---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 46: 46: Clause 19 , page 13, line 41, after ““sector”” insert ““in conjunction with an institution specified in subsection (1)(a) above”” The noble Baroness said: We have had the trailers; now we are at the main event. In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 50, 54 and Clause 19 stand part. Much of the disquiet over Clause 19 has come about through lack of consultation. Proper consultation would have done much to smooth the ground for this clause, and it is hardly surprising that we now find ourselves in this position. Let us put all that behind us, though. In that spirit, I hope that as the Bill moves through this House we will be able to create a consensus across the two sectors about how we should move forward. From the Opposition perspective, we are anxious to be constructive and positive in exactly how we do so. We feel that many of the universities’ concerns, as made clear in various Second Reading speeches, as well as in their briefing notes, are easily addressed in ways that do not hinder the development of the further education sector. During our briefings, it was remarkable how often both universities and colleges spoke about how important the continuation of inter-sector relationships was to them. Neither side has lost sight of the primary purpose of foundation degrees—to introduce more students to the possibility of higher education and to provide a clear pathway to that opportunity. Our amendments are designed to tease out the common ground between these two opposing positions. First, I would like to address how foundation degrees could be awarded in the future. Rather than moving directly to a situation where colleges can suddenly award foundation degrees with no involvement from a university, we would prefer to see the very productive partnerships that are currently in existence maintained. Instead of encouraging colleges to go it alone, we would like to see further education institutions take a more equal role with these partnerships by allowing them to develop and diversify without losing their links with higher education. Our amendments therefore continue the necessity of working with a higher education institution, but allow funding and overall responsibility to lie with whichever institution has taken on the predominant role in providing the foundation degree. Also, in order to strengthen relationships between the two sectors, we have inserted subsection (2)(b), which is designed to make it harder for a higher education institution to refuse to work with a further education college on foundation degrees without a good reason. Another of our amendments provides for the publication of the guidelines on the criteria used to decide whether a college should be given permission to grant foundation degrees. This guidance would then be subject to affirmative procedure before it could be changed. We are perfectly happy to accept that there may be better ways of doing this—we see Amendment No. 52, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, as entirely complementary to our amendment. We hope that our proposal will reassure many in both sectors who are concerned about the standards that the Government will apply to colleges and that, ultimately, it will make the whole process more transparent. It is in everyone's interests that foundation degrees maintain their credibility. The damage caused by the perception, whether accurate or not, that A-levels have become worth less, provides clear warning. Foundation degrees must continue to be awarded only by competent institutions if their appeal is to continue to grow, and this amendment would help to ensure that that happens. Finally, we have also included provision that any change allowed by this proposal would be reviewed after six years. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has a similar amendment with a slightly different time, but it is an important point. If a university’s concerns prove to be well founded, this will be an opportunity to remedy any mistakes and repair any damage. If it has proved a success—I certainly wish them every success in this role—the provisions will become permanent. It is predicted that only a handful of colleges have the resources to take advantage of Clause 19 as it currently stands. We hope that our amendments would embrace a far greater number of colleges than is currently envisaged, working in partnership with universities rather than in competition. Our amendments would protect foundation degrees from the possibility of them losing credibility and would maintain the inter-sector relationships that so much work has gone into developing. Colleges would be given greater status within these relationships and gain more control over the funding—steps that we believe would address many of the concerns about the current status quo. As I have already said, we are determined that a consultative approach to reconcile the legitimate concerns of universities and colleges is not only possible but vital. I hope that the Minister will approach our amendments with an open mind. Even if the Government do not agree with them, some kind of binding agreement is necessary. Will the Minister take the opportunity of the time between now and Report to write to universities and colleges to explain how their relationship can be preserved and nurtured? Our amendments represent at the very least the first steps towards a workable compromise, and I hope that our contribution to this debate will bring that end a little closer. I beg to move.