| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
| | [2014] CSIH 16 |
Lord Brodie Lady Clark of Calton Lord Philip | XA49/13 OPINION OF LORD BRODIE in the Appeal to the Court of Session under Article 24 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 by DEREK ANTONE STURRIDGE Appellant; against THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND Respondents: _______________ |
Appellant: McGuire; Thompsons
Respondents: Sheldon QC; Anderson Strathern LLP
31 January 2014
[1] For the reasons set out by Your Ladyship in your opinion, I agree that this appeal should be allowed.
[2] I would add this. I have also had the opportunity of considering Your Lordship's opinion. Your Lordship draws attention to the terms of article 8 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011(headed "Best regulatory practice"). That article provides that the respondents must perform their functions in a way which is, inter alia, proportionate, accountable, transparent and consistent. It is the opinion of Your Lordship that in giving the decision which is subject to this appeal, the respondents failed to give comprehensible reasons and accordingly failed to perform this function in a way that was transparent. I agree.
| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
| | [2014] CSIH 16 |
Lord Brodie Lady Clark of Calton Lord Philip | XA49/13 OPINION OF LADY CLARK OF CALTON in the Appeal to the Court of Session under Article 24 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 by DEREK ANTONE STURRIDGE Appellant; against THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND Respondents: _______________ |
Appellant: McGuire; Thompsons
Respondents: Sheldon, QC; Anderson Strathern LLP
31 January 2014
Introduction
[3] The appellant gained qualified teacher status in England in 2001. He has considerable experience as a teacher in England. He has various qualifications including a professional qualification as a graduate of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He is a teacher of science (chemistry) employed by a local authority in England. The appellant has a residence in Scotland and wishes to teach in Scotland.
[4] The appellant made an application to the respondents to be entered in the Register of Teachers kept by the respondents. In terms of article 16 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011 No.215) ("the 2011 Order"), the respondents must include an individual in the register if the conditions specified are satisfied. In support of his application, the appellant submitted a schedule of documents numbered 1 to 28 set out in the appeal print. By letter dated 7 March 2013 (document 3 in the appeal print), the respondents stated that the application did not meet their registration criteria. The appellant appealed the decision of the respondents to the Court of Session, as provided for in article 24 of the 2011 Order.
The decision letter of the respondents
[5] The decision letter of the respondents dated 7 March 2013 stated inter alia:
".....Registration Decision - Applicant Qualified Outside Scotland
Your application has been carefully considered by GTC Scotland's Registration Services on behalf of a Registration Panel with reference to GTC Scotland's Registration and Standards Rules as well as the GTC Scotland Statement of Principles and Practice that sets out specific criteria for applicants who have qualified as teachers outside Scotland.
Your application does not meet our registration criteria for the reasons set out below.
Teacher Education
We have confirmed that you have completed teacher education as follows:
· Postgraduate Certificate in Education awarded by the University Birmingham in 2001. Although no formal academic transcript can be issued for this qualification is has been confirmed that this qualification related to teaching Chemistry to the 11-18 age range. Furthermore, a PGCE qualification would generally be determined to be comparable to the Scottish PGDE qualification including professional studies, subject studies and school experience.
This means that you meet the teacher education criteria for registration in (Secondary Education) Chemistry with Science. Your teacher education is therefore not the reason for the refusal of your registration application.
Academic Study
We have confirmed that you hold:
· BTEC Higher National Diploma in Science (Chemistry) awarded in 1987
· Graduateship of the Royal Society of Chemistry awarded in 1989
You have studied Chemistry to a minimum of 80 Scottish Credit Qualifications Framework (SCQF) credit points at higher education level, of which at least 40 credit points were at SCQF level 8 (or above).
However, you do not hold a United Kingdom degree or a degree which is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree that has followed a period of higher education at a university or equivalent institution of at least three years' duration (full-time or equivalent). The GRSC is at the same academic level as a Bachelor of Science but does not constitute the award of a degree by a recognised Higher Education Institution.......".
Further Information
[6] Having received the letter from the respondents refusing the registration application, the appellant obtained further information. He obtained a comparable certificate from the National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom ("UKNARIC") (6/10 of process). We were not presented with any detailed information about the role, expertise and organisation of this body. The general information, which was not disputed, was that this body has recognised expertise in assessing and judging the comparability of qualifications from different institutions across the world. Counsel for the respondents stated that UKNARIC did not have a role in judging equivalent qualifications within the UK but provided no material in support of this. The rules of the respondents give a role to UKNARIC and I will consider the rules and their interpretation in due course. For the present, I observe that the UKNARIC certificate stated that the appellant had presented them with documents indicating that he holds the Graduate of the Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Chemistry, 1988 United Kingdom and that this "is considered comparable to British Bachelor (Honours) degree standard". The certificate is dated 4 July 2013.
[7] Having received a copy of this document from the appellant, the respondents, through an employee, wrote to UKNARIC on 16 July 2013 by email:
"We are currently dealing with an application from a teacher whose qualification is 'Graduate of the Royal Society of Chemistry'.
The applicant has submitted a comparability statement from NARIC which assesses this qualification as being 'considered comparable to British Bachelor (Honours) degree standard'.
We are aware that you are unable to provide information about specific individual comparability statements without permission from the applicant. However, it would be extremely helpful if you could provide some information about how, in general terms, you would go about comparing a UK Graduate qualification of this kind with a UK Bachelor degree - e.g. What factors do you take into consideration? What documentation do you use as part of the assessment? Do you look at qualification frameworks and, if so, which frameworks do you use?"
In response an officer from UKNARIC stated:
"Thank you for your enquiry.
This qualification would have been researched as part of our professional research process. The methodology is similar to that used for evaluating academic and vocational qualifications, centring on learning outcomes and competencies and taking into consideration entrance and admission requirements, mode of learning and the design of the programme among others. In addition, emphasis is also placed upon professional rights and
status upon completion and professional development routes within the sector.
With regard to whether this award would be considered suitable for entry to teacher training, as far as we're aware one of the entry requirements is a Bachelor degree (or comparable) but as this is a professional award rather than an overseas academic award, this might not be considered suitable. It may be best to consult the National College for Teaching and Leadership.
I hope that this is of assistance".
I merely observe that the email correspondence does not make it plain that this inquiry does not relate to teacher training qualification but relates to the role of UKNARIC specified in paragraph 2.2 of the respondents' Principles and Practice 2012.
The regulatory structure
The 2011 Order
[8] In terms of article 4(1) of the 2011 Order, there is to continue to be a body corporate known as the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The respondents are this body corporate. Various general functions were allocated under the 2011 Order to the respondents including in terms of article 6(a) to keep the register; and in terms of article 6(b)(ii) to establish (and to review and change as necessary) the standards of conduct and professional competence expected of a registered teacher. In terms of article 5 the respondents must make and publish rules ("the GTCS rules") which includes setting out registration criteria. Articles 16 and 17 regulate the registration provisions. In particular article 17 provides:-
"The registration criteria set out in the GTCS rules must provide that an individual may be registered only if -
(a) the individual has obtained a recognised teaching qualification; or
(b) the GTCS is otherwise satisfied that the individual's, education training or experience warrants the individual's registration".
In terms of article 29(1) it is for the GTCS to determine what constitutes a recognised teaching qualification for individuals seeking registration as a school teacher. There is no similar provision in relation to determination about what constitutes a "degree". There is no provision in the 2011 Order about particular forms of education and qualifications other than teaching qualifications.
The Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005, SSI 2005 No.355 ("the 2005 Regulations")
[9] In terms of article 4 of the 2005 Regulations, every education authority in Scotland discharging relevant functions shall employ only registered teachers, that is a teacher whose particulars are recorded in the register maintained by the General Teaching Council for Scotland.
The General Teaching Council for Scotland Registration and Standard Rules 2012 ("the Registration and Standard Rules 2012")
[10] The Registration and Standard Rules 2012 are made by the respondents in terms of the 2011 Order. It should be noted that the said rules do not apply to any person from a relevant European state who is entitled to rely upon the provisions set out in the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007 to gain admission to the register. There was no submission in this case that the appellant was entitled to rely on the beneficial provisions in these rules. It was accepted that the relevant rules which applied to the appellant who was seeking full registration were set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Registration and Standard Rules 2012. The said rule states:
"2.3 Full Registration
Subject to rule 2.4, GTC Scotland will grant full registration provided that it is satisfied that:-
(a) the requirements listed at rules 2.2(a), (b) and (d) above are met;
.......
(c) the applicant has either
.......
(iii) achieved the Standard for Full Registration, as advanced by his/her education, training and experience in terms of GTC Scotland's Statement of Registration Principles and Practice relating to applicants that have qualified as teachers outside Scotland ....."
There is no dispute in the present case about rule 2.3(a). The dispute relates to rule 2.3(c) and in particular the relevant statement of registration principles and practice.
The respondents' statement of Principles and Practice 2012 ("the Principles and Practice 2012")
[11] In the Principles and Practice 2012 the respondents set out the principles and procedures which will be applied, when deciding whether an applicant who has carried out his/her initial teacher education outside Scotland is eligible for registration. It is stated that registration will only be granted if the requirements set out in the Registration and Standard Rules 2012 are met and that the Principles and Practice 2012 in relation to applicants qualified outside Scotland are to be read in conjunction with the said rules. Paragraph 2.1 of the Principles and Practice 2012 states:
"...an applicant must satisfy the relevant requirements set out in the Registration and Standards Rules as well as sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below in order to be eligible for full registration at the time of application. Should these requirements all be met and full registration granted at the time of application, this means that a period of probationary service does not require to be completed.
An applicant may be required to provide such additional documents, information or evidence as GTC Scotland may reasonably require for the purposes of verifying the information in, and determining, the application.
An applicant may be required to provide information in a form and manner prescribed by GTC Scotland".
Paragraph 2.2 states:
"2.2 Academic Study
An applicant must hold a United Kingdom degree or a degree which is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree that has followed a period of higher education at a university or equivalent institution of at least three years' duration (full-time or equivalent). A degree will be regarded as equivalent to a United Kingdom degree if it is recognised as such by the United Kingdom National Academic Recognition Information Centre.
In order to be eligible as a secondary teacher, an applicant must have studied at least one academic subject appropriate to the curriculum likely to be encountered in a Scottish secondary school to a minimum of 80 Scottish Credit Qualifications Framework (SCQF) credit points at higher education level, of which at least 40 credit points must be at SCQF level 8 (or above)".
Submissions by counsel for the appellant
[12] I am grateful to counsel for the appellant who outlined the statutory structure which is set out above. In the course of his oral submissions, counsel did not seek to advance issues which had been included in his written submissions in relation to article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 15 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Obligations. His submission focused on the interpretation of paragraph 2.2 of the Principles and Practice 2012. He submitted that the reference to "degree" in paragraph 2.2 should be interpreted purposively bearing in mind the context. He submitted that if, contrary to his primary position, the appellant's qualifications did not amount to a UK degree, the respondents ought to have considered whether they were equivalent in terms of the alternative set out in paragraph 2.2. They failed to do so and apparently took no steps to do so prior to their decision.
[13] Counsel submitted that it was open to the court to conclude that the respondents had failed properly to apply their rules and principles and if they had done so they should have concluded that the appellant did satisfy paragraph 2.2. Counsel invited the court to allow the appeal and to give such direction as it thought fit to the respondents. This might include a direction to register the appellant or, if the court was not so persuaded, to direct the respondents to consider the application of new taking into account the opinion of the court and the certificate of UKNARIC.
Submissions by counsel for the respondents
[14] Counsel for the respondents submitted that the point was a narrow but important point of interpretation of paragraph 2.2 and that it was important to consider paragraph 2.2 in its full context. He submitted that it was not difficult to understand what was meant by the reference to a UK degree in the context of paragraph 2.2. He made reference to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which defined "degree" as "a stage of proficiency in an art, craft, course of study, etc; spec. an academic rank conferred by a university or college as a mark of proficiency in scholarship...". Counsel accepted that there was no definition of "degree" in the respondents' rules and principles or in the regulatory structure applicable to the respondents' role. Counsel made reference to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 c.37, (the "1992 Act") S.48 which provides that the Privy Council may by order specify any institution within the higher education sectors as competent to grant such awards and distinctions. In terms of section 48(2) the specified institution:
"...may grant a degree, diploma, certificate or other academic award or distinction to any person who -
(a) completes, on or after the date specified in the order, an appropriate course of study or programme of supervised research; and
(b) passes an appropriate examination or demonstrates by such other means as the institution may determine the attainment of such standards as the institution may determine".
There is provision for honorary degrees and degrees to members of the academic and other staff of the institution. Provision is also made for various ways in which an institution may authorise other institutions to grant such awards. I am aware that there is a complex scheme of primary and delegated legislation within the UK relating to higher education but counsel for the respondents did not seek to persuade the court that should influence the decision. He did not address the court about the legislative provisions.
[15] Counsel submitted that the appellant did not have a "degree". He had a diploma granted by Lancashire Polytechnic in 1987 and a Graduateship of the Royal Society of Chemistry awarded in 1989 which was a professional rather than academic award. Counsel submitted that the appellant required to hold a degree in order to qualify for registration. He did not hold a degree and therefore cannot be registered. It appeared to be implicit in the submission of counsel for the respondents, that in relation to an applicant with qualifications originating from an institution outwith Scotland but from an institution within another part of the UK, the only way to fulfil the criteria set out in paragraph 2.2 was for the applicant to hold a UK degree that had followed a period of higher education at a university or equivalent institution of at least 3 year's duration (full time or equivalent). Counsel did not accept the contention by the appellant that any issue arose in this case in relation to the alternative formulation in paragraph 2.2. No explanation was given by counsel for the respondents' email exchange with UKNARIC after their decision letter. In any event, counsel submitted, that even if the alternative provisions in paragraph 2.2 required to be considered, it was plain in this case that the appellant's "comparable qualification" did not "follow" the three year course of study required in the respondents' Principles and Practice 2012.
[16] Counsel further submitted that on the material placed by the appellant before the respondents, the respondents were entitled to reach the conclusion which they did. That material did not include the UKNARIC certification. The appeal should be refused.
Discussion
[17] I construe paragraph 2.2 as firstly, intending to ensure that registered teachers in Scotland have the benefit of 3 years education at a university or equivalent institution before obtaining a qualification described as a "degree", a qualification which is not further defined. I note that paragraph 2.2 does not provide that the period of study must be at the same institution as the institution which has granted the qualification and in my opinion paragraph 2.2 should not be so construed. Secondly, there is a recognition that across the world and within the UK there are many and varied ways of achieving the intended standard of academic study and qualification from a wide ranging variety of institutions. Thirdly, there is a recognition that GTC Scotland is not itself in the position to assess equivalence as that body does not have the information or expertise, and accordingly in terms of said paragraph the task is given to UKNARIC. I also note that there is no attempt to define or limit the meaning of "degree" or "institutions" which may award degrees, by reference to any legislation within the UK or otherwise. I conclude from that, it is not intended to use the word "degree" in any specialised sense and it is not defined or, limited by reference to any order or regulations within the UK. Thus I consider that a very broad interpretation should be given to paragraph 2.2.
[18] I consider that the respondents are entitled to come to a view as to whether or not the qualifications submitted to them amount to a "degree" in the broad sense I have outlined. Some explanation must be given for their decision. I do not regard the decision in this case as to whether the applicant holds a degree as self-explanatory.
[19] Even if the respondents were entitled to conclude that the appellant did not hold a United Kingdom degree within the terms of paragraph 2.2, in my opinion the respondents required to consider, after consultation with UKNARIC, whether the appellant had a qualification which is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree. In this case it appears to be the case that the respondents did not carry out that exercise prior to the decision letter of 7 March 2013.
[20] Counsel for the appellant sought to persuade the court that in respect of applicants with qualifications obtained within the UK, the respondents required to consider also the part of paragraph 2.2 referring to UKNARIC. I accept that interpretation. There are many and varied forms of qualifications within the various parts of the UK as there are within other parts of the world. The purpose of paragraph 2.2 is to provide a mechanism to assess whether qualifications are equivalent and that involves UKNARIC. We do not consider that a restrictive interpretation of paragraph 2.2 should be applied to applicants with UK qualifications.
[21] In my opinion, the respondents having concluded that the appellant did not qualify under the first part of paragraph 2.2 ought to have then considered whether or not he qualified under the alternative part of paragraph 2.2. That would have required the respondents to seek the views of UKNARIC in terms of paragraph 2.2 which I understand they did not do until after their decision.
[22] It appears from the productions that UKNARIC consider that the appellant has a qualification comparable to British Bachelor (Hons) degree standard. I understand that the period of study by the appellant was at an institution which is now recognised as a university and the period of study was for four years. There may be an issue as to whether or not the period of study was full time or part time but it appears undisputed that the period of study was immediately prior to and was related to the qualification thereafter obtained. In that sense the qualification "followed" the period of study.
[23] In my opinion the respondents have erred in law by their failure to consider the full terms of paragraph 2.2 and apply that paragraph to the facts in the appellant's case. In these circumstances I consider that the appeal against the decision dated 7 March 2013 should be granted and that the respondents should be directed to consider the application of new. I consider that all question of expenses should be reserved.
| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
| | [2014] CSIH 16 |
Lord Brodie Lady Clark of Calton Lord Philip | XA49/13 OPINION OF LORD PHILIP in the Appeal to the Court of Session under Article 24 of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 by DEREK ANTONE STURRIDGE Appellant; against THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND Respondents: _______________ |
Appellant: McGuire; Thompsons
Respondents: Sheldon QC; Anderson Strathern LLP
31 January 2014
[24] I agree with your Ladyship that the decision of the respondents dated 7 March 2013 should be quashed and that the applicant's application should be remitted back to them for reconsideration. As my reasons for coming to that view differ from your Ladyship's, it is appropriate that I should set them out. In doing so, I adopt with gratitude your Ladyship's exposition of the relevant statutory provisions and of the submissions of counsel.
[25] The respondent's general functions are set out in article 6 of the 2011 Order. Read short, they are, (a) to keep the Register of Teachers, (b) to establish standards of education and training appropriate to school teachers, and (c) to investigate the fitness to teach of individuals who seek to be registered. Article 8 requires the respondents to perform their functions in a way which is proportionate, accountable, transparent and consistent.
[26] Article 15 requires the respondents to make and publish rules setting out, among other things, registration criteria, and article 16 provides that they are obliged to include an individual in the register if they are satisfied that those criteria are met. Article 17 provides that an individual may be registered only if he has obtained a recognised teaching qualification. The criteria relating to academic study which apply to the appellant are contained in section 2.2 of the respondent's Statement of Registration Principles and Practice relating to applicants who have qualified as teachers outside Scotland ("the Principles and Practice") to which I shall return.
[27] The final relevant provision of the Order is article 23, which obliges the respondents to notify an individual of a decision to refuse to register him because they consider that he does not meet the registration criteria, and to explain in the notice why the decision was made.
[28] The General Teaching Council for Scotland Registration and Standards Rules 2012 are the rules made under the provisions of article 15. Rule 2.3(c)(iii) provides that in order to be granted full registration, an applicant must have achieved the Standard for Full Registration, as evidenced by his education, training and experience in terms of the Principles and Practice. The relevant section of the Principles and Practice is section 2.2, headed "Academic Study". It provides:
"An applicant must hold a United Kingdom degree or a degree which is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree that has followed a period of higher education at a University or equivalent institution of at least three years duration (full-time or equivalent). A degree will be regarded as equivalent to a United Kingdom degree if it is recognised as such by the United Kingdom National Academic Recognition Information Centre." (UKNARIC)
[29] In their decision letter of 7 March 2013, the respondents accepted that the appellant met the teacher education registration criterion on the basis that he had obtained a Postgraduate Certificate of Education from Birmingham University in 2001, and that that qualification would, in their words, "generally be determined to be comparable to the Scottish PGDE qualification (Postgraduate Diploma in Education) including professional studies, subject studies and school experience." I note in passing that comparability with the Scottish qualification was the test which the respondents applied in determining whether the appellant's English teaching qualification fulfilled the relevant criterion. I also note that both English and Scottish teaching qualifications are described as "postgraduate", a description which would normally indicate that they are designed to be available only to persons who already have a University degree.
[30] The respondents went on in their decision letter to consider whether the appellant fulfilled the registration criterion relating to academic study. After confirming that he had studied to the requisite number of credit points, they found that he failed to fulfil the criterion set out in section 2.2 of the Principles and Practice. As they put it:
"However, you do not hold a United Kingdom degree or a degree which is equivalent to United Kingdom degree that has followed a period of higher education at a University or equivalent institution of at least three years' duration (full-time or equivalent). The GRSC is at the same academic level as a Bachelor of Science but does not constitute the award of a degree by a recognised Higher Education Institute."
Prior to issuing the decision letter, the respondents did not consult UKNARIC as to whether the appellant's Graduateship of the Royal College of Chemistry was recognised as equivalent to a United Kingdom degree.
[31] Subsequent to the issuing of the respondent's decision, the appellant obtained from UKNARIC a certificate dated 4 July 2013 certifying that his Graduateship of the Royal College of Chemistry was considered comparable to the British Bachelor (Honours) Degree standard. He presented this document to the respondents. The respondents then requested UKNARIC by email to provide:
"...some information about how, in general terms, you would go about comparing a UK Graduate qualification of this kind with a UK Bachelor degree - eg. what factors do you take into consideration? What documentation do you use as part of the assessment? Do you look at qualification frameworks and, if so, which frameworks do you use?"
UKNARIC responded in an email dated 17 July 2013 in the following terms:
"This qualification would have been researched as part of our professional research process. The methodology is similar to that used for evaluating academic and vocational qualifications, centring on learning outcomes on competencies and taking into consideration entrance and admission requirements, mode of learning and the design of the program among others. In addition, emphasis is also placed upon professional rights and status upon completion and professional development routes within the sector.
With regard to whether this award would be considered suitable for entry to teacher training, as far as we're aware one of the entry requirements is a Bachelor degree (or comparable) but as this is a professional award rather than an overseas academic award, this might not be considered suitable. It may be best to consult the National College for Teaching and Leadership."
Discussion
[32] Parliament has conferred on the respondents the power to keep a register of school teachers and to establish standards of education and training appropriate to teachers. To that end, a duty is imposed on them to make and publish rules setting out registration criteria. Having made those rules, it is for the respondents to interpret and apply them. Their interpretation will rule unless it can be shown that they have made an error of law. Section 2.2 imposes a requirement for a United Kingdom degree. It was within the respondents powers to impose such a requirement. The respondents have decided that the appellant does not qualify for registration because he does not hold a qualification called a degree. In my view, that was a decision they were entitled to make.
[33] But in considering the appellant's application the respondents had to go on to consider whether he holds a degree which is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree that has followed a period of higher education at a University or equivalent institution of at least three years duration. The respondents have determined that he does not hold such a degree.
[34] A number of points arise in relation to this determination. Firstly, the respondents argued that the provision relating to degrees equivalent to a United Kingdom degree relates only to holders of degrees awarded outside the United Kingdom. The appellant argued that the provision is intended to apply equally to persons who hold qualifications other than degrees which have been awarded in the United Kingdom. The interpretation of the provision in the first instance is a matter for the respondents.
[35] Secondly, the question as to whether a degree is equivalent to a United Kingdom degree is to be determined by UKNARIC. The respondents made their decision without reference to UKNARIC.
[36] Thirdly, it is not clear how far UKNARIC's functions extend. Are they confined to determining whether foreign degrees are equivalent to United Kingdom degrees as argued for by the respondents, or is it part of their function to determine whether United Kingdom qualifications other than degrees are equivalent to United Kingdom degrees? The answer to this question is presumably ascertainable, but we were given no information, other than conflicting assertions without reference to any legislation or other instrument constituting the source of UKNARIC's powers. This lack of clarity is compounded by the fact that UKNARIC gave the appellant a certificate of comparability dated 3 July 2013. But subsequently, in their somewhat confusing email of 17 July 2013, they appeared to cast doubt on their capacity to advise on whether the appellant's qualification was the equivalent of a United Kingdom degree.
[37] Fourthly, there was a dispute as to whether the appellant's Graduateship of the Royal College of Chemistry was obtained after three years full‑time study. The respondents' position was that his course of study proceeded on a day release or part‑time basis, while counsel for the appellant asserted that his course was full-time. As we understand it, the respondents made their decision on the basis that the appellant's course of study was part‑time. It would therefore appear to be a possibility that they proceeded upon an erroneous basis of fact.
[38] In these circumstances, there is a lack of clarity as to the basis on which the respondents made their decision in a number of respects. In my opinion therefore, the respondents have failed in their duty to give comprehensible reasons for their decision. Indeed they gave no reasons at all and accordingly failed to comply with their duty of transparency. I am therefore of the view that the matter should be remitted back to them for reconsideration and in order that they may give full reasons for the decision, explaining the factual basis of their decision and the way in which the rules were interpreted and applied to those facts.