Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Young of Cookham

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

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I shall very briefly comment, as I have had my arguments referred to by the noble Lord opposite. The graduate repayment scheme is neither conventional public spending, nor is it a commercial loan. All three parties, when faced with the question of how you finance higher education, have concluded that the best way forward is through such an arrangement. If it is public spending, it will be a low priority, and the funding of universities will suffer. If it is a commercial loan, which now appears to be what the Labour Opposition are calling for, and if we really were to have it regulated under the terms of the convention on private loans, one of the first requirements would be the requirement to know your customer—to make an assessment of an individual recipient to see whether they have the capacity to repay a student loan. The agencies would have to decide whether to lend to any one individual or not, and disadvantaged students would certainly lose out from such an assessment. That is why this scheme is a midway house between two unpalatable alternatives, and why all three parties have backed it.

As part of that arrangement, it seems legitimate that Governments should be able to decide—I have always thought every five years, in an explicit public review—the balance between repayments by graduates and the remaining burden being borne by the generality of taxpayers, as the loans are paid off. That seems a sensible arrangement, bringing necessary flexibility into the system, and it is why it has always been made clear to students that Governments have the right to change the repayment terms as they wish. That seems a sensible feature—and if we go down the route of treating it like a private contract and repayment, it will have consequences which all of us in this House, particularly the party opposite, will come to regret.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that students should be entitled to protection when they take out student loans. Protections are already available in law and take account of the particular nature of these loans. Student loans are not like the commercial loans of the sort regulated under the Consumer Credit Act; they are not for profit and are universally accessible. Repayments depend on the borrower’s income, not on the amount borrowed, and the interest rate is limited by legislation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willetts for summarising the excellent speech that he made on this subject in Committee, and putting forward powerful reasons for not treating these as commercial loans.

I turn first to the issue of the threshold freeze. To put higher education funding on to a more sustainable footing, we had to ask those who benefit from university to meet more of the costs of their studies. This enabled us to remove the cap on student numbers, enabling more people to get the benefit of a university education. When the current system was first introduced, the threshold of £21,000 would have been around 75% of the projected average earnings in 2016. Since then, updated calculations, based on ONS figures for earnings, show that figure is now 83%, reflecting weaker than expected earnings growth since 2012. Uprating the repayment threshold in line with average earnings would cost around £5 billion in total by April 2021 compared with the current system. The total cost of uprating by CPI would be around £4 billion over the same period. The proportion of borrowers liable to repay when the £21,000 threshold took effect in April is therefore significantly lower than could have been envisaged when the policy was originally introduced. The threshold would now be set at around £19,000 if it were to reflect the same ratio of average earnings. The current £21,000 threshold remains higher than the £17,495 threshold that applies to loans taken out under the system left behind by Labour in 2010. Low earners remain protected. Borrowers who earn less than £21,000 a year repay nothing, while borrowers earning more than this repay 9% of their earnings above the threshold, irrespective of how much they borrowed. Any outstanding balance on the loans is written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower and no effect on their credit rating. This Bill makes no changes to any of these arrangements.

It is important that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Government retain the power to adjust the terms and conditions of student loans. As I said a moment ago, I fully share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that students are protected and that is why the loan terms are set out in legislation.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

If the situation had been reversed, and earnings had risen by more than had been anticipated, would the Government’s ability to vary the loans have been carried out in a manner which benefited students, rather than as has happened on this occasion?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Perversely, the noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the Government making any changes to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower. In other words, one of the effects of the amendment would be that we would not be able to alter the terms to the advantage of the borrower if the situation changed.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

As I said earlier, that is what the amendment is designed to do. The point is, when you reach an agreement you stick by it; you do not vary it either way. I am certainly not advocating that it should be varied the other way. My question was whether the noble Lord and his Government would be prepared to vary it the other way, had earnings risen by more than had been anticipated.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My response was that we would not be allowed to under the terms of the amendment. We have flexibility, which the noble Lord would deny us. The amendment would mean that future cohorts of students and taxpayers would have to bear the risks of the scheme, because it would insulate current students from any change. Perhaps that is why the Labour Party did not legislate to prohibit changes to the terms and conditions of existing loans when they introduced the system of income-contingent loans in the late 1990s. As I said, his amendment would prevent the Government making any change to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower, were this ever to be necessary.

It is also important that the Government should continue to be able to make necessary administrative amendments to the terms and conditions to ensure that the loans can continue to be collected efficiently. An example of this was the repayment regulations having to be amended in 2012 to accommodate HMRC moving to an electronic system to collect PAYE income tax through employers. Not being able to make this type of technical change to the regulations would eventually affect our ability to collect repayments through the tax system.

Having reflected on the question that the noble Lord asked me twice, the best answer is that I am reluctant to comment on a hypothetical question.

I turn to the regulation of student loans. The current student loan system is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and is universally accessible to all eligible students regardless of their financial circumstances. As my noble friend has just reminded us, taking out a student loan is in no way the same as taking out a commercial loan, and it should not be regulated as if it was. This fact was recognised by Labour when it legislated to confirm this exemption in 2008.

The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. Extending a system of regulation designed to regulate a competitive market in personal finance to a system of subsidised loans whose terms are set by Parliament would be impractical, expensive and fundamentally ill conceived. The additional costs of the regulation would need to borne by borrowers and taxpayers and would not be in their interests.

I return to the point that this is a heavily subsidised government loan scheme, and it remains right that Parliament should continue to have the final say on the loan terms and conditions, as it is best placed to balance the interests of taxpayers, borrowers and students. We are committed to a sustainable and fair student funding system. Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills of our citizens. We are seeing more young people going to university than ever before, and record numbers of 18 year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and, with it, the cap on aspiration.

I hope that this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, and I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 145.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some of his comments about the Government’s commitment to student loans would have carried more weight had they extended as far as sharia-compliant loans; we know from the previous debate that that is not the case. Although I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, he did not address the major point of this amendment: challenging the fact that the Government have changed the rules of the game after the game has begun, leaving a huge number of students worse off financially as a result of their actions. That is not acceptable. I have heard nothing from the Minister that suggests that the Government regret the move that they have made. In fact, they have said quite clearly that it was done for financial reasons. Those financial reasons are impacting on students. We believe that is unacceptable, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I spoke in support of the same amendment in Committee. This is a problem of some seriousness and I think it is understated. We heard in the previous debate that the QAA was not taking it particularly seriously and had no legal or regulatory powers to take action against an individual student who was found to have cheated in whatever way. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us at that time that it was rather offhand about the fact that only 17,000 students had been caught cheating. The fact that that was the tip of the iceberg seemed not to be a major issue.

It is a major issue if there is such an amount of this going on that Professor Newton—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has referred in the past—has carried out a survey by interviewing students and those providing such services, which came up with a whole list of how long it took for an essay, a dissertation or whatever. If it is even worthy of academic study, it has to be a problem of some substance. The noble Lord quoted Professor Newton and said that he had been advised that if the word “intent” had been taken out of the amendment it would have strengthened it. I am not quite clear about how it would have strengthened it. I think the noble Lord said it would have given it more power, but that has not been done. Will the noble Lord explain why the amendment has been submitted in the same form?

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place. She was the Minister who responded to this debate in January. As we were together in the Scottish Parliament many years ago, I hoped that she might respond to this debate, but I see that—forgive me—silence is Goldie and the noble Lord, Lord Young, will respond. Will he pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made in her response in January that the Government were on the point of announcing a new initiative on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said it would be with us,

“Within the next few weeks”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 765.]


Seven weeks have ticked by since we last discussed this, so we must be very close to it now. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has a date for the publication of this new initiative, which I think was to involve the QAA, the NUS, HEFCE and UUK—a whole lot of acronyms. It would helpful and would perhaps deal with this issue, at least in the interim, as I accept that we are short of a position where legislation is required.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his extensive work on this issue. I am grateful for his contribution to the round-table discussions with the QAA and his continued engagement on this matter. He touched on the problem of foreign students. The evidence presented in the QAA’s report on plagiarism indicates that cheating may be more prevalent among international students. However, we recognise that plagiarism is a wider issue, so our approach is to look at the sector as a whole. We will be working with the QAA and other sector bodies to develop a co-ordinated response across all students and providers.

As my noble friend Lady Goldie said in Committee, plagiarism in any form, including the use of custom essay-writing services, or essay mills, is not acceptable and the Government take this issue very seriously. Having said that, I am afraid that I am going to plagiarise much of the speech which my noble friend made in Committee when she dealt with this amendment. My noble friend announced that the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, would be launching a co-ordinated sector-led initiative to tackle this issue, working with the QAA, UUK, NUS and HEFCE. In response to the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, this initiative has now been launched.

The Minister has asked sector bodies to develop guidance with tough new penalties as well as information for students to help combat the use of these websites as well as other forms of plagiarism. This new guidance for providers should ensure that a robust approach with tough penalties can be embedded across the sector. In developing the guidance, the Minister has asked sector bodies to bear in mind that, for any enforcement to be effective, the penalties imposed must relate to both the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of an offence being discovered. The new sector guidance and student information is expected to be in place for the beginning of the 2017-18 academic year.

As part of this initiative, the QAA has also been tasked with taking action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with the problem. The QAA has already started to progress these actions, including making a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, asking it to investigate the essay mills sector on a project basis.

We believe this sector-led, non-legislative initiative is the best approach to tackling this issue in the first instance. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of this approach and we remain open to legislation in the future should the steps we are taking prove insufficient. If legislation does become necessary, it would be crucial that we get the wording of the offence right. In the amendment tabled, it is unclear who would be responsible for prosecuting and how they would demonstrate intent to give an unfair advantage. As currently written, there is also a risk that the offence could capture legitimate services, such as study guides, under the same umbrella as cheating services.

The effectiveness of a legislative offence operating as a deterrent will depend on our ability to execute successful prosecutions and we would need to take care to get it right. This was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Committee, who said that,

“this should not be rushed and we should get it spot on”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 766.]

We do not believe that legislative action is the best response at this time, and I have outlined the steps that are being taken. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Young of Cookham

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson is really a probing amendment, designed to ask the Minister why we have Schedule 5 and why we need it. We have more than five pages on powers of entry and search, from the power to issue search warrants to those of inspecting, copying, seizing and retaining items. It all sounds terribly dramatic, and the reasons for it are not at all clear. Such a power was not in the 1992 Act and has never, as far as we or those connected with the higher education sector are aware, been necessary before. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there are problems that we are not aware of which are so serious that they demand a schedule all to themselves.

When it comes to Schedule 5, the Explanatory Notes refer us to the commentary on Clause 56. That does not enlighten us all that much, although it goes into slightly more detail:

“The warrant may permit or require a constable to accompany an authorised person and that constable may use reasonable force if necessary”.


That all sounds as though something serious is envisaged by the Government. Three-quarters of the Technical and Further Education Bill currently before your Lordships’ House is taken up with insolvency procedures—something that the Government do not envisage happening other than in extremely rare circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will say the same about Schedule 5. We certainly hope so, because we do not want these powers to be used at all, but certainly only sparingly. If entry and search is deemed to be required, it should happen only after a serious breach of a registration condition is suspected. That is why we set out fraud or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds as conditions that must be met. Short of that, the vague conditions of the schedule do not meet the test. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and in what situations he envisages where it might be necessary? I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that he posed his questions as to why we need these powers, and I agree that we hope that they will be used rarely. We are revisiting a debate that we had in Committee, and I am grateful to those who participated in that debate, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.

In the light of the debate that we had in Committee, we have carefully reflected on the schedule, but remain of the view that it should stand as drafted. This will ensure that the Office for Students and the Secretary of State are able to investigate effectively if there are grounds to suspect serious breaches of funding or registration conditions at a higher education provider.

The proposed amendments would narrow these powers so they could be used only where there are suspicions of fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds. We believe that most, but not all, cases where these powers would be used would fall into that category. However, narrowing the powers in the way proposed could affect our ability to investigate effectively certain cases where value for public money, quality, and the student interest was at risk, but where these might not clearly constitute fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds at the time of the application for the warrant.

Higher education providers will be subject to OfS registration conditions. As an example, the OfS could put in place a condition to limit the number of students a provider with high drop-out and low qualification rates was able to recruit: for instance if the OfS considered that those performance issues are related to the provider recruiting more students than it can properly cater for.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. He is talking about low-qualification and high drop-out rates. Could it be that we have never needed this power until now because of the present university architecture, but given the expectation that there will be new arrivals on the scene, the Government are implicitly saying that they foresee dangers in future that have not been considered a threat hitherto?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will come in a moment to why at present there is not provision for these types of institutions, where there is for every other, and I hope that that may answer the noble Lord’s question.

I was explaining that a breach of such a condition may not clearly constitute wilful mismanagement of public money if the provider was using the tuition fees in line with their purpose—the provision of a designated higher education course to an eligible student. However, there is a significant risk that value for public money, quality of provision and the students’ experience will be seriously negatively affected. If the OfS has grounds to suspect that the provider is in any case undertaking an aggressive student enrolment campaign, it is important that evidence can be found swiftly to confirm this, and to prevent over-recruitment.

If the amendment were made, a warrant to enter and search may not be granted in cases such as that. The amendments would also amend the powers so that the search warrant must state that all the requirements for grant of the warrant specified in Schedule 5 have been met. My noble friend Lord Younger wrote to Peers at Committee stage to clarify that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provisions for the magistrate to certify that conditions for grant of the warrant have been met, and we are not aware of any examples of this.

Schedule 5 sets out the conditions that must be met for a warrant to be granted, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a strong and sufficient safeguard to ensure a warrant would be granted only where necessary. This is a standard approach used in existing legislative provisions relating to search warrants and powers of entry. Examples from recent legislation include the powers to enter and search within Section 39 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the powers to enter within Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

To be clear, a requirement to state that conditions have been met would not provide an extra legal safeguard. The requirement for these conditions to be met already exists in the schedule as drafted. There are strong safeguards in place to ensure these powers are used appropriately—and, I hope, rarely. A magistrate would need to be satisfied that four tests were met before granting a warrant: that reasonable grounds existed for suspecting a breach of a condition of funding or registration; that the suspected breach was sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises; that entry to the premises was necessary to determine whether the breach was taking place; and that permission to enter would be refused or else requesting entry would frustrate the purpose of entry.

These criteria will ensure that the exercise of the power is appropriately limited. Further limitations are built into Schedule 5, including that entry must be at a reasonable hour and the premises may be searched only to the extent that is reasonably required to determine whether there is or has been a breach. Powers of entry, such as these, already exist for a wide variety of other types of education. Ofsted has inspection powers in respect of schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work-based learning and skills training, adult and community learning and education and training in prisons.

Local authorities have powers to enter the premises of maintained schools. Regulators of qualification awarding bodies also have powers of entry. So, to answer the noble Lord’s question, currently HE providers are an exception as neither the Department for Education nor the Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory right to enter an HE provider if serious wrongdoing is suspected. To that extent, we are bringing these institutions into line with other institutions in education, and indeed other fields. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, against the background of the reasons I have given for the schedule remaining as it is at the moment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but I have to say that I am even less reassured than I was before moving the amendment. The Minister mentioned, as I did earlier, low qualification levels and high drop-out levels, and he then went on to talk about aggressive student enrolment campaigns. That conjures up images of press gangs going round the bars in ports and people being carried off, never to be seen again—or, in this case, to be seen again in a new higher education institution near you. It is a rather bizarre concept that I cannot quite picture in my mind.

The question is basically, “Why now and why not in the past?”. As far as anyone is aware, and the Minister has not suggested it, there has been no lacuna. The Minister said he is bringing this sector into line with parts of other education sectors. I do not know the detail on that, but my basic question is: where did the demand come from? Five pages in a schedule does not exactly suggest a tidying-up exercise, if we are allowed to use that phrase. It seems rather odd. However, I shall leave it at that. It does seem rather odd but in the circumstances, none the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, might I respond to the points that my noble and learned friend has raised? In so doing, perhaps I will respond very briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in concluding the previous debate about why these powers were necessary and where the demands came from.

As I said, at present, neither HEFCE nor the Secretary of State has the statutory right to enter a HE provider to investigate if serious wrongdoing is suspected. This compromises investigators’ ability to obtain evidence of what may have happened and makes it harder to tackle rogue providers.

In its 2014 report on alternative providers, the National Audit Office said that the department has no rights of access to providers and that this affects the extent to which it can investigate currently. Therefore, we believe that these powers are needed to safeguard the interests of students and the taxpayer and to protect the reputation of the sector.

I apologise to my noble and learned friend, but I tried to address Amendment 125 when I—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate that he is taking the opportunity to clarify that last point, but to some extent he has stirred the pot again. He is talking now about rogue providers. My point was that, up until now, we have not been aware of rogue providers. There is clearly a fear that in the not too distant future there will be rogue providers, and that surely is a bigger issue than the question of having five pages in Schedule 5 to deal with them.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, the provisions are not required for the reasons that the noble Lord has suggested but because we believe they are necessary for the current institutions and in the light of the NAO report, which was written before these new providers came on to the scene. The department has no right of access to the providers. This affects the extent to which it can investigate currently rather than in future.

I turn to my noble and learned friend. I am not sure that I can usefully add to what I said earlier. I would not of course challenge for a moment what he said about practice in the judiciary. My understanding is that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provision for the magistrate to sign a certification document, and we are still unaware of any examples of this. The relevant clause in the Bill, as I think I said a moment ago, sets out the considerations that magistrates would have to take into account when making their judicial decision to grant a warrant, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a sufficient safeguard to ensure that a warrant will be granted only where necessary. For that reason, we are not persuaded that his amendment, in saying that it would have to be signed, constitutes an extra safeguard to ensure that a warrant would be granted only where necessary. I hope that, against that background, my noble and learned friend will feel that he does not have to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendments 131 and 132 mirror those that we brought forward in Committee. They concern the entitlement of higher education staff to be consulted prior to the OfS making a recommendation of a body suitable to perform the data functions. In such situations, this schedule provides for a number of registered providers of higher education, covering a broad range of different types of providers, a broad range of students on higher education courses and a broad range of employers of graduates, which is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

That is it, apart from the catch-all,

“such other persons as the OfS considers appropriate”.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government did not think it appropriate to restrict the ability of the OfS to consult such other persons as it considered appropriate. These amendments do not do that. If we had extended them to delete the reference in the schedule to “such other persons”, that would have closed things down. However, we are not doing that; we are leaving it there and suggesting that we should add another provision to ensure that staff working in higher education are part of the process. That does not mean only academic staff but includes all categories of people who contribute to making the experience of students fulfilling in every way possible. These people know higher education and the way in which institutions work, and so caretakers, catering staff, IT support, technicians and other categories should be asked to bring the benefit of their experience to bear in the decision either to designate a body or to remove that designation.

The Government do not give adequate consideration to the role that staff working in higher education can play. They have a contribution to make and they should be enabled to make it. This is not a radical suggestion—it certainly ought not to be—and adding one more category to those who must be consulted would certainly not be onerous for the Office for Students. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I repeat what I said in an earlier debate: we appreciate the role of all HE staff and there should be no imputation to the contrary.

This is another issue which we discussed in Committee. The amendments would require the OfS to consult HE staff on designation of the data body and would require the Secretary of State to consult HE staff before removing such a designation. We are committed to a system of co-regulation for the designated bodies, and this means that both the OfS and the sector should have confidence in the designated data body. Therefore the Bill already contains a requirement for the OfS to consult a broad range of registered HE providers on designation of the data body, and the Secretary of State must also consult before removing such a designation.

Providers are, of course, made up of HE staff, and in consulting HE providers we would expect their responses to be inclusive of the views of their staff, not only the academic community at that institution but the administrative and support teams, who in many cases directly gather and then submit the data required. So we expect that the views of staff on data and designation will be represented in their institution’s response.

However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent direct consultation with staff groups. The OfS and the Secretary of State will have the discretion to consult any person, including a staff representative body. We would expect it to adopt an open approach, and we bear in mind the remarks that have just been made by the noble Lord.

The legislation must be broad and flexible to stand the test of time and therefore, despite the urging of the noble Lord, we should resist specifying this sub-group, or any other group with an interest, in the list of consultees when the current drafting of the Bill is sufficient to ensure that the views of HE staff will be represented both in the designation process and in the removal of designation. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I find that partially encouraging. The Minister’s initial remarks will be noted by those who represent staff—trade unions and other organisations—and in future will be shown to the management of higher education institutions when the time comes for them to be consulted on designation or “dedesignation”, if there is such a word, in this context. I am sure the Minister did not mean to be disparaging, but for the staff to be described just as a “sub-group” undervalues the role they play in the running of an institution. That is why we believe there is a case to add one more provision, while still leaving it open for anybody else to be included.

However, the Minister’s remarks have been helpful. It would be even more helpful if at some stage they could be issued as some form of guidance to higher education institutions, but it is up to staff representatives, trade unions or whoever to use those remarks and ensure they are turned into meaningful representation within higher education institutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I come to the campus of this Bill as a fresher, in the footsteps of my noble friend who, by contrast, is competing a postgraduate course. But I have had some taster sessions, listening to the Bill from the Front Bench, and I have read the exchanges in Hansard and in Committee.

It has always been our intention that the Bill will lead to greater diversity, choice and flexibility for students. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, proposed an amendment in Committee requiring the OfS to waive the fee limit condition in respect of accelerated courses. I have read his speech, which was highly persuasive. The Government, therefore, are introducing these amendments to support the growth of accelerated courses by enabling Parliament to remove a key barrier to them.

Amendments 46 and 202 create a clear definition of an “accelerated course” and allow Parliament to introduce a higher cap for these courses. Separately, the remaining amendments clarify that, when setting fee limits for any type of course under Schedule 2, whether accelerated or not, the Secretary of State may establish different higher, basic and sub-levels for different types of teaching provision—for example, sandwich and part-time courses. That reflects the approach taken under current legislation whereby, for example, the higher amount set for part-time courses is fixed at a lower level than for full-time courses.

Accelerated courses offer students the opportunity to study their course over a condensed period—for example, completing a three-year degree course over two years. We know that accelerated courses appeal to students who may not otherwise choose to pursue a degree. That includes mature students who want to retrain and enter the workplace faster than a traditional full-time three-year degree would permit, and those from non-traditional backgrounds.

An accelerated course must meet the same quality expectations and achieve the same outcomes as a comparable, traditional course. However, accelerated courses typically involve tuition through the summer period, requiring the same resources as a traditional course over a shorter period. Evidence from independent research and our call for evidence tells us that a number of English providers are interested in providing more accelerated courses. However, many providers are unable to grow or introduce accelerated courses because of the existing annual tuition fee cap; they simply cannot afford to offer accelerated courses. Therefore, these amendments will enable Parliament to set a higher annual fee cap for accelerated courses—and accelerated courses only—compared to the annual fee cap for standard degree courses. They also serve to provide flexibility with regard to other types of provision.

Let me be very clear: our clear intention is that accelerated degrees that are subject to fee limits under the Bill will cost students less than an equivalent degree, not least because students will claim less overall in maintenance loans. Students undertaking an accelerated course borrow less money over a shorter period and forgo less earnings, as they are able to enter the workplace sooner.

We are creating a new definition for accelerated courses, and we intend to consult with the HE sector on where to set the fee cap and how to grow further accelerated course provision. Any higher fee cap for accelerated courses will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative resolution procedure. We will seek to stimulate the market for accelerated courses by agreeing a fee cap that provides adequate funding for providers while ensuring the student and the taxpayer get a good deal. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the fact that, as in respect of other parts of the Bill, the Government have listened to what has been said during the progress through both Houses. My noble friend Lord Stevenson moved an amendment in Committee that sought to allow funding flexibility and aimed to incentivise the provision of accelerated degrees. He made it clear at that time that it was a probing amendment and, in withdrawing it, invited the noble Viscount the Minister to come forward with one of his own to achieve something similar. So it is natural that we welcome this group of amendments, which should insist on ending the present rigid structure of the type of undergraduate courses on offer.

It is fair to say that we have had some concerns about the kind of new so-called challenger institutions that will appear as a result of the Bill. Our main concern is what might drive them—that is, the profit motive, rather than the education motive. It will not be the case with all but it could be the case with some. However, it is only fair to confess that I was particularly concerned until I met people from the Greenwich School of Management and spoke at length with them about what they offer. I now see that body as engaged in widening participation; it attracts students from backgrounds that have not traditionally engaged in numbers with higher education, which, whatever the situation, has to be welcomed. The university itself cannot validate its own degrees—that is done by Plymouth University—but that is an issue for a separate day.

I have to say that the Greenwich School of Management surprised me. My only knowledge of it prior to my meeting was that the hedge fund or venture capital company with which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was involved had established it. That might explain to noble Lords opposite why I was somewhat doubtful as to the motives—but none the less I have to say that it is an example of a new university serving its community.

We accept that there is a need for courses that offer students the opportunity to complete full degree programmes in two years of intensive study, enabling them to enter or return to work as quickly as possible. That is key, particularly for those students from less well-off families, who simply cannot afford the time to be out of full-time work for longer than two years. That is a message that the Government appear to have accepted. We hope that the financial penalties that have prevented students from enrolling in two-year courses up to now will be brought to an end, paving the way for their increased and increasingly diverse participation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Royall proposes to make it mandatory for all higher education institutions to offer students who are enrolling or re-registering the opportunity to be put on the electoral roll. The question surely is: why not? As we have heard, some universities already encourage their students to do that and it would be logical for all of them to do so. The reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—was, I think, that such a measure would be a bureaucratic burden on institutions, whether that was cost-based or not. How any activity that increases the number of people who participate in our democracy can be dismissed as a burden I fail to see, and I do not think that is in any sense the appropriate way to look at it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also listed a number of universities in addition to the University of Sheffield, whose pilot the Government part funded, and a number of other institutions which are already implementing the system voluntarily. That is all well and good but there seemed to be a complete lack of urgency on her part on behalf of the Government, given that she said that the Government had committed to write to other HE and FE providers later this year, as if that were something they might or might not get round to. It is absolutely inappropriate for there to be any delay. Democracy does not take sabbaticals. We will have elections very soon and they have a habit of keeping on happening—by-elections or whatever. It is inappropriate that people who have the right to vote for whatever reason—I do not in any way discount personal responsibility—should be prevented from doing so.

Another figure from our earlier debate that stuck in my mind was that given in response to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, I think. The noble Baroness said that 60% of students register at home rather than where they attend university. That is fine but it leaves 40% who do not. As we have heard, that amounts to almost a quarter of a million students at any one time who will not be able to vote. That is far too many. Action needs to be taken urgently. That is why my noble friend’s amendment is necessary, and is necessary now.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and have set out the reasons why we should increase the franchisement of students. The Government entirely share that aim of increasing the number of students and young people registered to vote. As part of our drive to create a democracy that works for everyone we are taking a number of steps which I will touch on in a moment, such as funding the National Union of Students to the tune of £380,000 in 2015 to increase student electoral registration.

We listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords when the amendment was debated during Committee. While we agree with the objective of this amendment and understand the intention behind it, we firmly believe that this Bill is the wrong vehicle to achieve greater student electoral registration, and that the scheme as proposed in the amendment has serious drawbacks. The Government have an alternative plan to address student registration which we believe will be more appropriate and effective; again, I will come on to that in a moment, the Government having considered it in the light of the debate in Committee a few weeks ago.

Both Universities UK and the Association of Electoral Administrators have told us that a one-size-fits-all approach to electoral registration, which this amendment would be, is not necessarily the best solution. The AEA does not want further unnecessary prescription introduced into the electoral registration process. Some universities have also signalled that they do not support the system that this amendment seeks to mandate. Seeking to achieve this objective in this way is unnecessary and risks complicating the Government’s relationship with electoral registration officers, as it contradicts our stated objective to give them greater autonomy in how they choose to conduct their statutory duty of maintaining the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers. Choice is the key point here. It is for HE providers and the electoral service teams, who are the acknowledged experts in registration, rather than Parliament—whether through the Bill or other means—or the OfS to determine what the right approach is for their local area.

Furthermore, this system simply will not work for electoral registration officers in London and other large cities since many students have a term-time address in a different registration area from their university or HE provider. For that reason alone, the amendment simply will not work. This is a significant issue given the numbers of students in London, where approximately 376,000 students could be living across all 33 London boroughs. Only the borough in which both the university and the student are located would have the necessary data required to complete an application. Students can participate in the democratic process by actively choosing to register to vote at either their university or home address. As the noble Lord has just said, research has suggested that 60% of students may do so.

We have a commitment to increase student electoral registration. To date we have undertaken a range of steps to encourage it, most recently ahead of the EU referendum. In addition to those steps, I can commit today that the Government will, in their first guidance letter, ask the OfS to encourage institutions to offer their students an opportunity to register to vote by providing a link to the online registration page so that students can apply to register quickly and easily. I think that this is a user-friendly solution that avoids some of the problems in the amendment which I have touched on. I understand that in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, stated that this was successfully applied at Aston University, and other providers have done so too.

However, we have also heard the calls for urgency, repeated by the noble Lord from the Opposition Bench, and we do not want to wait until the OfS is in place. That is why I can confirm that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, Jo Johnson, will write to HEFCE before Third Reading to ask it to work with the sector to encourage best practice and to actively promote student electoral registration.

To inform our activity, the Minister for the Constitution hosted a student round table in January at which he heard about the barriers to registration that students face. Since then, we have embarked on a plan to further our aim of maximising student electoral registration and we will continue to do so ahead of the local elections this May and beyond. I can now confirm to noble Lords that in the forthcoming weeks we intend to meet university vice-chancellors to that end. We will also write to the higher and further education sector to promote the outcomes due to be published from the different models available, to encourage take-up and to continue to facilitate greater co-operation between providers and local electoral service teams.

For the reasons already given, I believe that this voluntary and collaborative approach is the right one. However, if the evidence is that it is not working, it will be open to the Government and the OfS to consider other options in future, including, perhaps, the use of appropriate and proportionate registration conditions, requiring providers to comply with any such condition or explain why they cannot comply. The Government will also work with sector partners, such as Universities UK, to promote different options and encourage take-up.

The Government have already committed to publishing and promoting the outcomes of the University of Sheffield pilot, which we part funded, as well as other models, all of which are currently being evaluated, and we will publish the results at the earliest opportunity. As I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, an indicative assessment shows that this project had successful outcomes. However, ICT software costs are a prohibitor, and some universities have already told us that they will not implement this model for that reason.

In addition, the amendment rests on the provider informing “eligible students” of their registration rights and local authorities providing various details regarding those students. An “eligible student” is defined as someone entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election, but it is not clear who determines eligibility. Given that the amendments suggest that it is the provider who has to take specified actions, it looks as though it has to be that same provider who determines eligibility—something it surely is not, and indeed should not be, resourced to do. For all those reasons, we are confident that a voluntary approach is the best option and we are confident that more of these agreements can be reached in this way.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, previously stated, many other institutions are already taking steps to encourage young people to ensure that they are on the register. In fact, numerous HE providers have, of their own volition, already implemented a model similar to that used by the University of Sheffield, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, the University of Bath. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that students can choose where they are registered, and some students might not wish to have their data shared.

We are also committed to increasing registration among all underregistered groups, of which students form only a part. This will be part of our democratic engagement strategy, which will be published in spring 2017.

Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the Government have genuinely thought about the arguments put forward in Committee. We have come forward with a new set of proposals, which we think meet the objectives that we all share. Against that background, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.