Lords Hansard text for 6 Mar 200706 Mar 2007 (pt 0005)

Hansard

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

4.17 pm

Read a third time.

Clause 17 [Power to award foundation degrees]:

Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 1:

Clause 17 , page 12, line 37, at end insert—

“(6B) It shall be a condition of the power to specify an institution under subsection (1)(b) that the institution make arrangements with an institution or institutions of higher education for progression from all its foundation degrees to a full degree.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I beg to move this amendment.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s amendment to put progression in the Bill. I was glad to see the Minister’s assurances in his letter of 2 March. We have had extensive discussions on these matters already, so I will keep my remarks brief—though not quite as brief as those of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.

On these Benches we have always been in favour of giving further education colleges more responsibility and independence, to allow them to develop their full potential. The powers in this clause, however, were in danger of causing so much contention and bad feeling that further education would have been damaged rather than strengthened. We feel that this safeguard, confirming foundation degrees as a route to higher education as well as being a valued qualification in their own right, will ensure the higher education involvement in foundation degrees that has contributed so much to their development and success.

I was also happy to see that the Government have taken on board concerns about the independence of the report on the success of these new powers and on franchising. Instead of falling into the trap of political point-scoring and an unhelpful refusal to engage in constructive debate, your Lordships' House has worked on these and other points to improve the Bill considerably.

6 Mar 2007 : Column 138

I am delighted to say that working with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has been a pleasure. Once again I thank the noble Lord and Bill Rammell for the genuine efforts they have made to find a way forward. I also acknowledge the sterling efforts of the Association of Colleges, the 157 Group, Universities UK and the CMU in keeping us fully informed on the relevant issues and abreast of opinion among the colleges and universities.

I am aware that there is much which needs further qualification, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will speak in a moment on exactly what ensuring progression will entail. I regret that we have run out of time to discuss the matters in this House before the Government have been able to iron out these details. However, I look forward to reading the debates as the Bill passes through another place, and feel considerable satisfaction at what we in this House have achieved.

Lord Dearing: 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

6 Mar 2007 : Column 139

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.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I start by echoing the thanks of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, to all the organisations that have briefed us during our consideration of the Bill. We on these Benches have moved somewhat from our original position because we have listened to the well informed briefings that we received. However, there remain to the last minute a number of concerns. From the start, we have supported the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in his efforts on the various things that he just outlined. I also echo his welcome for the ways in which the Government have moved on the issue of franchising and the various safeguards that have been put in place. We are very pleased to see those in the revised version of the draft criteria for foundation degree-awarding powers that we recently received.

However, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, about progression. I notice that paragraph 35 of the revised draft criteria about flexibility states: “These requirements may include”—I emphasise “may include”—

Like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, we would prefer to see a requirement in the Bill. I notice that at the end of the first section of the draft criteria, the Minister says:

“The Government is reflecting further on whether a requirement for FE institutions that gain the power to award foundation degrees to put arrangements in place for students to progress to full Honours degrees should be included in primary legislation”.

We on these Benches still feel that at least one progression arrangement should be included in the

6 Mar 2007 : Column 140

Bill, and we hope that the Minister will be able to assure us today as to what the Government intend to do about it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, we believe not only that it is important that at least one progression path should be available, but that it is desirable for a whole lot of partnerships to be in place. However, the fact that there is at least one university prepared to accept the foundation degree delivered in this college as an appropriate foundation to move on, after another 1.3 years of study, to that university’s honours degree is a valuable endorsement from that university about the quality of the foundation degree in question. That is an important aspect of this whole issue and it is part of the reason why we would prefer to see it included in the Bill.

4.30 pm

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK.

It would be remiss of me not to say that it remains my view that it is a mistake to extend foundation degree-awarding powers to colleges, but the Government have made some very important improvements to the Bill during Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, the Minister has very helpfully provided additional information alongside our debates in the form of draft guidance and an explanation of how the measures outlined in what is now Clause 17 will work. That detail has provided substantial reassurance to those of us who have serious concerns about the likely impact of these measures.

The amendment asks the Government to go further in two respects, the first being to make it plain in the Bill that securing progression arrangements will be a prerequisite for colleges wishing to apply for their own foundation degree-awarding powers. We have debated the importance of this issue at length in this House, and I do not need to rehearse the arguments that the noble Lord has already made.

The second issue is franchising. I appreciate the improvements that the Minister has already made to the Bill by giving the Privy Council the power to grant foundation degree-awarding powers without the power to franchise provision. I understand the approach that he has taken, which is to suggest that this power be withheld for the probationary period of six years, set out in the draft criteria for the new degree-awarding powers. I understand, too, that there would be nothing to compel the Privy Council to upgrade the degree-awarding powers after the six-year probationary period if there were doubts about a college's ability to manage the complex and difficult business of supporting quality provision in a third-party institution. However, my own view is that the Government have not yet gone quite far enough. Again, I do not think that this is the time to rehearse the arguments at length, but will the Minister think again about a more permanent safeguard against the very substantial risks to quality and perceptions of quality to which the noble Lord referred? I remind the

6 Mar 2007 : Column 141

House that franchising powers extend to international provision, which has significant implications for our reputation abroad.

I am convinced, too, that it would not be in the Government's interest or consistent with the policy aim set out when this Bill was first published if foundation degrees became a signature FE qualification, with a small number of large colleges franchising provision in smaller colleges on a large scale, with the possible result that for reputational reasons, higher education institutions no longer wanted to offer the qualification themselves.

I add my thanks to the Minister and his colleagues in another place for the way in which they have helped us through this Bill and conducted very detailed consultation with all those of us who have been and remain concerned about the Bill. I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords.

My Lords, the Further Education and Training Bill presents the first major opportunity in seven years to debate legislation that concentrates on learning and skills. It builds on the very welcome commitment that this Government have shown to our further education colleges and the work that they do. This commitment has been richly rewarded with overall success rates in colleges rising from 59 per cent to 72 per cent between 2001 and 2004.

The most important proposal in the Bill is to allow colleges to award their own foundation degrees rather than having to do so via a university. I am delighted that the Government have decided to recognise the excellent work that colleges do in the provision of higher education. Let us face it—without colleges, the 50 per cent target for young people in higher education could not be achieved. I am sure the House will recognise that foundation degrees have been an excellent addition to the range of qualifications available.

Most colleges are working extremely successfully with universities in providing foundation degrees and will probably have no desire to break away from those relationships. In fact, colleges have collaborated with schools, employers and universities for years and this will always remain their first instinct. For instance, the City of Wolverhampton College is working with the University of Wolverhampton to provide foundation degrees for 96 students this year. These cover six different areas, including community health and social care, engineering and broadcast journalism. The businesses they work with range across the public and private sectors to include Goodyear, Turner Powertrain, the Express & Star and Sandwell Hospital. The college is certain that foundation degrees have been a great success and envisage that the close working relationship with the university will continue as they seek to develop more foundation degrees. However, it is important that, where they need to, colleges, including the City of Wolverhampton College, are able to apply for their own right to award foundation degrees.

I am delighted that this House agreed to what was Clause 19 without a vote on Report and that Peers agreed that the government amendments were helpful additions to the Bill. I am sure that there will be

6 Mar 2007 : Column 142

further discussions but the important principle should remain—that colleges with the necessary expertise and experience should be able to apply for foundation degree-awarding powers.

With regard to another controversial aspect of this Bill on Report, the House took the decision to delete Clauses 17 and 18, which would have given the Learning and Skills Council and the Welsh Assembly Government power to dismiss senior postholders in colleges. I know that my noble friend the Minister will be disappointed with this decision, although I indicated the strength of concern about these proposals to my honourable friend the Further Education Minister in another place at a meeting of our All-Party Parliamentary Further Education Group before the Bill was introduced in this House. These arguments were well rehearsed in Grand Committee and on Report, but I add my own brief thoughts.

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page