The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to announce the publication of
the Government’s higher education reform consultation response.
This country is one of the best in the world for studying in higher
education, boasting four of the world’s top 10 universities. For
most, higher education is a sound investment, with graduates
expected to earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than
those who do not go to...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Education ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to announce the
publication of the Government’s higher education reform
consultation response. This country is one of the best in the
world for studying in higher education, boasting four of the
world’s top 10 universities. For most, higher education is a
sound investment, with graduates expected to earn on average
£100,000 more over their lifetime than those who do not go to
university.
However, there are still pockets of higher education provision
where the promise that university education will be worthwhile
does not hold true and where an unacceptable number of students
do not finish their studies or find a good job after graduating.
That cannot continue. It is not fair to taxpayers who subsidise
that education, but most of all it is not fair to those students
who are being sold a promise of a better tomorrow, only to be
disappointed and end up paying far into the future for a degree
that did not offer them good value.
We want to make sure that students are charged a fair price for
their studies and that a university education offers a good
return. Our reforms are aimed at achieving that objective. That
is why the Government launched the consultation in 2022, to seek
views on policies based on recommendations made by Sir Philip
Augar and his independent panel. The consultation ended in May
2022, and the Department for Education has been considering the
responses received. I am now able to set out the programme of
reforms that we are taking forward.
I believe that the traditional degree continues to hold great
value, but it is not the only higher education pathway. Over the
past 13 years, we have made substantial reforms to ensure that
the traditional route is not the only pathway to a good career.
Higher technical qualifications massively enhance students’
skills and career prospects, and deserve parity of esteem with
undergraduate degrees. We have seen a growth in degree-level
apprenticeships, with over 188,000 students enrolling since their
introduction in 2014. I have asked the Office for Students to
establish a £40 million competitive degree apprenticeships fund
to drive forward capacity-building projects to broaden access to
degree apprenticeships over the next two years.
That drive to encourage skills is why we are also investing up to
£115 million to help providers deliver higher technical
education. In March, we set out detailed information on how the
lifelong learning entitlement will transform the way in which
individuals can undertake post-18 education, and we continue to
support that transformation through the Lifelong Learning (Higher
Education Fee Limits) Bill, which is currently passing through
the other place. We anticipate that that funding, coupled with
the introduction of the LLE from 2025, will help to incentivise
the take-up of higher technical education, filling vital skills
gaps across the country.
Each of those reforms has had one simple premise: that we are
educating people with the skills that will enable them to have a
long and fulfilling career. I believe that we should have the
same expectation for higher education: it should prepare students
for life by giving them the right skills and knowledge to get
well-paid jobs. With the advent of the LLE, it is neither fair
nor right for students to use potentially three quarters of their
lifelong learning entitlement for a university degree that does
not offer them good returns. That would constrain their future
ability to learn, earn and retrain. We must shrink the parts of
the sector that do not deliver value, and ensure that students
and taxpayers are getting value for money given their
considerable investment.
Data shows that there were 66 providers from which fewer than 60%
of graduates progressed to high-skilled employment or further
study fifteen months after graduating. That is not acceptable. I
will therefore issue statutory guidance to the OfS setting out
that it should impose recruitment limits on provision that does
not meet its rigorous quality requirements for positive student
outcomes, to help to constrain the size and growth of courses
that do not deliver for students. We will also ask the OfS to
consider how it can incorporate graduate earnings into its
quality regime. We recognise that many factors can influence
graduate earnings, but students have a right to expect that their
investment in higher education will improve their career
prospects, and we should rightly scrutinise courses that appear
to offer limited added value to students on the metric that
matters most to many.
We will work with the OfS to consider franchising arrangements in
the sector. All organisations that deliver higher education must
be held to robust standards. I am concerned about some
indications that franchising is acting as a potential route for
low quality to seep into the higher education system, and I am
absolutely clear that lead providers have a responsibility to
ensure that franchised provision is of the same quality as
directly delivered provision. If we find examples of undesirable
practices, we will not hesitate to act further on
franchising.
As I have said, we will ensure that students are charged a fair
price for their studies. That is why we are also reducing to
£5,760 the fees for classroom-based foundation year courses such
as business studies and social sciences, in line with the highest
standard funding rate for access to HE diplomas. Recently we have
seen an explosion in the growth of many such courses, but limited
evidence that they are in the best interests of students. We are
not reducing the fee limits for high-cost, strategically
important subjects such as veterinary sciences and medicine, but
we want to ensure that foundation years are not used to add to
the bottom line of institutions at the expense of those who study
them. We will continue to monitor closely the growth of
foundation year provision, and we will not hesitate to introduce
further restrictions or reductions. I want providers to consider
whether those courses add value for students, and to phase out
that provision in favour of a broad range of tertiary options
with the advent of the LLE.
Our aim is that everyone who wants to benefit from higher
education has the opportunity to do so. That is why we will not
proceed at this time with a minimum requirement of academic
attainment to access student finance—although we will keep that
option under review. I am confident that the sector will respond
with the ambition and focused collaboration required to deliver
this package of reforms. I extend my wholehearted thanks to those
in the sector for their responses to the consultation.
This package of reforms represents the next step in tackling
low-quality higher education, but it will not be the last step.
The Government will not shy away from further action if required,
and will consider all levers available to us if these quality
reforms do not result in the improvements we seek. Our higher
education system is admired across many countries, and these
measures will ensure that it continues to be. I commend this
statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
15:44:00
(Houghton and Sunderland
South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement.
Today’s statement tells us several stories about this Government.
It tells a story about their priorities: why universities, and
why now? It tells a story about their analysis: what they think
is wrong and what they think is not. It tells a story about their
competence: why these changes, when their own regulator has used
a different approach for so long? It tells a story about their
prejudice, about why they continue to reinforce a binary choice
for young people: either academic or vocational, university or
apprenticeship. Above all, it tells a story about values—about
the choice to put caps on the aspirations and ambitions of our
young people; about Ministers for whom opportunity is for their
children, but not for other people’s children; about a Government
whose only big idea for our world-leading universities is to put
up fresh barriers to opportunity, anxious to keep young people in
their place. It tells you everything you need to know about the
Tories that this is their priority for our young people.
This is the Tories’ priority when we are in the middle of an
urgent crisis in this country; when families are struggling to
make ends meet; when patients are facing the biggest waiting
lists in NHS history; when children are going to school in
buildings that Ministers themselves acknowledge are “very likely”
to collapse; and when a spiral of low productivity, low growth,
and low wages under the Tories is holding Britain back. It is
because the Prime Minister is weak and he is in hock to his Back
Benchers that we are not seeing action on those important
priorities. Instead, after more than 13 years in power, the
Government have shown what they really think of our universities,
which are famous across the world, are core to so many of our
regional economies and were essential to our pandemic response:
that they are not a public good, but a political
battleground.
The Government’s concept of a successful university course, based
on earnings, is not just narrow but limiting. I ask the Secretary
of State briefly to consider the case of the right hon. Member
for Richmond (Yorks) (). The Prime Minister has a
degree in politics from one of our leading universities, yet his
Government lost control of almost 50 councils this year, he was
the second choice of his own party, and now he is on track to
fail to deliver on the pledges he set himself publicly. Does the
Secretary of State believe that the Prime Minister’s degree was
in any sense a high-value course?
Let us be clear what today’s announcement is really about. Many
of our most successful newer universities—the fruits of the
determination of successive Governments, Labour and Conservative,
to spread opportunity in this country—often draw more students
from their local communities. Many of those areas are far from
London, far from existing concentrations of graduate jobs. Many
of those students come from backgrounds where few in their
family, if any, will have had the chance to go to university.
Many of those young people benefit from extra support when they
arrive at university to ensure they succeed. We on the Labour
Benches welcome the success of those universities in widening
participation and welcoming more young people into higher
education, yet today, the Secretary of State is telling those
young people—including those excited to be finishing their
studies this year—that this Government believe their hard work
counts for nothing. Can the Secretary of State be absolutely
clear with the House, and tell us which of those universities’
courses she considers to be of low value?
The Secretary of State is keen to trumpet her party’s record on
apprenticeships, but let me set out what this Government’s record
really is. Since 2015-16, apprenticeship starts among under-19s
have dropped by 41%, and apprentice achievements in that age
group are down by 57%. Since the Secretary of State entered this
place, the number of young people achieving an apprenticeship at
any level has more than halved, failing a generation of young
people desperate to take on an apprenticeship.
Lastly and most importantly, the values that this Government have
set out today are clear: the Conservatives are saying to
England’s young people that opportunity is not for them and that
choice is not for them. The bizarre irony of a Conservative
Government seeking to restrict freedom and restrict choices seems
entirely lost on them. Labour will shatter the class ceiling. We
will ensure that young people believe that opportunity is for
them. Labour is the party of opportunity, aspiration and freedom.
Let us be clear, too, that young people want to go to university
not merely to get on financially, but for the chance to join the
pursuit of learning, to explore ideas and undertake research that
benefits us all. That chance and that opportunity matter too. Our
children deserve better. They deserve a Government whose most
important mission will be to break down the barriers to
opportunity and to build a country where background is no
barrier. They deserve a Labour Government.
As usual, the hon. Lady has more words than actions. None of
those actions was put in place either in Wales, where Labour is
running the education system, or in the UK when it was running it
in England. We have always made the deliberate choice of quality
over quantity, and this is a story of a consistent drive for
quality, whether that is through my right hon. Friend the Schools
Minister having driven up school standards, so that we are the
best in the west for reading and fourth best in the world, or
through childcare, revolutionising the apprenticeship system—none
of that existed before we put it in place—and technical education
and higher education.
I was an other people’s child: I was that kid who left school at
16, who went to a failing comprehensive school in Knowsley. I
relied on the business, and the college and the university that I
went to. I did not know their brand images and I knew absolutely
nobody who had ever been there. I put my trust in that company,
and luckily it did me very well. Not all universities and not all
courses have the trusted brand image of Oxford and Cambridge,
which I think is where the hon. Lady went, along with my right
hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have worked with many leaders
all over the world in my many years in business, and the Prime
Minister is a world-class leader.
On apprenticeships, it is a case of quality always over quantity.
What we found, and this is why I introduced the quality
standards, is that, yes, the numbers were higher, but many of the
people did not realise they were on an apprenticeship, many of
the apprenticeships lasted less than 12 months and for many of
them there was zero off-the-job training. They were
apprenticeships in name only, which is what the Labour party will
be when it comes to standards for education.
Mr Speaker
I call the Father of the House.
(Worthing West) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State. Those of us with long memories
know that we either ration places by number or we give people
choice. If she is giving people the choice of being able to
discriminate between the courses and universities on offer, I
congratulate her, as I do especially on the lifetime learning and
the degree apprenticeship expansion, which has already happened,
with more to come.
However, can I also speak up for those who either got
fourth-class degrees or failed to take a degree at all, including
two of the three Governors of the Bank of England who went to
King’s and who came out without a degree? Rabi Tagore left
university, and many other poets, painters, teachers or ministers
of religion—whether rabbis, imams or ministers in the Christian
Church—do not show up highly on the earnings scale, but they
might show up highly in their contributions to society. Can my
right hon. Friend please make sure that she does not let an
algorithm rate colleges, courses or universities?
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I very much agree
that this is about choice—the lifelong loan entitlement, degree
apprenticeships and all of the other choices—and about people
understanding that there are many different routes to success in
life. We have asked the Office for Students to look at earnings,
because I realise that is difficult and that some jobs will not
earn people more. However, for his information, five years after
graduating from some courses, people are earning less than
£18,000. That is less than the minimum wage, and it is not
acceptable.
(Walsall South) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State, because she has not actually
spelled this out, what is a low-value degree?
In relation to low-value degrees, an example of the quality
provisions we have introduced for the Office for Students is B3,
which is about: whether students continue in their degree,
because clearly if they drop out, it is not of much value;
whether they complete their degree, because clearly if they do
not complete it, it is of zero value; and whether they get a job
or progress into higher education afterwards. Those are the three
quality measures we look at. Right now, the Office for Students
is looking at 18 providers and two specific areas—business and
management, and computer science—because there is a massive range
in what people can expect to earn from jobs having followed one
course or others, all of which seem to have the same name. There
are quality issues, and we want to make sure that they are
thoroughly investigated. The Office for Students is doing
that.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
(Worcester) (Con)
I welcome the focus on both choice and policy that my right hon.
Friend has focused on in her statement. The Education Committee
will want to look at the detail of the proposals, and at the kind
of courses that are affected. It is crucial that in launching
this approach, she recognises that all our universities are
selling a premium product. All our universities are high-quality
institutions, and it would be wrong to discriminate against
different universities in the system when, after all, they are
all funded on the same fundamental basis.
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am proud of our university
sector. It is much admired all over the world, but we must ensure
that specific courses in all institutions offer the quality that
people expect. When people invest in these degrees they will come
out with £40,000 or £50,000 of debt, and it is important first
that they know that, and secondly that they know what they are
investing in, and what return they will get on that
investment.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Secretary of State not to throw the baby out with
the bath water? Everybody wants good-quality degrees, and we all
want degrees to lead to good, fulfilling occupations, but some of
us are worried about the comments that were made in an interview
this morning by the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleague
that we have four or five of the best universities in the world,
as if all the other 120 universities were rubbish. That is not
the case. We have diverse universities and great courses. I ask
her please not to throw the baby out with the bath water and do
great damage to our higher education system.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have an excellent university
system with excellent universities. Four out of the top 10 are
world-class, but if we broaden that to the top 100, many others
would appear in that list. We have a good university sector,
which is why it is most important that we protect the brand
image. It is also very popular abroad, and every year more than
600,000 students choose to come here, which is more than to
almost every other country in the world. Why? It is because they
know they will get quality, and it is very important for the
sector that that quality is maintained.
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
I know the Secretary of State takes a more than purely
transactional view of higher education, and I am with the Father
of the House in hoping that in her reforms there will be
protections for degrees that do not offer an immediate commercial
advantage, such as theology, philosophy or the study of poetry. I
also hope that within her reforms there will be protections to
allow universities to innovate and introduce new courses. Our
university sector has obviously been at the forefront of driving
forward British intellectualism and thinking, and not allowing
universities to experiment with courses that may not immediately
fulfil the criteria that she is proposing, or indeed forbidding
or deterring them from doing so, would set us back in world
terms. Will she reassure us that innovation will still be
encouraged?
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he did in this
area. Yes, I understand the difficulty of choosing a blunt number
or tool. That is why I have asked the Office for Students to
consider how such things could be used and what approaches we
need to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath
water, or end up with unintended consequences. On innovation, I
am absolutely encouraging all our universities to innovate,
working with businesses. The pace of technological change across
the world and what is to come in the future is immense, and I
want our universities to work with our further education
colleges, training providers, businesses and others, to ensure
that we innovate and give everybody the best opportunities for
the future.
(Twickenham) (LD)
There is no clearer sign of a Government who are out of ideas and
have run out of steam than when they re-announce policies and
badge them as new. The Office for Students already has these
powers, and has already capped four specific providers. Rather
than putting down our universities and capping our young people’s
aspirations, why does the Secretary of State not invest in them
by restoring maintenance grants, and finally signing the dotted
line on Horizon membership?
Not all the things I have brought forward today have already been
announced. The information on foundation degrees is new, and the
work we are doing with the OfS is also new. We have asked the OfS
to consider the impact of recruitment limits, and how those can
be introduced. I personally think this is an important set of
reforms. We need to make sure that we have access to these
fantastic courses at our universities so that through
programmes—such as Horizon, when we complete those
negotiations—we can continue to offer the very best in science
from this country.
(Tatton) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement to limit the number of
students that universities can recruit to courses that are
failing. The Secretary of State has my full support. Can she tell
me whether this measure will also apply to foreign students? At
the very least, will foreign students be barred from bringing
dependants with them to do these courses?
The quality of the courses on offer applies to everybody. If we
change the quality for domestic students, it will then be the
same quality for international students, which is important
because of the size of the international student sector, which
brings about £25 billion to £30 billion to our economy every
year. We have already addressed the issue of dependants for
taught master’s courses in our recent changes to migration
visas.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Office for Students
already had the powers to enforce on student outcome provisions,
so this announcement is just narrow politicking. Hidden in the
UCAS figures last week was the fact that home student
applications are falling in this country. Can the Secretary of
State confirm that this Government’s policy is now one of
narrowing participation?
Absolutely not, no. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has
asked this question, because our policy is about widening
participation and making sure that education is high-quality. It
is also about making sure that there are more degree
apprenticeships. There are now 180,000, which did not exist
before. There are now 180,000 more people who can do what I did,
as the only degree apprentice in the House of Commons. It is a
fantastic route into the workplace. We also have higher technical
qualifications and boot camps. There is so much investment that
has all happened under this Conservative Government.
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Secretary of
State, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (), missed the opportunity
to condemn the disgusting and cruel University and College Union
marking boycott? Will my right hon. Friend use these reforms to
protect young people to ensure that this never happens again and
that universities such as Cambridge and Exeter can issue
degrees?
It is important. Young people have suffered already a lot during
covid. They have invested in their degree and put all the hard
work in. It is only right that they should have their degrees
marked. This is a dispute between universities and their
lecturers, but we are urging them to make sure they prioritise
all those who will be graduating this year.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the announcement today, because for far too long, some
universities cynically sold courses to students even though they
knew the outcomes were poor in qualifications and employment
opportunities. Does the Minister accept that it was her party
that allowed the increase in fees, was aware of the mismatch
sometimes between courses and the needs of the economy, and did
nothing to cap those courses? Does she not recognise that some
people will be rather cynical that the tsunami of announcements
we are getting now is more to do with the by-elections, rather
than the ability to deliver between now and a general
election?
Absolutely not. I have been working on this policy with many
former Ministers, even since I was the Apprenticeships and Skills
Minister. We have been working on this for a long time to make
sure we get it right. When a working-class kid who will come out
with £50,000 of debt puts their trust in an institution, they
have to put their trust in the system and it is vital that the
system delivers for them. If they have £50,000 of debt and no
better job prospects, that is not a system delivering for
them.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
Would it not benefit university courses’ quality more if
university administrators were paid a lot less and university
lecturers were paid rather more?
My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a debate that is going on
in our universities right now, and I know it is part of the
discussions between university lecturers and university
management.
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
I have been around the block—Oxbridge, red brick, ex-poly—long
enough to know that this statement reeks of academic snobbery and
desperation. In cultural studies, people can legitimately analyse
Mickey Mouse as a subject of academic inquiry—I have ex-students
who did that who are now earning more than any of us in here.
When will the Government address the things that our constituents
really want to be dealt with, such as crippling student debt and
the massively reduced and minimal contact hours that the covid
generation got?
The hon. Lady will be delighted about the data that we now have.
If students having done those courses go on to earn more—I do not
know what her judgment is on those institutions—that will be
absolutely fantastic; that is all that we expect. I have two
business and management degrees and know business well, having
spent 30 years in it, but if people cannot get a good business
job after doing a business and management degree, I would suggest
that was not a good-quality degree. One must recognise that.
(Bolton West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to celebrate Britain’s
international higher education success, but does she agree that
any changes made must recognise the tremendous success of the
2,000 workers at the University of Bolton, which has shot up The
Guardian’s best university guide league table now to be placed in
the top 40?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that he is a
big champion of the University of Bolton, which I was delighted
to meet recently. It is quite interesting that a lot of former
polytechnics and newer universities are working and collaborating
so well with businesses, offering more degree apprenticeships and
more flexible courses, and storming up the league tables.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
I am concerned that many university degrees that lead young
people into the creative sector will be squeezed under the
Government’s plans. Industry leaders have warned that limiting
student numbers based on graduate earnings fails to account for
the working patterns of graduates in the creative industries, and
particularly the arts, where people do not immediately earn high
salaries. The salaries in those professions do not reflect their
importance to national wellbeing and the contribution that the
arts make to our national income. What assessment has the
Department for Education made of the damage that this latest
policy will do to those arts and humanities subjects that have
already been relentlessly cut back under Conservative-led
Governments?
I am a huge supporter of our creative and arts industries, which
are among our largest, and we are very successful in them. I work
with them a lot to ensure that we can deliver even broader
apprenticeship routes, because they are difficult industries to
get into. I have asked the Office for Students to consider how to
do this reform to ensure that we consider things like the
creative arts and other routes, which sometimes take longer to
get into but offer a different aspect of learning. That is why we
have not just introduced a blunt tool. I will continue to work
with our fantastic creative sector.
(Chelmsford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Department on their
focus on excellence. This morning, I attended the graduation
ceremony of students from Anglia Ruskin University in Chelmsford.
It was so moving, because, for the first time in history,
students graduated as medical doctors in Essex. Our investment
five years ago in five new medical schools across the country is
a shining example of a Conservative Government investing for
future needs. Will she work with me to try to double the number
of medical students and encourage a degree apprenticeship for
doctors, and will she congratulate our new doctors?
I know that my right hon. Friend is a huge champion of Anglia
Ruskin University. I am delighted about the number of medical
doctors and the new medical schools, which, as she said, were
introduced under this Government. When I was the Apprenticeships
and Skills Minister, one of the last things I did, and which I am
most proud about, was to get a medical doctors apprenticeship
standard built, and I am delighted that that is being rolled out
from September. I look forward to Anglia Ruskin offering that as
well.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I was the first in my family to get a university degree—I hope
that I am not the last. Will the Secretary of State confirm that
the Tory party is the party of the blockers—blocking aspiration
and opportunity in higher education as well as the building of
affordable houses?
No, I think that the hon. Member has got it completely wrong.
Under the Conservatives, an 18-year-old from a disadvantaged
background is 86% more likely to go to university than they were
in 2010. Under Labour, the richest students were seven times more
likely to go to university than the poorest 40% in society.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans, but I want higher
education reform to go further. A recent paper by the New
Conservatives included an excellent suggestion to extend the
closure of the student dependant route to students enrolled on
one-year research master’s degrees. Would she support that?
My hon. Friend knows that we have already looked at that in
careful detail. It is kept under review, and we recently made
changes to the taught course route.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Of course students deserve high-quality education at university.
They also deserve to be cared for during what is, for most of
them, their first time away from home. Does the Secretary of
State agree with me, and with the families of young people who
have tragically taken their own lives at university, that higher
education institutions should do more to look out for and protect
those students, including by having a statutory duty of care?
I completely agree. That is why the Minister for Skills,
Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Harlow (), has asked all universities
to sign up to the mental health charter.
(Ipswich) (Con)
A key stakeholder is the British taxpayer, who ends up picking up
a £1 billion bill for people who cannot pay back their student
debt. Bricklayers, roofers and carpenters—there are not enough
people in Britain to do those jobs. Does the Education Secretary
agree that we should promote those opportunities and routes in
our school system? No one should turn up their nose at those
jobs; they offer a good pathway to a good wage, and we should
promote them.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Lots of people are
surprised by how much they can earn in some of those trades,
whether welding, bricklaying or plumbing. There have been, and
there will always be, fabulous apprenticeships and full-time
courses to make sure everyone can reach those careers.
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
The most important factor in determining graduate outcomes
remains the student’s socioeconomic background. The average
student from a working-class background goes on to earn less
after graduating than their wealthier peers with the same degree.
Does the Minister concede that the Government’s insistence on
degrading the value of degrees and restricting access to higher
education will only compound those deep structural inequalities
that define our education system? Does the Minister accept that
many young people in my constituency will consider those plans an
attempt to put them back in their place and out of
university?
I was in exactly the same place as the people in his
constituency—in fact, in the same city—so I do not accept that at
all. We are upgrading the options for people from working-class
backgrounds and upgrading the quality of degrees. I would not be
here if I had not had the options I had, which included an
apprenticeship, FE college and a part-time degree at Liverpool
John Moores University. That was high quality. Everybody who puts
their trust in the system should get the same.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
I support my right hon. Friend’s comments on the UCU marking ban,
which is so hurtful to students. The latest UCAS data shows a
record number of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas
accepted on to a course, and that the entry rate gap between the
most advantaged and disadvantaged areas now stands at 2.1, a
record low. That is great, but there is more work to be done.
Will my right hon. Friend continue to focus on closing that
gap?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to close
that gap, and we have made unbelievable progress—more in the last
13 years than ever in this country. We will continue to make sure
that working class people get access to all high-quality routes
into the workplace.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Government should address the reasons why some courses are
struggling, not the consequences. Higher education funding is in
crisis, and that is having an impact on the function of
universities, not least the post-1992 universities. Will the
review by the Office for Students look at the higher education
funding model? How will it address the real symptoms that she is
talking about?
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but at the moment the
OfS has 18 providers under investigation for poor quality. There
are many more providers, and we have a standard fee. It will look
at contextual aspects such as demographics, socioeconomics and
mature students. It looks at all that in context, but there are
18 providers out of a much larger number.
(Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State has my full support for the measures she
has announced this afternoon. On that key mission of ensuring
that students pay a fair price and get a good return for their
university education, does she agree that more institutions
should follow the example of the University of Buckingham, which
offers fantastic two-year undergraduate degrees with staggered
start points throughout the year?
Yes. The University of Buckingham has taken an excellent
leadership position and its two-year degree is very much welcomed
by many people. We will introduce the lifelong learning
entitlement, which will revolutionise how and when people go to
university, what type of courses they take, for what period of
time, and how they make those decisions over their entire career
and lifetime.
(North Shropshire) (LD)
Many of my constituents study or have obtained degrees from
Harper Adams University, just up the road. Those degrees are at
the cutting edge of agriculture and the key challenge facing all
of us, which is how to feed the planet in a sustainable way.
Their degrees and the likely careers they go into are classified
by the Office for National Statistics as “unprofessional”. Will
the Secretary of State consider reviewing the data and taking a
really hard look at how those occupations are classified, because
some of my constituents would miss out on a really important
opportunity to do a high-class and important degree?
I thank the hon. Lady. Harper Adams University is a fantastic
university. It does a fantastic range of courses, more and more
looking at agri-tech, the technology within agriculture. I am
sure it offers fantastic high quality to its students. There have
been discussions about the professions and how the data is
organised, so I will look at that. A number have raised that
concern, not just those in agriculture.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
It seems absolutely right to me that those who choose to go to
university should expect a good-quality, good-value education
they can put to good use throughout their lives. My right hon.
Friend mentions apprenticeships. Will she say a little more about
what we can do to ensure parity of esteem between degree and
apprenticeship routes?
I thank my hon. Friend for all her support and I know she is a
keen proponent of apprenticeships in her area. A lot of it is now
about awareness—the apprenticeships are fantastic; I knew 35
years ago that they were fantastic, but I think now everybody
knows how fantastic they are—through putting them on UCAS and,
from next year, having people able to apply through UCAS. We will
also have a centralised site, so that all the apprenticeships are
together and people can look at the vast array of careers they
can access—670 different routes into pretty much every career you
can think of. It is about awareness. I thank all my hon. Friends
who have apprenticeship fairs and do a lot to make people aware
of these fantastic choices.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement outlining that
university courses which fail to deliver good outcomes, with high
dropout rates and poor employment prospects, will be subject to
strict controls. That is great news for families who struggle to
pay the money for courses which end up with no benefit. What
discussions has she had with the universities in Northern
Ireland, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University? Will
she confirm that this approach will be UK-wide, and that the
postal and trade sea border will not extend to an education sea
border?
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that this policy is devolved,
but I work very closely with my ministerial counterparts in all
devolved nations. We share information and best practice, and
there are collaborative discussions, too. I will make sure I
share this with them, as well.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
I whole-heartedly support what the Secretary of State said today.
Does she agree that degrees should provide value for money and
lead to better employment prospects and career development, as
thankfully happened with my studying politics at Nottingham Trent
University, not just a certificate and a debt, as developed under
the previous Labour Administration who introduced fees and then
did their best to devalue them?
My hon. Friend is right. Labour has flip-flopped on fees, with
several different policies in that area. We are fully committed
to building up our university higher education sector and we
continue to do that. It is admired across the world, but it is
most important that every degree is a quality degree that leads
to good outcomes.
(Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right: the Labour party has not just
flip-flopped on its position on tuition fees, but is now coming
across as not wanting parents and young people to have the best
possible information about their options. I am working with the
think-tank Policy Exchange on reforming the apprenticeship levy.
As it has identified, if the public sector apprenticeship target
of 2.8% was met in all areas, we could create 25,000 additional
apprenticeships. Will my right hon. Friend look at that and at
whether we can change the procurement contract rules, because we
will need these new opportunities as we go forward?
As my hon. Friend knows, I fully support giving more and more
people access to apprenticeships. We are currently spending 99.6%
of the budget, which does not leave much room for further
flexibilities over and above what we have already introduced. The
Labour party’s policy of halving the apprenticeship levy will
result only in fewer opportunities: it is a terrible policy and
they should flip that policy, because it is a flop.
|
