Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

3rd reading
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise profusely to the House for arriving after the Minister started speaking; business moved much more quickly than I expected.

From these Benches, I thank the Minister and the Bill team very much for all their work on the Bill. We remain concerned about how many adults will wish to take on debt in order to improve their learning, and we look forward to hearing updates from the Minister about how many people have done so. From these Benches, we feel that grants would be a much more effective way of persuading adults to learn. But, of course, we are all totally in favour of lifelong learning, and we wish the Bill well.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, as many of you will know, the number 1 recommendation of the Augar review of post-18 education and funding was for this sort of reform. As someone who was a member of that review and who has spent a considerable part of the last three and a half years on secondment to government to work on the Augar review proposals, among other things, I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved.

I have been jinxed: I have not managed to contribute to any of the fine and informative debates that have taken place on this. They have highlighted some of the challenges that lie ahead. I am enormously encouraged by the cross-party support for the principle of a funding system that genuinely takes us forward into not just the 21st century but a future where post-compulsory lifelong learning is the rule, not the exception. We now have an opportunity to build on this.

I thank everyone involved in the drafting and passing of the Bill—although we have not quite passed it yet. I particularly put on record my appreciation of the work put in by a large number of officials who have worked enormously hard on this—on teasing out the policy implications and on minimising the amount that had to be put into primary legislation. I thank them and the Minister for her support. It is a little miraculous that we have moved from a major recommendation in 2019 to putting this reform on its way to implementation in 2023. So, on behalf of the Augar review team—and, I think, all the future students of this country—I thank everyone involved in this reform.

Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Further Implementation etc.) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, this is a relatively uncontroversial SI that goes through the entire statute book, as the Minister set out, working out what consequential amendments need to be made as a result of the Higher Education Act 2017.

We have no issue with the changes that cross out references to HEFCE, individual research councils and definitions of a university in previous legislation, replacing them with references to the OfS, UKRI and the definitions set out in the 2017 Act, nor indeed with those that make the OfS an official government regulator, subject to the Regulators’ Code or those that allow a university’s charitable status to be regulated by the OfS rather than by the Charity Commission.

The Minister talked about data sharing and I have a question about that which has caused some concern. There has been confirmation from the HESA, that it distributes information on sexual orientation and religion, on a named basis, to the OfS and the Department for Education. This information has been provided by students as part of equality monitoring, but surely such a named database of religion or sexual orientation should not sit anywhere at state level. What plans are there to change this and for how many individuals does the department hold that information?

Parts on the pension scheme have also raised concerns. They ensure that university staff, mainly from post-1992 universities, remain eligible for the teachers’ pension scheme and the local government pension scheme. In September 2018, the Treasury recommended that employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme needed to increase from 16.48% to 23.6% of an individual’s salary to meet the expected future costs of paying pensions. The Government have recommended that the Treasury should pay an extra £830 million to schools to cover their additional pension contributions, and £80 million for colleges and other publicly funded training organisations.

Universities, however, will have to find the money themselves. That will affect universities created after 1992 that are not part of the main pension scheme for universities, which will have to find millions more from their squeezed budgets to pay staff. These are universities that rely more on tuition fees and have less of an ability to generate additional income.

The Liberal Democrat former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has said of this:

“For universities this is simply a spending cut, as the money for these contributions will have to be found from elsewhere. This does seem an arbitrary way of squeezing the independent schools sector and the university sector for what is essentially just an accounting change”.


Why are the Government footing the bill for schools and colleges, but not for universities? How will the Government ensure that these extra costs for universities will not have an adverse effect on students?

During the passage of the 2017 Act through Parliament, Peers across the House were united about the need for the Government better to recognise the importance of international students to our universities and wider economy, so do the Government acknowledge that anything that undermines the financial sustainability of our universities will inevitably lead to fewer overseas students coming to this country? Surely this pension decision will be a factor in challenging university finances.

The Augar review recommends that the Government adjust the teaching grant attached to each subject more accurately to reflect its perceived “value” to students and taxpayers. Given that a key aim of the Higher Education and Research Act is to improve student choice, do the Government consider that such a policy would undermine this principle? Following the Augar Statement yesterday, perhaps we may ask again: if fees are reduced to £7,500 how will this funding be replaced? How will the Government ensure that disadvantaged students at all universities can benefit from any replacement, instead of it being targeted at those in higher-tariff institutions?

I also want to ask the Minister about a couple of curiosities, which may prove that I have read these instruments. In Part 4, Regulation 43 amends paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011 to read:

“Any of the following if it is a relevant higher education provider”,


and names the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, Durham, Newcastle and Manchester. It then amends paragraph 3 and names King’s College, London and Queen Mary University of London. Is there any doubt that these are relevant higher education providers? What is the reason for separating King’s and Queen Mary? What about other universities? Are they not relevant higher education providers? This may be my ignorance about the way the legislation is written, but it seems curious.

Paragraph 11A of Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011 is amended to read:

“A relevant higher education provider … does not include (a) any college in the university of Oxford; (b) any college or hall in the university of Cambridge or Durham”.


Why is Oxford separated from Cambridge and Durham? There are, or used to be, halls in Oxford as well as at Cambridge and Durham. Will the Minister explain why Oxford has been separated in that paragraph? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, many noble Lords will remember that, as the Minister reminded us, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 established a regulator with unparalleled and unprecedented powers. One of those powers is effectively to set its own budget by deciding what to charge universities for its services and activities. During the debates in this House, noble Lords pressed very hard for the Government to ensure that the Office for Students was subject to the Regulators’ Code, so I am delighted to see that it is being placed on a statutory basis. How, though, is the Office for Students expected to demonstrate that it is behaving in accordance with the Regulators’ Code? What sort of information does it provide to the Government on that basis and what sort of information does it provide to the public on that basis?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may associate these Benches with the eloquent words we have already heard. It is inevitable that there will be a measure of disappointment that not all of your Lordships’ wisdom has been accepted unequivocally by the other House, but I think we can all agree that we have made immense strides in this Bill, and we are deeply appreciative of the way in which Ministers have listened and come forward with proposals. Perhaps I may pick up one thing about which we are particularly pleased, which is that there will be a delay in implementing this while a review is carried out. Some really key measures set out in the Bill need more reflection to see whether they are actually the right path to tread, so we appreciate the fact that the delay has been built in. Again, we appreciate the measures that the Government have taken to come towards us on these issues.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, first, I should declare an interest as a full-time Academic Council member of King’s College, London. I had not expected to speak in this part of the debate and I am afraid that I will be speaking again later. But, since I am on my feet, I would like to say that I agree with all noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation of how the Government have listened to opinions and to the House generally. I, too, feel that we have come a long way. In this context, I will bring back a couple of points that were made in the earlier debates by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and by me in the context of amendments that we had tabled. Since the noble Duke is unable to be here today, I will make them briefly on behalf of us both.

Along with almost all noble Lords here, we strongly welcome the delay in implementing the link with fees—here I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kerslake. I am delighted to hear that we are moving quickly towards a position where we will have subject-level rather than institution-level assessments. However, one reason we became so concerned about the TEF is that putting a label on an institution is potentially very damaging to it.

One thing that has been rather an eye-opener for me is the extent to which—perhaps inevitably and as someone who teaches public management I should not be surprised—the “sector” is, in the view of the Government, the organised universities and Universities UK, and how few good mechanisms there are for the Bill team and the department to get the voices of students, as opposed to occasionally that of the National Union of Students. Students have been desperately concerned about this, because they are in a world where they pay fees and where the reputation of their institutions is so important. They have been worried about and deeply opposed to anything that puts a single label on them. This single national ranking caused many of us concern.

I will say a couple of things that I hope the incoming Secretary of State will bear in mind. First, as others have alluded to, we have a pilot going on and a system of grades that is out there. I fully understand that that is under way and there are enormous lessons to be learned from it. However, I hope very much that, after the election, whoever the Government may be will think hard about how they use that information, how they publish it, and whether they are in any sense obliged to come forward with the type of single-rank national league table that has caused so much anxiety to students. That is of great concern and it is hard to see how it serves the purpose, also expressed in the current Conservative manifesto, of preserving the reputation of our great university sector.

The other thing, on which I do not have any particular inspiration but about which I would love the incoming Government to think, is how to widen out their contacts with not just the organised sector and Universities UK but the academics and students who are really what the sector is about. We have great universities not because we have activist managerial vice-chancellors but because they are autonomous in large measure internally as well as vis-à-vis the state. That has been of real concern to me. Since we are going to have an Office for Students, it would be very good if, post the election, we could make it genuinely an office for students.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. We have no pattern of a single awarding body which has been a success in any shape or form. With GCSEs, O-levels and all previous exams there was always a choice of learning styles, and each of the vocational awarding bodies brought something different in the material they used or type of learning style that lead to the final qualification. It was always up to the trainers, the teachers, to decide which awarding body they felt best met the needs of their students. Provided the standard is set, so you can guarantee that the same standard will be reached, there is immense benefit in having variety among awarding bodies and competition.

It is slightly ironic that whereas in higher education the Government seem to view more competition as the virtue above all others, in the Bill they are moving to a single source of awarding bodies. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need to be very cautious before destroying some worthwhile and reputable organisations and qualifications, not just in this country but internationally.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I must rise to defend the position of the Sainsbury review, as I was a member of it and signed up to it, after a great deal of debate. No one in the group moved easily to the position where we recommended a single qualification for the college-based route—not, I should add, for all apprenticeships. Nothing in the Sainsbury review says that employers do not have a choice at that level. We did so for historical reasons and for comparative reasons. Historically, the model described by the noble Baroness served us quite well, but it is pretty much unique. Other countries have a single set of national qualifications. They do not have competing awarding bodies.

Historically, the Government set out consciously to destroy any near-monopoly in the vocational area. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, although there was no formal monopoly for City & Guilds, for example, none the less, construction awards were City & Guilds. If you wanted to train as a nursery nurse, you did NNEB. These were extremely well-known and well-respected qualifications. Since then, we have had repeated attempts to break that situation open and instil standardisation via standards. The result has unfortunately been in many cases a clear race to the bottom and, worse, the disappearance of any qualification which is clearly recognised and therefore has a brand and market value. This was, in a way, a slightly sadder but wiser recommendation.

When I wrote the vocational education review for 14 to 18 year-olds, I did not recommend a single awarding body. I hoped at that point that a regime within the Department for Education, which had clear standards for a qualification passing muster, would lead to a serious improvement in the quality of the vocational awards and the assessment, and the emergence of recognised market leaders. It really depresses me that that did not happen. We have a real problem at the moment: the old recognition has gone and the modified regime, which was brought in in the middle, does not seem to have done the trick. We have a gigantic number of qualifications on the books, many of them taken by tiny numbers of people, with no clear recognition at all. This area is by necessity very different from GCSE, where the Government really do not give awarding bodies much freedom any more. The degree of freedom which you have in the key areas of English or maths is pretty notional. The decision not to go ahead with the single awarding body was not because of a belief that we should not have one but because of Ofqual’s well-justified conclusion that it would not merely disorient the whole system but so destabilise it that we might have a national disaster.

There is a real issue in how the institute does its licensing, but it is not true that a body which holds a licence does so forever. Clearly, nothing will prevent the institute varying its regime in future years. However, I feel we are now in a situation where if we do not make a clear attempt to create a recognised, national qualification for each of these routes, people will not take them. They will feel that everybody knows what an A-level or a BTEC is, but we still have 15 of these things and do not know what any of them mean. So for once, unusually, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. The Sainsbury review was right to feel that a single licence for these classroom-based routes is what we have to do now, in 2017.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 368, which is about the number of staff on non-permanent contracts and zero-hours contracts, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out. As we have discussed before, these sorts of metrics might be more valuable to the TEF than many of the metrics already in it, because the non-permanent staff and zero-hours staff will have a greater impact on teaching quality than many of the other things which the TEF purports to measure. On Amendments 376 and 377, it is important at all stages of the Bill to ensure that adult, mature and part-time students are included as part of the student population.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which is a very small amendment in that it asks that one word be substituted for another. But if I read out the original clause, it may be evident why this is really quite important. I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about keeping an eye on the fees that people charge.

The original Clause 61(2) reads:

“The amount of a fee payable by a registered higher education provider under this section may be calculated by reference to costs incurred, or to be incurred”—


so you do not even have to incur it yet—

“by the body in the performance by the body of any of its functions under this Act which are unconnected with the provider”.

My amendment would replace “unconnected” with “connected”. This is quite typical of a number of statements in the Bill to which amendments have been tabled already; it implies a degree of freedom for the regulator or designated body to impose fees of any sort or level, without any requirement that the necessity or even the link to the provider being charged be demonstrated.

It would be entirely possible for the Government, without losing sight of any of their major objectives, to go through the Bill and change these extraordinarily open-ended invitations to levy a charge for something that we know not what. It starts to sound something like the South Sea bubble. With a regulator or an official body, it is very important that the nature of fees, like the nature of information, be very clear, and that there is not an ambiguity in the legislation about the ability of organisations that rest on statute to be able to levy charges that are not in any sense proportionate to the activities or what is required of the individual provider. I would be very grateful if the Minister could come back to us on that.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Baroness Wolf of Dulwich and Baroness Garden of Frognal

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The Office for Students was always a rather strange title for this all-encompassing and all-powerful body. It was particularly ironic because it took quite some effort to get students in any way involved with it or represented on it. The Office for Higher Education seems an eminently sensible title for it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, that covers all the aspects that this strange body is going to be responsible for. The Minister should think very seriously about changing the title.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I agree that the Office for Students is a very strange name for this body. I take this opportunity to remind anybody in the House who does not already know how very opposed to much of what it is going to do most of our students are, and publicly so. Although the automatic response one gets when this is pointed out is, “Oh, they just don’t want their fees put up”, that is not the sole thing they are complaining about—not at all. I also take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the University of Warwick student union, with which I have no connection whatever, which wrote an extremely well-thought-out critique of the Bill back in June, which was the first thing to alert me to many of the things that I have become very concerned about since. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that this is not an appropriate title and it would be very good if we could come up with another—but I do not think I will be collecting his champagne.