www.hefcw.ac.uk

Public Good and a Prosperous Wales – Building a reformed PCET system Response from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, 23 October 2017

1

Introduction 1. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales wishes to develop and

sustain internationally excellent higher education in Wales, for the benefit of individuals, society and the economy, in Wales and more widely.

2. We regulate fee levels at universities, ensure a framework is in place for assessing the quality of higher education and scrutinise the performance of universities and other designated providers.

3. We use resources from the Welsh Government and others to secure higher

education (HE) learning and research of the highest quality and make the most of the contribution of HE to Wales’s culture, society and economy and ensure high quality, accredited teacher training.

4. HEFCW welcomes the ambition and direction of travel set out in the Hazelkorn

Review, and now in the white paper proposals. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation about building a reformed PCET (Post-Compulsory Education and Training) system, which relates directly to HEFCW’s statutory and regulatory roles, and anticipate close involvement in developments as they are taken forward.

5. Our current role is such that we have extensive experience and a strong track

record as an intermediary body. We are conscious that this is a detailed response but it is directly informed by our unique practical experience of operating between the Welsh Government and providers and we offer the following responses absolutely in the spirit of bringing our experience to bear on securing a positive transition to effective new arrangements.

6. With a soon to be enhanced membership, we stand ready to work with

partners, as far as our remit permits, to take forward the vision in advance of the legislation required to institute the reforms.

Strategic Planning Question 1: Do you agree the Commission should have a role in strategic planning at national level across the PCET system? 7. The first recommendation in Professor Hazelkorn’s report noted the need to

‘Develop an overarching vision for the post-compulsory education system for Wales based upon stronger links between education policy, providers and provision, and social and economic goals to ensure the needs of Wales are future-proofed as far as is practicable’. A planning role for the new Commission, as outlined above, would be dependent upon the development by the Welsh Government of an overarching vision for the PCET system, as set out in the consultation document (cf p15). Without the vision it will not be clear what the new organisation is trying to achieve and therefore not clear how that organisation should be constructed. Once the vision has been

2

established, the Commission would then work with providers to develop a plan to deliver that vision, ensuring that nugatory competition is minimised and that the PCET sector achieves more than the sum of its parts.

8. We recognise the challenge of the potential breadth of responsibilities of the proposed new body, not least in terms of the governance challenge of establishing a commission with the necessary experience to provide oversight while at the same time having a membership of a workable size.

9. Linked to this, the ‘big bang’ approach to establishing the Commission may not

be appropriate, following on from the experience with ELWa. A more evolutionary and incremental approach to establishing the Commission may be preferable, which will allow learning and development. We pick up this theme in responses to later questions.

10. In terms of the role in strategic planning, it would be helpful to have further

information about the intended parameters of this role and how far it extends, and we set out below some of the factors to take into account in developing those arrangements. Overall, we are supportive of a new body whose planning functions comprise taking a strategic overview and giving broad policy steers, but not of one that would be expected to micro-manage and become involved in the minutiae of the work of providers at subject level.

11. The plan would also be dependent upon:

• Clarification of what the PCET system comprised (would it include or exclude school sixth forms, for example);

• The balance between autonomy (which is emphasized in the document, p40) and central diktat;

• The balance between planning and flexibility/responsiveness (behaviours sought from providers through the plan). In general, it is better to incentivise the desired outcomes, rather than impose targets and monitor performance. Providers are closer to the market and are better able than central planners to judge demand. Too low level an approach to planning tends to produce supply-side interventions with a substantial lag on demand-side impact.

• The balance between taking a strategic approach to planning, and institutional autonomy.

• Whether the priority is learners or employers. Although the emphasis is generally placed on learners, demand from learners and employers are not necessarily similar. The planning function should not be so narrowly defined as to quell the ambitions of students, who should be encouraged to become global citizens.

• Recognition that the likely variability of future career paths renders the development of generic skills arguably more important than a range of narrowly defined occupationally specific skills.

• Whether this relates to short term demand or longer term need. In education planning, it is necessary to consider the likely needs once learners are qualified as well as current needs.

• The relationship between the planning role of the Commission and the

3

regional skills partnerships, who are responsible currently for preparing regional plans.

• The operation of arrangements which require a five year plan, submitted for approval every five years (p23) and a three-yearly review process for the plan (p30)

12. Questions have also been raised about the value of central planning e.g.

Wakeham Review of STEM Degree Provision and Graduate Employability (p10), which will need to be taken into account. We would therefore advise against planning at subject number levels, while encouraging the growth of STEM and other subject areas required for national prosperity and competitiveness.

13. Taking account of these matters, such a plan would need to be stable over a

reasonable time period, which means that it would need to be specified at a strategic and high level to allow the system to respond to it. The new body would also need to have the capacity for horizon scanning for wider developments which may present risks or opportunities for Wales.

14. Whatever planning was undertaken would need to recognise that HE works

within a UK and international market, with many cross border flows, although the FE market is slightly more contained (although not immune from cross-border influences). The work-based learning market may also be impacted on by cross-border flows, e.g. through availability of different levels of funding for apprenticeships. HE needs to maintain competitiveness at UK and international level in order to deliver the needs of Wales.

15. It may make sense to align such a plan with the programme of government (eg

that it should be submitted one year into the election period and continue for one year afterwards). The plan should also, of course, have regard to the future generations legislation and the guidance of the Commissioner.

Question 2: Should Outcome Agreements form the basis of the Commission’s strategic planning relationship with institutions and providers? If so, what steps could be taken to ensure that Outcome Agreements do not encourage short-term thinking by institutions? 16. We recognise in principle the arguments for outcome agreements between the

Commission and providers but we take the view that a stronger case needs to be made for outcome agreements compared to the other options set out. The evidence base for outcome agreements is still being developed. The Scottish Funding Council, which operates this system currently, would be a good source of advice. There is much we can learn from the application of this process in Scotland. Under the SFC model, outcome agreements are dependent upon additional /funded places being available to incentivise behaviour and performance, with most allocations remaining formulaic. We learnt from a recent PCET visit, that in the Netherlands it is considered that performance agreements have delivered little additional benefit to what would have been delivered in their absence, and in fact the country is looking at a

4

different approach for the future. 17. The Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) put in place a

regulatory regime requiring HE providers which wished for all their full-time undergraduate courses to be eligible for student support to submit a fee and access plan to HEFCW for approval. The Act is referred to in the consultation document (eg pp 17-19) but the implications of that regulatory role are not considered. The implications of specific course designation and the potential for the regulation of part-time higher education provision are also omitted.

18. It is unclear whether proposals for outcome agreements would replace fee and

access plans for HE providers, required under the legislation, or continue (in which case there would be unnecessary, arguably unhelpful, and possibly unworkable duplication).

19. If the former, any new legislation (which could be in place by 2021) would

need to repeal the 2015 Act, within a few years of its passing. Significant time and people resource, including National Assembly processes, was put into the development of the Bill and the passing of the Act. These arrangements are now in the first stages of implementation (from 1 August 2017). We would recommend that any future legislative process should be specified at a much higher level of detail, so that there would be flexibility to adjust the regulatory and planning tools over time as circumstances change without the need to revisit the full legislation. This proposal does not imply framework legislation, which allows for further details to be specified in sub-legislation. We propose rather that the legislation should specify the role of the Commission at a high level and allow the Commission (in consultation with the Welsh Government, providers, students and other interested parties) to determine how that should work.

20. This would also prompt consideration of a more incremental approach to

establishing the Commission whilst appropriate time is taken to develop the legislation in consultation with stakeholders.

21. The fee and access plans provide access for HE providers to the student

support mechanisms. The relationship between outcome agreements and access to student support is unclear. The document refers to student support but covers insufficiently the existing differences between support provided for HE and FE learners.

22. Fee and access plans can be used under the current regulatory approach, and

HEFCW can direct additional spending if appropriate, in response to monitoring of plans, but receipt of fee income cannot be conditional upon achieving specific outcomes, as the funding is attached to the student, and follows them.

23. Taking this into account, the outcomes agreement process could bring

benefits. The statutory fee and access plans need to be agreed more than one year prior to the start of the year in which they take effect. This is not a useful timetable for planning or monitoring. Outcome agreements could be much

5

more immediate (agreed in the year preceding the year in effect). Outcome agreements could also provide a useful lever, as part of broader processes, for discussions with providers across the PCET sector to drive improvements to performance and to meet Welsh Government priorities. They could cover both short and longer term outcomes. However, it is unclear in the consultation whether the outcome agreements would link to funding, to fee income (and student support) or neither.

24. Outcome agreements would need to sit below the agreed strategic plan (once

approved) and the Welsh Government’s PCET system vision, if these are to operate effectively. This means that they would be subject to clarification on the issues raised in question 1.

25. We also note that outcome agreements are predicated upon discussion with

providers and so the government vision and the strategic plan will need to be very high level to enable flexibility and responsiveness by providers. It is not clear from the proposal whether a single format of outcome agreement is proposed across the whole PCET system. Given the diversity of types of provider in PCET, different types of outcome agreement could be required and we would counsel against seeking to be too specific about form in legislation.

A Single Funding Body Question 3: Do you agree that funding to the Commission should be dependent upon the production of a strategic plan approved by Welsh Ministers? 26. Taking account of the points raised in question 1, the Commission should be

expected to prepare a strategic plan and funding should be provided to the Commission to deliver the Welsh Government’s high level vision and strategy for PCET, to which the strategic plan responds. The Commission should be held accountable for the delivery of outcomes against the Welsh Government’s PCET vision.

Question 4: Do you agree that a provider’s eligibility for funding should be conditional on producing an Outcome Agreement that reflects relevant priorities in the Strategic Plan? 27. See question 2 above regarding whether outcome agreements should be

used. 28. Eligibility for funding should be dependent upon other more specific conditions,

such as those set out in the 2015 Act (being an institution in Wales; that is a charity). Supplementary fee and access plan criteria relate to financial sustainability; organisation and management of financial affairs; and quality.

29. Fundamental eligibility could be based on certain criteria, such as those set

out above, which could lead to ‘registration’. We would expect to see a level

6

playing field, with criteria applied to all applicants operating at the same levels, to ensure equivalent student experience and equivalent contributions to the public good.

30. Funding of registered providers could then be conditional on other factors, and

required deliverables, which could inform an outcome agreement process. 31. The Commission should have the ability to fund outside of an outcome

agreement process (e.g. for strategic developments). Question 5: Do you agree that the levels of funding should be dependent, in any way, upon a provider’s performance against its Outcome Agreement? 32. The assumption behind an outcomes agreement process is that this would be

dependent upon funding. However, we are continuing to learn from issues that have arisen in our previous annual monitoring process, and our monitoring of fee and access plans, and suggest that the following issues should be considered:

• How much of the outcomes agreement would need to be delivered by the

institution in order to retain funding? • Would there be key priorities which would outweigh other deliverables? • How would you decide how much funding to hold back without

challenge? We note that it would not be possible to hold back fee income.

• Would you need some assumption about what this is worth or is this dependent upon targets met?

• Funders and regulators are expected to act reasonably: how much would you take into account mitigating circumstances?

• Given that monitoring usually takes place when some element of funding has already been paid, may be appropriate to apply a fine in this case?

33. In practice judgements about provider performance, and any future funding

consequences, need to take into consideration a range of variables. It will be important for the Commission to have flexibility in the way in which it makes these judgements and, therefore, for the relevant legislation to be enabling and not prescriptive, with an appropriate range of sanctions.

34. However, in all these circumstances, funding sanctions are much more flexible

than regulatory sanctions and monies can be held back, without challenge, when there is poor performance, pending improvement.

35. The Commission will also need the capacity to fine when institutions, which

are knowledgeable about the requirements, still fail to deliver. This applies particularly in the context of higher education, where such a large proportion of the income comes from tuition fees, which cannot legally be treated by the Commission in the same way as funding.

36. The new Commission, as an arms-length body, will need flexibility to operate

7

its funding streams strategically to achieve Welsh Government policy priorities: even formulaic allocations can be defined in such a way to drive government priorities. The Commission must ensure that unhypothecated funding streams are configured so that they recognise differentiation in mission across the different elements of PCET (HE, FE, WBL etc) and the machinery for that funding should be left to the Commission to determine and not be so tightly defined that flexibility to support new and emerging activity is lost.

Question 6: Do you think that the Commission should be empowered to make recommendations to the institution, and/or to the Welsh Government, where an institution is at serious financial risk? 37. Yes. Our current statutory Financial Management Code incorporates our

institutional risk review processes: we inform the institution where risks have been identified and expect action to be taken in response. Such sanctions could be strengthened to allow the Commission to intervene, rather than just make recommendations, for example attendance at governing body meetings or requiring the Governing Body to act (for example in relation to quality issues). Our regulatory role currently enables us to issue a Direction where there has been a breach, or a likelihood of breach, of the Financial Management Code and requires an annual report to Welsh Ministers and for Welsh Ministers to be informed when we issue such a Direction.

Question 7: Do you think that where it judges that an institution has become financially non-viable, the Commission should be empowered to make appropriate recommendations to the Welsh Government and what safeguards may be required? 38. Yes. These powers already exist for HE through the 2015 Act in relation to

regulated institutions. However, the powers do not extend to specifically designated institutions or part-time only providers.

39. We would expect the Commission to have a broader power of being able to

advise government on anything which has an impact on PCET and to have intervention powers which are more broadly cast when things are identified specifically to be at risk.

40. Institutional autonomy of Higher Education Institutions is already protected in

the 2015 Act (section 48) but unlike the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (section 68), this protects institutional autonomy in relation to the funding of specific courses from HEFCW rather than from Welsh Government. Institutional autonomy needs to be protected from government intervention rather than intervention by the new arms-length Commission.

41. As with any public body and regulator, the Commission would be required to

act reasonably. 42. As noted in question 8, provisions would also allow for student interests to be

protected, as well as public investment in education.

8

43. The principle of institutional autonomy in higher education is UK wide but we

see no reason why such autonomy could not be extended across FE colleges in Wales as well.

Protecting the interests of learners in the PCET sector Question 8: Do you agree that the arrangements to protect learners studying at PCET providers in Wales need to be strengthened? 44. We agree. In HE there is an expectation for regulated institutions to have a

student charter and relationship agreement with the students union. We also require this from regulated institutions in the FE sector. There is also strong partnership working between institutions and their students unions and learners more broadly. Nevertheless, we agree that there is room for this area to be strengthened across PCET providers and we would strongly support the strengthening of the student voice across all post-16 providers. Such an expectation could form a condition of funding by the new Commission, with the detail of expectations to be set out by the Commission, in consultation with providers and the National Union of Students Wales.

45. We would expect the student voice to be represented within the new

Commission, which could be given a statutory responsibility to promote the student voice within its functions.

46. There is no requirement in HEFCW currently for a student protection

statement, although there are provisions under the 2015 Act, which require that quality assurance and fee level protection continue after a provider has failed, which we think helpful. HEFCW has previously required information on student protection from institutions which had been considered at risk of not having a Fee and Access Plan approved. The revised student charter guidance includes a requirement to incorporate within the charter a high level statement (or a link to one) on how the student interests are protected, e.g. in cases where a course or institution ceases to exist.

47. The establishment of an Office for Students (OfS) in England to cover higher

education, focussed on the interests of the students, reflects the particular emphasis on students as customers in an English context. We will continue to maintain and develop an effective working relationship with the OfS, working collaboratively to gain added value where possible. We would not wish to see anything within the new Commission that would inhibit that partnership working with OfS and other UK HE funding bodies. Similarly, it will be important for the Commission not to be inhibited from maintaining and developing effective working relationships with bodies elsewhere in the UK and internationally, with similar roles in other parts of the PCET system.

9

Question 9: If yes, what arrangements should be put in place to support learners no longer able to continue on their course at their chosen provider because of the closure of the course, the closure of a campus or because of provider failure? 48. We would expect all providers to put appropriate arrangements in place to

support learners in the event of the closure of a course, campus or provider failure (see response to question 8).

49. Appropriate powers of intervention could be applied to the Commission

through statutory interventions, as noted in question 6. Question 10: Should providers offering higher education courses that are designated for statutory student support in Wales be required to produce student protection plans within their Outcome Agreements? 50. All providers should be required to produce student protection plans, to be

assessed by the Commission. As noted in question 9, these should cover learners in the event of the closure of a course, campus or provider failure (see also point re student charter in question 8).

Supporting learners who wish to transfer between courses or providers Question 11: What support should be provided to learners wishing to change courses or provider? 51. The most important support would be appropriate independent careers advice.

The provision of independent face to face advice and guidance on career options would need to be prioritised in any PCET system, particularly one which aims for parity of esteem between different routes of study/work. Without this, parity of esteem is unlikely to be achieved. Providing only on-line guidance will not be sufficient to counteract other less independent messages, including those from England, particularly for learners from backgrounds where education and training are less valued.

52. The Credit and Qualifications Framework for Wales (CQFW) provides a facility

to allow learners to build up and transfer credit within and between institutions (although the latter has not delivered sufficient flexibility to learners as yet). CQFW was introduced across HE and FE in Wales ahead of England and we need to ensure that the flexibility provided by the framework, supported via credit-funding methods in HEFCW, is not lost. Funding could be provided to incentivise flexibility within and between providers, recognising that there is a cost to providers to make more flexible provision available, including in terms of accrediting prior learning.

53. CQFW also provides a mechanism for facilitating progression through the

education system, something which the Commission will be expected to

10

prioritise. Question 12: What role, if any, should the new Commission have in ensuring arrangements are in place to facilitate student transfer arrangements and to promote awareness of these arrangements amongst learners? 54. As noted in the response to question 11, funding could be provided to

incentivise flexible curricula, based on CQFW credit arrangements. HEFCW has funded largely on the basis of credit, rather than individuals, since 2001 (although full-time undergraduate provision is now financed primarily through individual student fees). Funding on the basis of credit promotes flexible responses from institutions, lessens the division between full and part time learning, and facilitates learners to study small bites of learning, work based learning modules or full courses, and to build up learning to achieve qualifications.

55. Effective independent careers advice would enable learners to be aware of the

different pathways available. Such advice should be available on a pan-Wales basis, to ensure that there is no inconsistency of approach between different areas of Wales.

Managing Learner Complaints Question 13: Is there a need to introduce complaints resolution arrangements for learners in the PCET sector, who are currently unable to take their unresolved complaints to an independent body? If yes, what complaint resolution arrangements should be put in place for learners across the PCET sector? 56. Yes. HE learners (including those studying in FEIs) already have access to the

independent Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). These arrangements could potentially be extended to include FE learners, by agreement with OIA and the HE sector. HEFCW has a Memorandum of Understanding in place with the OIA to ensure effective liaison regarding complaints falling within HEFCW’s statutory role.

57. In principle, complaints should be dealt with separately from the Commission,

which could be conflicted. We would not therefore recommend that the Commission should be responsible for student complaints. As is currently the case for HEFCW, it would be appropriate for the Commission to continue to handle any complaints that relate to its statutory remit, e.g. under the Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015 complaints about institutions’ financial management, inadequate quality, the charging of excess fees etc.

58. One option would be to consider working with the OIA to extend its remit

across post-16 education in Wales. The OIA, with a UK remit, is better able to deal with complaints effectively and consistently whereas, on the scale of Wales, the volume probably would not sustain a permanent machinery, so

11

responsiveness would be compromised. In addition, OIA are better placed to benchmark expectations of service against UK norms than would be the case for a Wales-only function.

59. The OIA requires that learners have first accessed their own institution’s

complaints procedures, and this is appropriate. It also will not intervene where complaints relate to academic judgement. Rather, it considers whether the processes that led to the complaint are fair, and whether they have been implemented appropriately.

60. The Commission could be expected to consider the appropriateness of

institutional complaints procedures as part of institutional assurance, and monitor complaints, including through the OIA, in terms of its role in quality. The Commission would need to be able to consider complaints against institutions which were related specifically to its regulatory role.

Quality Assurance and Enhancement Question 14: What models could be used by the Commission for a Quality Assurance Framework encompassing all types of provision? 61. Taking account of the model in higher education, we would expect the

responsibility for the quality and standards of provision made by an institution to rest with the Governing Body or Board, working with an awarding body where appropriate. The process should be a peer review process; based on self-assessment and interrogation of data. For HE this would require to be congruent with other parts of the UK.

62. Currently HE provision is reviewed by the QAA, and the remaining parts of the

PCET sector are inspected by Estyn. In addition, the Higher Education Academy operates the Professional Standards Framework (PSF) for higher education practitioners and accredits the institutional staff professional development schemes that support the achievement of the PSF.

63. The development of PCET offers an opportunity to consider whether a review

of this system is necessary. However, given that HE has a UK and international market, whereas other parts of the PCET sector have a market based mostly (although not completely) in Wales, this might not be achievable or desirable.

64. The annual remit for Estyn is currently agreed with the Welsh Government,

which includes the FE and adult learning aspects of PCET. Once established, the Commission should have overarching responsibility and accountability for the quality assurance of all post-16 provision, which means that it should have responsibility for the remit to Estyn for inspection in PCET, or it will be unable to effectively deliver its quality assurance responsibilities. We also consider that the any legislation which addresses this responsibility should avoid being overly specific about how the Commission meets its responsibility in order to

12

allow sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in future. 65. Estyn already has the statutory right to inspect FE provision, as well as Initial

Teacher Training and youth work provision, in higher education. Estyn also inspects the other parts of the PCET sector. In addition, HEFCW has powers under the Act to cover the quality assurance of FE provision in regulated institutions, including provision made on behalf of those providers in England (and through funding powers, in the rest of the UK and internationally). We currently take account of Estyn’s inspection processes, where we can, to cover that aspect of our responsibilities in order to ensure that there is holistic oversight of the quality assurance of all the provision of regulated institutions. The Commission could similarly take account of Estyn’s inspection processes for PCET more broadly to meet its statutory responsibilities.

66. HEFCW works closely with Estyn, and with the Quality Assurance Agency

(which gains its quality assurance role in Wales via HEFCW and regulated institutions) via signed memoranda of understanding, to share information and minimise burden. There is also scope for joint working. It is important for HE in Wales to continue to be assessed against meeting the European Standards and Guidelines, in order to enable it to compete effectively, both in the UK and internationally.

Question 15: Should quality enhancement be a key feature of the Quality Assurance Framework operated by the Commission? 67. Yes. Quality enhancement should be a component of a future Quality

Assurance Framework for PCET, and it is already part of the HE Quality Assessment Framework. Quality enhancement is an essential component of quality assurance, although they are different and enhancement is more likely to flourish in an environment more tolerant of the risks of innovation. We need to ensure, therefore, that any future Quality Assurance Framework does not constrain innovation in any part of the PCET sector. Interpretation of, and emphasis on, enhancement varies across the sectors in the PCET system, and this would need to be taken into account in implementing it as a key feature.

68. We understand that an essential component of the Estyn Common Inspection

Framework relates to planning and improving quality under the heading of leadership.

Financial and Governance Assurance Question 16: We welcome views on how Welsh apprenticeships should, in the future, fit within the role of the Commission. In particular, we would welcome views on what, if any, changes could be made to the Welsh apprenticeship system provided for in the 2009 Act.

13

69. If the Commission is to have a role in strategic planning of education and skills delivery across all PCET in Wales it must also have responsibility for oversight of apprenticeships. Empowering multiple organisations to have oversight of different areas of the apprenticeship system only increases the likelihood of confusion and duplication for users of the system (employers and learners).

70. Recognising that many of these tasks could be consistent with approaches to

other areas of PCET, the Commission’s role should be to:

• Develop, maintain and regulate an apprenticeship system for Wales that meets the needs of employers of all sizes and individual apprentices, not just in Wales but across the rest of the UK, where appropriate. It is vital that the Commission meets the needs of Wales, whilst at the same time recognising that a large number of employers and learners, particularly at higher levels, operate across the UK. We need to recognise the need for portability of apprenticeships and that learners might operate outside of Wales. Should Welsh Government wish to retain the current system, consideration should be given to making the Commission the issuing authority for apprenticeship frameworks to ensure that the capacity for developing frameworks can be maintained in Wales, this function would need to be informed by a broad employer voice - a function which better resourced regional skills partnerships (RSPs) could undertake;

• Regulate all apprenticeship providers with a specific statutory duty, as part of a general statutory duty for quality, to review/inspect the quality of all apprenticeship providers. Another body would likely undertake the review/inspection on the Commission’s behalf;

• Ensure that the apprenticeship model aligns with requirements and models developed for other elements of the PCET system to ensure consistency for providers that will work across multiple elements of the PCET system as well as parity between vocational and academic routes. Whilst it is recognised that some private providers are well placed to deliver these elements of PCET, the Commission should ensure that they are also required to make commitments to meeting the public good, as with other providers in the HE sector;

• Fund apprenticeship providers, providing assurances that public funds are properly spent and achieve value for money. The current tendering process for work-based learning providers could be replaced with the suggested registration models proposed in this consultation, ensuring that all providers with the committed support of employers could access the relevant funding for apprenticeships;

• Ensure that apprenticeships are only funded where there is demonstrable employer demand and economic need, recognising that this represents short to medium demand, not longer term. As noted in question 1, as part of its planning role, the Commission will need a capacity for longer term horizon scanning as an ongoing function.

71. For apprenticeships to have greater impact in Wales more support needs to be

provided for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to enable them to be able to benefit from apprenticeships.

14

72. The voice of learners is important across the PCET sector and we would recommend that the Commission work closely with the National Society of Apprentices Wales and other relevant bodies to ensure that the Commission responds to the voice of apprentices

Management of Performance and Risk Question 17: Do you consider that the proposals above for monitoring performance and achieving accountability across the PCET system are sufficient and appropriate? 73. It is appropriate that the Commission report annually to Welsh ministers on the

performance of the sector. We would expect that this report would inform the overall Welsh Government’s vision and ongoing strategy for the PCET sector.

74. We note the three-yearly review planned of the five year Commission strategy

but suggest that arrangements might more appropriately align with the timetable for elections and new programmes of government introduced, as noted in question 1.

75. A review at the end of each strategy period would also be appropriate, in order

to evaluate progress against each strategic plan. Question 18: What more might need to be done to secure the sustainable operation of the PCET system in Wales over the longer term? 76. Sustainability will depend on sufficient funding to maintain flexibility to respond

to the demands placed on the PCET system in a Welsh, UK and global context.

77. If possible, there should be a consistency of charitable status across the

sector (between HEIs as registered charities, FEIs as exempt charities, and other providers).

78. Policies and processes should be designed to encourage collaboration and

partnership where possible, rather than nugatory competition. A single Commission will be well placed to judge where demand would suggest a need for new providers and/or where there may need to be discussions with providers, as the number of providers may need to be reduced in order to promote sustainability. In all of this, we would expect the Commission to be promoting and extending the expectations placed on it through the Future Generations (Wales) Act.

15

Research and Innovation Question 19: Do you agree that there should be a committee of the Commission to be known as Research & Innovation Wales? 79. Yes, we welcome the emphasis given within the consultation to a high profile

committee to advise on research and innovation activity in Wales, backed by resources to implement its recommendations.

80. HEFCW’s Research, Innovation and Engagement Committee advises the

Council currently on strategy, policy and funding for innovation, engagement and research activities, but it does not have a statutory role. Our view is that a statutory committee to advise on research and innovation could operate effectively within the new Commission.

81. This statutory committee will need a breadth of focus - on Welsh Government

policies and funding for R&I; on the wider industrial, economic and societal issues relevant to Wales; and on developments taking place within the UK Government. The current context includes developments arising from the implementation of the Diamond Review; the establishment of City Deals; and the review of government funded research and innovation in Wales (the Reid Review). The wider (UK) context includes the imminent publication of the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy; the establishment of UKRI and (within UKRI) Research England; and the negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU. All of these developments will have implications for the research and innovation agenda in Wales and for the role and function of the Commission and its structures.

82. There are as many as forty bodies advising Welsh Government on this area of work and there are many different streams of funding. It is important that one independent body should consider and drive this area of policy and RIW, within the Commission, could take this role, working in partnership with other interested parties. A single body would also maintain an overview of the complex developments elsewhere in the UK, as noted above. RIW would make recommendations to the Commission on how to allocate funding across the range of priorities within its ambit.

83. We recognise that research in higher education responds to the full range of

departments with the Welsh Government, not only education but crucially the Department for Economy and Transport. Whilst the Commission will report through the Department for Education and Skills, we will need to consider how the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure can be involved. The role of the Chief Scientist is also crucial, although it should not be forgotten that research in higher education goes far beyond science and contributes broadly to the arts, humanities and social sciences in Wales, including contributions of benefit to the economy. Furthermore, the interaction between science and the arts (the so-called STEAMD agenda) has powerful potential to deliver for Wales.

16

84. Although we need differentiation between funding for research and innovation (including applied research) it is important to maintain the dual funding support provided by unhypothecated funding for quality research in addition to more specific project funding.

Question 20: Do you agree that Research & Innovation Wales should operate as set out above to develop research and innovation capacity and capability in Wales? 85. No. The consultation proposes that Research & Innovation Wales should have

a separate governance, steering and management structure within the Commission. This suggests an aim of replicating for RIW within the Commission the status of Research England within UKRI. This proposal needs to be thought through carefully in terms of its relationship to the main body. We recommend that the proposed committee should have a clear identity and statutory role within the Commission (as noted above), but that it should not be given a separate status and governance structure. The Technical Consultation would be particularly important in ensuring there was absolute clarity about the role and responsibilities of the new body. For example, we would expect research and innovation activities to come under the ambit of the Commission’s institutional risk and financial assurance processes.

86. National strategic objectives for research and innovation need to be fully

embedded in the Commission’s strategic plan, informed by the Welsh Government’s overarching vision and strategy for PCET. We suggest that the RIW should be expected to advise on and take account of Welsh Government strategies and priorities, and be fully accountable through the Commission. One possible model would be that already in place for a statutory Quality Assessment Committee within HEFCW, as enshrined in the 2015 Act. However, we recommend that the level of detail set out in the consultation document for the establishment and operation of RIW is not laid down in legislation, but should form part of the Welsh Government’s remit to the new Commission. This is to enable RIW and the Commission to operate flexibility and responsibly to meet changing agendas.

87. If it is the intention that the RIW should operate with a separate governance

and structure, then it will not be able to benefit from membership and experience from within the Welsh sector, given the conflict of interest which could arise where the Committee was taking funding decisions. However, if RIW were to maintain an advisory role to the Commission, such interests are managed.

88. It is also important that we bear in mind the relationship between active

researchers and teaching and learning in HE. A basic expectation of students through their payment of tuition fees is that their lecturers should be research informed. However, high tariff HE students, particularly, expect to attend institutions that are research intensive, producing high quality and innovative research, so that this informs their learning and teaching experience.

89. In terms of developing research and innovation capacity and capability in

17

Wales, the new Commission has an opportunity to bring a holistic approach to HE and FE research and innovation strategy in Wales and challenge providers to adopt more strategic approaches. This might be through incentivising close collaboration between HE and FE in knowledge exchange activities such as skills and work-based learning, contract R&D, consultancy and community engagement.

90. To this end, the new Commission should:

• ensure that its funding streams (unhypothecated and targeted) are configured so that they recognise differentiation in mission across HE and FE providers in Wales;

• balance its support for research and innovation activity with other funding streams, such as those that support learning and teaching, widening access;

• ensure the provision of a robust supporting infrastructure for the research base in its entirety, i.e. across the continuum of “basic” and “applied” activity;

• ensure the provision of a robust supporting infrastructure for all sectors and regions and research disciplines (both STEM and Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences) and across all areas of WG cabinet priorities;

• operate prescribed monitoring procedures and mechanisms to hold providers to account, ensuring they have the capacity and capability to use funding effectively against well-define success factors;

• administer with minimum bureaucracy, providing strategic allocations to a regulated sector under Commission and RIW committee scrutiny, with clear lines of accountability;

• operate single sources of funding for knowledge exchange activity across HE, FE and work-based learning sectors.

91. The consultation proposes that the Commission should establish two discrete

funding routes for research (and innovation) activity. We support this proposal, but there are a number of issues that need further clarification:

i. appropriate models of unhypothecated funding need to be determined:

the consultation is unclear on whether there should be separate funding pots for research and innovation and further thinking is needed on operational models;

ii. whether strategy-related funding for research and innovation is provided in addition to, and not at the expense of, unhypothecated funding;

iii. whether the Commission should be given responsibility for managing current Welsh Government research initiatives such as Sêr Cymru. We would argue that it should.

iv. whether current Welsh Government innovation funding allocated to HE/FE should fall within the ambit of the new Commission or whether this should remain the responsibility of the Welsh Government aligned to its wider business-facing support activities. Whichever form this takes, we would support alignment of strategies and joint working between Welsh Government investment in innovation and that of the Commission. Alignment and engagement with Innovate UK’s operation in Wales must

18

also be assured. 92. The outcomes of the Reid Review should provide guidance on these points.

We have welcomed the Welsh Government’s commissioning of a comprehensive review of government funding for research and innovation in Wales from such an eminent and experienced individual as Professor Graeme Reid. We strongly recommend that any future decisions on research and innovation should be guided by his conclusions and recommendations.

93. The consultation identifies a number of risks to Wales inherent in the UK

Government’s Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) 2017. Although not picked up in the consultation questions, we offer a perspective here.

(a) The distinction between QR (in England) and UK-wide Research Council and Innovate UK funding could become blurred and the dual funding streams entangled at a strategic level in a way that could put Welsh universities at a disadvantage.

94. We would argue that there is no direct risk. HERA 2017 protects the dual

support systems for research funding in law. In theory, any shift within the new UKRI from QR to the Research Council budgets could decrease the Treasury-to-WG consequential, which Welsh Government might then pass on to the new Commission, but this decision will be for the Welsh Government.

95. The UK Government’s 2016 Autumn Statement announced additional

allocations for research and innovation in support of the UK Industrial Strategy, some of which has already been allocated to HEFCE to enhance the dual support system. The Welsh Government should commit to securing the “Barnett consequentials” for the support of research and innovation in Wales. This will allow further investment in the Wales research and innovation base. Without being able to invest similarly in Wales to the rest of the UK we have little hope of winning UKRI funding and will go backwards.

(b) Research England will engage with UKRI on strategy development, which will not be replicated for Wales and the other devolved governments.

96. We are currently in discussion with HEFCE, the Scottish Funding Council and

the Department for Employment in Northern Ireland as to how existing engagement structures might be formalised following the establishment of UKRI so that the UK dual support system has an effective voice across the piece. In the immediate term, arrangements for REF2021 continue through the operation of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) Steering Group, of which HEFCW is a member.

(c) Funding could become targeted increasingly towards a small number of elite universities … as identified by the recent BIS-driven Science and Innovation Audits.

97. This is always a concern. Our universities operate within a highly competitive

environment and we need to make sure they are able to compete in terms of

19

attracting UKRI funding and that they are attractive partners for “hub and spoke” models. Initiatives such as “Great Western Research” where Cardiff partners with Bath, Bristol and Exeter should be encouraged since they generate critical mass.

Widening access and participation in the PCET sector Question 21: What actions, if any, should be undertaken to encourage greater participation in the PCET sector, particularly by individuals from disadvantaged and under- represented groups? 98. Such actions would need to be developed within the Welsh Government’s

overarching vision and strategy for the PCET system, as well as its objectives in relation to tackling poverty and under-representation. Following the demise of Communities First, the flagship policy for tackling poverty, we await the development of a new approach which can be inclusive of all education providers.

99. During the period of HEFCW’s focus on Communities First and the Welsh

Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD), an evaluation noted that the proportion of the population accessing higher education from the bottom (fifth) quintile of wards (LSOAs) increased to the extent that it was equivalent to the fourth quintile. This success was achieved by higher education providers targeting their efforts on specific activities and Communities First/WIMD areas.

100. The higher education provision accessed through those initiatives was of

many types and varieties – not a single model. Within these approaches are contextual and flexible admissions processes which assist entry to higher education.

101. The lessons learned from this success include that we need a clear focus on

the target groups, and a recognition of the different needs of learners. In higher education, this is usually taken forward through identification through targeted geographical definitions (eg Communities First, WIMD or low participation areas).

102. Our evaluation recommended the need for a broader framework to be set for

widening access, developed by the Welsh Government, which would identify different (potentially competing) routes for learners (eg university; college; apprenticeship; placement (eg Jobs Growth Wales); and the priority placed on each of these routes. This would be crucially important where the prime objective is parity of esteem between different routes, and the essential underpinning infrastructure to this would include independent information, advice and guidance on the pathways available.

103. Part-time study opportunities are crucial to facilitate wider access to education.

Unfortunately, such opportunities have been reducing, partly due to the emphasis placed on full-time provision through existing student support

20

mechanisms. We look forward to greater parity of esteem between full- and part-time higher education student support, as recommended by the Diamond Review.

Question 22: How could we ensure greater retention on and successful completion of PCET courses by these groups? 104. Significant work has been undertaken in higher education on how to improve

retention (and thus completion). For example, www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals/strategic-priorities/retention/what-works.

105. Fees and funding models may incentivise retention by funding on completion

rather than enrolment, although it is usually in the provider’s interest to maximise retention and success for both financial and reputational reasons.

106. A key underpinning of good retention is appropriate independent information,

advice and guidance prior to entry, focussed on the needs of the learner. Measuring impact Question 23: How can the evidence base for widening access across the PCET sector be strengthened? 107. Extensive work has been undertaken to build the evidence base in an HE

context, at UK level, for example, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/widening-participation-wp and at Wales level. http://www.wiserd.ac.uk/research/education/current-projects/impact-and-effectiveness-widening-access-he-wales/

108. A Literature review of research into widening participation to higher education

(ARC Network 2013) noted implications for policy and practice, including factors for consideration by policy makers:

i. Promote understanding of what is already known about ‘good practice’,

both in terms of disseminating findings and converting this understanding into policy directions. The reports and summaries produced by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) and the What Works? programme, together with the archives and research repositories hosted by the Higher Education Academy provide a particularly useful mix of sources and resources.

ii. Continue to endorse the notion of partnership within higher education providers as much as between providers and across sectors.

iii. Widen the focus beyond ‘traditional’ conceptions of HE. This acknowledges the limitations of formulating policy on the basis of one distinctive cohort: young full-time students who enter HE through an academic route. It is particularly important to understand the distinctive characteristics of the part-time student population.

21

iv. Acknowledge ‘the diversity of diversity’. It is important to acknowledge people’s multiple identities. This involves moving beyond large monolithic categories and looking at where different social characteristics intersect. It is here that targeted interventions can often have most impact. This approach may also reveal ‘hidden’ sub-groups within larger cohorts.

v. Continue to focus attention on tackling inequalities. There are a number of equality and diversity issues which are emphasised in the literature: for example, the attainment gap for students from ethnic minority groups and the low participation of care leavers.

vi. Continue to emphasise and prioritise staff development and continuous professional development (CPD) for those working within the HE sector and those supporting under-represented groups to access HE opportunities.

109. We have been supporting WISERD Education to improve the capacity in

education research in Wales, which has included research commissioned by HEFCW into widening access. We are planning further evaluation work on our fee and access plan process which will contribute to the pool of evidence. The Welsh Government is now providing funding through HEFCW to support research coordinated by WISERD Education for the schools sector. If the Welsh Government wishes to improve the research evidence base for widening access it may wish to consider responding to the additional recommendation of the Diamond Review that WISERD receive core funding from the Welsh Government to impact on social policy, on a five year basis, against the majority of its funding coming from projects and provide additional grant support for WISERD via HEFCW.

110. We would also recommend further development of the quality of data

collection methods. HE Data collection continues to develop through the HESA Data Futures Programme. We note that for data linked to the youth engagement and progression framework in relation to Work Based Learning, a study found that in around two thirds of cases, post-16 providers continued to use individual and differing data collection methods. Specifically the quality of data from colleges was seen as variable across Local Authorities.

Question 24: Should further and higher education institutions be placed under a duty to publish and provide to the Commission, data on the application, acceptance and progression rates of students, broken down by gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background? 111. Yes. All this information is available for higher education institutions. There are

certain existing requirements in relation to the publication of data (e.g. in relation to equality and diversity). However, in the interests of reducing burden and duplication, and ensuring equivalence of information, we recommend that the publication of this information should be centralised rather than published by institutions individually, the information can then be used to inform the providers’ strategic equalities annual published reports, which meet the public sector equalities duty.

22

112. We recommend that all institutions be required to provide data to the Commission and that the new Commission has statutory powers in relation to data collection. The Commission could then be remitted to publish PCET data and may then support another agency (e.g. Higher Education Statistics Agency – HESA) to undertake this role in publishing data centrally. We note that the Welsh Government already publishes a range of education data and may prefer to retain the role of publishing PCET data within that central role to avoid duplication. There is a question whether this expectation in relation to the provision of the above data, should cover the broader range of protected characteristics and be extended to all providers funded by the new Commission.

113. In planning for the new body, there is a wider issue about data and transferring

ownership of historic data to the new Commission from both Welsh Government and HEFCW, including data protection notices for students, etc.

Sixth forms Question 25: Do you think that the Commission should have responsibility for the planning, funding and monitoring of school sixth forms? If yes, please give reasons? 114. We support this recommendation in principle. A new PCET body should have

responsibility for the breadth of PCET provision to ensure consistency of approach and expectations. However, the development of such a role, beyond current arrangements, would involve significant workload and perturbation in the establishment of the new Commission and it may be preferable for this matter to be dealt with at a later stage by the Welsh Government. As noted in our response to question 1, a more evolutionary approach to the establishment of the Commission would allow this issue to be dealt with in due course.

Question 26: Do you think that the Commission should have any other role in relation to school sixth forms, for example provider registration, quality assurance and enhancement, and governance? If yes, please give reasons? 115. As noted in Question 25. Question 27: Do you think it might be preferable to establish the Commission without including sixth forms within its remit, but with the option of doing so at a later date? 116. As noted in Question 25, when the decision is taken to include sixth forms, a

longer term transition would be more practical and achievable.

23

Managing the relationship between the Commission and providers Question 28: Do you agree the new Commission should operate a registration system to facilitate a flexible but consistent approach to its engagement with institutions and providers across the full range of PCET activity If so, which model, if any, do you prefer and why? 117. Yes. We agree that a registration system would be preferable to the existing

statutory provisions in higher education through the 2015 Act, which provide for relatively inflexible regulatory arrangements. Such regulatory restrictions would make it difficult to achieve the flexibility and responsiveness sought from the new Commission and providers. The three proposed categories of registered; certified; and recognised providers would seem appropriate.

Higher Education Governance Question 29: We are seeking views on how extant legislation governing HECs in Wales might be modernised to place them on a more equal footing with other providers of higher education, incorporated under different constitutional arrangements and, in particular, whether:

• current prescriptions in relation to the governing documents of HECs should be removed;

• whether the requirement for Privy Council approval should be removed for certain amendments to HECs’ governing documents;

• whether the current power for the Welsh Ministers to dissolve HECs should be retained or removed.

118. One of the benefits of Ministerial powers to dissolve HECs in Wales means

that when they want to merge, this can be dealt with at Wales level rather than requiring Privy Council legislation. It would be useful to retain that capacity as it is much more efficient than going through Privy Council. This would always be a last resort. Whether this is only with the agreement of the bodies concerned, or could be without it, will need further consideration.

119. In terms of governing documents, in principle, we would wish to facilitate

institutions to be able to make changes to their processes and procedures without reference to the Privy Council. However, we are not aware of any current issues arising with these powers, which might raise a question about whether they need to be altered.

120. We suggest that Welsh Government fully consider the practical implications of

these changes with informed stakeholders, taking account of the different context within Wales, and whether they are necessary at the present time.

121. We note the 2016 consultation document on Charity Law (see paragraph 4.98)

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/06/cp220_charities_technical.pdf

24

122. We recommend that the Commission should be the principal regulator under

the Charities Act 2011. Question 30: We are also seeking views on whether any reform to the process and criteria for granting degree awarding powers (DAP) and university title (UT) for institutions in Wales is necessary as a result of the policy divergence between Wales and England. In particular, whether:

• the Privy Council’s role in relation to the granting of DAPs and UT should be retained in Wales or whether responsibility for part or all of the process should transfer to the new post compulsory education and training body.

• any changes to the existing eligibility criteria for DAPs and UT are necessary, including the track record requirement.

• the current basis for the award of indefinite DAPs remains appropriate in light of funding and regulatory changes in Wales.

• the introduction of more flexible degree awarding powers, such as bachelor level only or limited subject, should be explored in Wales.

• powers to vary and revoke degree awarding powers and university title should be considered in Wales,

• any changes to degree awarding powers and validation arrangements would improve the effectiveness of existing partnership arrangements for the delivery of higher education by further education institutions.

123. We note that the contexts for higher education in Wales and in England are

very different. In England, the Westminster Government has pursued a more market-driven approach, with encouragement to new providers (and the assumption that existing providers may fail and leave the market). In Wales, Ministers frequently refer to not wishing to promote a market in higher education in Wales (see for example the Welsh Government response to the Diamond recommendations, p3). A policy on reconfiguration and collaboration has previously been pursued, seeing a reduction in the number of providers in both the HE and FE sectors and building capacity and critical mass. In addition, we work in partnership with students, rather than viewing them as customers, and that positive approach is reflected in higher scores for student engagement in the National Student Survey.

124. It is important to recognise therefore that the context for the above changes in

DAPS and UT is completely different to the context in Wales and we would not wish to see English policies introduced which cut across policy priorities in a Welsh context.

125. It is not in the interest of providers, learners or employers to have quality

hurdles lowered. Requirements in relation to track record have been put in place to ensure that the interests of learners particularly are protected and we would not wish to see these reduced.

126. Removal of DAPS is a potentially existential sanction, similar to those in the

2015 Act, and thus unlikely to be used. We would favour the introduction of a

25

range of less significant sanctions, which are likely to be much more effective and operable, as regulatory tools for the Commission.

127. It may well be that the Commission should have an increased role in DAPs

and UT consideration – as with the new Office for Students in England – and flexibility is increased when approval arrangements are undertaken at Wales level rather than by the Privy Council. However, we suggest that these matters require more detailed consideration and consultation than can be handled in this broad consultation, including consideration of any cross border implications and the general competitiveness of the Welsh HE sector.

128. One other issue which would require further consideration is cross-border

implications. For example, if Wales maintains a higher quality threshold, on what basis would student support be provided for providers in England which have lower quality thresholds, particularly in a context where additional student loan support will be available for Welsh domiciled students paying higher tuition fees in England?

Transitional arrangements – Preparing the road to implementation Question 31: Protecting the interests of learners and minimising disruption for providers will inform plans for the transitional period. Are there any other matters which should be taken into account? 129. Yes - the process of developing a new organisation created for predecessor

bodies. There is much experience of this in both the HE and FE sectors which could be utilised.

130. Work needs to commence early on arrangements for merger, involving those

with knowledge and experience of operations in both HE and FE sectors. 131. It will also be important to ensure that there is not a policy vacuum, given the

pace of change in policy in areas relating to education, and the HE sector particularly, across the UK and as the new Office for Students is established.

132. Some of the factors which will need to be taken into account in developing

arrangements include the following: Data: Alignment of requirements; operation of HESA, LLWR (and possibly PLASC) data collections; Human Resources: Staffing; organisational structure; filling of posts; pay structure, terms and conditions (merger of Welsh Government and HEFCW conditions); TUPE; policies and procedures; job levelling process; and HR & payroll software and systems. Regulation: different expectations placed on different types of providers; operation of funding and statutory levers; Governance: recognition of different models of governance for public sector and other bodies.

26

Planning: alignment between approaches taken for HE, FE and other parts of the FE sector, including institutional risk assurance. Location/accommodation: Single or multi-site? Information Technology (IT): ICT, information security, records management (offsite and electronic); and data protection. Corporate services: Finance services’ needs, software and systems; payroll; facilities; health and safety; and business continuity (internal). Business continuity: e.g. fee and access plan process; financial oversight; release of funding; payment of staff. Effective communication: Ensuring staff and stakeholder involvement and buy-in at all stages of development. Participation in UK wide activity: (e.g. the Research Excellence Framework to be published in 2021). Future Generations: Ensuring that the expectations of the Well-Being of Future Generations Act 2015 are followed.

133. In order to minimise the impact on the interests and disruption for providers,

we suggest that Welsh Government could consider the possibility of using existing powers to allocate additional tasks to HEFCW, as a mechanism for implementing Hazelkorn recommendations, recognising the time, and significant expense, of undertaking additional primary legislation.

134. Rather than the ‘big bang’ approach adopted for the ELWa launch, we would

advocate a more evolutionary approach, building on HEFCW’s current role, in the transition period while full legislation is developed, considered and enacted. There are significant dangers in raising expectations for a new transformational single PCET body at this stage, followed by a delay of up to seven years whilst legislation is developed and the body is implemented.

135. Many elements of the recommendations could start to be implemented in the

near future (for example the move to establish and gain a developing role for Research & Innovation Wales) so that when the legislation is enacted, the new PCET body is close to being able to commence and operate effectively. Transitional arrangements could be assisted by a refreshed HEFCW Council membership, which is in train and is intended to include greater representation from further education and business.

136. Under the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (‘the Act’) relevant higher

education bodies (RHEBs) must have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. This is known as the Prevent Duty. The Home Secretary has delegated to HEFCW responsibility for monitoring compliance of the Prevent duty for relevant higher education providers in Wales. HEFCW has established a framework that sets out how HEFCW will monitor relevant providers’ implementation of the Prevent duty. During the transitional period, the Home Office will need to reconsider whether the new commission has the monitoring responsibility for HE and the monitoring role will need to continue seamlessly.

137. Other providers of education and training in Wales must comply with the

Prevent Duty and are currently monitored by other organisations.

27

Question 32: To help inform our assessment of the possible impact of these proposals can you foresee any particular impact on those with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010) and how they might be particularly affected by these proposals? What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated? 138. There will be a need to conduct Equality Impact Assessments using staff and

student data for all current elements of the post 16 system. For example Work Based Learning, Adult Community Learning, FE, and HE will all have different levels of participation for students with protected characteristics and may have different implications for staff, There will also be implications internally, as set out in our response to question 31. There could be positives for learning in a more coherent system in terms of coherence between different parts of the system.

139. There is an opportunity to gain more consistency and joined up approaches

across the PCET system generally, for example in terms of funding and quality requirements and mechanisms. These may have positive or negative impacts on those with protected characteristics

140. There is an opportunity to promote innovation through funded initiatives across

the PCET system. 141. There is an opportunity to improve arrangements for part-time learning, with

consequent positive impacts on widening access learners. 142. It will be important to impact assess arrangements both in terms of equality

and diversity but also in terms of the Welsh language (as noted below) and Future Generations.

Question 33: We would like to know your views on the effects that the establishment of the Tertiary Education and Research Commission for Wales would have on the Welsh language, specifically on:

i) opportunities for people to use Welsh and ii) on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than English.

What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated? 143. The introduction of a single PCET body provides opportunities for a strategic

and holistic approach to be taken to maintaining, developing and promoting the use of the Welsh Language, both in terms of increasing Welsh medium provision and opportunities for staff to learn and use Welsh.

144. This would need to cover the continuum from beginners to fluent Welsh

speakers studying through the medium of Welsh. The single PCET body will be able to facilitate progression through the system for Welsh medium

28

learners. 145. It will be important for Welsh medium elements and initiatives to be brought

together to enable the value added which can emerge from holistic approaches.

Question 34: Please also explain how you believe the proposed policy could be formulated or changed so as to have

i) positive effects or increased positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language, and

ii) no adverse effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language.

146. The Commission will need to be able to work effectively with the Coleg

Cymraeg Cenedlaethol (CCC) to exert leverage over PCET providers. This could either be with the Coleg becoming part of the Commission, or more likely through the Coleg maintaining its status as an independent body but being funded by the Commission.

147. It will be essential for the funding route to be via the Commission. If the

Commission does not have this leverage then it will be very difficult for it to ensure that there is growth in Welsh medium provision in the parts of the PCET sector.

148. Under either mechanism it could be possible to achieve cost reductions, e.g.

through sharing buildings, staff, and/or services. If the Coleg became part of the Commission then this would address some of the governance issues which were identified in the review of the Coleg.

149. The focus should remain on the impact and outcomes of the Coleg’s work,

ensuring value for money in operations. This should include measuring of student numbers (preferably in relation to credit undertaken) studying through the medium of Welsh. There could be an outcome agreement negotiated for the Coleg in order to set measurable deliverables including student numbers.

150. There needs to be some discussion regarding timelines for the changes to the

Coleg’s remit and role, and that of the development of the Commission. This might mean the development of short and medium term agendas that transition the Coleg to a position that aligns with the role of the Commission.

151. Under initiatives such as the Seren project, and incentivised by the student

funding regime, the UCAS data shows that an increasing number of learners from Welsh medium schools are going to study in England. This impacts on the numbers in different parts of the PCET sector who could undertake study through the medium of Welsh and, indeed, on the numbers qualified to undertake teacher training through the medium of Welsh and service the needs of Welsh language development in the future. Research should be commissioned which tracks students and graduates to ascertain what

29

percentage return to Wales in the short and longer term. Current assessments of this are based only on anecdotal evidence.

152. Full integration of the Unique Learner Number (ULN) across the educational

system in Wales (including pre-PCET) would enable more effective tracking of students through the educational system and into the workplace. This would enable better identification of students who undertook part or all of their studies in Welsh.

153. The work of the Commission in responding to Welsh Government priorities for

the Welsh language could be overseen by a Welsh language statutory committee of the Commission, to ensure that this area of provision is coordinated and to ensure holistic approaches.

154. The outcome agreement approach would allow the allocation of funding to be

tied more tightly to strategic approaches to developing Welsh medium provision. There could be an outcome agreement for elements which are formula funded.

Question 35: We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them: 155. We have some concerns about the choice of name for the new body. 156. We are unclear why the word ‘Commission’ has been used rather than

Council. There is an implication that this supports a ‘commissioner’ with a particular responsibility and role and a legal status in their own right. There is also an implication of short term task and finish work to be completed.

157. Similarly, we have a concern about the use of the use of the word tertiary in a

UK context, which it is more likely to be referring to further education rather than higher education in the UK.

158. There is also a concern about the use of the word ‘post-compulsory’, given

that the age for compulsory education may change (as in England) and lead to the new body having a narrower scope.

159. The acronym ‘TERCW’ is not advisable and should be reconsidered. It should

be possible to identify a name and an acronym that are more accessible to the public, are more easily recognisable by equivalent bodies across the UK, and are less open to parody. It is appreciated that it is not helpful to criticise the proposed nomenclature without proposing an alternative. Something simple and accessible such as “Learning Wales/Dysgu Cymru” might be considered as an alternative.

30

Consultation Response Form

Your name: Celia Hunt Organisation (if applicable): Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) email / telephone number: celia.hunt@hefcw.ac.uk 029 2085 9730 Your address: Tŷ Afon, Bedwas Road, Bedwas, Caerphilly, CF83 8WT