Baroness Garden of Frognal
Main Page: Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Garden of Frognal's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his masterly introduction of this important debate. I regret that there are only four of us speaking today, but I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. In the glorious days of the coalition, I was appointed Minister for Olympic Sport and Media and as the Whip for Higher Education; I was never happier than when I had to stand in for the Minister because we had a number of people who transferred through that role.
We are all aware that universities are going through a very difficult time financially. Student fees have not kept up with inflation and the previous Government made a number of difficulties for overseas students; this has resulted in a large decline in those very students who make such a significant contribution to finances. Since we were stupid enough to leave the EU, there have been considerable drops in EU students, too.
I must say that, in reading this document, the mind boggles at the amount of additional administration that will be required
“to gather and analyse data to understand student experiences, enhance and protect students’ rights, and address barriers that prevent students from fully benefiting from their education”
—let alone all the financial data that will also be required. Thank goodness I was at university when we just got on with it.
I ask the Minister what impact will these demands have, particularly on the further education sector? Colleges have been the main providers of publicly funded higher education at levels 4 and 5 for 90 years. If university staff feel that they are not adequately paid, spare a thought for college lecturers, whose pay compares poorly with that of schoolteachers and university staff.
The pause in registering institutions for degree-awarding powers—DAPs—has had a dramatic effect on a number of colleges. Surely the financial sustainability of some providers should not come at the expense of limiting the possibility for others who could meet national and regional skills priorities. Collaboration between HE and FE is essential if we are to have any hope of meeting the Government’s ambitious growth strategy. Of course, HE is a relatively small part of college provision, but the regulatory costs and burdens are disproportionately high and risk limiting student choice and stifling innovation. Many students who study at higher levels in FE would not consider going away to university, yet their skills and aptitude may be just as good or even better than those of university students. Can the Minister say what consideration has been given to FE colleges in the Government’s grand plans?
Seeking financial sustainability has led to universities suspending some of their courses. As a modern linguist, I dread reading that yet another university has dropped modern languages. I declare an interest: I was a child in France and a student in Spain, and I lived in Germany with my RAF husband. I have always felt European; Brexit was for me a sort of bereavement. It is now more important than ever that we speak the languages of our near neighbours, but the global markets also call for proficiency in Mandarin, Arabic and Japanese if we wish to trade in countries further afield. As Willy Brandt put it so powerfully:
“If I’m selling to you, I speak your language; if I’m buying, dann müssen Sie Deutsch sprechen”.
I apologise for flouting the rules of the Committee to say something in a foreign language—just to translate, that means, “You must speak German”.
It is imperative that if we are trying to sell British goods and services, we must do so in the language of the buyer. The OfS is rightly concerned that on current trends 72% of providers will shortly be in deficit. Why have Governments not done more to safeguard our higher education providers, be they universities or colleges? Our UK universities regularly top the charts in international measurements. They are national stars, so what has gone wrong?
I thank the Library, the Association of Colleges and, at the last minute, the Office for Students, for their helpful briefings, and note the criticism from Mr Alex Proudfoot, who is chief executive of Independent Higher Education, that:
“The decision to suspend registration and”
degree-awarding powers
“processes until late in 2025 is a clear enough dereliction of their statutory duty. But to extend this to providers already in the process, effectively backdating this decision to the spring of 2024, is completely unjustifiable”.
He goes on,
“what the OfS is actually doing is picking winners and losers: deciding which providers are worth prioritising for financial sustainability, which students are deserving of the protection of the regulator and the funding to support their studies, and which are not”.
These are fighting words, and we all know that the losers will be the most disadvantaged.
We hear from the Office for Students that students want fair treatment from institutions that will listen to them, respond when things go wrong and set them up to succeed. They assume their education will be high quality, expect tailored learning experiences and access to academic resources and support, delivered in supportive and enriching environments. What students expect from higher education in the longer term is to acquire knowledge and develop skills that open doors to well-paid and rewarding employment and other opportunities. They expect higher education to have a positive and enduring impact on their lives and careers. The Office for Students states that it feels it is important to,
“prioritise managing risks for students already in the system, ahead of the benefits that new institutions, or institutions with the ability to award their own qualifications, bring”.
It points out that, despite the pause, it has continued with 17 DAP applications, 22 registration applications and six university title applications. So broadly its view of these measures is supportive, but they are, of course, already in the system, and we recognise that it will also need to care for those that follow them.
We are all well aware of the parlous situation of many universities and colleges. It is shameful that government has let this happen. Successive Governments have been prepared to ignore further education, partly because virtually all Parliamentarians and civil servants have been university educated. I know I was completely unaware of the richness and value of colleges until I went to work for City & Guilds and discovered people with skills vastly greater than my own. My Oxford degree enriched my love of medieval French, which has not helped me in any way later in life.
Finally, will the Minister say why there is no provision for integrating the lifelong learning entitlement funding model and what positive help the Government are prepared to offer to the beleaguered parts of this vital sector? Will they please rein in the OfS from the most damaging parts of this edict?