Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and, obviously, support the objective of the lifelong learning entitlement. As the Minister said, it originated in the Augar review a few years ago, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an important part. I am glad that this Government are continuing the work initiated by previous Governments in this respect.
These regulations are really important because they put in place the funding architecture for the LLE, without which it cannot become a reality. However, the real test will be whether, in reality, the architecture translates into substantially greater participation in lifelong learning, which has always been one of the missing pieces of our educational landscape in England. That will become all the more important in the world we are moving into—that of artificial intelligence. As Ministers and others have noted, we will need to enable the retraining of people many times over the course of their working lives. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the LLE is intended to operate alongside employer-funded retraining through the growth and skills levy.
It is important that we have clarity on the boundaries between these two important funding schemes, and how they relate to one another, so that we eliminate any policy confusion that might inadvertently depress demand for lifelong learning, which, as I said, is already pretty low. If a worker needs to retrain because AI has transformed their role, how should they go about it? How will they know whether the expectation from government is that their employer will fund that training or whether they should fund it themselves through loans via the lifelong learning entitlement? I would really welcome some thoughts from the Minister on those questions.
I also have broader questions about the future of this policy. These regulations are a great start and it is better that we are starting down this journey towards more modular study where possible, but I think the Minister has admitted in the past that this is not the end point or final destination. I would like to probe a little further where she sees this policy area going. In particular, when will the LLE be extended to master’s level study—level 7—given the increasing demand for postgraduate-level reskilling in areas such as AI, digital technologies and advanced professional practice? Many adults who need to retrain in the coming decade will already hold a bachelor’s degree, given current levels of tertiary enrolment, and will need to acquire higher-level skills rather than simply further study at undergraduate level or sub-degree level, which is the current area of focus of the LLE.
Secondly, what is the Government’s thinking on eligibility for funding for courses not drawn from existing qualifications? The stipulations in the policy are very clear at the moment: funding will be made available only for modules that are drawn from existing qualifications. I have said on a few occasions that this risks us stifling innovation in what is on offer, meaning that we, in effect, provide access only to more of the same but in smaller pieces. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how we can meet demand from employers for shorter, more agile programmes that respond to rapidly changing labour market needs but do not necessarily fit within traditional qualification structures. If lifelong learning is genuinely to become a normal feature of working life, it seems likely that the funding system will ultimately need to accommodate that greater flexibility.
In her remarks, the Minister referred to two further regulations that are going to be laid, one of which is on student support. As she thinks about the future direction of this policy area, could she say whether the Government might soften their stance on student support for online, distance-learning qualifications? It stands to reason—and this is the whole intent of the Government’s policy—that the smaller the unit of study, the more likely it is to be studied at distance and online, given that students will not want to incur the frictional costs of upping sticks and moving to study at another institution in person. None the less, they will still need to incur maintenance costs, which the current regulations do not provide for. As we move into a more modular landscape, it is likely that we will need to rethink that, so I would like to understand the Government’s intentions in that respect.
Finally, what does success look like in this policy area? How are we measuring it? What level of adult participation do the Government want this entitlement to achieve over the next three to five years in shifting the market share away from this category-killing three-year bachelor’s degree towards other more flexible forms of study? Where does the Minister want us to end up in changing the way higher education is consumed and delivered over a horizon of three to five years and by what measures will the Government judge whether further reform is needed? All those points are not to detract from the importance of these regulations: they are a really important beginning. I wish the Minister every success in getting them through Parliament.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I also welcome these regulations. They seem to have taken a while, and it is really good to see them. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, this policy was the number one recommendation of the Augar review, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member. The cross-party support for that has been really gratifying, because we all recognise the importance both of continuing education and training and of greater flexibility.
I thought it might be worth putting on the record some of the things that we were most concerned about, because they lead into the question of how we know whether it is working or whether anything else needs doing. First, we were not particularly looking forward to modular study as such; it was much more about creating a comprehensive change in the student funding system that would build in far greater flexibility.
The thing that we were most concerned about was the rigidity of the equivalent level qualification regulations, which had been brought in by previous Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will probably be able to elaborate. The idea was that you should have people going up and up in levels all the time. We felt that that was deeply misconceived and that one of the things you had to do—for everybody, not just for a few additional people—was to make it clear that what was important was what you were learning, not the level at which that took place.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is of course the case that, even for distance learning, if you had a disability, for example, you would have access to the disabled students’ allowance. However, with limited resource, we have to make decisions about where we want to focus maintenance support. I do not think that it is inappropriate to focus it on those who find it much more difficult to earn alongside their learning. I understand the point that the noble Lord is making—anybody who has done an OU course understands precisely how much time it takes to do that—but the Government have focused in the way that I have described.
The next set of issues, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, relate to what we see as success, where we see the future of this measure and how radical we think it should be. It is important to say that this is not a short-term fix; it is a bold long-term investment to support the creation of a student finance system that is fit for the challenges of the future. We have made a deliberate decision to phase in the delivery of the LLE, placing quality and learner outcomes ahead of an immediate large-scale rollout, but we want to see education providers using the LLE to innovate, driving deeper collaboration between further and higher education institutions and supporting smoother learner transitions across levels.
The student finance system must also meet labour market needs, which is why we are calling on employers to be active partners. We want employers to see the LLE as an essential part of their workforce strategies, helping them to attract new talent, develop skills and retain employees. We expect more FE and HE providers to work with employers and representative bodies to co-design flexible provision, helping create coherent learner pathways into the workforce.
I reiterate, as others in this Committee have, my thanks to and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has a long record in this area and is, in fact, one of only two people in this Room who turned up to my briefing session on the LLE.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am clearly one of the guilty people who did not turn up to the briefing sessions, but I am sure my question will be answered. There is a view that success will look like more people moving in and out of higher education—doing a course for a time and, through the more modular structure, withdrawing and then doing some more. On the other hand, as she well knows, there are a lot of measures of quality by the OfS that focus on so-called drop-outs, non-completions and B3 requirements, which all assume that leaving a course is a bad thing. How will the modular agenda and this wider B3 agenda be reconciled?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked how we change regulation to support what we want to see here. It is a fair point that the regulation at the moment is designed around that traditional three-year course. Part of how we expand the opportunities through the LLE will include looking with the OfS at that regulation, to make sure that it does not act against the more flexible way of learning that the LLE can support. Linked to that, to return to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I reiterate that we believe that the way we are approaching this builds in flexibility. It is not simply an add-on of modular courses. The shift from only—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
Just to clarify, I know that that is the case, but there seem to be a lot of people out there who have not quite grasped that. That is the only point I was trying to make.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To be fair to them, that might be because I am frequently banging on about the opportunities of modularity and different ways of providers being able to offer courses. The noble Baroness also raised an important point about the proposed consultation on break points that we will bring forward. We have to develop a system where you can gain credit for learning short of having done a full three-year degree. The Prime Minister’s target for two-thirds of young people getting a level 4 or above qualification obviously puts an emphasis on qualifications at level 4 and level 5 in a way that the student finance system has perhaps not supported previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, made a point about maintenance support. I note that the LLE provisions will expand maintenance support for those in part-time learning. Maintenance loans will become available for all courses and modules that require in-person attendance, including part-time and technical study below degree level that does not qualify today, on top of other actions that the Government are taking to upgrade maintenance loans and to introduce maintenance grants. This demonstrates our commitment to broadening access to and participation in higher education.
On implementation, several noble Lords asked what support will be given to providers to develop modules. There will be some upfront costs in setting up modular study, but these costs are voluntary: there will be no regulatory requirement to offer a greater provision of shorter programmes. However, I think that providers—with their business hat on, if you like, thinking about the strategic opportunities for their institutions of what the LLE will enable their students to do—will see the real potential profitability of these sorts of courses. I hope that will be a reason why they might want to shift some resource into and help develop those courses. This is happening at a time when we have committed—although it is not part of these regulations—to an index-linked increase in the tuition fee limits that will be funding the provision that is being made in higher education.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, made an important point about quality. I reiterate the announcements that we made relatively recently about the additional work that we will do to focus on quality in higher education. Of course, we have already said that we will link any increase in tuition fees to the developments in the teaching evaluation framework that the Office for Students is working on. We will look at ways in which to limit the growth of poor-quality courses and are taking action on the source of a lot of the concerns around quality: that is the big expansion in franchise provision, with the introduction of regulation of such provision with more than 300 students in it.
I hope that I have been able to respond to the key points that noble Lords have made. I accept the point—this is part of the excitement of the LLE—that not all the answers are currently available because this is the start of something that has real potential to open up and change the way in which higher education is offered and funded for students throughout their lives. This is an important start and a foundation on which we can build that much more flexible higher education system with greater work with further education, greater opportunities to learn throughout your life and greater capacity to respond to some of the skills needs that we have in the economy. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important that we introduce the lifelong learning entitlement in a relatively restricted way, enabling us to build for the future. The key requirements, which I was addressing yesterday, are to provide flexibility for students at levels 4, 5 and 6. Those are the first priorities that we have set for the lifelong learning entitlement.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was the number one recommendation of the Augar review back in 2019, so one cannot say that implementation has been very rapid. Can the Minister give us any progress information on how many providers are proposing to offer modular provision, and on the consultation on break points in degrees, which would make it easier for people to study without having to undertake a complete undergraduate degree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness, and I am kicking myself for not knowing the numbers which will be in a position to offer modular provision in January 2027. We have taken quite a careful approach to ensuring that those which are able to do that will be offering high-quality courses at that point. We have had a very good response to that.
We are working now to determine how, as the noble Baroness says, we can enable there to be break points in degrees so that people can, at both level 4 and level 5, in some ways bank the learning that they have done and then possibly return to it later in life. I know she will push me to say that it is also important that we expand the numbers of students who are taking level 4 or 5 courses on their own as well.
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend, not least because I preceded her as the chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. We agree with the review that people should be taught the skills and knowledge they need to be active, informed and responsible citizens from an early age. As my noble friend says, it was one of the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission that there should be a better focus on the nature of government and the responsibilities of politicians in the school curriculum, in order to support not only better understanding but to reduce the unacceptable levels of abuse that elected officials face. I am glad that this Government have delivered that.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the review, and I must press the Minister further on the decision not to accept its recommendation to stick with the current Progress 8. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the Government have made the proposals they have—why creative arts and not computing or technology? For many young people, particularly lower-achieving pupils, there will be less choice under the Government’s proposals. I am not sure that pushing a large number of unwilling boys into drama is quite what we have in mind. Any further enlightenment as to why the Government have made the recommendations they have made would be very welcome.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is a rather crucial amendment. The reason is that we are a nation that is inclined to talk about education as if it is always academic education. If I have criticisms of previous Governments—and I have of those from both sides—they are that we have emphasised education as if it is the only way, rather than part of a grouping of educational opportunities.
We are also rather inclined to not support technical education, and the comparison with our competitors is notable and historically of very long standing. I recently read a report about such education by a committee of the House that remarked that Prussia was much better at it than we were. The Committee will immediately see how long ago that report was produced. Curiously, we have always found this a difficulty in the way that we think about things and in many of the changes that we have made, such as the insistence that polytechnics should become universities, as if that somehow improved the circumstances and that there was something less good about having something that was aimed specifically at talking about the issues that we are discussing. We have to change the atmosphere.
I much approved of the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about what the Government could do if they did not have the money. However, there is quite a lot of money in that fund, which seems to have gone back to the Treasury rather than being used in quite the way one would have hoped. However, if they do not have the money, it is very important to make the statement that this is important, and that it is part of the way in which we help those who need it but who, once having had it, will be making a real contribution.
This is why I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that the Treasury will get the money back. There is a real truth in this. We need it; we have not had it. I am not blaming any particular Government for this, because, after all, this was a pretty late decision of that Labour Government, even though it was changed afterwards by the coalition Government for reasons that I cannot now remember. However, it is important that we recognise that this is an essential part of a modern educational system. We have not got it, we ought to get it, and the Government need to come to terms with a change in the way we think.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add one very specific but pertinent comment to the debate at this point. Obviously, we are not going redesign the whole of apprenticeships here on the Floor of the House, but I strongly support the emphasis that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has placed on 16 to 18 year-olds, and bring to your Lordships’ attention a very strange anomaly in the way we approach this.
When a young person fails to get an apprenticeship and remains in full-time education of some sort, this is paid for automatically as part of the open-ended commitment to pay for classroom-based education, even if it is also vocational or technical education, until somebody is 18 or 19. But apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds have to come out of the levy—of which there is going to be very little money left next year, by the way, but that is a whole other discussion.
At the very least, in the short term, the Government could commit to moving the funding for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds into a different budget, into the perfectly correct national commitment to fund young people’s education and training until the age of 18.
Lord Storey (LD)
Briefly, I want to reinforce what has been said. What is unspent of the apprenticeship levy gets returned to the Treasury, not to be spent on education or apprenticeships, which is bizarre. It is a double whammy, because businesses, seeing that their money has not been spent and is likely to go back to the Treasury, suddenly start putting staff on high-level courses, equivalent—
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will attempt to sum up this very diverse group—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I apologise, that was my fault. I rise at the end of a very interesting group and look forward to the summing-up. One amendment has rather disappeared in the context of these important issues, but I strongly support it—Amendment 432B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Until she tabled this amendment, I had not looked very carefully at Clause 39.
Clause 39 sets out a whole long list of things which will constitute a material change in the nature of an independent educational institution. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this amendment because that would generate a lot of pointless work. It is also a classic example of how, in a large Bill, things slip through on the nod, on auto drive, and have certainly slipped past MHCLG. It says that there will be a material change, among other things, if there is a change of the buildings occupied by the institution and made available for student use, which the noble Baroness’s amendment would strike.
Going a little further down the page, you discover that “building” means any
“building … part of a building, or … permanent outdoor structure”,
that the circumstances where a building is “occupied” may be just
“part of a school day”,
and that it is “for student use” if it will be “routinely used by students”. I do not expect the Minister to give me a clear reply on this immediately, but it strikes me that this means that the proverbial bicycle shed, if it was changed into a building in which students kept things in lockers, would constitute a material change for that institution. That is bonkers.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, even though it is in a group which is dealing with much more important matters. I would be very grateful for a reply on this from the Minister, because it is easily corrected. A Government who are genuinely committed to reducing regulatory burdens and to making planning processes more easily arrived at has let something slip in a way with which we are all too familiar.
“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), in subsection (1), after “work” insert “in relation to National Curriculum subjects only””
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 436A. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School.
Clause 46 is intended to have important consequences for the staffing of schools. As it stands, it certainly will, but I am not sure that they will be the ones that the Government expected and intended. My concern here is with the likely impact of the Bill on the teaching of vocational and technical subjects in schools and in sixth form colleges that are academies.
I believe the current Government recognise vocational and technical subjects, which of course include computer science and engineering, as central to its skills agenda, and I am absolutely sure that the Minister does. However, this Bill threatens to undermine them, because it will make it far more difficult and far rarer for schools and many sixth form colleges to provide high-quality teaching by subject specialists in these disciplines.
Clause 46 seeks to ensure that teaching in all schools is carried out by qualified staff, meaning staff with a teaching qualification. If you ask the general public whether they think it is a good idea for teachers to be qualified, they will, obviously enough, be inclined to say yes. However, if you ask them whether they would prefer subjects to be taught by subject specialists, they will also say yes. If you tell them that quite often this is not the case, especially in maths and science, they are rightly pretty horrified. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a PGCE is a great substitute for having a trained chef teach catering or an IT expert deliver computer science. In an ideal world this would not be an either/or, but that is not the world we live in.
It is quite often, fortunately, possible to find highly qualified professionals who are willing and interested in part-time teaching and happy to undertake some practical, classroom-related training. But these people are mostly not interested in becoming full-time, school-based teachers, or, therefore, in undertaking an extensive teacher-training programme to gain certification that simply does not make sense for them in terms of time, cost or their future careers. The more in demand their expertise is in the labour market, and therefore the higher its priority in any skills agenda, the more this is the case. For example, finding good people to teach computer science is a nightmare, with huge gaps in availability across the country. Do we really want to make it more so?
Back in 2011, I undertook a review of vocational education for the Government, and at that time, the school system was infested with a large number of low-level supposedly vocational qualifications that were very easy to pass and counted as GCSE equivalents. These have now gone, but the relevant point here is how they were taught. Not only was their content often minimal and bizarrely paper-based, but in schools they were being taught to an overwhelming extent by people with no expertise or experience whatever in the area supposedly covered. Schools just drafted in whichever teacher had some spare time in their timetable or was volunteered for the job by their head of department, so you really might find a games teacher in front of a tourism class or an English teacher delivering health and social care. In fact, you very often did. When I asked why they could not at least bring in a vocational expert, the schools would explain to me that they could not, because there had to be a qualified teacher in the classroom all the time, at double the cost. That was not 100% true even then, but schools were just not going to take the risk.
Many noble Lords have argued strongly in the recent past for the pre-16 school curriculum to become less academically focused, and government policy for 16 to 19 year-olds includes a strong focus on T-levels. I am very aware of the controversy surrounding the delisting of some existing qualifications, including some BTECs, but I do not think I have heard a single person in this House, or indeed anywhere, argue that there should not be any post-16 courses that are technical and vocational in focus. But what is the point in spending huge amounts developing qualifications with employer input and then making it hugely unlikely that, in large numbers of our schools, anyone with direct experience of the occupations involved will be able to teach the students?
FE colleges are, and for the foreseeable future will remain, the most important providers of vocational and technical courses. This clause does not apply to them, but they are not and should not be the only providers in this area, not least because FE colleges have been financially squeezed and penalised compared with schools for many years and are finding it very hard to pay competitive salaries. I am particularly concerned about sixth-form colleges which are also academies. These institutions are often really excellent, the main destination for all 16 to 19 year-olds in their area, and offer a wide range of vocational and technical options.
When this Bill was first published, I tabled a couple of Written Questions trying to clarify the exact position of 16 to 19 academies, including such sixth-form colleges. I cannot say I was terribly reassured by the answers, which seemed to have been drafted in order to avoid giving me any very clear reply. The Minister at the Department for Education informed me that QTS
“has never been a requirement for further education”,
which I already knew and had not actually asked about. She said that Clause 46
“will apply to primary and secondary state funded schools”,
but I am afraid that the explanation of what was a school carefully said that the schools included various types of institutions and did not refer to the 16 to 19 group at all. Critically, she also said that there would be some limited exemptions set out in regulations to provide
“flexibility to employ individuals with the specialist skills and experience to support the needs of their pupils”.
That last bit sounds very encouraging and very nice but, as far as I know, we have not been given any clear indication of what those exemptions are going to be.
My experience—this is why I wanted to give some history from the vocational education review—is that schools, very reasonably and very sensibly, play safe. They are pretty paranoid, they do not have the time and energy to engage with detailed and opaque regulations, and they are really not going to take the risk that their interpretation of regulations is different from the one that DfE civil servants or Ofsted inspectors will adopt.
At Second Reading, there was some indication that university technical colleges and studio schools might be treated differently, recognising their specialist nature, but there is only a limited number of these and they are each, by design, focused and specialised. So I am worried that the current provision in the Bill will drive technical and vocational expertise out of a large section of our education system and I cannot find any evidence to suggest that this price is worth paying for the supposed defect of unqualified teachers in these classrooms.
I fully recognise that the change in QTS requirements is something to which the Government are fully committed and my amendment is therefore a probing amendment. It focuses the new requirements on national curriculum subjects. That includes any national curriculum subject being taught post 16, not just in classrooms pre 16. National curriculum subjects will normally be taught by full-time staff who are making teaching their career. My amendment would free up the vocational and technical curriculum, and also music and sport, in a way that is very simple and easy for institutions to understand and act on.
I am confident that the Government recognise the need for some flexibilities, so that schools can hire individuals with specialist skills, and it must surely be preferable to organise these flexibilities in a way that does not have DfE spending months and months drawing up and tabling complex regulations. I hope that I might be able to discuss with the Minister whether and how such flexibility might be protected. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, because I find it quite difficult. I have some sympathy with the amendment that has just been moved, but my position is that teachers should have qualified teacher status. I have not got involved in the fringes of the debate because I think it is genuinely difficult to draw dividing lines. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I come down on the side of people having qualified teacher status. I strongly disapproved of the actions of the previous Government in taking away that requirement for either teachers in academies or for all teachers, I cannot recall.
I have always had sympathy with that range of subjects where, in my heart, I know that many people without QTS—instructor status or whatever—but with that practical experience could motivate children and deliver the curriculum, possibly to a higher standard and more effectively than other teachers. I know from experience as a teacher that very often what happens is that the teacher who is not a teacher of those subjects but who has qualified teacher status ends up teaching. I have sympathy with that and very much hope that, in the understanding that I think the Government have expressed, and in their promise to bring forward further information, some flexibility can be brought back around this arrangement of subjects. I am not talking about exceptions, because I do not want to go down that route; I am talking about an acknowledgement that we do not want to waste the talents of people who have got something to offer to our children. It would be a move that I would very much welcome.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I thank the Minister very sincerely for the clarification on 16 to 19 academies, which I had so dismally failed to obtain. It would be extremely helpful if she could write to noble Lords and generally cascade the information about current flexibilities and the position of the Government on their future, because there is a lot of both ignorance and uncertainty on that out there at the moment. Given the huge challenges of recruiting people in these areas—these are people who are not planning to make a career of teaching—that would be very helpful.
I have learned a great deal from this debate, which has been very helpful, especially because there was a great deal I did not know about initial teacher training as it now stands. It has been very helpful and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.