structures which includes merger proposals.”

So are local authorities, health trusts, colleges of further education and now schools, if the same happened in any one of them there would be a public outcry. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the public to have the same rights concerning standards in public life, accountability and consultation.

4. Student Complaints system I Whistleblowing

Last sentence on Page 4 Correction

“Finally it should be noted that the University of Wales does have a student complaints process”

Should read

“Finally it should be noted that the University of Wales NOW has a limited student complaints process with regard to Collaborative Partner Institutions. Complaints against the University of Wales itself have been generally restricted to the Equality and Discrimination laws and contrary to the Higher Education Act 2004 any complaint of a serious nature is going to be ignored! ”

After many years of complaining about this issue to the university, the Visitor HM the Queen, the First Minister, various Education Minister and the Department of Children Education and Lifelong Leaning, I should have been informed that a limited process appears to have been introduced for the academic year 2009/10.  The procedure is limited because it falls well short of the scope set out by the OIA in that it does not include complaints concerning financial mismanagement and fraud, failure to comply with its financial regulations, threatening students with legal action for whistle blowing, the commission and concealment of misconduct and maladministration. Complaints are also restricted to a 12 month time limit.

With regard to the Public Interest Disclosure Act the Federal University of Wales has such a policy that includes students under Appendix J of its financial regulations. It was the refusal of senior officers to implement this policy with regard to fabricated allegations of plagiarism and intimidations during examinations at the University of Wales Lampeter that lead to other offences being committed and threats being made to by self to keep quiet.

The Validation Board will at its discretion consider other complaints but this is not good enough under the Higher Education Act 2004 they should investigate the same complaints as specified for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education OIA.

I made a number of serious complaints on the 11th of June 2010 which was copyrighted to prevent the common practice of the OIA rewriting student complaints, the head of communications confirmed that it had been delivered on the 14th June. On the 2nd of July I made enquiries as to why I had not received an acknowledgement but this enquiry like my complaints are being ignored.  I have however used this complaint and failure to comply with stated procedures as grounds to any future application that the University of Wales may make to its articles of government which require Privy Council approval. I also did this to warn the Visitor HM the Queen of any embarrassment that this may cause.

I have also lodged further objections to the University of Wales Lampeter changing its articles of government to facilitate the merger with Trinity University College. Should my objections be upheld I will then make a complaint to the Charity Commission who can remove its charitable status which has been put at risk by maladministration contrary to charity law.

Given the threats of legal action and gagging orders made against students they should not only be afforded the same protection against victimisation as that of Workers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 PIDA. Moreover, given that Universities provides a public service students should be given the same protection as a complaint to the Public Services Ombudsman which carries full protection from legal action.

There is growing concern that the OIA does not make any inquiry into complaints such as those listed above, here are the comments of one Welsh student.

“The pathway report of the OIA uses stats in a misleading manner they seemed to arrange students into 3 groups (this would lessen the impact of the opinion of ALL students so the non justifieds just look like sad people who never won) – the justifieds, partially justified and non justified.

Another point is that the OIA misleads students into thinking a lawyer may not be necessary, when the OIA adjudicators are all lawyers. Not being subject to a FOI they will not tell you if lawyers represented the justifieds (bearing in mind they would not change a draft decision as it would show they were wrong- quote; a lawyer)

The Institutions get very good value for money in not having so many court cases and if the student claim is justified, the payout is a fraction of what it would be in court (and remember the Unis like gagging orders) so it is win/win for the Uni’s

The OIA gives no assurances to the student as to what it is actually looking at (and what is worrying they have no obligation to investigate anything in a current case ruling) – so as in my case – the student gives evidence that many, many regulations have been ignored by the University (so not an equal opportunity as a student who has none of these problems) and that has an impact on the student, regulations have been changed and used in retrospect against the student, and the law of the land has been ignored (the latter is of no interest to the OIA). Student gets a non justified decision based on flimsy excuses and perceptions that mirror the University, further more the student’s evidence is rewritten by the OIA to the effect it has no importance. All this takes a very long time – in my case a year adding to the limbo state of life and legal timing out of cases.

The student writes of discrepancies and items left out of the complaint (which even include what the student wants as an outcome) and asks as a matter of good practice for an explanation of this difference of opinion.

The OIA have no public accountability- they are not subject to FOIs, and as above will not explain at all why they have not considered breaches of regulations and procedures- when their literature states that is their job (but they in law they have no obligations). That is misleading the student and gives an unfair advantage to the Uni’s that act as paymaster for the OIA.

The OIA adjudicators tour Uni’s and meet the staff that deal with complaints. They do not meet the students with the complaint. The OIA website is very confrontational about abuse, which begs the question of just how alienated they are from the students- who it could be argued they are mentally abusing by making deceptive promises on looking at regulations etc. The fact they are a free service to the student, means the student cannot sue for breach of contract- so basically its the poisoned free carrot.

Two important things out of the pathway reports were

1) It was established that there is no emotional cost (or very little other cost for that matter!) to the University, that deficit is for the student and the OIA do not seem have any compassion.

2) regarding academic judgement- which the OIA will not look at- but I think they say that where academic judgment fails in fact, it does become questionable (but then they probably still would not want to know judging by my case)

Students do commit suicide from the shock and stigma of failing, and it would a tragedy if it took such an event to bring the malpractices of the OIA to the public eye, but then they are all lawyers…”

There is a document on Student Suicide written by Universities UK which not only absolves universities from any blame, it concluded that student suicide rates were about average for the population.

However, if it was presented as a piece of academic work it would fail, the reason being that the report makes no reference to the suicide risk, anyone with a duty for Health and Safety will tell you that you must do a risk assessment before you can give any credence to the outcome.

A risk assessment is missing so I will do one for you; it is common knowledge that being part of a social institution and having a purpose in life are probably the two major factors in reducing suicide risk. If we accept that a university fulfils these criteria then the question is why is there an average suicide rate in a low risk environment? If this happened is an NHS surgical unit it would be closed down for an inquiry!

I suggest that the main cause for student suicide is related to Durkheim’s theory of Anomie, which briefly states that when the rules break down suicide and deviant behaviour are more likely. There is growing evidence that the OIA does not investigate situations where the rules have broken down which appears to have the most destructive psychological effect on students.

It is not just the actions of staff it is the abuse of people and autonomous/unaccountable power that leaves the student in a totally hopeless and isolated situation that does the real damage. On top of this, in keeping with serial abuser behaviour it is the character assassination and ridicule to instil deep feelings of shame in victims who are made to feel this is their fault; they should not have complained.

The common tactic by universities and those in higher education to make a complaining student look foolish, paranoid or even crazy is a form of abuse which not only isolates them, but serves to discredit any complaint they may make within the higher education system or outside agencies.  I myself received a written apology from HEFCW on these issues but that does not make it right. Moreover “it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Finally, with regard to bullying, serial abusers eliminate the complainers leaving them with large debts together with threats of bankruptcy if the student owes the university any money above £750. Universities not only destroy students education they destroy their lives to preserve their reputation.

Other students have complained that the OIA is relying on quotes from university staff instead of examining evidence; I would add that the OIA is a Company Limited by Guarantee and not a registered charity which also prevents any complaint that a student can make to the Charity Commission.

Its not just funding that needs to be addressed to make the OIA fully independent, it should be on a par with other regulatory bodies with its own independent complaints process such as the Charity Commission or a commissioner to ensure compliance with rules such as the NHS Commission.

Student Complaints – A Course of Public Justice

The student complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education OIA is a course of public justice and one should expect the same level of propriety as the courts who they replace in these matters. In that respect attempting to pervert the process should carry heavy penalties together with public naming and shaming so the public can be reassured that justice is being seen to be done.

One student recently contacted me with an extract of emails sent to the OIA by a university and also sent to the student by mistake which said:

“MAKE THE STUDENT DROP THE COMPLAINT;”

“..be very careful and not admit any liability on the University’s or staff’s part; treat the student like a fool and threaten them by saying that dropping the complaint is in their best interests.”

Now if any party before a court sent that to a District or High Court Judge they would face very serious consequences. The fact nothing happened in response to this confirms that the Independent Adjudicator is not ‘independent’ and it’s not just a matter of funding.

From recent publicity the OIA seems to allow complaints of an administrative nature and does not investigate issues of maladministration, staff misconduct, any failure to play it by the rules or comply with the information laws.

5. Role of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Cause for Concern process – A Serious Cause for Concern, You Have Been Warned!

This process is fatally flawed in that students are threatened with legal action, made subject to gagging orders, subjected to character assassination, stigmatised, isolated, and psychologically hammered into the ground. Therefore, the insistence of the QAA that a large number of students need to complain before it becomes general and not a personal issue is impossible.

This requirement also falls short of the Public Interest Disclosure Act whereby only one person needs to make a public interest disclosure. It is outrageous to require victims of abuse to get together before any inquiry is made; it is hard enough to get anyone to come forward let alone a group when there is no guarantee they will not be abused again.

This then leads to the problem of being able to provide ‘evidence’, from experience a memorandum submitted to the former Department of Universities, Innovation, Science and Skills DUIS which was vetted by the Clerk and accepted as evidence to the Committee and published to their website, does NOT constitute evidence for the QAA.

There is also the issue of being qualified to assess what is a cause for concern, having spent sixteen years in social work management with two professional qualifications I am more experienced and qualified than the person who deemed that my worries about the suicide risk at the University of Wales Lampeter were NOT a cause of concern. Presumably they need more than one suicide for it to become a general issue and not just an individual complaint.

From experience I could make a list of issues that affect many students that according to the QAA are NOT a cause for concern. However, one absurd example is that anti plagiarism software was being misused to deliberately fabricate false allegations of plagiarism, which was this supported by the QAA no less who in a review of Lampeter they expressed concern about plagiarism procedures.

Then there is Trinity University College using the age old practice of using un-agreed minutes of past hearings to undermine and discredit students during complaint board hearings. In law this would mean all other complaint board hearings and OIA decisions may well be invalid but this is NOT a cause for concern. Requests to the Student Union for Support on this issue were ignored, but they are also students and rationalise their fear of retribution and feelings of inadequacy to tackle these issues.

The QAA simply argues black is white with offering any reason. In any case as consultants Haines Watts Finance have pointed out to their surprise, the QAA assessment of a low confidence in the management of the University of Wales Lampeter was simply ignored, the same applies to any Cause for Concern; it is ultimately meaningless and therefore leaves vulnerable students at risk. Failure by the QAA to give assurances against retribution means it serves more as a method of weeding out those who complain.

The role of HEFCW is in my opinion undermining the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 as staff clearly do not feel safe in making protected disclosures concerning financial mismanagement. Staff have made anonymous disclosures to myself for publication to my website which is not an ideal way of handling these matters.

I have instigated the QAA’s five stage complaints procedure for their failure to properly address the issues I have raised. Stage one by the investigating officer was ignored so it passed to the Director of Reviews. He wrote to ask two silly questions before he also ignored it, after 50 days without a reply I asked for it to be passed to stage three which is the chief executive. This was confirmed in writing but the chief executive has not bothered to even acknowledge the complaint nor has he responded within a reasonable period of time.

The QAA has no statutory powers or duties; it is exempt from the FOI Act and accountable to HEFCW and Higher Education Wales. It is also a registered charity and as such subject to complaint from the public if they are putting vulnerable beneficiaries at this an in my opinion they are doing this with students at the University of Wales Lampeter and probably other universities.

Therefore, it is my intention to make a complaint to the Charity Commission with regard to the above and they have allowed HEFCW to has compromise its independence by concealing the situation at Lampeter for fear of upsetting their paymaster. There is the possibility of both England and Wales losing its higher education regulator. Failing that the adverse publicity will seriously damage the credibility of the QAA, and in any case given this conduct I fail to see how the QAA can carry our one of its primary functions to advise governments on higher education issues and I will also complain to this effect.

6. Other issues raised by the petitioner

Regrettably the NUS has deserted and ignored students over the sort of issues I have raised, and as such they have become part of the problem and not the solution. Where does this “Have your Say” project lead to? Who listens? What gets done about it? I suggest nowhere, nobody, and nothing.

Page 6 Last paragraph

“It is critical that Wales’ higher education system of national and institutional governance provides an appropriate model and structure to support these aspirations. Consequently, I have initiated an independent review of higher education governance in Wales. The Review will consider the key issue of whether existing forms of national and institutional governance match the needs, expectations and future requirements of HE in Wales and identify any changes required.”

Irrespective of the debate of more powers to the Assembly, I am very disappointed that the Minister has missed the opportunity to empower the people of Wales over issues that affect their lives and I suggest the review includes consideration of the following issues.

  1. We should have our own Welsh fully independent student complaints adjudicator.
  2. The QAA should be abolished and replaced by a Welsh independent higher education regulator with statutory powers to ensure compliance.
  3. The independent review should tackle the climate of fear by advertising for students and staff with unresolved grievances of public interest to come forward to give evidence with protection from threat of legal action.
  4. Rules for public appointments in HE need to be revised to break down the old boys’ network.
  5. It should be recognised the NUS is hopelessly out of its depth in being able to support students with these issues, some students have serious grievances about the NUS.
  6. There should be a Welsh student complaints scheme based on best practice and in keeping with the precedent set by the distanced selling regulations any complaint by a Welsh student in other UK universities should be subject to the Welsh student complaint process.
  7. There should be a University Commissioner and University Ombudsman in every university to independently process all student complaints and causes for concern in association with the Welfare Officer.
  8. More needs to be done to support students who have suffered emotional damage as a result of being victims of injustice and abuses of power as opposed to administrative errors.
  9. I fully accept that there are some students from whom lecturers also need to be protected and safeguards need to be in place, however, the best way of dealing with this situation is to hand it over to someone else to deal with.
  10. Schools are or will also be autonomous bodies so lecturers like teachers should be subject to the same professional standards of conduct and registration.
  11. Students undertake higher education with huge debts hanging over their heads and it must be recognised that this makes them vulnerable and puts them at a disadvantage in any dispute and this fact alone makes them vulnerable consumers, the NUS are out of their depth in these issues.
  12. I reiterate the point that other public spending bodies are also autonomous but proper regulation ensures they do not flout the rules with impunity. Current procedures are inadequate and unenforceable.  Therefore, universities should be subject to the same regulation, public accountability and consultation as other autonomous public spending bodies.
  13. I draw the Ministers attention to the recommendations of the previous DUIS Select Committee and in particular I draw your attention to the following points:a) The need for a statutory HE regulator fit for the 21st Centuryb) Special consideration should be given to the situation of mature students and single parents

    c) A proper process for whistle blowers as current arrangements are inadequate

    d) More should be done to help disadvantaged students to fit into university culture.

  14. I have also approached the Rt Hon Nick Clegg as Lord President of the Privy Council and attach a copy of my letter to him on these issues; other students are going to lobby their MP’s in support.

I will be submitting a number of complaints to the Charity Commission who given the above failure of the QAA and HEFCW will in effect take over the financial and pastoral regulation of Welsh higher education institutions. Unlike the secrecy and censorship imposed by HEFCW their findings will be made public and may invalidate any review the Minister undertakes.

That way he can dictate events rather than have the Charity Commission or the Privy Council dictate events for him which may well mean that the University of Wales Lampeter and/or the proposed Trinity St David’s losing its charitable status.

This merger is dependent on Privy Council approval and I will continue to oppose permission in the grounds that their needs to be a full inquiry into maladministration and this should also be included in any review of higher education governance.

What makes the Ministers letter irrelevant to the concerns in my petition is the advice I received from a professor at a leading UK university who is an expert on university governance. They told me that as the law stands the only way you can bring maladministration to light is to publish it in a magazine or journal. Despite unfounded threats of legal action and high court injunctions at public expense by the University of Wales and the University of Wales Lampeter I have published my experience and concerns to the internet.

However, the same source also admitted that higher education is terrified of ofsted/estyn style inspections and state run funding. I wonder why?

The Minister has been reported on the BBC’s Political blog as saying

“Our HE institutions are small compared with those just over the border. For all the achievements of higher education institutions, they have had only a very limited transformative impact on our economy, and on our global presence and reputation”

With regard to global presence and reputation you are losing it, in addition to UK visitors I also get traffic from organisations and educational establishments in North America, Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation, India, and recently traffic from China has rocketed to be the biggest single visitor.

Search terms include “university of wales scam” I think they are referring to the practice of stitching up students with false allegations of plagiarism, “university of wales reputation” and “university of wales lampeter + suicide/reputation/corruption/scandal/sleaze”.

I make no apology for publicising these issues and the damage done by the refusal of HEFCW and the QAA to hold people to account in order to preserve reputations at the expense of the people they are in office to serve, as a result students, institutions, Welsh higher education and the economy suffers. I have no other means of resolving long standing grievances with regard to the University of Wales Lampeter, if however, the Minister would like help resolve these matters then I would of course be amenable to a more constructive solution.

These issues are not unique to Welsh Universities, the same appalling conduct also takes place in England and probably other parts of the UK. The Minister has a chance to set a UK standard on these issues and I hope he takes it.

Yours sincerely

Trevor Mayes

Attachment

Letter to the Rt Hon Nick Clegg Lord President of the Privy Council.

Tags: Letter to Chair Chris Chapman 08/06/10