Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill Consideration
of Bill, not amended in Public Bill Committee New Clause 1 Review
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an annual review of the
operation of the provisions of this Act. (2) The first review must
take into account the interaction of this Act with Level 4 lifelong
loan entitlement provision in the 2025/26 academic year. (3) The
review must consider the impact of the provisions of this...Request free trial
Lifelong Learning
(Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Consideration of Bill, not amended in Public Bill Committee
New Clause 1
Review
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an annual review of the
operation of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The first review must take into account the interaction of
this Act with Level 4 lifelong loan entitlement provision in the
2025/26 academic year.
(3) The review must consider the impact of the provisions of this
Act on—
(a) learner uptake of modular study,
(b) employer spending on lifelong learning, re-training and
upskilling opportunities for their employees,
(c) the provision of courses offered by higher education and
further education providers,
(d) the financial sustainability of the tertiary education
sector,
(e) the Student Loans Company, and
(f) the Office for Students.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report on the findings of
the first review before Parliament before the end of
2026.”—(.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct
and publish a review on the impact of the Act on various factors
after the extension of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement to Level 4
courses in Academic Year 2025/26 but not before the extension of
the Lifelong Loan Entitlement to Level 4, 5 and 6 in Academic
Year 2027/28, and then annually.
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.10pm
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Requirement to publish a revised impact
assessment—
“(1) Before laying the first regulations under this Act, the
Secretary of State must prepare and publish a revised impact
assessment.
(2) The impact assessment must take account of, in
particular—
(a) the Lifelong Loan Entitlement Consultation and the
Government’s response,
(b) any spending review decisions announced after the date on
which the Act received Royal Assent, and
(c) any announced changes to Government skills and education
policy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a
revised impact assessment of the Bill with regard to recently
announced and future changes related to the Lifelong Loan
Entitlement policy.
Amendment 2 to clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) One credit means 10 notional learning hours.”
This amendment puts the number of hours that constitute a credit
on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 1 to clause 2, page 6, leave out lines 17 to 20 and
insert—
“(7A) Nothing in subsection (7) requires the Secretary of State
to make regulations under subsection (6) to set fee limits for
courses which have not been designated by or under regulations
made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 22 of
the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.”
This amendment safeguards against charging variable fees based on
course or subject.
Amendment 4, page 8, line 36, after “may” insert “until 30
September 2024”.
This amendment is a probing amendment that would limit the use of
saving and transitional measures to 30 September 2024.
Amendment 3, page 8, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with
other provisions) regulations under this Act shall not be made
unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and
approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require that regulations made under this Act
are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 5, page 8, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) Before laying the first regulations under the 2017 Act, the
Secretary of State must make a written ministerial statement
updating the House of Commons on the progress made in the
Lifelong Loan Entitlement roll out and outlining how the
regulations will support further policy development.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a
written ministerial statement ahead of laying any regulations
under this Act, updating the House on the progress of the
Lifelong Loan Entitlement policy and how the regulations aim to
support the policy.
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 3 to 5,
which appear in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is unfortunately unable to be here
today. Our amendments at their core seek to do three important
things and are designed to ensure that the Bill is successful: to
introduce parliamentary oversight; to provide the sector with as
much clarity as possible ahead of the implementation of the
lifelong loan entitlement; and to allow for an assessment of the
interaction between the Bill and the policy underpinning the
lifelong loan entitlement. They seek to achieve those aims at
various key points in the Minister’s decision-making process,
covering the period prior to laying the regulations, the process
of laying the regulations and the post-enactment effect of the
regulations. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
speak to our amendments with that logical structure in mind.
New clause 2 would require the Minister to publish a revised
impact assessment before laying any regulations under the Act.
Such an impact assessment must consider the Government’s response
to the lifelong loan entitlement, any subsequent spending
reviews, and the Government’s broader education and skills
policy. I note that the Minister has committed himself and the
Government at various times to such an impact assessment. In the
impact assessment attached to the Bill, a post-enactment impact
assessment is promised. In Committee, the Minister also promised
that
“the Government will publish a full and detailed impact
assessment, including the qualification of expected costs and the
benefits of LLE in its entirety, when we lay the necessary
secondary legislation to fully implement the LLE.”––[Official
Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public
Bill Committee, 23 March 2023; c. 98.]
Therefore, the need for a revised impact assessment does not seem
to be in dispute.
It is important, however, that the impact assessment is as
thorough as possible. At the moment, we have impact assessments
split across a variety of strands: attached to the Bill, the
Government consultation response, and future announcements. There
are some glaring gaps, noticeably on the impact on providers. The
Bill’s current impact assessment stresses that the
“overall impact is likely to be ambiguous because of various
opposing effects.”
It is important that those effects are considered in the round in
any future impact assessment.
Even if the Minister does not accept the new clause, I would
welcome his commitment to producing a post-enactment impact
assessment, pulling together the variety of loose strands across
different announcements. I would also welcome his commitment to
publishing a revised impact assessment before he lays any
regulations under the Bill, and a commitment on when he intends
to do that.
Amendment 5 is linked to the aim of new clause 2. It would
require the Minister to publish a written ministerial statement
before tabling any regulations under the Bill. The amendment
would require any written statement to take into account the
interaction between the regulation and the policy proposal. On
Second Reading, I described the Bill as an “exoskeleton without a
body”—that is to say, a framework without much policy substance.
After detailed debate in Committee, I understand some of the
reasons why the Bill is technical in design and therefore
somewhat policy-light. What amendment 5 seeks to do, however, is
to link the policy objectives of lifelong learning to the
secondary legislation tabled under the Bill. It would close the
gap between the Bill’s skeletal framework and the policy
announced by the Government.
Amendments 5 and 3, the second of which would subject all
regulations made under the Bill to the affirmative procedure, are
guided by one simple aim: parliamentary oversight. In Committee,
the Minister confirmed that regulations determining the fee
method, the number of credits attached to credit-differential
activity, the number of learning hours attached to credit, the
maximum number of credits and the uprating of the lifelong
learning entitlement would all be subject to the affirmative
process. I welcome that commitment and have no reason to doubt
the sincerity of the Minister’s promise. However, given that we
have had, I think, three Ministers in the last 10 months, there
is uncertainty about the commitment —or lack of it—to that on the
part of others. Given that the Minister supports the central
thrust of amendment 3 and is a keen supporter of parliamentary
oversight and a pragmatist, I hope that he will be prepared to
assert Parliament’s right to scrutiny in the Bill.
Amendment 4 would limit the use of the saving and transitional
provisions in the Bill to the end of September 2024. I tabled a
similar amendment in Committee that would have limited their
usage to the end of January 2024. The Minister confirmed that the
Government
“are not intending to lay the broader suite of regulations to
enable the LLE until after January 2024.”—[Official Report,
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill
Committee, 23 March 2023; c. 111.]
I understand the reasons behind the need for flexibility—after
all, lifelong learning is a fundamental change in the structure
of the student loans system—but the Minister will no doubt be
aware of the need for providers, students and the Student Loans
Company to have adequate time to prepare.
On the Minister’s own timeline, continuing to table saving and
transitional provisions after September 2024 would leave less
than one complete academic year before the expansion of LLE to
level 4 courses in September 2025. What assurances can he give
the sector that the vast majority—if not all—of the regulations
will be laid by or before September 2024? Can he be a little more
specific than any time after January 2024?
Finally, I turn to new clause 1, which would require the
Secretary of State to conduct a review of the Bill’s impact on a
variety of factors after the launch of lifelong learning for
level 4 in the 2025 academic year. It would need to be published
before the expansion in the 2027-28 academic year to levels 4, 5
and 6. The Secretary of State would then have to conduct an
annual review every subsequent year taking into account learner
uptake, employer spending, the provision of courses on offer, the
financial sustainability of the sector, the Student Loans Company
and the Office for Students. I will touch on a few of those
points to illustrate why such a review is so crucial.
On the Bill’s impact on learner uptake, we know that there is a
huge job to be done. As , vice-chancellor of the University of Sunderland,
reminded us in Committee, accelerated courses were once poised to
be the next big thing but never really materialised. The same can
honestly be said of T-levels. The Education Committee’s report
into post-16 education, which was published last week—the
Minister will be more than familiar with it—revealed that 63% of
young people had not even heard of T-levels. As , the registrar at the
University of Warwick, put it:
“The take-up has been disappointing”––[Official Report, Lifelong
Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21
March 2023; c. 33, Q75.]
The National Careers Service—incidentally, this was introduced by
my friend , the former Member of
Parliament for Blackpool South—would be the most obvious choice
for helping to deliver information, advice and guidance. I am
reliably informed that the NCS is now poorly resourced and unable
to meet the demand for face-to-face appointments, and has been
described by the Local Government Association as in need of a
“radical shake up”. How on earth, therefore, does the Minister
expect adequate information, advice and guidance to be provided
to prospective learners when the most obvious mechanism available
to deliver it has been so stretched and under-resourced these
past few years?
Of course, none of that is to say that LLE will not propel an
enormous wave of adult learners and upskillers, but recent policy
announcements suggest the need for an enormous communications
campaign, a large investment of resources and a clear
understanding of the barriers to uptake. A review, as proposed in
new clause 1, would achieve that aim. Linked to that, the impact
of the Bill on the courses on offer and the financial
sustainability of the sector will be one of the main factors in
determining whether the policy is a success.
Given the declining unit of resource, the urgent need for a
review in post-16 education funding, as the Education Committee
has called for, and the additional costs incurred by modular
study, there is a risk, albeit small, that the policy might
stretch providers too far and too thinly. I note the Minister
indicated that the wider LLE impact assessment, which is being
updated as the policy develops, expects increased uptake of
technical provision, modular study and part-time study to expand
opportunities for providers to generate revenue. That is good
news. However, circumstances change, populations grow and shrink,
and universities are under greater pressure to deliver. The
assessment therefore needs to be continual.
On a final point—one that was raised in Committee—the reform will
inevitably help those currently in the workforce to reskill and
retrain. Given that the apprenticeship levy has been so poorly
used, with just 31% of levy-paying employers in a recent
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development poll claiming
that it had encouraged them to spend on training, down from 46%
five years ago, there is clearly a pressing need for reskilling
and workplace training. However, there is obviously a balance to
be struck between meeting the needs of employers and those needs
being imposed on workers, and meeting the expectations of
citizens to have access to further educational experiences for
their own fulfilment. There is a real risk that employers will
use the system to burden their employees and potential hires with
debt to fulfil their own internal skills gaps. I know that the
Minister would not want the system to be used purely for that
purpose and new clause 1 would keep an ongoing eye on that
practice. I would be interested to hear any further thoughts the
Minister has had since Committee on what steps he might be
inclined to take to prevent the misapplication of the LLE by
employers.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I reiterate my support, and
the Labour party’s support, for the Bill and the policy it
underpins. The amendments we have tabled reflect that support,
while seeking to futureproof the policy to ensure it has a
long-lasting impact over successive election cycles and decades.
We want it to be successful. By far the most important of the
amendments we have tabled today is on the need for review to
guard against any unintended effects of the policy, engage
parliamentary oversight and provide an avenue for all
stakeholders to continue to feed into the policy outcome. It is
for that reason that we will be pressing new clause 1 to a
Division.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education
()
Ahead of speaking to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington (), I would like to thank
Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and the
spirit of the amendments tabled, as well as the spirit in which
they invested in the Bill and its transformational programme.
I will start with new clause 1, which seeks to require the
Secretary of State to publish an ongoing annual review on the
impact of the Act from academic year 2025-26. I understand the
new clause intends to require the Secretary of State to conduct
and publish a review on the impact of the Act, in particular
covering the phased introduction of modular provision from 2025.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government published an impact
assessment for the Bill, which includes a consideration of the
impact of modularisation, including on providers.
If I may, I will recount to Members how the Government intend to
introduce the LLE. The LLE will provide individuals with loan
entitlements to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education
to use over their working lives, for example £37,000 in today’s
fees. The LLE will be available from 2025 for full courses at
levels 4 to 6, such as degrees and higher technical
qualifications. In addition, the LLE will begin a phased
introduction of modular funding, starting in 2025, with modules
of high-value technical courses at level 4 and 5. The Government
are particularly keen to ensure a wide range of high quality
level 4 and 5 modules are in scope from 2025-26. That will pave
the way for expanding out new modular funding to broader level 4,
5 and 6 provision in 2027, where we can be confident of positive
student outcomes.
There will be an opportunity to contribute to the approach of the
expansion of modular funding. As set out in the Government’s
response, we intend to launch a technical consultation next year
to specify how we will determine funding for wider modules. I
agree with the sentiment behind new clause 1 on the importance of
monitoring the function of the LLE in line with policy intention.
However, introducing an ongoing review into primary legislation
before the policy has been fully implemented or had sufficient
time to bed in would not be appropriate. Additionally, the
Government believe a yearly report without an end date could be
an undue and disproportionate burden at this stage. For that
reason, the Government believe it neither necessary nor
appropriate to introduce an ongoing review requirement on the
face of primary legislation and that is why we cannot support new
clause 1.
New clause 2 introduces a requirement to publish a revised impact
assessment. It would have the effect of requiring the Secretary
of State, before the laying of secondary legislation, to publish
a revised impact assessment, taking into account any development
of policy on the LLE. I am in full agreement with the intent
behind new clause 2, which is to ensure there is adequate and
ongoing analysis of the impacts of policy to inform decision
making and scrutiny of legislation. As Members are aware, the
Government published an impact assessment for the Bill on its
introduction, on 1 February. The Government subsequently
published an updated impact assessment for the LLE as a whole,
alongside the publication of the consultation response, on 7
March. The impact assessment published in March contained the
following commitment, on page 18:
“In accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, more
detailed assessments of impacts, including quantification of
expected costs and benefits of the different aspects of LLE
policy, will be published in due course at the point when the
government lays the necessary secondary legislation to fully
implement LLE.”
I therefore reiterate and give assurance that the Government
intend to publish an updated impact assessment for the LLE ahead
of the laying of regulations. It is not necessary to codify that
on the face of primary legislation and that is why the Government
cannot support new clause 2.
On amendment 4 and the transitional measures referred to by the
Opposition spokesman, the amendment requires any regulations on
transitional arrangements to be made in connection with the
coming into force of the Bill to be laid before the end of
September 2024. Due to the complexity of the regulations
required, and consistent with our plans to introduce the LLE from
2025, the Government intend to lay the broader suite of
regulations to enable the LLE at the earliest in mid to late
2024. Those regulations are likely to include transitional and
saving provisions needed in relation to the new powers in clauses
1 and 2. As hon. Members will be aware, the laying of regulations
is subject to available parliamentary time. It would not be
helpful at this point to prescribe a specific period. However,
the Government agree that regulations need to be laid in a timely
manner.
3.30pm
The LLE is a long-lasting, systemic reform set to affect
generations of future students. It is imperative that the utmost
care is taken of both the nation’s finances and our future
generations’ education, as well as students who will be in the
current system, when the LLE comes on stream, giving them the
time and consideration they deserve. For those reasons, the
Government cannot support the amendment.
Amendment 3, which stands in the names of the hon. Members for
Warwick and Leamington and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), would
require any regulations made under the Act to be subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure. As I said, I appreciate the
essential scrutiny that Opposition Members have given to the
Bill, and I agree that the process is crucial. For that reason,
the majority of regulations under the Bill will be subject to the
affirmative procedure—clause 2(6) achieves that.
The Bill brings in new delegated powers under new paragraphs 1,
1B, 1C and 1F of schedule two to the Higher Education and
Research Act 2017, which allow the Secretary of State to
introduce the new method for determining fee limits, attaching
credits, setting a maximum default number of credits and making
adjustments for transfer cases under the credit-based method. All
those powers are subject to the affirmative procedure and, as
such, will require debate.
The only delegated powers that will be subject to the negative
resolution procedure relate to the minor amendments that the Bill
makes to existing powers under section 10 of the Higher Education
and Research Act on prescribing qualifying courses for fee limit
purposes, which Parliament has already agreed should be subject
to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment would also
require that the affirmative procedure applies to provisions that
are not normally subject to it, which do not require mandatory
normal parliamentary debates, such as commencement or
transitional and saving regulations.
(Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s assurances, both in Committee and now,
that regulations will specify the number of hours that make up a
credit. However, does he agree that putting the definition of a
credit in the Bill, as proposed in my amendment 2, would give
higher education providers confidence that credit values would
not be devalued either by this Government or any future
Governments?
I understand the intention behind the hon. Lady’s amendments.
Putting the learning hours into secondary legislation rather than
primary means that providers that use a different number of
learning hours per credit will simply have their courses treated
as non-credit-bearing, rather than being considered in breach of
fee limits as a whole. The Office for Students would have the
ability to take action against the provider from a quality and
standards standpoint if it deems necessary, but the provider
would not face additional consequences for reaching the fee limit
rules.
We do not intend to change the number of learning hours in a
credit unless the standards in the sector change. Learning hours
are and should continue to be based on sector-led standards.
Regulations on learning hours will have to follow the affirmative
resolution procedure, so Parliament will always get the chance to
have a say. The approach protects the existing use of credits as
a standard that is owned and maintained by the sector, and
ensures that the autonomy of the sector continues to be upheld
but also allows a flexible approach in case standards change.
For the reasons that I have set out, and given that we are
subjecting so many of our regulations to the affirmative
procedure, as laid out in the delegated powers memorandum, which
the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will have seen, there
is no need for amendment 3 in primary legislation. I hope that he
will be satisfied with that and will withdraw it.
Amendment 5, which stands in the names of the hon. Members for
Warwick and Leamington and for Chesterfield, would require the
Government to publish a written ministerial statement ahead of
laying the first set of regulations under the Act, updating the
House on the progress of the lifelong loan entitlement policy and
how the regulations aim to support it. The Government will
endeavour to publish a written ministerial statement ahead of
laying regulations under this Act on both the development of
regulations and the progress that the short course trial has
made. However, it is not necessary to enshrine that commitment in
primary legislation.
I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Member for
Warwick and Leamington that the Government’s intention is to lay
the first regulation under the Act in mid to late 2024. It is
possible that regulations under the Bill will be the first made.
In addition, as is standard practice, explanatory memoranda will
be laid alongside all regulations, which will explain the scope
and purpose of the regulations. The Government will also publish
those on the legislation.gov.uk website, explaining what the
regulations do and why.
As I mentioned earlier, the majority of regulations under the
Act—certainly, all those that go to determine the actual fee
limits—will be subject to the affirmative procedure and all
Members of the House will have an opportunity to debate the
regulations in Committee. Members appointed to the Committee will
be able to vote, once they have been referred to the Delegated
Legislation Committee. As such, the amendment is not necessary
and the Government cannot support it, so I hope that Members feel
able to withdraw it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
[Division 230
The House divided:
Ayes
89
Noes
253
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 3 May 2023 at
3.33pm](/Commons/2023-05-03/division/D55C6DCE-997D-4C21-B35E-0F7E0E7AD3EA/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Third Reading
3.48pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for
their contributions, not just today but on Second Reading and on
Report. I really welcome the way in which my counterpart the
Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington
(), has approached the debate,
because we are all united in our desire to support people to
access higher and further education and to learn, upskill and
retrain over the course of their working lives.
I want to extend my thanks to all those who have participated in
the passage of the Bill so far. My thanks go to my hon. Friends
the Members for Keighley (), for Beaconsfield () and for Stourbridge () for their support throughout
the passage of the Bill, as well as to the hon. Members for
Warwick and Leamington and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who
have engaged constructively at every stage of the Bill. I am
grateful to them both for their work in challenging us to ensure
that the Bill is fit for purpose.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington spoke on Report about
T-levels, and I am proud that the number of T-level students has
gone up to 10,000. We have 16 T-level subjects in delivery, with
a total of 18 from September. We are spending up to £500 million
on T-levels, which have a 92% pass rate, with many students
progressing to university, employment and apprenticeships, and we
have invested £240 million to help providers prepare to deliver
high-quality industry placements. The apprenticeship levy is
important, as we have had more than 5 million apprenticeship
starts since 2010. The number of apprentices increased by 8.6% in
2021-22, and the money not used by levy payers, as he knows,
funds training so that smaller businesses can have more
apprentices. We have just removed the 10 apprentice cap for
smaller businesses. We are doing a lot of good work on
apprenticeships.
On Second Reading, a range of Members voiced their support for
both this legislation and the lifelong loan entitlement, and it
is important for me to thank the extraordinary Clerks and
officials in Parliament and the Department for Education for
their diligent work in supporting the Bill’s passage through this
place. None of this would have been possible without their work,
and I think Members on both sides of the House express our
appreciation.
It is an honour to champion this transformational Bill in this
place, and I look forward to the LLE improving our skills system
and supporting people into fulfilling and lasting careers. With
this Bill, we are transforming lifelong learning in this country.
People will now be on a train journey with an end stop at which
they get their qualification, but they will be able to start and
stop at various points in their life through flexible and modular
learning. This Bill will be transformational, and I commend it to
the House.
3.51pm
I extend my thanks to all those involved in the passage of this
Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and this afternoon. I join
the Minister in thanking Conservative Members as much as those on
the Labour Benches. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the
Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the shadow further
education Minister, whose name appeared on the amendments we
debated on Report. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for
Brighton, Kemptown (), for Sheffield,
Brightside and Hillsborough (), for North Tyneside (), for Barnsley Central () and for Middlesbrough () for their work, constructive
comments and contributions in Committee. Their thoughts provided
the basis for subsequent amendments.
I also place on record my thanks to the Clerks, and particularly
to Bethan Harding for all her work drafting the various
amendments that allowed us to probe the Government’s rationale
and that shaped the debate the ensuing debate.
Finally, I thank the Minister and his office for how they have
guided the Bill through its Commons stages, offering numerous
opportunities for Opposition engagement, following up with
Members on specific points raised in Committee and generally
respecting the right of Parliament to scrutinise the Bill. The
seriousness and efficiency with which the Minister has approached
the Bill encourages a certain trust both in him and in the
purpose behind the Bill, both of which are essential if it is to
form part of the cross-party commitment to lifelong learning.
This Bill is an important first legislative step on the road
towards the full roll-out of lifelong learning provision in the
UK, but the objective of lifelong learning has swirled around
this place for far longer than I have been in this House. My
friend and predecessor Mr , the former Member of
Parliament for Blackpool South, was an assiduous campaigner for
lifelong learning in this role, and I am pleased to see that work
is now channelled through his Right2Learn campaign. It may be
only a few short years since he stood in my shadow ministerial
shoes, but the need for these reforms has never been so urgent.
They simply cannot come quickly enough. The Minister will no
doubt be aware of the severity of the problem from his time
chairing the Education Committee.
With Government spending on adult education falling by 47%
between 2009 and 2019 under the coalition and Conservative
Governments, and with only one in three adults participating in
some kind of learning, meeting the challenges thrown up by
decarbonisation, growing a sustainable economy and the fourth
industrial revolution will require a complete reversal of the
last 13 years of decline, propelled by a much more expansive
understanding of lifelong learning. So what concerns me is the
uncertain direction of travel. The Minister published the
consultation response before the Committee stage, and I thank him
for that, but this Bill leaves an awful lot to be decided in due
course by him.
The purpose of Third Reading is to give the Commons a final
chance to debate the contents of a Bill; it is an opportunity to
discuss what is actually in the Bill, rather than, as on Second
Reading, what might have been included. The awkward predicament
we are in here is that so much of this Bill is yet to be
determined by the Minister, in regulations. Consequently, the
Bill is somewhat divorced from the policy it seeks to implement.
This is not a party political point; it is a call for certainty
and predictability, and an expectation that transformational
reforms in the tertiary education sector are clear, open to
debate and transparent. I understand that most of the current
student finance system is governed through regulations, but the
point is, surely, that what we are trying to do with lifelong
learning is break away from the current system. Does it not
follow, therefore, that the limits of the old system—namely,
government by regulation—should not necessarily impose a limit on
the new system?
That was why we tabled our amendments on Report. They were all
about ensuring parliamentary oversight, sector engagement and
continuous monitoring of the impact of legislation on proposed
policy. It is somewhat disappointing, therefore, there has been
no movement from the Government on those issues, despite
assurances. I strongly suspect, however, that the Minister will
take a conscientious, diligent and measured approach to
implementing lifelong learning. I urge him to engage frequently
with the sector, with me, with employers and with
non-governmental bodies, such as the Student Loans Company and
the Office for Students, although the latter is perhaps
increasingly less non-governmental and more governmental in
practice. That being said, as the Bill progresses to the Lords, I
look forward to listening to their considerations on the scope of
delegated powers under this Bill, the feasibility of these
reforms and the timescale suggested by the Minister.
3.57pm
(Waveney) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, this Bill has the
potential to be truly transformational. It can play a key role in
enabling people to realise their full potential, help cure the
current British disease of low productivity and be a vital
component part in work to deliver meaningful levelling up.
However, it is only one piece of the jigsaw. Without other
reforms and initiatives, there is a risk that it will not deliver
and its objectives will not be met.
Times are changing rapidly and we must deliver meaningful
lifelong learning. We have an ageing population, and the days of
a job for life are long gone. Climate change means that a raft of
new emerging jobs require upskilling and retraining. The fourth
industrial revolution is well and truly under way. We are, in
effect, in a global race and if we do not step up to the plate,
the UK will be left far behind. If the Bill is to succeed, we
must recognise the vital importance of adult education, which has
been neglected for too long, with participation rates today half
what they were in 2004. Investment by employers in workforce
skills must increase. We must ensure that the least advantaged
have every opportunity to participate. There must be better
co-ordination across the whole education and training system.
Further education, higher education and apprenticeships are
currently treated as distinct and separate systems, imprisoned in
their own silos. There also needs to be better alignment of
welfare, economic and skills policies and strategies right across
Government.
Questions remain about the Bill and its implementation, which I
urge the Government to address as it continues its passage
through Parliament. If the Bill is to succeed in its objectives,
we must quickly develop a new culture of lifelong learning. The
role of employers must be developed and clarity must be provided
on how the lifelong loan entitlement will work alongside the
apprenticeship levy. There is a risk that the policy will result
in the take-up of loans for short courses by employees that would
otherwise be funded by their employers. There is a danger that
the lifelong loan entitlement becomes something that
well-educated people use to add a year after their degree rather
than people who have not yet got a level 3 qualification. The
pathways from lower levels need strengthening with better funding
and maintenance support at level 3 and below.
As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill is important and it has
enormous potential, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw. Other
reforms and new strategies are required if we are to deliver
meaningful lifelong learning. That must take its place as part of
a coherent post-16 education and skills strategy that properly
aligns with wider Government policies.
We must improve careers advice so as to ensure that those who
need lifelong learning the most are able to access it. Further
consultation is needed on the regulation and quality of modular
learning. It is important that regulatory burdens and risks do
not stifle innovation and limit the delivery of short courses and
modules. It is important that we create a maintenance support
system that enables everyone to live properly while studying or
training. This will be crucial for mature learners who often have
family commitments and caring responsibilities.
Finally, the whole education and skills system must be
sustainably funded. FE has been poorly funded for far too long.
If we are to have a truly collaborative, streamlined and more
flexible system for learners to study throughout their lives at
different places, on a modular basis, this underfunding must be
addressed.
In conclusion, the Government are to be commended for recognising
the importance of lifelong learning in the modern world. The
Bill’s ambitions and aspirations are the right ones, but they
will not be delivered in a vacuum. They must be part of a wider,
coherent and co-ordinated strategy. As I have outlined, there are
issues that should be addressed as the Bill now moves to the
other place. There are also wider implications that must be
considered right across Government, and I hope that they will
figure prominently in the forthcoming Barber review and the
autumn statement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
|
