Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a golden thread in our debate that has been pursued with considerable vigour by the noble Baroness, who has on every occasion, I think, asked difficult questions. In fact, she has been quite free with her favours, asking questions of me and of other noble Lords around the whole Chamber when we have failed to measure up to her high standards of accuracy and precision when mentioning the words “English”, “higher” and “education” in sequence.

Here we are at the crunch point. The noble Baroness has put down a very specific amendment that would have quite strong repercussions for any body attempting to recruit English higher education students, because along with students comes public money. The main argument as I take it—and we look forward to hearing about it from the Minister—is that we are risking public money on bodies when we have no certain knowledge about where and how they are incorporated and what rights and responsibilities they have to the students. She could have mentioned several other areas and it is important to get them on the record. Under the Consumer Rights Act, students are owed a duty of care by the providers of their course. Specific issues must be supplied by the institutions and remedies for students lie in legal protections, which would be exercised in court. If the bodies are not incorporated in the UK, how are they going to manage that? I think the Minister should respond to that in a positive way.

We are also concerned with insolvency issues. It is quite interesting and instructive that most of the Technical and Further Education Bill—which is accompanying this Bill through Parliament—is taken up with measures that apply if a college of further education goes into insolvency or is wound up. There is a special education administration regime with particular powers for the insolvency practitioner appointed to ensure that students rank above all other creditors and that their courses will continue, if possible, or be transferred to a similar institution if not. Creditors, who in insolvency law—as I am sure your Lordships’ House is well aware—are normally given primacy, are relegated to second place. We have no such system for higher education institutions in the UK. There is therefore no provision for what happens when a private company, in particular, decides it no longer wishes to teach its students. Where will the students seek redress? The cases mentioned by the noble Baroness are relevant in this jurisdiction as well as abroad. It will be very interesting to see how students will recover their loans and their opportunities if there is no incorporation which allows them to do so.

We are discussing this when there has been a change of ownership of a very distinguished private provider, BPP. That situation is not nearly so dire as the one I have been discussing but nevertheless reflects a very major arrangement. The ownership has changed. The senior management have decided to not continue and there is still uncertainty about how the overall firm will be run. This is a real situation involving large numbers of students, lots of money and very difficult legal and jurisprudential positions.

The Government are taking this seriously. I had a letter delivered to my hand as I walked into the Chamber. It deals in four pages with some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. I am not in any sense wanting to make slight of the letter because it is useful to have it on the record, but the Government seem to be broadly of the view that the existing arrangements under which the Office for Students—surely we will be shortly be calling it the Office for Higher Education, as we prefer—will have responsibilities under the registration and degree-awarding powers will make sure that nothing untoward happens. That is not sufficient. We need greater certainty about what institutions are responsible for our students, how they are responsible, in what way they are incorporated and what the legal position is.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I do not think that he will be able to measure up to some of the very strong critiques that have been made so far.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has pointed out, we are in the strange position where one has far greater protection if one is studying for a higher education qualification in a further education college than if one is in a university, because there are very clear requirements, now going through this House, for what should happen if that institution becomes insolvent.

This issue has been raised on a number of occasions in this Chamber, where it has been argued that, although the Government have committed to a protection regime for students in higher education, it is not very clear or demanding, as far as we can tell. The amendment goes a step further, because it draws attention, as have my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to a situation in which, over and above issues relating to the institution delivering the education, there is an issue of ownership. It may mean that, in extreme situations, it is unclear where students would seek redress, never mind how.

The Government are aware of the new issues that have come about as a result of creating a sector in which providers can be bought and sold. In 2015, they asked HEFCE to look at this issue and, as a result, there are now some new regulations about the treatment of degree-awarding powers in the event of a change of ownership or legal status. In that situation, HEFCE must discuss the potential implications for degree-awarding powers, including continued eligibility to hold them, and must be assured that the original institution that was awarded the powers is in substance the same institution in spite of the change of ownership. That is what is happening with BPP at the moment and there is no reason to suppose that the institution will not continue to be a distinguished provider of higher education.

I think that everybody in the sector who is providing good-quality education, whether they are private or not for profit, would agree with that. However, what the regulations do not get to the heart of is how, if an institution is owned by a company or body overseas—it may be somebody who has taken the entire institution into private ownership—the OfS will be confident that it can make sure that the institution complies with the conditions of registration. An institution may change hands regularly—I give the example of the University of Law, which in the three years after it moved from being not for profit to being a for-profit company changed hands twice. How in that situation will we operate if we find that students are in effect left without not only the institution in which they enrolled but any clearly identifiable body to which they can have recourse and which the OfS can—bluntly—bring to court and demand that it do what it should do?

This is a major issue. The amendment would make sure that there was a body to which students and the Government could address themselves if a catastrophic event, which I am sure would be extremely rare, occurred. Setting up a subsidiary company in this country is generally not a very complicated or time-consuming affair. It cannot be beyond the power of the Government and it would not distort the underlying objective of the Bill to ensure that any institution offering higher education to students receiving loans subsidised by the taxpayer is clearly identifiable in the case of students being left without an education and creditors being left without obvious recourse.