---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

Clause 19 is the thorny heart of the Bill. Ministers have argued that the creation of a new category of degree-awarding powers for the FE sector does not represent a major change. I disagree. This is a fundamentally significant development that could have major implications for the way in which our higher education sector is perceived internationally and the general understanding of what is meant by the term ““degree””. I understand that Ministers do not intend a large number of FE colleges to gain the new degree-awarding powers, but I question that assumption. If foundation degree-awarding powers are intended to enhance the status of further education colleges, which governing body will not want them—if not immediately, then in future? Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I would like to debunk a myth that seems to have been thrown into the debate. Ministers have said that universities are opposed to this measure because they are afraid of competition. That is not so; universities are well used to intense competition—it is a pervasive part of the landscape, in which they are extremely adept. They operate in it both at home and internationally. As one vice-chancellor wryly put it: "““If I were afraid of competition from my local FE college, I would have a grave problem””." He collaborates very successfully with his local FE college. The real point about unleashing competition in areas where collaboration has recently been the norm is that it is very likely to prove a barrier to further collaboration between FE and HE institutions. As several institutions have told me, if the foundation degree becomes the signature qualification in the FE sector, why should my institution offer it? I understand that the Minister may think that the arguments of the universities are purely self-interested and that they are concerned only with protecting their own markets, but that is really not the case. There is a widespread and genuine concern that the measures introduced by Clause 19 will prove actively counter-productive if, as I believe, the Government’s aim is to increase the take-up of foundation degrees and the number of providers offering that qualification. The foundation degree was first offered in 2001. Then there were just 4,200 students; since then, student numbers have grown to about 60,000. Eighty institutions with degree-awarding powers offer foundation degrees and a further two are in the process of developing that provision. There are about 2,000 courses currently running and a further 750 in development, so the current arrangements are hardly unsuccessful in terms of growth. Perhaps more important than the growth, with this qualification, is the fact that it has proved an invaluable catalyst for collaboration between the further and higher education sectors—and virtually every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has made that point. It has formed the basis of partnerships, such as the lifelong learning networks, and proved an invaluable tool in efforts to widen participation. So this is a success story. Along with other noble Lords, I have asked Ministers in the past, ““If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”” The arguments that current arrangements are ““broke”” appear to rest on the following assertions: that universities are slow to validate new courses, that they charge too much for their services and that they sometimes lack the expertise to develop the courses that FE colleges want to deliver. In one sense, my answer to these charges is simple. Eighty institutions are validating foundation degrees. Any college that is dissatisfied with the service that it receives from its validating institution is free to look elsewhere. Effective partnerships are clearly in operation. Evidence gathered by Universities UK over the past few weeks demonstrates that the speed of validation can vary. We recognise that it varies, but it can do so by as little as six weeks or as much as several months, with a typical timescale being about five to six months from the initial idea to the first students starting a course. At a recent meeting organised by the Association of Colleges, one businessman said in response to this point, ““Yes, but if I want a shirt, I don’t want to have to wait several months for it. I want it today””. However, as the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of Derby put it, we are not really in the business of selling shirts. Speed has to be balanced with quality. Where we know of examples of foundation degrees that have taken several months to develop, there are often good reasons for it. Indeed, we have been told that delays are sometimes occasioned by the fact that staff in FE colleges do not have enough time to devote to programme development alongside their often very heavy teaching duties. So I am not convinced that when colleges are responsible for all aspects of programme development, including quality assurance and enhancement, they will find that they are able to set up new courses any quicker than they do under the current arrangements. As for the costs, again, our evidence suggests that they vary from zero to about 25 per cent of the fees and funding per student, depending on what each partner is contributing. For example, one institution told us that where a college gradually took on more responsibility for programme design, it reduced the share of the fees accordingly. We also have examples of a number of institutions that provide a validation service at a loss precisely because they value the relationship with the college, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. If there are problems with the current system, they may well have been exaggerated. I am certainly not aware that there is any evidence—other than the anecdotal evidence offered by the Mixed Economy Group and the Association of Colleges, which after all, like me, I guess have a vested interest—of a widespread problem. As other noble Lords have noted, it is a shame that we were not able to debate these issues before legislation was announced and that there was no prior consultation. My view is that the legislation now before us offers a potentially problematic sledgehammer to crack a nut. As I noted in my contribution to the debate on Clause 17, if the Government’s real motive for introducing these powers is to raise the status of FE colleges—I know that the Minister has said that elsewhere—I find it odd that we should find this measure alongside the previous measure, which, in my view, undermines that status. It is rather reckless to use degree-awarding powers as a status-raising tool when there are genuine concerns. There are concerns about the potential impact on the qualification in question, on the degree brand, on the UK’s reputation for quality higher education and, finally, on the partnerships between further and higher education. I shall comment briefly on the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 52A, which stands in my name, is intended to achieve a similar effect to Amendments Nos. 51 and 53, removing the power of further education colleges to authorise other institutions to award degrees on their behalf. In view of the fact that managing quality and standards in collaborative arrangements presents particular challenges, I think that this aspect of the clause substantially increases the risk of maintaining quality. It seems to me that it would also undermine the Government’s intention that only a small number of further education colleges with substantial experience of delivering foundation degrees should benefit from these new arrangements. My amendment goes slightly further than Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 by also preventing institutions with foundation degree awarding powers offering joint awards with other institutions. As currently drafted, it would also prevent the awarding institution depriving a person of an award granted by that institution. I am willing to be persuaded that the drafting of Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 is preferable; none the less, I think that the principle is important. I support the thrust of the rest of the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. They would seek to protect the interests of students by ensuring that progression arrangements remained a requirement of foundation degree qualifications. Not all students want to progress to further study, but 59 per cent of foundation degree graduates currently do so, and those opportunities must be maintained. So it should be incumbent on the awarding FE college to secure the necessary progression arrangements as a condition of offering the award. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, for tabling Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, which provide an opportunity for me to draw attention to the fact that in some cases the subject spread of major FE providers delivering foundation degrees can be quite narrow. Although Universities UK does not support the suggestion that degree-awarding powers should be subject-specific, it is important that colleges applying for foundation degree-awarding powers should be able to demonstrate a sufficiently strong track record in the design, development and delivery of foundation degrees, which should be supported by a reasonable depth and breadth of higher education expertise within the institutions. Finally, on Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, I admire the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, together with John Hayes in another place. They have made seeking a middle way an important part of their approach. I welcome the intention of these amendments, which is to preserve the partnership arrangements between further and higher education institutions. I hope it does not diminish my appreciation if I say that I have concerns about the practicality of the amendments as currently drafted. In particular, I worry about the likelihood that any higher education institution would voluntarily enter into an arrangement with a further education college. As far as I can see—I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—it still looks rather more bureaucratic than the current arrangements for the provision of foundation degrees. There are genuine practical difficulties with the awarding of joint degrees, which relate to clarity over who has final responsibility for standards and issues relating to student welfare and complaints. The Conservative Front Bench seems to have recognised that it is unlikely that the scheme proposed in Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 will appeal to higher education institutions, because Amendment No. 50 provides for the Secretary of State to compel an unwilling HEI to collaborate in the delivery of joint degrees. Of course, I oppose that wholeheartedly. I doubt whether the Committee would indulge me for long enough to go into the reasons for that but, in the first instance, it would be a gross infringement of institutional autonomy. Enforced collaboration would be the least effective means of promoting partnership between the further and higher education sectors. I should prefer this clause to be removed entirely, and I hope we shall have the opportunity to debate that option on Report. I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone regrets very much not being able to be here today, as I know that she, too, remains opposed to Clause 19. At the least, I hope that the Committee will see the sense of the measures proposed by Amendment No. 52A or Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 and remove the provision that would allow for the franchising of foundation degree courses by the colleges that achieve the new powers. Beyond that, all I can say is that the only other way to guard against the fears I have outlined lies in robust quality criteria. I thank the Minister for making draft criteria available. I have studied them with care. The key issue, as indicated in the draft document, is the requirement for a scholarly environment, and I suspect that we will return to that debate on a number of occasions before the Bill leaves this House.