Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill Report 6.01pm
Clause 1: New method for determining fee limit Amendment 1 Moved by
Baroness Garden of Frognal 1: Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end
insert— “(1A) For the purposes of this Schedule, one credit
corresponds to 10 notional learning hours.”Member's explanatory
statement This amendment puts the number of hours that constitute a
credit on the face of the Bill....Request free trial
Lifelong Learning
(Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Report
6.01pm
Clause 1: New method for determining fee limit
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of this Schedule, one credit corresponds
to 10 notional learning hours.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment puts the number of hours that constitute a credit
on the face of the Bill.
(LD)
Amendment 1 proposes the widely accepted requirement that the
learning hours associated with credit must be consistent with
sector-wide standards. It would be beneficial to have 10 hours
written in the Bill in order to cement its definition, because
that would mean that no new definition could be introduced or
imposed at a later date for the purposes of setting fee
limits.
We continue to express concern that the lack of detail in the
Bill could mean that in the future the policy could significantly
change from the intentions of the current Government, and there
is little constraint against decisions made by the Secretary of
State—often a “here today, gone tomorrow” Minister—but I
recognise that on Report we are unlikely to be able to change the
powers of the Secretary of State.
Amendment 2 proposes the insertion of a new clause to review the
provisions in the Act. Businesses are reporting having difficulty
recruiting employees with the relevant skills. In August 2022,
the Federation of Small Businesses found that 80% of small firms
faced difficulties recruiting applicants with suitable skills in
the previous 12 months. The Recruitment and Employment
Confederation estimates that if labour shortages are not
addressed, the UK economy will be £39 billion worse off each year
from 2024.
Despite the rising population, many employers are facing skills
gaps. Some 28,300 London employers report that not all their
employees have the right skills for the job. Almost a
quarter—23%—of all vacancies in London are due to a lack of
applicants with the right skills, while almost half of
firms—42%—are not confident that they will be able to recruit
people with the higher-level skills their organisation needs over
the next five years. It is possible that many of the migrants
waiting to be processed will have the skills that the country
urgently needs, so when will the Home Office speed up the
processing so that we can see if that is the case?
We are not convinced that the introduction of the lifelong loan
entitlement will help to plug the gaps. The Liberal Democrats
have called for grants, rather than loans, to encourage adult
reskilling, concerned that many adults will be reluctant to take
on debt for their further training. Will the LLE allow people to
upskill effectively? Will they want to take out loans to upskill?
It will be important for the Government to review the impact of
the provisions of the Bill to assess whether these measures
alleviate the skills shortages.
I am not my party’s expert on sharia finance, but I am aware of
the Islamic belief that benefiting from lending money by charging
interest or repaying more than the initial amount
borrowed—riba—is forbidden. The investments made by loan
companies, which might be in industries such as gambling or
alcohol, are also considered problematic. For these reasons,
Muslim students are deterred from taking out student loans from
the Student Loans Company to cover the tuition
fees and living costs associated with higher education. Research
has shown this can act as a barrier to higher education for
Muslims or cause financial hardship for those who do choose to
study at university.
The UK Government first proposed a student finance product
consistent with Muslim beliefs about interest-bearing loans in
2013. The Higher Education Research Act 2017 allows the
Government to introduce such a product, but it has yet to do so.
The issue has been raised in Parliament a number of times, with
the delay described as shameful by my noble friend , who is indeed an expert on
sharia finance.
In March 2023, in their response to the consultation on the
lifelong loan entitlement, the Government said that a
sharia-compliant alternative student finance product would not be
available as part of the launch of the LLE in England in 2025. In
July 2023, the Government said that they remain committed to
delivering alternative student finance as soon as possible after
2025. Can the Minister say why the Government have yet to do
this? It would be useful to understand their thinking behind the
delays and whether they could explain how the introduction of the
LLE would impact those who require sharia-compliant loans.
The other part of the amendment calls for a review before the end
of 2026, and preferably earlier. I have also added my name to
Amendment 4, which Labour will introduce. I look forward to the
Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which would require the
Secretary of State to publish a review of the lifelong loan
entitlement before bringing in further regulations on fee limits.
I welcome the Minister's comments in Committee, and I fully
understand her feedback about what information will accompany
further regulations as these changes are rolled out.
We have brought this amendment back to further raise the point
about ensuring that students, the sector and Parliament are given
clear information on the details of the LLE as soon as possible.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have raised concerns,
often after input from those in the higher education sector, that
so little about the LLE in terms of course provision,
maintenance, credits, transfers, and further rollout of modular
study at other levels is confirmed in any meaningful detail.
I am none the less grateful that, following Committee, the
Minister outlined further details of the LLE that relate to this
Bill in a letter. However, as we know, this huge shift in higher
education policy goes further than fee limits. We all want this
change to work, but for that to happen the sector will need much
more clarity than has been provided through this very narrow
Bill.
The accounting officer assessment for the LLE states:
“The main feasibility risk of LLE is meeting the 2025 delivery
timescale”.
Is the Minister still confident that the department will be able
to deliver on time, particularly in the light of current
pressures arising from the major emergency that the department is
currently dealing with in school buildings across the UK?
My next question follows on naturally: what is in place if this
timescale turns out to be unworkable? There are a great many
sector stakeholders—as well as the students themselves, of
course—who will need clearly communicated timelines. Amendment 1
from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, puts in the Bill the number
of hours that constitute a credit. We understand why she tabled
that amendment: it is important that the sector is given clarity
and control over the definition of working hours and that it is
consistent with the QAA’s higher education credit framework. As
she noted, her concern is about the lack of detail. This is one
of many areas in which the higher and further education sectors
still have questions about how a credit will be defined.
The concept of a credit in education terms will also be
completely alien to the general public, and there is a risk that
employers simply do not understand its value. The Government need
to think about how this can be communicated. We do not believe
that putting a number in the Bill at this point would be
beneficial. However, we would like a commitment from the
Government that they will not seek to amend the value of a credit
and will be led by the sector’s understanding of it.
On Amendment 2, I am glad that the Minister has outlined the
Government’s plans to ensure sharia-compliant loans in writing;
we look forward to receiving further engagement on this issue as
the LLE progresses. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden,
pointed out, there is a distinct problem with skills gaps—a lack
of applicants with the right skills. The economy cannot move
forward appropriately with skills shortages.
(Con)
My Lords, the amendments reflect widespread cross-party support
for the Bill and its principles; they are not intended to destroy
the Bill in any way. I see the case for the Bill, which of course
I warmly welcome, as opening up new possibilities. We genuinely
do not know the circumstances in which people may take them up
and we do not know whether debt aversion is much more of an issue
among mature learners than among young people aged 18 or 19; we
will find out only if we give this a try. Similarly, we do not
know how much suppressed demand there is for level 4 or level 5
qualifications because of the way in which loans are currently
structured; we will find out only if we give this a try. So this
is definitely worth going forward with.
I have three brief comments on the amendments. First, one of the
temptations we have in this House— I have occasionally succumbed
to it myself—is to try to determine the details of policy through
primary legislation. That is one of the risks in Amendment 1,
with its specification of the definition of “one credit”. Of
course, it is an important and interesting area but, as we are
embarking on a journey with a new and more flexible system,
trying to put that into primary legislation would inhibit
necessary policy flexibility—a point that I think the noble
Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to.
Secondly, I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
Garden, on sharia-compliant loans. We have been at this for 10
years now, and it really is time that a scheme such as this were
available and in force. There were initially some tricky
problems, but
I think that the long work that the department has done over the
years has resolved them. My understanding is that the technical
and theological issues have been addressed. I know that the
Minister herself is keen to get on with this, so anything that
she can say to the House about her commitment to that timescale
would be very welcome.
Finally, on Amendment 4, I am proud to say that I am acting as
the spokesman for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She very much
regrets that she cannot be with us; she briefly appeared, but I
think she had to catch a plane to Lithuania. In many ways, she is
the intellectual origins of the Bill. I know that her spirit is
that she wants to get on with it. Her concern about this
amendment—which I completely understand and support—is that
requiring another review before we can get on with things will
slow down the pace still further. I think that the mood across
this House is that we want to get on with it; we do not want
reasons for further delay. I fear that Amendment 4 would
constitute another obstacle to this potentially important and
significant innovation in policy, which I warmly support.
6.15pm
of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, many interesting points have been made about the
amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, , and the other speakers that
we would like to see this progress; it is a good idea. We want to
improve access to education, which means having more and better
information about fees and recognising the fact that they cannot
just continue uncontrolled.
Another point I endorse is that which the Minister said in a
previous speech on this subject: that the Government had a
“phased approach” to this. I think consideration has been given
to the many points that have been very intelligently raised; I am
sure that the Minister is grateful for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, ahead of speaking to the amendments tabled, I thank all
noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions and the
support they have expressed, both for this Bill and for the wider
programme to transform opportunities to build qualifications over
one’s lifetime. We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden
and Lady Wilcox, about the importance of filling skills gaps so
that the economy can grow. I thank both my noble friend and the noble Lord, of Knighton, for their
support and acknowledgement that the Bill will open new
opportunities for learners.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, , would define a
credit as equivalent to “10 notional learning hours” in the Bill.
The Government believe that it is crucial that the definitions of
credits in the fee limit calculations align to standard practice
in the sector—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made. The
Government plan to set out this detail in regulations, rather
than in primary legislation. The power to do so is provided for
in new paragraph 1B of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education and
Research Act 2017, introduced through Clause 1 of this Bill.
Specifying learning hours in secondary rather than primary
legislation
means that providers that might choose to use a different number
of learning hours per credit will simply have those courses
treated as non-credit-bearing for fee limit purposes. If we took
the approach of this amendment, those same providers could
instead be considered in breach of the fee limit rules as a
whole, with all the regulatory consequences that might bring. I
am sure that is not what the noble Baroness intends with her
amendment.
To be clear, as I think the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to
do, the Government do not intend to change the number of learning
hours in a credit unless standards in the sector change. Learning
hours are, and should continue to be, based on sector-led
standards. Regulations on learning hours will follow the
affirmative resolution procedure, so Parliament will get the
opportunity to debate and formally approve any changes to those
regulations.
Amendment 2 and Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady
Twycross, and the noble Lord, , would require
the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of the
future Act on the progress of the rollout of the lifelong loan
entitlement. Amendment 4 sets out that such a review must be
published ahead of regulations being laid, and Amendment 2 would
require the review to be presented to Parliament before the end
of 2026. I thank my noble friend for being the very eloquent
messenger of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. We absolutely agree
with her point and that made by the noble Lord, . Amendment 2 specifies that
the review should include the impact of the credit-based method
on sharia-compliant loans and skills gaps.
I thank your Lordships for these amendments. The Government agree
with the sentiment behind them, if such sentiment seeks the
department’s commitment to monitoring the impact of these
measures on the transformation of student finance under the
lifelong loan entitlement. As your Lordships will be aware, the
Government published an impact assessment alongside the Bill upon
its introduction in the other place in February this year.
Subsequently, the department published an updated and more
extensive impact assessment of the lifelong loan entitlement,
more broadly, alongside the publication of the consultation
response in March. As was committed to in the impact assessment
published in March, and in accordance with the Better Regulation
Framework, a more detailed assessment of impacts will be
published at the point when the Government lay the necessary
secondary legislation to implement the lifelong loan entitlement
fully. Therefore, the Government already intend to publish an
updated impact assessment covering all aspects of the LLE,
including the measures in the Bill, when regulations are
laid.
In addition, parliamentary accountability mechanisms are already
in place to review Acts of Parliament and the impact that they
have on policy, including post-legislative scrutiny in
particular, but not exclusively. There will be continued scrutiny
of the LLE and the impact of these measures in both this place
and the other place, including the role of the Education Select
Committee in scrutinising the work of the department.
I will just rest for a moment on the point about post-legislative
scrutiny, which I understand the noble Baronesses raised at the
briefing yesterday. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will be
aware that under the current government guidance and as proposed
in 2008, between three to five years after an Act is passed it
should be reviewed by the government department and Parliament. I
can assure the noble Baroness that the Government will seek to
work together with the relevant Select Committee in line with
that guidance. However, while we recognise the importance of
reviewing the implementation, it should be not just of this Act
but of the reform of the system—and again, I can commit that the
Government would like to see that review happen.
On the specific details within the amendments themselves, the
timing requirement in Amendment 4 would require a review of the
impact of the Bill on the rollout of the LLE prior to regulations
being laid. I want to be clear here that any impact assessment
which is conducted ahead of laying regulations would not be any
different to the impact assessment currently available for the
Bill and the consultation process. The next point at which
impacts can be assessed is when the regulations are laid and, as
stated, the Government are committed to publishing an impact
assessment at that time.
Amendment 2 relates to the impact of the credit-based method on
sharia-compliant loans and skills gaps. First, it is important to
note that fee limits are set on courses, not on students.
Therefore, the credit-based method—like the current fee limit
system—will not depend on any characteristics of individual
students. All students on a course will have their fees
determined in line with the same fee limit rules, regardless of
whether they use their LLE, self-fund, or use alternative loan
arrangements.
I take this opportunity to assure your Lordships that the
Government remain committed to delivering an alternative student
finance product compatible with Islamic finance principles. The
noble Baroness, Lady Garden, questioned why it was taking so
long. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but I think she will
remember that we touched on this in Committee, and it really is
linked to the complexity of implementation. Every element that
changes within the student finance systems needs to be mirrored
for the alternative finance product, so it is a more complicated
process and is contingent, and it has to follow the building of
the systems which will allow us to deliver the new approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, questioned our commitment to
being able to deliver by 2025. I remind the House of the measures
that we set out in the letter that I sent your Lordships on this
point following Grand Committee. I am pleased to confirm that in
August, the Student Loans Company commenced delivery planning for
alternative student finance, and it is supported on this phase of
work by experts in Islamic finance, the Islamic Finance Council
UK. I continue to meet on a quarterly basis with the Student
Loans Company, the Islamic Finance Council UK, the noble Lord,
, MP and representatives from
the Islamic community to discuss the steps the Government are
taking to deliver alternative student finance as swiftly as
possible. Because of the
delays there have been, we need to be as transparent as possible
to make sure that we build or rebuild trust with the community
that we really will deliver on this. I will provide a further
update on alternative student finance later this year.
On skills gaps, in response to the LLE consultation, the
Government made it clear that they will be taking a phased
approach to modular funding, as the noble Lord, , reminded the House, focusing
on higher technical courses which have the clearest employer
value. It is important to note that fee limits are not a means to
address skills gaps; they are to ensure that students have
affordable access to higher education provision provided by those
higher education providers who receive government funding to
support course delivery.
Finally, it is worth noting that the LLE policy is much wider
than the provisions of the Bill, and as such, the reviews sought
through these amendments would focus narrowly on fee limits and
not on the impact of the LLE as a whole.
For these reasons, while the department understands the sentiment
behind these amendments, they would either have unintended
consequences or would be unnecessary, as there will already be
mechanisms in place to provide such review. Therefore, the
Government cannot accept these amendments and I hope that your
Lordships will withdraw or not move them.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her
reassurance, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the
noble Lords, and , for their comments on this
short debate.
Of course, we are all committed to encouraging lifelong
learning—it is essential for the well-being of the country and of
individuals—and we all want to make sure that it is encouraged.
As I say, we continue to express concern that adults may not
prepared to take on loans for this but, obviously, only time will
tell. I thank the Minister for her remarks about sharia finance,
because it is a concern that Muslim students are deterred from
entering higher education because they cannot get the means to do
so. With that, I thank all your Lordships and I beg leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: After Clause 2, insert the following Clause—
“Review of the operation of the Act(1) The Secretary of State
must conduct an annual review of the operation of the provisions
of this Act.(2) The review must consider the impact of the
provisions of this Act on—(a) learner uptake of modular study;(b)
learner uptake of non-modular part-time study;(c) adult learner
uptake of Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 and Level 6 study;(d) access
to higher education for students with disabilities;
(e) access to higher education for students from lower- income
backgrounds;(f) access to higher education for students from
ethnic minority backgrounds;(g) uptake of modular study amongst
learners between the ages of 30 and 60;(h) employer spending on
lifelong learning, retraining and upskilling opportunities for
their employees;(i) the provision of courses offered by higher
education and further education providers;(j) the financial
sustainability of the tertiary education sector;(k) differences
in higher education provision across different regions of
England;(l) skills gaps in the United Kingdom.(3) The Secretary
of State must lay the report on the findings of the first review
before Parliament within one year of the introduction of the
Level 4 lifelong loan entitlement provision.”Member’s explanatory
statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to annually
review the impact of the Act on various aspects of higher
education and adult learning, starting within one year of the
rollout of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3, standing in my name and
the names of my noble friends Lady Wilcox, Lady Thornton and
. I thank the noble Lord, Lord
Evans, for giving his time yesterday to meet to discuss the Bill,
and I thank the Minister for her own engagement in correspondence
on the Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Wilcox stated in the debate on the
previous group of amendments, Labour supports the aspiration in
this Bill, and we want the change to work. However, we think that
the Bill could be strengthened, and all the amendments we have
tabled have the aim of making sure that it succeeds.
Labour wants students to have access to funds and to have a
lifelong loan entitlement and the opportunity to learn throughout
their careers. I have found the cross-party consensus and debate
on aspects of this Bill of great interest, and one of the most
compelling points in the debate in Committee was from the noble
Lord, . To paraphrase—and I
apologise to him if this is an incorrect interpretation—he stated
that one of the main issues for the success of the Bill’s
measures will be whether or not those who are thinking about
deferring their entitlement believe and trust that the funding
will still be there in the future. I think it was a really
well-made point. We need enough trust in future Governments
keeping the entitlement to ensure that people do not instead
decide to use it all at an early stage of their career to ensure
they do not lose it, thereby negating part of the point of the
Bill.
6.30pm
Labour believes that reviewing the impact of the Bill on various
aspects of higher education and adult learning annually, starting
within one year of the rollout of the LLE, would make it more
likely that any issues would be identified and more likely to
succeed and to be there for the future learning needs and
aspirations of students. It might arguably, therefore, improve
confidence on the part of students and potential
students in future entitlements. I would welcome the Minister’s
view on how the Government intend to carry out reviewing the
impact of the Bill in the absence of formal review, as the
amendment would provide. How will the Government ensure
confidence in the future-proofing of this entitlement?
The amendment would ensure ongoing analysis of the impact of the
Bill on higher education uptake, the financial stability of the
higher and further education sectors and our current skills gap.
The Government’s related announcement on higher education just
prior to the Summer Recess was concerning in many ways. It
completely reduced the value of the course to graduate salaries,
ignoring the wider reasons why we value higher education, and
risks higher education provision, often for local people in areas
of the country the Government claim they want to level up. The
courses and institutions targeted by these changes could
seriously impact particular groups, especially disabled students,
students from ethnic minorities and those from lower-income
backgrounds.
The Minister has pointed to the lifelong loan entitlement as
something that can help those seeking flexible and part-time
studies or looking to retrain or build further skills, but we
absolutely need to ensure that students seeking flexible study
are not limited in choice by using this entitlement or how it
works in practice. Can she outline how flexible learning will be
supported?
It is also essential that the Government ensure that this
entitlement does not become simply a fund for employers looking
to push training costs back on to their staff; it must be in
addition, not instead of. I hope to hear from the Minister on how
the Government are working with both prospective students and
employers to prevent that, as well as on the other points raised
in this debate. I hope the Government will be able to give a very
positive response to the amendment, and I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I start by apologising for my bad timing in not
arriving for the previous set of amendments to which I was a
signatory. I was caught on the hop, and it takes a few hops to
get here from my office in Millbank House, so I apologise to the
House.
It is important that some of the issues to which my noble friend
Lady Twycross referred are emphasised. The impact of the Bill’s
provisions on a number of education sectors is considerable, and
I return again to the impact on the access to higher education
for students from lower-income backgrounds. I shall not rehearse
the arguments about BTECS and AGQs, the Minister will be relieved
to hear, but that is one issue that needs to be borne in mind as
the legislation proceeds.
I can no longer speak on behalf of the party as I am no longer on
the Front Bench, but I very much hope that an incoming Labour
Government would retain much of this legislation, because I think
it is very positive and it would be a great shame if that was not
done. I think it will; I think common sense will mean that that
happens. Some of how we shape the Bill now, therefore, will have
an impact further down the line, whatever happens at the next
general election. I particularly
mention the skills gaps in the economy, mentioned at the end of
subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in the amendment; it is
very important that we bear that in mind going forward.
The Minister, in response to the previous set of amendments,
talked about impact assessments: the one done before the Bill was
published and one in, I think, March this year. I was surprised
that she did not mention—at least, not when I was here, and I
think I was here when she was speaking—the report issued just
under two weeks ago by the Permanent Secretary of the department
on the assessment of the lifelong loan entitlement, which I
thought was potentially rather worrying. The Permanent Secretary
was questioning the ability to complete the rollout by 2025, as
is intended. She said, and I quote from her report, that the
biggest risk to feasibility of the lifelong loan entitlement is
“significant delivery challenges”.
I will not go through all of those, as I am sure noble Lords will
have seen them—this is the report issued on 25 August. It is all
very well to talk about an impact assessment, but an assessment
has been made of whether the deadline can be met, and I would
like the Minister at least to comment on it, because we are
getting fairly close to the time when, if certain preparations
for the implementation of the lifelong loan entitlement are not
completed, that 2025 introduction date will slip. That would be
very unfortunate, to say the least, and could have considerable
knock-on impacts.
Coming to my final point—perhaps I am being a little unfair to
the Minister, but I am going to say it anyway—I referred, in my
Oral Question in July, to a thematic report published by Ofsted
which raised some questions about T-levels. I know that this is
not the same thing, but I think the way that T-levels roll out
will have an effect on the number of people who are properly
prepared to take up some of the options under the lifelong loan
entitlement. Could she say whether—if she thinks it is not
appropriate to do so now, I should be very happy if she could
write—she and her officials, having had more time to study the
Ofsted report, have any other comments to make on it? I thought
it unusual for His Majesty’s inspector to be as openly critical
on such a fundamental part of the Government’s education and
skills policy. If she would prefer not to rise to that today, I
would be very happy for her to write, but it would be helpful to
have some comment on that thematic report issued in July.
With those remarks, I think that the issues covered in Amendment
3 are important, and I do not really see why the Government
should be unhappy about the Secretary of State conducting an
annual review considering the various issues listed in the
amendment.
(Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment, to which my name is attached,
but I also echo my noble friend’s remarks on this matter. As I
mentioned to the Minister, the rollout will be very important,
and the three to five-year assessment of whether the legislation
has worked will not serve, because it will be a moving feast.
Indeed, I thank the Open University for writing to us to draw our
attention to the accounting officer’s assessment, which my noble
friend mentioned, which highlights concerns within the department
that the rollout might be a problem.
There are two things here, really. First, I seek some clarity on
how this will be promoted. This partly echoes the remarks made by
the noble Lord, , in Committee, which we
rather liked; they were about trust and how this will be sold to
people as something that we would want them to take up in the
long term. The second point is about addressing the concerns that
have been expressed within the department by the accounting
officer.
(LD)
My Lords, we have here a fairly formidable list of things, all of
them important. I want to focus on subsection (2)(j) in the new
clause proposed by Amendment 3, which concerns:
“the financial sustainability of the tertiary education
sector”.
We note that student fees have not gone up in all the years they
have been there and that universities now face intense financial
pressures. I note that, in Committee, the noble Lords, and , put forward a suggestion
that student fees should rise with inflation; that has not gone
further but I wonder whether the Minister could give some succour
to university vice-chancellors, who are desperately worried about
how on earth they can balance their books as costs go up but
income does not.
(Con)
My Lords, I now turn to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble
Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Thornton and Lady Wilcox of
Newport, and the noble Lord, . This amendment would require
the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the
operation of the provisions of this Act and specifies several
areas that the review must cover, including learner uptake,
access to higher education and financial sustainability in
tertiary education more broadly.
As mentioned in relation to Amendments 2 and 4, the Government
published an impact assessment upon the introduction of this Bill
in February and an extensive impact assessment of the lifelong
loan entitlement more broadly in March. The Government intend to
publish an updated impact assessment covering all aspects of the
LLE, including the measures in this Bill, when regulations are
laid.
There will be continued scrutiny of the Bill and the LLE via
existing parliamentary accountability mechanisms, for example
post-legislative scrutiny and the Education Select Committee. In
addition, there are already systems by which the areas mentioned
in this amendment are monitored. I will take each area in turn to
provide reassurances as to the existing work being undertaken in
these areas and the mechanisms in place for review.
In relation to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton,
about three to five years, I was speaking specifically about
post-legislative scrutiny. It is in the Cabinet Office guidance
from 2008—a period that I imagine the noble Baroness might
support. Obviously, as I have just listed, there are a number of
other mechanisms for scrutiny.
The amendment lists a number of areas relating to uptake. I want
to take this opportunity to refer noble Lords to the publications
produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which will
continue to
include data on learner uptake and enrolments. For example, the
Higher Education Statistics Agency website allows anyone to view
information about higher education student enrolments broken down
by year, level of study, higher education provider, subject, mode
of study and more. High-level national results are also published
in its annual statistical bulletin.
Regarding uptake of modular and part-time study, the Government
expect to see a shift in how, what and when people study as the
LLE provides support for alternatives to full-time study. For
example, Universities UK polling in 2020 on modular study
indicated that 82% of prospective students polled who were either
unemployed, at risk of unemployment or looking to learn a new
skill would be keen to study individual modules of a university
degree.
Turning to access, tackling inequality in higher education is a
central part of the Office for Students’ mission. The OfS shares
information through its access and participation data dashboard,
which allows it and the public, alongside registered universities
and colleges, to identify gaps between groups. The OfS also
maintains an equality of opportunity risk register, which
identifies key sector-level risks to equality of opportunity in
higher education and highlights the student groups that are most
affected by each one.
The Government recognise the importance of supporting access,
which is why maintenance loans will be available for all eligible
courses and modules that require in-person attendance under the
LLE, as will targeted support grants such as the disabled
students’ allowance and the childcare grant. The impact
assessment published alongside this Bill notes that learners who
will particularly benefit from the introduction of fee limits for
short courses and modules are more likely to be older, female,
from ethnic minority backgrounds or from lower socioeconomic
groups.
6.45pm
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, was critical of the
Government’s recent announcements on higher education reform and
focused purely on salary. Let me just remind the House that the
issues we are looking at include the continuation of students
from one year to the next and the completion of courses as well
as graduate-level salaries. The focus is very much on courses,
but the question that we all need to ask is this: why does the
same qualification at different institutions result in very
different continuation and completion levels as well as very
different salary levels? I know that the noble Baroness agrees
with me here, but it is exactly those disadvantaged students who
need to know which institutions are the ones where courses do not
lead to the kind of outcomes that we would all hope for them.
Regarding employer spending on lifelong learning, employers are
at the heart of the Government’s reforms that seek to improve the
prestige, profile and uptake of high-quality technical education
at levels 4 and 5. The lifelong loan entitlement will not
substantively change the balance between workplace training and
loan-funded study. It will sit alongside the opportunities
afforded through apprenticeships and employer skills funding,
meaning that people will have a wider choice in how and when they
study to acquire new skills. The department
will continue to engage closely with stakeholders, including
employers, as part of the development and delivery of its
reforms.
Regarding the financial sustainability of the tertiary education
sector, which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden,
this Bill’s impact assessment notes that providers may see
increased tuition fee revenue if the LLE encourages more people
to engage with lifelong education. As is currently the case,
providers will be free to assess the potential profitability of
any course however they see fit and will offer only those that
they see as beneficial to their institution. The Higher Education
Statistics Agency collects and publishes finance data from
English HE providers as part of its annual financial return. The
data includes the income and expenditure of higher education
providers, key financial indicators and change over time.
With regard to skills gaps, the Government made clear in their
response to the LLE consultation that they will take a phased
approach to modular funding, focusing on higher technical courses
that have the clearest employer value or where they address
skills gaps to support learners into jobs that employers need. It
is important to note that fee limits are not in themselves a
means to address skills gaps; they are there to ensure that
students have affordable access to HE provision provided by those
higher education providers that receive government funding to
support course delivery.
I turn now to timings. The proposal to review with no end date,
as this amendment seeks to do, would be an undue and
disproportionate burden. In addition, introducing ongoing reviews
into primary legislation before policies have been fully
implemented or had sufficient time to bed in would be of limited,
if any, value.
I reiterate that it is unlikely that the fee limit provisions in
this Bill will, in themselves, have substantial impacts on, for
example, employer spending on lifelong learning or skills gaps in
the UK. These and other impacts must be considered in the context
of the LLE as a whole and not through the narrow lens of a single
policy issue.
I want to return to the points raised by the noble Lord, . I will write to
him about the T-level point but I want to quote from the
conclusion of the Permanent Secretary’s report. She writes:
“As accounting officer for the Department for Education, I have
considered this assessment against the 4 accounting officer
standards, and I am satisfied that the LLE programme meets the
standards of managing public money and accords with the generally
understood principles of public life, represents good value for
money for the Exchequer as a whole, and is feasible to deliver
(with significant delivery challenges to meet the 2025
launch)”.
I think that she is still saying that it is feasible. However, it
is a major programme, and any major programme would have
significant challenges in that regard.
For these reasons, although the department understands the
sentiment behind this amendment, it would be unnecessary and
burdensome as there will be mechanisms in place to provide such a
review. Therefore, the Government cannot accept it.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response and
thank all those who participated in this short debate. It is
regrettable that the Government do not view this as a useful
amendment. In Labour’s view, it would improve the likely outcomes
of the Bill and the outcomes for the students who the Bill
intends to help. Notwithstanding that, I beg leave to withdraw my
amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
Clause 3: Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment 4 not moved.
|
