---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

Clause 19 clearly raises issues of considerable concern to the Committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I speak at greater length than normal to address the complex issues as fully as I can. I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with my honourable friend Bill Rammell and me in the extensive discussions we have had on this issue since Second Reading. We are deeply appreciative of the contribution which all noble Lords, from all parties and none, have made. I make special mention of my noble friend Lady Warwick and the ongoing discussions we have had with Universities UK, which have been immensely valuable. I note, too, the highly constructive approach from both opposition parties in this regard, which has been fully reflected in the speeches we have heard today. I should like to mention John Hayes, the colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who has had further extensive discussions with my honourable friend Bill Rammell. I know there is a general desire to find an effective way forward and, with regard to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, a recognition that there are significant issues to do with meeting skills needs and empowering all those who have the capacity for the benefit of students. There is a vital issue of national interest at stake, and we all recognise the importance of getting this right. The purpose of Clause 19 is to empower the Privy Council to grant foundation degree-awarding powers only, and no other degree-awarding powers, to further education institutions in England. We believe that the clause will enable the FE sector to respond more quickly and effectively to employers’ needs, meeting the skills challenges set out by my noble friend Lord Leitch in his recent report. At present, further education colleges have the option of applying only for the full taught and/or research award-making powers which include degree-awarding powers. In practice, it is virtually impossible for them to succeed in this because the criteria for being granted full award-making powers quite rightly make reference to the quality of an institution’s academic research and its ability to provide teaching up to higher degree level. Therefore, in practice, FE institutions set up new foundation degree programmes in partnership with an institution that has degree-awarding powers, which is usually a higher education institution. Most of these partnerships work well; in such cases, we anticipate that the current validation arrangements will remain in place to mutual advantage. The encouragement of partnerships and collaboration, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, when speaking to AmendmentsNos. 46, 47 and 50 is therefore a cause which wefully support. In some cases, further education colleges with considerable experience in providing good quality employer-focused higher education qualifications such as foundation degrees have been unable to respond with the necessary speed to approaches from employers with whom they have strong links. That is part of the justification for the proposed powers in Clause 19. Some large Mixed Economy Group institutions have had difficulty in finding a validating university with relevant experience in some foundation degrees. As we take forward these new powers, we will continue to place great emphasis on partnership and collaborative working. The reforms we are proposing, which remove an unnecessarily strong legal constraint, equally uphold stringent quality criteria and will help those colleges that are already well equipped to draw more learners into higher education to do so even better, without jeopardising necessary collaboration across the two sectors. It will be for the Privy Council, taking into account advice from the Quality Assurance Agency, to decide whether a further education institution applying for foundation degree-awarding powers should be granted those powers. Students and employers will rightly expect the same standard of provision whether a foundation degree is awarded by a further education institution or a higher education institution. To this end, the department has published draft criteria, referred to by several noble Lords, that we propose that the QAA should use in assessing an application for foundation degree-awarding powers. The criteria can be found on the Further Education and Training Bill web page, accessible by the department’s website. I am also arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The criteria are extremely closely based on those currently used to assess fitness to award the whole range of awards, including all taught degrees. The essential difference is that, in deciding whether a further education institution should be granted foundation degree-awarding powers, there would be no need to assess the college’s ability to award other qualifications because they would not be given the power to make such awards. At present, any institution that is granted award-making powers under Section 76 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is able to authorise other institutions to make awards on its behalf. This provision has been at the heart of degree law for 15 years. In practice, it means that a university with degree-awarding powers can authorise another institution to grant degrees in its name. In addition, the powers allow an institution, usually a university, to work with overseas providers and to authorise them to grant an award that bears the name of that university. Amendments Nos. 51, 52A and 53, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, seek respectively to remove from a further education institution granted the power to award foundation degrees the power then to authorise another institution to make awards on its behalf or to accredit another body to provide courses leading to an award of the institution with foundation degree-awarding powers, a process which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, likens to the franchising arrangements which applied in the recent past. Some FE institutions already undertake substantial activity overseas, and provided that it is of high quality, I am sure that we would all want to see this flourish. We believe that in time, when some leading colleges have established a track record in awarding their own foundation degrees, they should be able to offer them through overseas institutions. However, mindful of the points made in the debate and set out at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, we are aware of the issue of ““external authorisation”” being a contentious one and fully understand the concerns that a number of Committee Members have voiced over the damage that might take place to the United Kingdom’s higher education brand. This ““brand”” is something of which we are all proud, and it is right that it should be carefully guarded. It is important to bear in mind, as the noble Lord said, the importance of ensuring that the perceptions of overseas customers about quality are maintained, as well as the underlying reality of how good the product actually is. I therefore undertake that my ministerial colleagues and I will reflect further on the points made in this debate. I hope that I will be able to return with the conclusion of that consideration before Report. There are three further elements to Amendment No. 53, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. These address the question of whether FE colleges should be under a duty to consult their students before applying for foundation degree-awarding powers; whether a condition of the new powers should be the existence of clear progression arrangements for foundation degree students to honours degrees; and whether the Privy Council's powers to grant foundation degree-awarding powers to FE Institutions should be subject to review after four years. I will take these three issues in turn. It is vital that our proposals take into account the views of learners. We are therefore sympathetic to the noble Lord's suggestion that the views of the student body should be taken into account whenever an institution seeks to make significant changes that will impact on the learner experience. This requirement can, we believe, be reflected in the QAA criteria themselves. We intend to look further at how this can be done and I hope to return to the noble Lord and to the House on a way forward in this regard before Report. Similarly, the criteria against which any institution applying for foundation degree-awarding powers is assessed will cover the issue of progression, which was highlighted by many noble Lords in our discussion. Progression arrangements, which were particularly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and John Hayes in our discussions, are a vital issue. They have helped us greatly to work through our own thinking on how this can be effectively safeguarded. I want to be clear that our proposals for reform are made within a stated intention that higher education providers in the FE sector should work in partnership with the established higher education sector and vice versa. That is best for both sectors and it is essential for learners and employers. The Quality Assurance Agency's qualifications benchmark for the foundation degree incorporates the requirement for, "““clear routes that facilitate opportunities for progression from Foundation Degrees towards another qualification””." That qualifications benchmark will be written into the criteria for institutions seeking to award their own foundation degrees. Indeed, this particular criterion is essential to ensuring parity of the foundation degree wherever it is delivered. We are therefore confident that transparent and articulated progression routes will continue to be available to all learners and that the precise amendment at stake here is unnecessary. However, although the draft criteria that we have circulated go a long way towards assuring Committee Members of our bona fides in this regard, it may be helpful if we expand on what is meant by progression. I therefore propose that before Report, we should bring forward further details on how the articulation agreements between further and higher education will work in practice. I propose also to provide further clarity on the options that are available to the QAA should a further education college that has been awarded the new foundation degree-awarding powers fail to fulfil its responsibilities in terms of articulation or of wider quality issues. I will also consider how higher education and further education institutions should promote the articulation arrangements to learners so that learners are able to see for themselves that arrangements are in place to guarantee effective progression. I am conscious of concerns that have been raised on all sides regarding the risk that universities which have voiced opposition to the proposals may withhold essential co-operation with FE institutions. We are confident that this will not be the case. Universities have been very clear in the public debate on the proposals that they want to work with colleges, and I welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lady Warwick in that regard in this debate. Collaboration with the FE sector is a key element of local partnership working which is, and will remain, consistent with the mission of universities. Lifelong learning networks are already funded and work well, promoting co-operation between institutions and providing a sound economic incentive to encourage collaboration between the sectors. The third item in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, concerned a probationary period. The noble Lord argues that, after a period of four years, the power of the Privy Council to grant foundation degree-awarding powers ought to be subject to review. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, proposes having a review after six years. We are sympathetic to the spirit of such a suggestion, if not the precise letter of the amendments. It must be right that Parliament and the wider public should be able to understand what has happened following the introduction of these new powers, and we undertake to reflect further on how this might best be achieved. I will again come back with further proposals in this regard before Report. It is right that Parliament and the wider public should be able to understand and assess the impact of the new powers. Our view is that the most helpful approach to Parliament to understand the practical effect of the new powers might be for the Quality Assurance Agency to publish a specific report on this, looking at all the evidence after a suitable period of time. The report could usefully describe the Quality Assurance Agency criteria which the FE colleges have successfully met before being awarded the new powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, makes three further proposals in Amendment No. 54. The first goes to the question of funding. The noble Baroness proposes that the Secretary of State should be able by regulation to enable the Higher Education Funding Council for England to provide direct funding to all FE institutions with foundation degree provision. We completely understand the purpose behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, but it is important to be clear that the Bill is not about the funding of higher education in FE colleges. Its provisions will have no impact on the way in which colleges are funded. This seems an important observation to make because there have been criticisms that we are opening up competition for student numbers between colleges and universities where none existed before. This is not the case. It is for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to decide whether colleges are suitable for direct funding. It is HEFCE that has the public responsibility for allocating such funding. HEFCE already has the power to fund the provision by institutions in the further education sector or prescribed higher education courses, but direct funding is not suitable for all colleges. Indeed, a college will often prefer to conduct its business either under a franchise agreement with a university or as part of a consortium of providers which share out funding and student numbers. The funding council’s current consultation on higher education within the FE sector rightly contains proposals for improving the transparency of franchise arrangements and for developing consortium funding arrangements to promote collaboration. It is true that there is higher education-level provision within the further education sector that HEFCE is not able to fund directly—the so-called non-prescribed courses. Funding for those courses is possible via the Learning and Skills Council, or indirectly via HEFCE. We believe that it is worth exploring whether that split in funding responsibilities should be changed. My department is looking at the issues with the funding bodies to see whether we should take them further forward. The amendment then proposes that the guidance for criteria for foundation degree-awarding powers should be laid before Parliament and capable of change only through the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government should be as clear as possible about how these powers should work. That is why from the outset we have said that our objective is that foundation degrees should be of the same standard, no matter where they are awarded, and why we published the very full draft of the criteria we propose that the QAA should use. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate to tie down the criteria in the way proposed in the amendment. The current system for assessing applications for degree awarding powers is rigorous, but the criteria used by the QAA in its assessments are not enshrined in regulations, and there is no need for that to happen. It must be right that the QAA and others are able to use their good judgments to advise the Government and the Privy Council on how the criteria might change incrementally over time without having to have recourse to Parliament again before doing so. We also believe that there is a real risk in treating the criteria to be used for further education colleges in this way, when similar criteria to be used for other providers seeking degree-awarding powers are not subject to such procedures. Indeed, such a divergence of approach goes against our aim of creating a common approach to the assessment of all applications in this regard. In Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 50, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, proposes that FE institutions should be allowed to apply for powers to award foundation degrees only in conjunction with a higher education institution. The published draft criteria makes clear that a further education institution receiving the new powers will need to provide robust evidence that its courses include opportunities for progression to honours degrees after the completion of the foundation degree. Paragraph 30 of the QAA’s foundation degree benchmark statement is relevant here. So the requirement to have progression arrangements in place means that it will not be possible for a college awarding its own foundation degrees to operate independently from the higher education sector, which was a concern raised repeatedly by my noble friend Lady Warwick in her remarks. We stress again that we are not giving up the importance of progression in the new arrangements. The amendments also propose introducing a system which monitors applications from FE institutions to work in conjunction with an HE institution and provides an appeal mechanism involving the Secretary of State. Again, we appreciate the motive behind the amendments but fear that it will unnecessarily involve the DfES and Ministers in a process that up to now has not been required and add significantly to the bureaucracy of the process. But again we will reflect on what has been said about progression and articulation arrangements and the promotion and monitoring of partnerships and will report progress on these issues to the Chamber before Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, proposes in Amendment No. 52 that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education should be required to report annually to the Secretary of State on the standard of foundation degree programmes awarded by FE institutions and the opportunities available to the individual to request honours degrees. Under her amendment, the Secretary of State would be required to lay the reports before Parliament. The mission of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is to promote public confidence that the quality and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. The QAA currently undertakes reviews of foundation degrees on request from HEFC. These reviews cover the scope envisaged by the noble Baroness in her amendments. In carrying out the reviews, the reviewers draw on a range of external reference points to ensure consistency of the review process, irrespective of the status of the institution where the review is being carried out. Evidence from reviews undertaken by the QAA would indicate that this process works very effectively. It has given confidence to the sector and to students, that programmes that do not meet the standards will not achieve a judgment of confidence. The noble Baroness also requires the QAA to report annually on the ability of individuals with foundation degrees from FE institutions to progress to honours degrees. As the Committee knows, it is a requirement of the foundation degree programme specification that progression routes to higher level study are articulated, therefore offering foundation degree graduates the opportunity, if they choose, to progress. We would not wish to see a system of annual reporting introduced in this regard. It would only be in respect of students on foundation degree programmes delivered at FE institutions, as against all other forms of sub-degree provision, and therefore we do not believe that there is an appropriate division here. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has further proposed in Amendment No. 50A that there should be a requirement for foundation degrees to be awarded on the basis of a credit framework developed by the QAA. Perhaps I may address this amendment with a few words of explanation regarding the existing framework for higher education qualifications. I accept that what I am about to say is, again, rather technical, but we believe it is important to have it on the record to inform the debates that will take place on Report. The QAA has developed a qualifications framework for higher education, but this is not, strictly speaking, a credit framework. The purpose of the QAA framework is to uphold public confidence in academic standards by ensuring a consistent use of qualification titles. Thus, the existing framework consists of five levels, three of which describe qualifications at undergraduate level and two at postgraduate level. Within this framework, the foundation degree is classified as an ““intermediate level”” qualification, sitting immediately below honours degree level. The foundation degree is a two-year higher education qualification that is recognised as having a value equivalent to two-thirds of a full honours degree. We welcome the intention behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to ensure that the foundation degree is firmly embedded in a framework that guarantees its currency within the wider landscape of higher education qualifications and that allows students to maximise that currency, should they so wish, by progressing to further study. However, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary, as the requisite safeguards to guarantee the status of the foundation degree and its articulation with other higher education qualifications will be put in place without the need for legislation. The draft criteria that we have published incorporate the qualification benchmark statement that the QAA already uses to set out the defining characteristics of all foundation degree courses. To quote paragraph 30 of that statement: "““Clear routes that facilitate opportunities for successful progression from Foundation Degrees towards another qualification are an important feature of Foundation Degrees””." Such routes would have to be established when foundation degree awarding powers were first granted. To quote the benchmark statement again: "““Institutions awarding Foundation Degrees normally guarantee progression to at least one bachelor's degree with honours, with an expectation that this should not normally exceed 1.3 years for a full time equivalent student in England””." Paragraph 31 of the same document states: "““The identification of explicit progression arrangements should be available to learners on Foundation Degree programmes through course handbooks and prospectuses””." These criteria will have to be satisfied if a further education institution is to succeed in its application for foundation degree awarding powers. Imposing these conditions is an essential part of ensuring parity of esteem for the foundation degree qualification wherever it is delivered and awarded. Learners can be confident that the same standards and safeguards are in place, no matter where they choose to undertake a foundation degree, and that their achievement will be recognised as a sound basis for further higher-level study, should that be appropriate for them. As I explained a moment ago, the QAA does not operate a national credit framework for higher education qualifications. Indeed, strictly speaking, no such national framework exists, and arrangements for credit accumulation and transfer are dealt with by individual institutions or regional consortia. However, a report has recently been published by the Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group, chaired by Professor Robert Burgess, Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University. This report recommends the establishment of a national framework for academic credit in higher education in England. The intention is for institutions to have credit-rated their main provision by the commencement of the academic year 2009-10. This will be done on a voluntary basis, although the Burgess group was clear that most institutions will find a national framework helpful and that the arguments in favour of establishing such a national framework are persuasive. Within such a framework, the foundation degree would have a ““value”” of 240 credits, while a full honours degree attracts 360 credits. We believe that following up the recommendations of the Burgess group, which I will be happy to send to Members of the Committee, is the proper way to address the question of establishing a framework for academic credit in higher education. I hope, therefore, that I have been able to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I concur entirely with her wish to ensure the status and currency of the foundation degree wherever it is awarded. Our assessment criteria will ensure that the potential for progression continues to be emphasised as an important factor in all foundation degree programmes. In Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, proposes that an FE institution’s power to award foundation degrees should be restricted to subject areas designated by the Secretary of State. We have made very clear since we introduced this proposal that we will ensure that foundation degrees awarded by further education institutions are of the same standard as those awarded by universities. The extensive and very robust criteria we have presented to the Committee show how this objective will be delivered. We therefore are not persuaded that the additional safeguard proposed by the noble Baroness is necessary. We believe that the approach we take to granting foundation degree-awarding powers should follow as closely as possible the approach currently taken for what are commonly referred to as ““degree-awarding powers””. There is no precedent for placing a statutory restriction on degree-awarding powers that limits them to a particular subject and we do not believe that it would be appropriate to do so in this case. There will, as I have described at too great a length so far, be a set of elaborate and robust procedures to be satisfied before an FE college can secure foundation degree-awarding powers and we believe that these are sufficient for the purpose. At the risk of my voice running dry entirely, let me turn now to Amendment No. 52A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Warwick. The amendment addresses the fact that, at present, where an institution is granted award-making powers under Section 76 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, this includes certain other powers. These are the powers to authorise other institutions to grant awards on its behalf; the power to grant awards jointly with another institution; and the power to deprive a person of an award granted to him by or on behalf of the institution. The amendment seeks to deny these additional powers to a further education institution that is granted the power to award foundation degrees only. I referred earlier to the power of an institution to authorise another institution to grant awards on its behalf and I have given assurances which I hope my noble friend will find helpful about our intention to proceed with great caution in this regard. However, we feel that the amendment goes a step too far in the other restrictions which it seeks to impose. The question of joint foundation degrees offered by two or more institutions, each of which has award-making powers or foundation degree-awarding in its own right, seems materially different to what is sometimes referred to as the ““franchising option””. We do not believe that the risks to the higher education brands that have been flagged up in the case of franchising arise in the case of joint of awards of this kind. A restriction on joint awards may restrict the joint award of foundation degrees by two further education institutions and also the joint award of foundation degrees by further education institutions working in partnership with a university, which, of course, is precisely the kind of pattern that my noble friend and other noble Lords are seeking to promote. We believe, therefore, that we should be very cautious before imposing restrictions on the ability of suppliers to shape their programmes to meet learner and employer needs in this area. We also believe that a further education institution which has granted a foundation degree should have the right to remove it from an individual in appropriate circumstances. This surely is an important safeguard in ensuring that the standards that we have all agreed need to be maintained are in fact maintained. I have some further minor points but I believe that I have detained the Committee for as long as is humanly possible. When I read the full account in Hansard, I will be happy to take up further points in writing but I hope that I have covered all the major points. I reiterate that on many of the substantive issues where we share the concerns that have been raised in discussions, we will come back to the House and to noble Lords individually before the Report stage.