---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

My Lords, I apologise for my tardiness in arriving—I am just in time, I hope. I welcome the revised criteria for foundation degree-awarding powers that the Minister circulated yesterday afternoon. I found them extremely helpful. I got off to a very good start in my reading; when we last debated Clause 19, I asked that students be consulted, which the Government kindly conceded. I dared go on to suggest that it would be nice if the results of that consultation were passed on to the QAA and I see in these notes that it shall be so. My thanks for that. The franchising issue, on which I have put down an amendment for the third time, is one of substance. I was concerned only for clarification and found the notes circulated yesterday very helpful. For example, I greatly welcome the clear statement that the college with foundation degree-awarding powers will be responsible for the quality of the award and of the learning experience wherever the learning takes place. That was a major issue. The notes went on to say that the QAA will have a look at the arrangements that the college has in place for monitoring the equality of provision of its foundation degrees, whether they happen in the institution or elsewhere. For me, that was a welcome clarification. I was glad to see that the QAA will not accept the teaching of students enrolled at the applicant institution in an overseas institution—another major point—or the enrolment of significant numbers of foundation degree students at the applicant institution who are taught at an institution that does not have degree-awarding powers. Finally, a point I had not completely understood became clear in these notes. During the six-year probationary period, a college granted degree-awarding powers will not be allowed to authorise another institution to make awards on its behalf, nor will it be permitted to make awards to students enrolled at another institution. I thank the Minister for those important clarifications. The biggest issue was progression, which is the subject of my first amendment. We have all been concerned about that because of the interests of the student, who needs to be satisfied that there are good arrangements with at least one HE institution for progression to a full degree. That needs to be included in the Bill. I was glad to hear the Minister say on Report that he was willing to think about that and he confirmed it in his letter to me. I like what I read in the notes circulated on 14 February, but it is an important reassurance to all of us who have an interest in the standing of the British brand of degree—everyone in this House shares that concern—that there should be some coverage in the Bill relating to that matter. I agree entirely that the Bill is not the place to set out any details—that should be left to the guidance that the Government give to the QAA and the QAA’s own wisdom and policies—but to have something in the Bill would be valuable. I notice that the Association of Colleges, while recognising the importance of the issue, would prefer not to include something in the Bill. I may understand that view, but I happen not to agree with it. The colleges raised one point in particular—whether a college should get a progression agreement before launching a foundation degree rather than afterwards. I say yes—it should get it in advance. I will listen with hope to what the Minister has to say and shall review what he has previously said, and may we depart in peace thereafter.