Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as already discussed, local skills improvement plans will be developed by employer representative bodies working closely with employers, providers and key stakeholders. Guidance to support the publication of the plans will not expand the scope of the legislation but will provide further detail on the process and best practice to support the development and delivery of LSIPs. That guidance will be developed in discussion with key stakeholders and informed by evaluation evidence from the trailblazers announced today and running into next year.

In response to Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, relating to whether guidance on LSIPs should be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative resolution procedure, it is common for this level of detail to be placed in guidance rather than in statutory instruments, so that it can be updated rapidly in response to emerging best practice and changing circumstances. I can also confirm that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about this approach to guidance.

The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Aberdare, and other noble Lords asked whether the draft guidance would be made available before Report. Because that guidance will be informed by the trailblazers, as announced today, which will run until 2022, I am afraid that guidance will not be available in advance of Report on the Bill. However, the point about the guidance being informed by the trailblazers brings us to the second amendment, on what is defined as local. We want to use those trailblazers—to learn from how they are working, to inform our approach to LSIPs and to address a number of the detailed questions that noble Lords asked.

Amendment 24 relates to publication of guidance setting out the criteria used to determine a specified area. The geography for local skills improvement plans will be based on functional economic areas and informed by evidence from the trailblazers. The specified area for a local skills improvement plan will be defined in the notice published by the Secretary of State on designation. In the trailblazers, we have allowed a certain amount of self-definition of “local area”. One of the things that we want to test and learn from in the process of the trailblazers is the best geography for plans, so we will be giving some flexibility in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked about the role of local enterprise partnerships. The Government are working with LEPs to refine the role of business engagement in the local economic strategy, including skills, and to ensure that these structures are fit for purpose for the future, including looking at the right geographies. We will consider this work alongside evidence from the trailblazers, where flexibility has been given on geography, before making final decisions about the specified areas that local skills improvement plans will cover. I reassure noble Lords that, as they have already heard from the Minister, every area will be covered by an LSIP and no area will be left out.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has received sufficient reassurance to allow him to withdraw his amendment and not to move his second amendment when it is reached.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I was very taken by the comment by my noble friend Lady Morris about the ways in which local areas will be defined. She made an important point, which I confess I had not considered, about what will happen to areas she described as “tough and challenging”, which are perhaps not particularly in demand by the employer representative bodies. I hope that the Government will insist that employer representative bodies are properly representative not just of employers’ organisations but of their communities as well, to ensure that the potential problems that my noble friend Lady Morris mentioned will be headed off before they properly develop.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said guidance will not expand the scope but will provide more detail, and I understand that. It is important that it can be updated, so I take the point. I have to say that she might have given a hostage to fortune by saying that the Government are not going to support the idea of a statutory footing because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend it. I am pleased to see that the Government will in future be abiding by the recommendations of that committee, and no doubt we will be coming back to them on other issues in the days and months ahead.

I would like to raise another point. Both noble Baronesses mentioned trailblazers. If I caught the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, correctly, she said that they had been announced today. Since she said that, I have tried to find out about that, and the best we can do is that they have been announced this afternoon. We are in debate this afternoon. Why were they not announced at the very least this morning—or yesterday or the day before? This is becoming a pattern. Yesterday we got some of the lifelong loan entitlement amendments from the Government, just a few days before they are due to be discussed in Committee next week. I have to say that the impression being created is that the Government are not on top of all this. Certainly, if the trail-blazers are going to have the influence that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said—I think the trailblazers are interesting and I want them to be successful—we should have had sight of them, so that all noble Lords could perhaps have referred to them in the debate to inform the points that we all wanted to make.

So I cannot say I am pleased with the Minister’s response—I am not surprised, either—but the Government need to bear in mind the points that I and other noble Lords have made. Some of them will certainly arise in future days in Committee and perhaps even on Report. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In small towns, SMEs are the main source of employment and, if they do not receive funds, the availability of apprenticeships in those sorts of areas will be very limited. This should be part of the levelling-up agenda, we believe. The Government talk a lot about that but are yet to deliver on it. We believe that the apprenticeship levy needs more time to grow and that employers, especially non-levy-paying employers, should make greater use of it. As I said, while supporting the intent of Amendment 39, we believe that, at this stage, to consider spending levy funds on anything other than apprenticeships is probably premature.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, now that I have de-masked myself, I will first make two remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Watson. In my enthusiasm to start my speaking role on this Bill, I did not thank him for his kind words in welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. I also acknowledge completely his point about the timing of various announcements and the need to ensure that noble Lords have as much information as possible to help them to scrutinise proposals for this Bill. We will endeavour to do our best in that regard.

I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us, on behalf of his noble friend, the opportunity to discuss apprenticeships, which are at the heart of the Government’s skills ambitions. As we recover from the impact of Covid-19, apprenticeships are more important than ever in helping businesses to recruit the right people and to develop the skills that they need.

I hope that noble Lords will allow me a little time to outline a few principles of the apprenticeship levy and its funding, as that will respond to some of the points made in this debate. The funds available to levy-paying employers through their apprenticeship service accounts can be used for apprenticeship training or assessment in their own businesses, or transferred to other employers. They are not the same, however, as the Department for Education’s annual apprenticeships budget.

While those unspent funds, therefore, expire from the employer’s accounts after two years, the broader funding contributes to the budget set by the Department for Education, according to its rules, and funds other costs associated with apprenticeships. This includes training and assessment for apprenticeships for employers that do and do not pay the levy, the cost of English and maths tuition and additional payments to support young apprenticeships—as I heard from noble Lords, those are a priority—and those with additional learning support needs.

On Amendment 39, I reassure noble Lords that we keep apprenticeship funding policy under review. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Aberdare, among others, that a key principle of the apprenticeship levy is that we should only pay for apprenticeship training and assessment costs from the apprenticeship budget, as apprenticeships deliver a significant return on investment from the public purse, rather than using the levy to fund wider skills training needs.

We have an ambitious agenda for apprenticeships and we have made huge strides forward with the apprenticeship reforms, but we cannot and will not stop here. We want to grow the programme, drive up quality and improve apprenticeships, to the benefit of all employers and ultimately the economy, through increased skills and jobs. While widening the scope of the apprenticeships budget to pay for other costs or skills training, even for a time-limited period, would not be in line with the Government’s aims for the programme, I hope that noble Lords who have raised questions about how it currently operates will be reassured by some of the improvements that we are making to make it easier for employers to use and to encourage take-up by potential apprentices.

We continue to listen to employers and to adapt apprenticeships to better meet their needs. Work is under way on a package of improvements that respond directly to employer feedback, so that employers can make better use of their apprenticeship funds.

First, we are introducing a new service that will make it easier for employers that pay the apprenticeship levy to transfer funds in their accounts to other employers, including smaller employers. Large employers will be able to pledge funds for transfer and other employers will be able to receive these funds, so that both will benefit from those transfers. In response to a question from, I think, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the lead employer that is transferring those funds will not retain any responsibility for the provision of training after the transfer. It is not an additional burden on them.

Secondly, we are helping employers to choose more innovative training models, such as front-loaded training and accelerated apprenticeships, which will help apprentices with relevant skills and experience to complete their training more quickly. Finally, we are supporting sectors of the economy that have more flexible working patterns, such as the creative industries. We will shortly launch a £7 million fund to help organisations in England to set up and expand new flexi-job apprenticeship schemes.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about the funding available for apprenticeships. In 2021-22, the funding available for investment in apprenticeships in England is almost £2.5 billion. That is double what was spent in 2010-11. We have increased the investment available for apprenticeships.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the aims of the apprenticeships programme and its direction of travel. Our reforms to the programme have all been focused on making them longer and better, with more off-the-job training and proper assessment at the end. Many pre-reform apprenticeships were of low quality and involved little or no training. That is what we have aimed to change.

We know, however, that there is more work to be done and, in addition to the reforms that I have mentioned that will make it easier for employers to take up their levy funds, we have introduced new incentives for those employers, particularly during the pandemic, to take on new apprentices. Until the end of March those incentive payments were £1,500 for those aged 25 and over and £2,000 for those under 25—71,140 incentive payments were paid up to that date. We have increased the incentive to £3,000 and that remains in place until 30 September.

I hope that noble Lords take some reassurance from what I have outlined that we remain committed to the apprenticeship programme. While we do not agree with diverting apprenticeship funding to other forms of skills training, we acknowledge the need to continue to review and adapt the apprenticeship programme so that there is better take-up and it works better for employers and those who will potentially benefit from it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to conclude the debate on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have a quick question for clarification. I think what the Minister is saying is that she wants quality of apprenticeships, not quantity—for example, that level 2 apprenticeships are a thing of the past. I was saying that I am rather sorry about that, but I would like to be clear, either now or before Report, exactly what the direction of travel is on the lower grades. I completely support those doing level 6 including even the stonemasons , but I think that there is a place, especially among youngsters—those between 16 and 23 years old—whom we are trying to get to do apprenticeships, to do something perhaps a bit less sophisticated that brings discipline and the sense of attainment that apprenticeships can bring.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe the Government are aiming for quality and quantity when it comes to apprenticeships. On the noble Baroness’s specific question about lower-level apprenticeships, I will ensure that I write to her with that specific information before Report.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this has been one of those slightly odd debates. One thing that we have established is that it is complicated—“We are not quite sure what it should do; we think it is quite a good thing, so please do not get rid of it now.” That certainly seemed to be the attitude of the Labour Party. They may be right about that, but at the moment there is a great deal of scepticism about whether this actually delivers. The intentions are good, but that is the thing that paves the way to hell. Can we please just make sure that we get a little more clarity on this? Whether it is worth returning to on Report, I will have to have a word with my noble friend Lord Storey after he has read this debate.

I felt, listening to the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that with a bit of tweaking you would get to a classic sketch about bureaucracy in some lofty TV show of my youth when people were being clever. Because it is complicated, but there is an intention behind it. The noble Baroness replied, “Yes, but we are trying to do things.” There was a lack of clarity here and focus at the heart of this. We should keep an eye on this, because if it continues to bring itself into disrepute, it may well be doing more harm than good. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In summation, Clause 5 is in itself unnecessary and adds nothing worthwhile to the Bill. But on the assumption that it will remain, Amendment 43 is important and should be supported, even if only to ensure that all colleges reach the level of support for SEN students that those students and their families have a right to expect.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 5 places a duty on governing bodies of institutions within the further education sector to periodically review their provision against local needs and to consider changes that might improve the way that those needs are met. Regular reviews of provision should be a key part of strategic curriculum planning within every college, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out. As well as reflecting the priorities set out in any local skills improvement plan, the reviews should cover the whole of the education and training offer and the needs of both current and future learners.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that this clause is not introduced with the intention of second-guessing practices that already take place within local providers or their value. But by placing a legal duty requiring reviews to be published, Clause 5 strengthens transparency and accountability around decisions on provision that are vital for local communities.

I turn first to Amendment 41, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points he made on clarifying the timing of reviews, including their frequency and regularity. In the draft statutory guidance—which we have been able to produce for this clause and which supports the new duty proposed in Clause 5—we set out the principle that reviews should be timely and undertaken at least once every three years. The term “from time to time” is often used in legislation, and can have the advantage that it can accommodate reviews that may, for very good reason, take place at different intervals and therefore could not, strictly speaking, be described as “regular”. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, himself asked whether you could have more frequent reviews or a review at a different point, perhaps in response to changing local needs or circumstances, and so “from time to time” is aimed at allowing for such circumstances.

I hope that there is a broad level of agreement across the Committee around the importance of reviews taking place on a timely basis, and that my explanation of the Government’s approach and the contents of the draft statutory guidance provide some reassurance that the proposals in Clause 5 will achieve that goal.

On Amendments 43 to 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lingfield, I completely agree with his remarks on the importance of provision for students with special educational needs, including those with an education, health and care plan. Provision for these students is an integral part of the education and training provided by an institution. Again, the draft statutory guidance published by the department makes clear that the review should include consideration of the needs of learners with SEND, including those with education, health and care plans, when governing bodies are considering the needs of different groups of learners locally. The existing statutory obligations on colleges relating to SEND, including the public sector equality duty, are a key reference point for the governing body when carrying out the review.

Colleges and other FE sector institutions already do fantastic work for students with SEND, and that provision is an integral part of the education and training that colleges offer. For that reason, we consider it essential that it is considered as part of any review of their wider provision, rather than through a separate or parallel exercise. To re-emphasise, in reviewing the college’s education and training provision under Clause 5, the governing body must do this in a way that is consistent with its existing statutory obligations in relation to SEND, and that is underlined in the draft statutory guidance supporting the review.

I hope that I have provided some clarity to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the use of the term “from time to time”, and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and sufficient reassurance to my noble friend Lord Lingfield that he will not move his amendments when they are reached.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield.

[Lord Lingfield (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. I understand the Government’s views. I particularly thank my noble friend and kinsman Lord Addington for his support. He is one of the House’s experts in the area of special needs and always worth listening to. However, it is a sad fact that not all further education colleges and suppliers of further education are up to the level of the very best ones, and a regular review, clearly required by the Act instead of being hidden in guidance and regulation, would be an important incentive to those that are mediocre to improve their offering to these vulnerable young people. I hope that my noble friend might think again, and I hope to return to this at the next stage of the Bill, but I shall not press my amendments.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are in agreement on the importance of special educational needs being included in the reviews undertaken by providers. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked what the point of the provision of this clause is. The regular production and publication of these reviews might enable noble Lords and others to hold colleges more easily to account on how they have taken on that guidance, which is clear that the special educational needs of students have to be taken into account, and how they have taken that on in the conduct of their own reviews. I am sure that many colleges do an excellent job in that respect, but the additional transparency of having these reviews produced and published on a regular basis will aid in that job.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have now received a second request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to conclude this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to signify our support for Amendment 62 and commend the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, as he unfailingly does on matters relating to those with special educational needs.

The Government must surely accept this amendment because page 30 in the Bill’s policy summary notes, under the heading, “What is the Government doing to support the teaching of SEND in FE?”, states:

“The government is also funding an in-service training grants programme to support those training in-service to teach maths, English and SEND. In Academic Year 20/21, 24% of bursaries and 73% of grants were awarded were for teaching SEND.”


Therefore, to add the requirement that SEND awareness training is included is an entirely logical follow-on to that. However, I await with interest the ingenious, perhaps even tortuous, argument that the Minister’s officials have crafted for her to tell us that it is not really necessary. That really would be unfortunate. I say, in a relatively gentle way, that the Government need to understand that accepting that something they have drafted could possibly be improved or even complemented is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength.

My main concern regarding Clause 16 is its intention. It seems to fit the pattern of the excessively hands-on and controlling position that the Government are adopting in many aspects of education. It is already happening with regard to initial training for schoolteachers. The policy summary notes address this question, again on page 30, under the heading, “How do these proposed changes align with the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market review for school teachers?” It answers its own question:

“The government is not seeking to replicate the reforms taking place in the schools ITT system ... However, officials within the Department for Education are working together to ensure a coherent relationship between our reforms in the two sectors”—


hence my fears and those of many others in the teaching profession at school and college level.

The Government may protest that there is no connection between the two but, as politicians, we naturally do not believe in coincidence. Perhaps the Minister can explain just what is meant by

“a coherent relationship between our reforms in the two sectors”

because there is uproar in the teaching profession and among those who provide teacher education at the Government’s highly controversial and potentially damaging proposals for the review of initial schoolteacher training which are currently out for consultation.

On the FE ITT system, the policy summary notes say:

“The government believes that the FE ITT system could be much better than it is”.


Can the Minister enlighten noble Lords about the evidence for that? There is no clamour in the sector for such a change. I have to say that, again, that Clause 16 smacks of an increasingly voracious government appetite for centralisation and control, with Great Smith Street the control centre. If the Minister believes she can gainsay that impression, I am sure I would not be alone among noble Lords in being very interested to hear it.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for this amendment. It highlights the importance of equipping teachers to identify and support learners with special educational needs. Further education teachers must be trained to identify and support the needs of all learners, enabling them to overcome barriers to their learning and allowing them to meet their full potential.

I concur with the noble Lord’s intention and I understand that he intends it as a probing amendment. He may be unsurprised to hear that I do not believe it is necessary to specify such a requirement in the Bill. Other mechanisms for achieving the same aim are more appropriate, and steps are already being taken.

Our reforms to teacher training are founded on a new occupational standard for FE teaching, which will specify the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of FE teachers. This standard is being developed by a group of employers—colleges and other providers, so organisations which employ teachers—from across the sector, who bring a wealth of experience and expertise and are well placed to determine the right content for teacher training that will meet the needs of all their learners. We fully expect that the new standard will be explicit in its requirement for further education teachers to meet the needs of all learners, including those with a wide variety of special needs as well as learners from diverse backgrounds. We anticipate that the standard will be in place in time for the next academic year. It will form the basis of a new FE teaching apprenticeship, and we will support the reform of FE teaching qualifications so that they are also based on the standard. If, in future, the content of FE teacher training was considered of insufficient quality to meet the needs of all learners, this clause would give the Secretary of State the power to take appropriate steps.

To address the point I think I have understood from the noble Lord, Lord Watson: the reason we do not believe this amendment to be necessary is that we do not intend to use the powers in this Bill to take greater control or gain more centralisation of FE teacher training. We believe that the sector is doing the work needed to set out that standard and that steps will be taken within it to make the right provision for the training with regards to special educational needs. To allay his fears in relation to initial teacher training reforms for schools, I undertake to write to the noble Lord to further clarify that point.

I hope that with those brief remarks the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is assured that we are already taking steps to ensure that teaching in the FE sector meets the needs of all learners, including those with a wide range of special educational needs. On that basis, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an odd one. Actually, I do not think that response really hit it, because there is supposed to be a report. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out that it is supposed to be out now. I cannot quite match the withering sarcasm he put into it: “Oh, autumn then, maybe.”

The entire education system is squaring up to the fact that special educational needs is not working in our schools at the moment. There is a series of cock-ups made by other bits of legislation, for which I have some of the blame for not spotting them coming down the line. Unless you are going to be specific about having somebody in there who can spot, transfer and change the way they are dealing with at least some of the most commonly occurring conditions, you are guaranteeing a degree of failure and underachievement. We might have a conversation about how this works, and there might be something behind this that I need to hear, but what I have heard today convinces me that this needs some more time.

I would have intervened on the noble Baroness if the process was going through, but I suspect we are going to have a more robust Report stage than normal because of this. It is not the noble Baroness’s fault, unless she wrote the brief herself. I think we have opened up something here. Teacher training is the best way of dealing with this so that you can deal with those who have moderate difficulties and certain patterns of behaviour. Small changes and a bit of reassurance—telling them they are not thick—are the best way to get a reaction out of many of the groups that I deal with. Saying “Hey, I think you’re dyslexic or dyspraxic or have ADHD; here are a few quiet, basic strategies; by the way, you’re not an idiot” dramatically improves the outcomes of that group, which is about 20% of the whole group we are dealing with. Dealing with that type of action enables them to start that process to take them on to somebody else, and that is so important.

The transition I am looking at is away from: “I have somebody in my classroom who is a pain, can’t concentrate and won’t spell. Oh, God, can we get rid of him?” And it is towards: “Oh, I think he needs a bit of help and support.” It is not about the dramatic ones who are easy to spot, who are going to get the plan. It is that level of expertise that we need.

Can we please engage so that we actually know what is coming? At the moment, there is a review going on. There should be more there. I hope that the next time we raise this, the noble Baroness, if she is still with us—I should not have opened that one up —or whoever answers this, provides better answers. Good intentions have always been there. The problem remains.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, because I do not think I will get the opportunity to take this conversation forward with him ahead of Report, although I am sure that others will be happy to continue that conversation.

The point of differentiation here is specifically about the approach to regulating teacher training in FE colleges versus the regulation of teacher training in schools. The latter is subject to a regulatory regime that allows the Secretary of State to set conditions for its content and delivery, but we do not have that equivalent provision for FE teacher training as the content is determined by the sector itself, working with organisations. Although this clause as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe course content if desired, with a view to improving the quality of FE initial teacher training courses, the initial intention is for the sector to do that work itself. The points that the noble Lord makes about how important it is that SEND is properly accounted for in this and the widest understanding—and not just those with education, health and care plans but the broadest spectrum, and those who may not have been identified before—are an integral part of that. With regard to specifying that as part of the reforms to the initial teacher training, we would hope not to use the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in this area at the moment and would rather do it through collaboration with the sector.

I thought it might be useful to say just one or two words. That is not the end of the conversation, but someone else will take it forward with the noble Lord.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for bending the rules quite positively there. There will be a continuation of this discussion but I thank her for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting into our debate today the issue of student well-being and mental health and for the very important points made by so many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Whitaker. This merits a wider debate on how good pastoral care in higher education can be prioritised and resourced and also, perhaps, on how good practice can be spread. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this and to all the questions I have put to her. I look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, Section 23 of the Higher Education Research Act 2017—HERA—which relates to the assessment of the quality of higher education provided by registered providers, currently places no restrictions or stipulations on how the OfS might make an assessment of quality or standards. Clause 17 provides some much-needed clarity, or so we hope. It puts beyond doubt the ability of the OfS to determine minimum expected levels of student outcomes. These levels would be taken into account alongside many other factors, such as the context in which a provider operates, when the OfS makes its overall and well-rounded assessment of quality.

Amendments 63 and 64, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek to add provision for the mental health and well-being of students to the outcomes measures that higher education institutions are evaluated against, in addition to academic and post-study progression measures, and to allow for more than one measure that institutions are expected to meet. I reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that student mental health is something that this Government and the OfS take extremely seriously. The testimony that we have heard from many noble Lords in this debate has shown exactly why this issue is so important.

We continue to work closely with the higher education sector to promote effective practice. Higher education providers are autonomous bodies, independent of government, and have a responsibility to support their students, including those with mental health conditions or mental health needs. They are experts in their student population and best placed to identify the needs of their student body. The Government therefore strongly support Universities UK’s step-change programme, which focuses on the need for a whole-institution approach and in doing so supports the spread of good practice and the agreement of guidelines for co-commissioning and the provision of mental health and well-being services. In addition, the Government actively back the sector-led university mental health charter which aims to drive up standards in promoting student and staff mental health and well-being and invites universities to meet high standards of practice, including in areas such as leadership, early intervention and data collection.

While it is for higher education providers to determine what welfare and counselling services they need to provide to their students to offer that support, the OfS provides funding, support and guidance to providers to support students’ mental health. Noble Lords are right to say that sufficient attention has not been paid to this issue in the past and that, while steps are being taken to put this right and move in the right direction, there is more to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, noted, that may not be best addressed through more legislation or regulation. However, I reassure noble Lords that, if the OfS wished to impose a condition of registration that related directly to mental health, the exiting legislation under HERA is flexible enough for it to do so.

The Government and the OfS do not see that as the right route at this stage. Rather, the aim of Clause 17 is to put beyond doubt the ability of the OfS to set minimum expectations of quality and performance by reference to objectively measurable outcomes. My noble friend Lord Lucas acknowledged that there may be some difficulty in defining those outcomes on something such as mental health provision. I confirm to my noble friend that the existing legislation can be read so as to allow institutions to be subject to more than one measure, so Amendment 64 is not required.

I turn to Amendments 65 to 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I first reassure the noble Baroness in relation to Amendment 65 that not only does the OfS already have a statutory duty to consult before determining or revising its regulatory framework in relation to outcomes, it has already undergone one round of consultation, as she has already noted, and a further consultation on specific outcome levels is planned for late autumn.

With regard to Amendment 66, leaving out “not”, as the amendment does, completely reverses the purpose of this clause. Driving up quality and standards in higher education is a priority for this Government and a fundamental part of the levelling-up agenda. This amendment would mean that students would be expected to accept that they might achieve different outcomes—and in some cases, lower ones—depending on their background. That cannot be right. That is why we included the provision in this clause to make it clear that there is no mandate on the OfS to benchmark the minimum levels of standards it sets based on factors such as particular student characteristics. Benchmarking or setting minimum levels by reference to the outcomes the OfS would expect from students with certain characteristics or certain types of providers risks entrenching disadvantage in the system.

I hope I can clarify one point and reassure a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Morris. Subsection (7) means that the OfS is not obliged to set minimum expected levels of outcome based on these factors. It does not prevent the OfS collecting data or considering the type of students a provider has. Indeed, the OfS will look at this when reaching a rounded judgment of quality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether this is about clarifying the existing approach or giving new powers or a new approach. The OfS is already regulating based on absolute student outcomes data. In practice, the amendment will not affect the OfS’s current approach but will put beyond doubt its ability to continue to operate in this way. I will return to this point later in relation to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Willetts.

Amendment 67 seeks to probe the OfS’s powers of intervention at subject level. The current drafting in subsection (7) is intended to make it clear that the OfS is not required to determine and publish different minimum levels to reflect differences, including differences in the subjects being studied. While this does not preclude the OfS from doing so, the intention here is for minimum levels to be set by reference to the outcomes set out in subsection (5).

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me to clarify her understanding, based on correspondence with Bill officials, of the powers of intervention at subject level. The OfS can intervene at subject level. As the noble Baroness noted, the OfS has an obligation to be proportionate in its interventions. However, any conduct that the OfS has decided constitutes a breach can be enforced, whether that conduct relates to all subjects or an individual subject. Courses could also be included in extremis.

The noble Baroness also asked how the OfS may assess quality when it comes to modular provision, given the changes that we are aiming to make in the LLE. The Government and the OfS are working closely together as part of the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. The OfS quality measures are designed to be flexible and used effectively by the OfS across a diverse provider base and different courses, for example part-time courses. As we will come on to, the OfS is currently consulting on its approach to regulating quality and standards. This includes consideration of its approach to modular and flexible provision. The OfS will consult on the indicators it proposes to use and how it proposes to take the context of the provider into account as it makes regulatory judgments. The purpose of Clause 17 is to provide clarity on the ability of the OfS to use absolute outcome measures, not to remove its ability to use other contextual or relative information.