Higher Education and Research Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsMonday 6th March 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 156KB) - (6 Mar 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I also supported in Committee, and agree with what we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Burns. In addition to their arguments, I would say that the Office for Students is a very limiting title for such an all-encompassing and all-powerful body. As I pointed out in Committee, 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, which I personally prefer to the addition of “standards”—although I will certainly not go to the wall on that.
Hopefully, the stonemasons have not already started engraving the nameplates and the headed paper has not yet been ordered, so there should be an opportunity to rethink the title before it gets set in stone. I hope the Minister will be able to come back at Third Reading with a more relevant title for this body.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, but for a slightly different reason. It seems to me that we have gone an awfully long way towards making universities part of the market, and I believe that we have to get back to the conviction that a good university is a community of scholars. Students are not clients, they are members of a university community, and divisive titles of this kind play into the hands of a very sad trend in our university life. We have to get back to the concept that a student joins a community and participates in that community and does not just use it as a facility to provide them with a future.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
In moving Amendment 2, in my name, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey. At the start of Report stage, I thank the Government for tabling an extensive raft of amendments. It raises questions: why, during remorseless Committee sittings, did the Government not give some indication of their intentions and avoid fruitless hours of debate? Given all these amendments, why was the Bill so ill thought through in the first place? Where was the pre-legislative scrutiny, the consultation, or even the careful drafting, which would have enabled a more productive use of time and expertise in this Chamber?
However, let me not be churlish: better a sinner that repenteth. Amendment 2 picks up issues raised throughout consideration of this Bill. All sides of the House have argued that it is important not to neglect the considerable part played in higher education by those who are not following full-time, three-year courses. Part-time study, we know, has been in decline since 2008 by a combination of factors: for instance, restrictions placed on equivalent or lower level qualifications—ELQs; and the introduction of higher tuition fees in 2012 for part-time undergraduate courses. Part-time adult and distance learning provides diverse opportunities for many people unable or unwilling to access full-time undergraduate programmes, enabling them to progress their learning and to take opportunities for development that would not otherwise be available to them. Given that this valuable provision is so easily overlooked, it is important that there should be a voice and specific representation on the OfS board. This is a very simple amendment which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.
In the same spirit, I have added my name to government Amendment 8 which also reinforces recognition of part-time study, distance learning or accelerated courses. I am grateful to the Government for that. I have added my name to Amendment 48 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Storey. We join those who want to see an end to the stigma surrounding mental health, where our colleague Norman Lamb has been a great champion. This amendment is important not only for those who might develop mental health problems during their time at university but for those who have experienced mental health problems in the past.
It is not just students; university staff, too, can experience stress and mental health problems. As responsible employers, universities should have support services in place for staff and their duty of care to students should also include mental health support. This amendment would make it clear that such provision should be available. Many universities already offer this and make it clear to students and staff that provision is available, but this amendment would ensure that all universities make students and staff aware of the provision. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
I speak to Amendment 7 in this group, which seeks to put an additional general duty on what we are still calling the Office for Students. This general duty is to ensure that all English higher education providers—a term of art that we have now learned—have the same duties to make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. In Committee, we had very great confusion on this point. Some noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches hoped, and perhaps some still do, that the public sector equality duty could apply directly to English higher education providers—but it cannot, because not all of them will be public sector bodies; in fact, it may be that very few of them are public sector bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that he thought that the public sector equality provision did not apply because universities were charities. However, it is part of the point of the legislation to secure a diversity of types of providers, and they will not all be charities. In fact, many of them may be for profit.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall not be drawn on that today, my Lords, but the intention here is that we work ever more closely with the noble Lord. I hope that the pledges Jo Johnson and I have given will at least help to nail down further the issues the noble Lord has raised.
I turn to another important issue, mental health, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We are working alongside the sector to identify measures which will make a real difference to staff and students. This will inform the Green Paper on mental health later this year, of which the noble Lord will be aware. Noble Lords have rightly raised the issue of mental health in higher education throughout our deliberations on this Bill. I say again that the Government expect higher education providers to provide appropriate support services for all their students and staff, including those with mental health issues. However, there is a balance to be struck here, because it is vital that we retain flexibility to enable autonomous institutions to meet the needs of their own staff and students. With that, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed and constructive reply, and all noble Lords who have taken part in what has turned out to be a wide-ranging debate. We have covered part-time students, mental health disabilities, randomised control trials and bursaries, the Director of Fair Access, dyslexia in particular and a range of other issues. There has been quite a lot for us to think about, which we will take away. We may wish to bring back some of the issues at Third Reading. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lord Ridley tabled an amendment to deal with the matter that my amendment seeks to deal with, but they sought to do so by reference to a new committee that was to be set up to have that power. It is obvious that we are in a changing world and therefore that there may well emerge needs for new providers to do something different to that which is presently provided in the higher education sector.
Since we are to have the Office for Students—that is still its name—it is perfectly appropriate that the duty of looking out for “emerging needs” should fall on that regulator. We would not need further committees; the existing regulator would be able to do this as a natural operation in the course of viewing the sector, as it has to do all the time as part of its regulation. It is also clear that setting up a new provider in this area is not without problems. A certain degree of capital expenditure is probably necessary and there would certainly be other costs as well, running costs in particular. It is therefore right, as was said originally and as I say again, that the regulator should take appropriate steps to encourage the meeting of those needs. The main support for this provision came from the noble Baroness and my noble friend but I thought this would be a neat way of achieving exactly what they wanted, without the elaboration of a further committee. In due course, I shall move this amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group from the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Stevenson. I express support from these Benches for the safeguards for institutional autonomy which they represent. I also add my thanks to the Minister for adding his name and the support of the Government to them.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has just implied, in performing its functions clearly the OfS should not just have regard to current and known needs as they may now be identified. It should also have regard to such needs as may come to light later on. By referring to the latter as “emerging needs” my noble and learned friend has produced a useful amendment, which I hope will be adopted.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 19 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I have already declared my interest as chair of Sheffield Hallam University board of governors. On this amendment, I should also declare that Chris Husbands, the excellent vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, is the chair of the teaching excellence framework panel established by the Government to oversee the development of the TEF.
The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit the use of the TEF ranking in either the setting of the student fee cap or the number of students that a university can recruit. This would apply to both national and international students, so preventing the possibility that the TEF ranking might be linked to the issuing of student visas. Others will speak on this latter issue in a moment. I would like to focus on the issue of linking fees to the TEF.
It is important to be clear at the start of this particular debate that there is a lot of agreement on the issues of teaching quality and fees when taken separately. Across the House, there is widespread support for the Government’s efforts to raise the profile and improve the quality of teaching in our universities. Students paying £9,000 a year are entitled to expect a consistently high quality of teaching, wherever they undertake their degree. This has been true for many universities and many courses, but not enough. There remain differences of view about whether the approach currently being taken to the TEF by the Government is the right one. This will be the subject of a separately debated amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. However, there is absolutely no argument about the need for an assessment of teaching quality and for data on such things as student satisfaction and job outcomes to be freely available. The Government’s announcement of a genuine lessons-learned exercise for the TEF after this trial year, and the extension of the pilot phase of the subject-level TEF by an additional year, are both welcome.
Equally, there is an understanding that student fees need to be able to rise to reflect inflation. The Treasury should not have been surprised when most universities increased fees to the maximum cap of £9,000 in 2012. This largely reflected the loss of other government funding. Our universities have been spared the gruelling austerity of other parts of the public sector, albeit at a cost that has been passed on to students and, for many, to future taxpayers. However, I have no doubt that a properly argued case for further inflation-level increases will, and indeed should, get the support of Parliament. The issue here comes from the Government’s plans to circumvent the debate on fees and allow inflation increases only for those universities that have achieved silver or gold rankings. There are four main reasons why this approach is simply wrong.
First, the TEF is not ready. There is not yet a settled methodology. Indeed, the very fact that the Government have agreed to a fundamental review this summer, including how the metrics are flagged, the balance between the metrics and the provider submissions, and the number and names of the ratings, tells us that we are some way off where we need to be on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put it so well in Committee, the TEF is being asked to bear too heavy a load. As things currently stand, universities ranked gold and silver will be able to increase their fees, but bronze-ranked universities, perhaps 20% of the total, will not. Yet in our debate on the TEF the Minister stated clearly that bronze should be seen as a worthy rating. Whichever way we look at the issue, this is an approach to fee setting that has not been properly thought through.
My second reason for not making the link is that the TEF rating will relate to the university, not the subject or course. We will not see subject-level ratings until 2020 and yet we know that it is perfectly possible to have a mediocre course in an otherwise excellent university, and indeed vice versa. It can be argued that the TEF ranking gives an indication of the overall student experience at a particular institution, but the variation which so obviously exists within institutions makes that argument quite unconvincing.
My third reason why this is a bad move is that, if the case for the link is being made on behalf of students, we know that the body which represents them, the NUS, is vehemently against the proposal. Its argument is a simple one: there is no evidence of a relationship between increasing fees and increasing quality of teaching. It seems very hard to argue the case for a shift towards a student voice as a consequence of student loans and then to completely ignore the clear view of student representatives up and down the country.
My fourth and final argument is that there is absolutely no need to provide this particular incentive to improve teaching quality. The impact of the TEF, coupled with the demographic and other changes we are experiencing, will provide more than enough incentive. University-age pupils leaving school have fallen for four years and are set to fall for another six. The total reduction will be 20%. At the same time, maintaining and growing the number of overseas students is likely to be a real challenge. Put simply, we do not need to put further pressure on what is already going to be a challenged system.
To conclude, there is a strong case for promoting teaching excellence and for allowing student fees to rise in order to reflect increasing costs. However, putting the two together in the way the Government are currently proposing is both ill judged and unfair. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. He has set out the arguments on this important issue convincingly and comprehensively, both in Committee and again today, so I shall not repeat them. It is simply wrong that either the amount a student should pay in fees, or indeed if a person can come to study in the UK, should be determined by whether a university achieves a gold, silver or bronze standard rating, or whatever grading system is put in place. Our Amendment 73 in a later group is linked to this and also seeks to disconnect the ability of international students to attend a course from the quality rating of the provider.
On the matter of international students, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, referred to an already challenged system, but we can read today in an analysis by Universities UK that they generate some £26 billion for the economy each year and support 206,000 jobs across the UK. It is folly to take actions that deter international students on financial grounds and, possibly even more important, it is folly to do so given their contribution to international relations, academic standards and generally to our quality of life. I add my strong support from these Benches to this amendment.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I will be somewhat maverick. I have spent a lot of time in British higher education. I started when the whole idea of charging students fees was thought to be outrageous. At the LSE we initiated research into income-contingent loans, which students would take for higher education. While it was said at the time that it would be terribly harmful, not much harm has been done.
However, there is a great liking for uniformity in this country, because uniformity is mistaken for equality. I was involved in the first research assessment exercise back in 1988. In research rankings, we have information on universities by different departments. They have been ranked from five star to one so that students know which universities are good and which are not. They consult this information before they apply. It is no good pretending that somehow students will not look at the quality of universities and so on.
However, I agree that universities should be allowed to charge different fees for different courses. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who was vice-chancellor of the University of London many years ago, proposed during debates in your Lordships’ House some years ago that there should be not a single fee for all courses in a university but different fees for different courses. But that is a separate issue.
I am reluctant to force the system into uniformity so that people have to pick up signals of quality differences somewhere else. If a university wants to charge £15,000, let it. If it is no good, people will not go there. I do not see what the problem is. This is how the American system has survived for many years and thrived. It has very good outcomes in higher education. We have somehow tied ourselves into knots that things must be uniform, that things must be like this and that there must be overregulation. We are then surprised that universities create silos for themselves—they do not co-operate with each other and so on. I am sceptical that this is a desirable amendment.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsWednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-III(a) Amendment for Grand Committee, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (28 Feb 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments. It probably is important that any education administrator should be familiar with further education because it is a very distinct type of education. I have a question that I would like the Minister to clarify. Clause 22(4), which it is now proposed to delete, indicates that the administrator must,
“carry out his or her functions in a way that achieves the best result for … the company’s creditors as a whole”,
yet Clause 14 says that the primary,
“objective of an education administration is to … avoid or minimise disruption to the studies of the … students”.
There seems to be a slight contradiction here regarding whether the education administrator is going to put students or creditors first. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, that perhaps the problem is with creditors: if they feel they are going to be last in line to get paid back, that might make more problems for colleges in getting funding. Can the Minister perhaps clarify the apparent contradiction between those two clauses?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
I generally support the amendments. I started from a very particular consideration: I wondered whether I would be prepared to be an education administration person, because I think I am qualified to be so. The first thing I would want to know is where my financial backing was. The first thing I would ask for would be a guarantee that I would not end up personally liable, as under normal insolvency law I would be. I would need a back-up. The problem here, as with all public sector bodies—I have been through this before when we were thinking about what to do about a failing nationalised industry—is that if the Government are the guarantor or provider of last resort, the creditors will be perfectly happy but I am not quite certain how the education administrator gets out of it. I do not think I would be prepared to be an education administrator without an underwriting behind me. Mere appointment by a court would not do it for me. Have the Government thought about this bit?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am still slightly confused about how what the Minister says is squared with Clause 22(5) which says that the education administrator must,
“carry out his or her functions in a way that achieves the best result for—
(a) the company’s creditors as a whole”,
That does not seem consistent with what she is saying about the emphasis on the students.
Baroness Buscombe
I did actually reference this while the noble Baroness was talking to a colleague. There is no contradiction. As I said about five minutes ago, the creditors’ objective is secondary and subject to the special objective of protecting students’ studies. Only when it is consistent with the special objective does the education administrator have regard to creditors’ needs. This reflects normal insolvency procedure. It is right that the education administrator has regard to creditors’ needs. I hope this is helpful.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I want to explain Amendments 48 to 55, which we have tabled to Schedules 3 and 4. These reflect the commitment that my colleague, the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, gave in the other place to ensure that the needs of care leavers are provided for in the event that the FE body they attend enters educational administration. We agree that students who are care leavers and have already experienced uncertainty and disruption in their lives may well need additional support to help and reassure them during what may feel like uncertain times. Of course, it is entirely possible that, in the event of insolvency, the insolvent college will be taken over by another provider and students will be able to remain on the same campus, studying many of the same subjects. If this is not possible and students need to be transferred to other providers and possibly other courses, we want to ensure that care leavers can get the advice and guidance that they need, particularly if this encourages them to remain in further education. Having got care leavers into education—which is sometimes not easy—it is important to make sure that we retain them there.
There was debate in the other place as to whether there should be a requirement placed on the education administrator to take particular account of the needs of care leavers in much the same way as Clause 22(3) requires them to take account of the needs of students with special educational needs. As the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills explained, the needs of care leavers are more pastoral and would, therefore, be better met by the personal advisor appointed by the local authority to support them. He committed the Government to ensuring that guidance to local authorities on their corporate parenting responsibilities would include advice to personal advisers in the event of a college insolvency affecting a young person for whom they were responsible. This amendment supports the delivery of this commitment. It ensures that support and advice is available to those who need it, by adding the director of children’s services in local authorities—or in combined authorities where relevant—to the list of those to whom the education administrator is required to send a copy of the proposals for dealing with the insolvent college. In this way, the local authority will receive formal notification of what is happening and can trigger the necessary action by personal advisers. I hope that noble Lords will agree to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I warmly welcome these amendments. I am sure that if the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, were in his place, he would be particularly pleased to see that these were included. It is reassuring to find the director of children’s services being included in the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Clause 38 is about information reported to the Secretary of State about further education. We are proposing to add these additional lines because of concerns that any changes to the further education sector should be monitored. This is to ensure that the changes are not having an adverse impact either on the quality of courses provided or on people accessing further education. We need to ensure that no groups are particularly adversely impacted.
In 2015, the Independent reported on concerns that a,
“crisis in education funding could see the closure of as many as four in ten sixth-form and further education colleges, according to a new financial analysis”.
In 2014, Sixth Form Colleges Association research showed that the quality of courses was clearly under threat. Its key findings were that over two-thirds of colleges have had to drop courses this year as a result of budget cuts, 15% more than the previous year, and over one-third have dropped sought-after modern language courses. Modern languages will be even more important if we are to continue to communicate with our near neighbours post-Brexit, as well as keeping up trade and good relationships with countries further afield.
More than one-fifth of colleges have apparently lost courses in science, technology, engineering and maths. We are all aware of the shortage of STEM skills. What folly it would be to lose any provision in these subjects. Almost all the colleges in the research, 95%, say they have had to reduce staffing levels; more than two-thirds are teaching students in larger classes; and almost three-quarters say they have had to reduce or remove extracurricular activities such as sport and music. This situation is not healthy for the country, nor for individuals. The amendment would ensure that we were not walking blindly into an irretrievable position, with the loss of valuable educational provision.
I have also added my name to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, who spoke on this point at Second Reading. There is so much in the Bill about insolvency that we are in danger of losing sight of the institute. Amendment 62 suggests that the institute should promote soft skills. Particularly for disadvantaged young people but actually for any number of other young people, soft skills are important in getting access to jobs and future opportunities. Surely this could profitably be part of the institute’s role. I beg to move Amendment 59.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for referring to my amendment and adding her name to it. She is quite right that I referred to this point at Second Reading. I also referred to the House of Lords report entitled Youth Unemployment in the EU: A Scarred Generation?, prepared by the EU Committee’s Sub-Committee B. My noble friend Lady Buscombe recently reminded me that for a time, we both served on that committee. As I believe she will respond to this group of amendments on behalf of the Government, I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.
I make no apology for going back to that sub-committee report because I want to pray in aid paragraph 91 on page 41, which makes the case for my amendment. I should like to read the relevant paragraph, headed “Skills”, into the record:
“Employers suggested that one of the key issues in the area of unemployment was that young people did not have the basic skills to take the available jobs. Marks and Spencer said, ‘we are seeing … school leavers lacking basic employability skills, such as communication, self-esteem, confidence’. It said that this created a vicious circle where young people were unable to get jobs due to their lack of skills, which then further damaged their confidence. WORKing for YOUth said that ‘employers tell us in no uncertain terms that it is the soft skills—the communicative skills, the social skills—that they find most lacking by the time people leave school to come to them’”.
I am sure I am not alone in finding that many of my friends in commerce and industry fully endorse this point.
I do not wish to criticise the youth of today, who in some respects are better qualified than ever before, but it is this area of soft skills—or a lack of them—which can let them down when attending job interviews. It is not their fault; since the advent of smart phones, tablets, Facebook and many other apps and games, the young have become almost addicted to looking at their screens and not interacting with others face to face. Indeed, I read an article in a national newspaper at the weekend saying that young people spend an average of five hours a day looking at their screens, so it is little wonder that some communicative and interpersonal skills are to be found wanting.
Surely, the main purpose of this legislation is to seek to provide the youth of today and tomorrow with the broadest set of skills possible to prepare them for full-time employment. This is a golden opportunity to write this amendment or something similar into the Bill. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords have to say.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their contributions to this debate. I think it will be important when the institute gets under way to ensure that we monitor the effect it is having on further education. Indeed, I also support the aims of Amendment 60.
We really look forward to the long-awaited careers strategy and hope that it is closely followed by careers advice, because a strategy on its own is not a lot of use unless there is something coming hard behind it. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, that we will just have to keep trying to find ways to encourage soft skills. I noted the Minister’s words about how important they are and that the Government have them in mind. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“Refund of VAT to further education bodies
(1) This section applies where—(a) VAT is chargeable on—(i) the supply of goods or services to a further education body, (ii) the acquisition of any goods from another member State by a further education body, or(iii) the importation of any goods from a place outside the member States by a further education body, and(b) the supply, acquisition or importation is not for the purposes of any business carried on by the further education body.(2) The Commissioners shall, on a claim made by a further education body at such time and in such form and manner as the Commissioners may determine, refund to that body the amount of VAT so chargeable.(3) Subject to subsection (4), the claim must be made before the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the supply is made or the acquisition or importation takes place.(4) If the Commissioners so determine, the claim period is such shorter period beginning with that day as the Commissioners may determine.(5) Subsection (6) applies where goods or services supplied to, or acquired or imported by, a further education body cannot be conveniently distinguished from goods or services supplied to, or acquired or imported by, it for the purpose of a business carried on by that body.(6) The amount to be refunded under this section is the amount that remains after deducting from the whole of the VAT chargeable on any supply to, or acquisition or importation by, the further education body such proportion of that VAT as appears to the Commissioners to be attributable to the carrying on of the business.(7) References in this section to VAT do not include any VAT which, by virtue of an order under section 25(7), is excluded from credit under section 25.(8) In this section—(a) references to the further education body are to the further education body acting in that capacity, and(b) “Further education body” has the same meaning as in the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 (see section 3 of that Act).””
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, this is a probing amendment because I am well aware that issues of VAT are somewhat outside the scope of the Department for Education. However, it is an issue that keeps recurring and it does no harm to raise it again occasionally. The purpose is to equalise the arrangement for VAT refunds between schools and colleges. Currently, colleges, schools and academies are all required to pay VAT on their purchases but schools are subsequently reimbursed for these costs. The Sixth Form Colleges Association argues that:
“The Government’s historic defence for the absence of a VAT refund scheme for … Colleges has been that the VAT costs of … Colleges are taken into account as part of their up-front funding allocation. But with the introduction of the new 16-19 funding formula, all 16-19 providers (including school and academy sixth forms, free schools and … Colleges) are now funded in the same way, using the same methodology. We welcome the steps that have been taken to equalise the funding arrangements … Yet schools, academies and free schools continue to benefit from a mechanism to recover their VAT costs, while …Colleges do not”.
A recent survey indicated that the average college pays some £300,000 a year in VAT. This is obviously a significant amount being taken away from the front-line education of students in a way that is not comparable in schools and academies. Apparently, it would cost around £31 million each year to refund the VAT costs of colleges—but perhaps I should not have mentioned that.
The parliamentary Library briefing on the funding of 16-19 education indicates some key points. In 2010, the Government made a commitment to “fairer post-16 funding”—closing the funding gap between 16-19 education in schools and that in colleges. This was set out in a White Paper called The Importance of Teaching. However, the Government do not seem to have followed this up. There was a ray of hope in an Answer given by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister to a Question from Ian Swales who was then the Liberal Democrat MP for Redcar—those happy days. He asked why colleges had to pay VAT while schools and academies did not. The Prime Minister replied that he would look carefully at what had been raised, particularly in respect of free school meals for sixth form colleges and for secondary schools. He added that it was very welcome that children in infant schools would not have to pay for school meals. He then said:
“I will look carefully at his point about VAT”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/13; col. 158.]
However, looking carefully did not seem to mean that much happened afterwards.
This seems to be an anomaly which could and should be rectified. It would bring considerable benefit to the education of young people and adults in further education bodies, be they sixth form colleges or further education colleges. I raise it again just to see whether there is a more positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the amendment; it is a probing amendment in a complex area. Of course the matter is not in the hands of the Minister who is due to respond to it, because it is a matter that is jealously guarded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who after all is responsible for tax receipts. In my experience, the issue is very complicated, not least because of history and practice. There may be a strand of European ideology built into this as well, which may reach a conclusion in a couple of years’ time—or not, as the case may be.
The basic principles of the VAT system are very straightforward: a trading operation has to trade with the full weight of VAT on it, and expenditure on it is recouped against subsequent users and from those who purchase the goods and services provided. Those things that are not deemed to be trading do not attract VAT, but equally they cannot be redeemed against the VAT that has been incurred in the purchase and preparation of them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, those bodies exposed to the full weight of VAT on their non-trading activities suffer a 20% penalty for the work that they are doing, and that is money that could be properly reinvested. That is a sound case and I am sure it has exercised Ministers before. I look forward to hearing the response.
Lord Nash
I thank noble Lords for this amendment, which calls for a change in tax policy. It seeks to allow FE colleges to claim refunds of VAT incurred on their non-business expenditure. As noble Lords have acknowledged, tax policy is a matter for the Chancellor and the Treasury. Any tax changes are considered by the Chancellor in the normal way and announced in the context of his Budget judgment, as he will be doing next week.
I understand this call for additional funds from the Treasury for FE, but there are clear implications when thinking about such a change. It is estimated that it would cost the Exchequer about £145 million per year. That cost would have to be covered somewhere in the economy—for example, reducing public expenditure on other government priorities. In addition, the VAT treatment of FE colleges is no different from many other public bodies.
However, in view of all that the noble Baroness said about the previous Prime Minister’s comments about looking carefully at the matter, I will go back to see what further I can say by way of explanation for the status quo. I hope that in view of my comments, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am grateful to the Minister for his careful looking and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsMonday 27th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 86KB) - (27 Feb 2017)
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is fair to say that the question of international students is, to put it mildly, a somewhat thorny one. I do not want to draw parallels too closely with the higher education sector, but there is no reason why the further education sector should not seek to attract more students, and indeed staff, from overseas. The debates that have taken place on the Higher Education and Research Bill suggest that the Government do not fully appreciate the value to many institutions of the contributions made by students from abroad, and I am not just talking in financial terms. The financial contribution is of course important to the further education sector, but no less so is the general contribution made by the presence of students from other countries. Despite the result of the referendum, we do not—and, I would say, must not ever allow ourselves to—live in a world of our own, unwilling to acknowledge or embrace the benefits that flow from interacting with those from other countries and cultures.
There is not a consistency of view regarding the value of those benefits. The Foreign Secretary is a man with whom, I must say, I rarely see eye to eye, but I was at one with him when he said in a recent speech that overseas students should be excluded from the immigration statistics. That is certainly the position of the Labour Party, and I know that it is shared by many others across your Lordships’ House and much further afield. Of course, Mr Johnson was not espousing government policy and he was overruled by 10 Downing Street, but on this occasion certainly he was right. It is common sense to treat international students as a benefit to, and not a burden on, this country.
Amendment 12 would place the onus on the Secretary of State to encourage international students. She could of course delegate that role, and might usefully do so, to the institute. Some further education colleges already reach out and have a presence in other countries—some more successfully than others, it must be said—so this is an area in which there is surely room for expansion. It should be made widely known, particularly when government Ministers are abroad, that applications to further education colleges by young people or by those who want to teach in FE colleges would be welcomed. Students may use this provision as a means to gain the qualifications needed to enter higher education, or teaching staff may use it to broaden their expertise, but whatever the reason, as we close the doors to the European Union, we should be opening them wide to many other countries. This amendment offers a means of doing so by highlighting what further education providers have to offer internationally, and I hope that the Minister will accept it in that light.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment and entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of signalling to international students and staff that they are welcome. Not only are they welcome, they are invaluable in providing teaching skills that we are unable to provide from UK citizens and in bolstering student places in both quality and quantity.
Through this Bill, we would hope to send out positive messages to those from other countries that we are open for business, that we shall honour any commitments to staff or students and that we shall minimise the immigration conditions for all bona fide students and staff who wish to come to our further education colleges or providers. These measures are particularly important now in respect of EU nationals, who play such a significant part in the success of our further and higher education institutions and who are feeling particularly beleaguered and undervalued at the moment, but they are important too for the much wider international community. I hope that the Minister is able to accept this amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this amendment. I want to remind your Lordships and the Minister that FE colleges come in a number of different guises and there are some specialist FE colleges for which this is particularly important. I am particularly a fan of the Ada Lovelace College—the newest college, I think, to be given FE status by the department—which is the National College for Digital Skills, based in Haringey. We have an acute shortage of digital skills throughout this country, including here in London, and there is a massive demand for them. If we can allow more international students to come and take advantage of studying at that college, we would do our economy and some of those young people an enormous service. I urge the Minister to listen carefully, as is his wont, and to be sympathetic to this amendment.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I know personally several young people who will probably have to pursue a course much less suited to them than an apprenticeship because their welfare-dependent families will otherwise lose too much in benefit. That seems wrong. The Bill is surely not entirely about getting us a skilled workforce; it also has a social purpose—rescuing children from unsuitable parts of the education system, places where they will never learn what they need, when they really need to be in a decent apprenticeship. Finance must not stand in the way, but stand in the way it will—nobody wants their mother to lose housing benefit—unless we can find a way around this issue, which I suggest is by treating people in apprenticeships as if they were in further education.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, while equally recognising that benefits are not directly a matter for the Department for Education.
There are anomalies in the way in which we treat young people. For those in approved education or approved training, child benefit continues until the child 20 years-old. Reading the list of what counts as that, it seems even more incongruous that apprenticeships are not included. For instance, it includes A-levels, Scottish Highers, NVQs up to level 3—which, of course, can be closely linked to apprenticeships—a place on the access to apprenticeships scheme, foundation apprenticeships for traineeships in Wales, the Employability Fund programmes and places on Training for Success. There is a whole raft of education and training courses on which young people continue to get their benefits, but they lose them for apprenticeships.
We know that only 10% of apprenticeships are taken up by young people on free school meals, which is surely an indicator that that is a disincentive, particularly for families, because they will lose out on additional benefits when a child goes into an apprenticeship. An apprenticeship salary on minimum wage may be barely over £3 an hour, so the loss of child benefit and tax credits may be a significant penalty for that family to bear.
The National Union of Students said:
“If apprenticeships are going to be the silver bullet to create a high-skilled economy for the future, the government has to go further than rhetoric and genuinely support apprentices financially to succeed”.
We urge the Minister, in the interests of joined-up government, to talk to his colleagues in the benefits department to see whether something can be done to ensure that disadvantaged young people do not feel that this is a major disincentive to taking up apprenticeships.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I spoke on this issue at Second Reading, so I just reiterate what my colleagues have said. It seems strange that benefits are available to young people until the age of 18, so we can have a university student who has a couple of lectures and a couple of tutorials a week, if they are lucky, who gets the benefit, and a young person doing an apprenticeship, where 20% of the time should be for training, who loses that money. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Garden, only 10%—let us underline that—of apprentices come from those entitled to free school meals. If we really believe in social mobility, we should be asking why it is only 10% and whether finance is a handicap.
The National Society of Apprentices said in its written evidence:
“It seems incongruous to us that structural barriers exist to disincentivise the most disadvantaged from taking up an apprenticeship”.
We need to take those comments on board. I realise this is slightly beyond the scope of the Bill, but it would be helpful if, in his reply, the Minister could suggest that we meet his colleagues outside the Committee and talk about this issue because if there is a resolution, it would really help those people in society whom we must support.
Baroness Buscombe
The difficulty is that the institute cannot change the definition of an apprenticeship. However, my noble friend will meet with noble Lords who would like to discuss this issue further following Committee.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
If the institute cannot change the definition of an apprenticeship, who can?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the difficulty is that the definition of a job is a question for Parliament.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. FE Week seems to be getting quite a few mentions. I came across a piece on training providers by Peter Cobrin, who runs the Apprenticeships England Community Interest Company, which is important to highlight. He says that training providers feel,
“vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued”.
Let us not forget that there are some very good training providers, just as in higher education there are some very good private providers and colleges. However, quite frankly, some need examining carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, it is important to remember that many of the people who go to these private providers take out big loans, and if that private provider collapses or reforms, they are left. That is not good enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said it is important that accountability catches up with them. I hope that, following her wise words, we might look more carefully at this area between now and Report.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I support these amendments and the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. Equally, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Storey say about getting the balance of this right. That is important.
I have one small thing to say on Amendment 18. I agree that it is almost impossible to get SMEs to participate meaningfully in these sorts of activities, however much you wish them to do so. The federation can sometimes be helpful in providing for somebody to speak, but individual SMEs very seldom have the time or interest to take part. In Amendment 18, proposed new paragraph (b) refers to, as well as employers,
“at least one person engaged in delivering relevant education linked to the standard being assessed”.
It is important that this group of people includes trainers and awarding bodies, who bring a dimension to these affairs. To have a broad range of people within this group would be particularly important.
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.
Baroness Buscombe
Surely that is a good example.
I have been talking plumbers with officials so that I can understand what we are trying to achieve here. The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is about achieving occupational competence. However, if that panel decides, through time and through outcomes, that something is not right, we do not want the hands of the institute to be tied. The point is that the primary legislation will allow flexibility so that those standards could be changed in the light of any perceived failure or lack of occupational competence through practical application of the examinations of the qualifications. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
This is surely what awarding bodies are doing all the time—they are awarding qualifications but if things change, they adapt the qualifications as they go along. I do not quite see why we need this supra-body in the form of the institute to oversee work that goes on all the time with vocational qualifications.
Baroness Buscombe
That goes back to the core reason why we are doing this. There were multifarious organisations rather than one overarching body to say that the standards are just not good enough and the qualifications are not preparing x or y for the world of work. This is why the review was set up: there was no consistency in the standards and those bodies were allowed to fail the apprentices. That is what this legislation is all about. As noble Lords said at length at Second Reading, for too long we have failed apprentices and allowed them to be second class and ignored. The same rigour has not been applied in further education as in the higher education system, and that is what we are seeking to put right.
Noble Lords have asked some important, incisive questions this afternoon, and I am sure they will continue to do so throughout the passage of the Bill, about how we do this and what the process is. I reassure noble Lords that this legislation is a framework. It is not intended to prescribe the detail of what the institute will do going forward. The point is to set the framework to allow the institute and excellence to thrive. It will ensure standards of competence so that young people going out into the world of work have something in their hands which means something to all employers and which they can rely on for their future employment.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, providers will need to make sure that they include the core outcomes approved by the institute and developed by employers and others. However, they can add additional elements to meet employers’ needs. In a sense it could, as the noble Baroness suggested, be bespoke for a particular employer’s requirements, as it is currently. For technical qualifications at level 2 and 3, the content will be the same wherever it is taught. That is key: it gives employers a sense that they can trust that a person turning up with a qualification has something which is recognised and will provide what they are seeking. However, colleges will be able to tailor wider programmes of study to meet local needs.
I hope I have gone some way to reassuring noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary. On that basis, I ask—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, Amendment 20 is designed to ensure that 16 to 19 year-olds in danger of an endless cycle of resitting maths and English GCSEs have the right to a full technical course in those fields. The background to this is the decision of the Government that, from August 2014, all students aged 16 to 18 who are starting or have already started a new programme of 150 hours or more and do not hold a GCSE at grades A to C in maths and English, or the new GCSE grades 9 to 4 equivalent, are required to study those subjects as part of their study programmes in each academic year. In 2015, this was changed so that the requirement applies also to all those with a grade D in those subjects—I am not quite sure who I am addressing at the moment on this; usually one addresses hot air, but there we are.
One can understand why the Government went down this route, but the problem is that figures released in August 2016 by the Joint Council for Qualifications show that almost 122,500 learners aged 17 or above did not get at least a grade C in maths, while 93,000 failed to secure at least a grade C in English. I looked at the comment of Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who said:
“this is evidence … that hitting students over the head with the same form of learning and assessment is not the way forward. Functional skills, designed to develop core maths and English skills but with the learning contextualised and relevant, is proven to engage and motivate these learners, particularly those who have been turned off these subjects by their school experience”.
Anyone who has come across teachers who have to teach and meet these students, resit after resit, will know that it can become a totally depressing exercise for everyone involved.
This was discussed in the other place and I note the comments of the Secretary of State, Justine Greening. She said:
“We have been clear that we do not want children to be left behind by not getting a GCSE in maths or English when they could have achieved one, so we want those who score a D to take resits. For others, however, there is the option to study for functional skills qualifications, and it is important for employers that we make sure those functional skills qualifications work effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/16; col. 41.]
I understand that the Minister, Mr Halfon, has pointed out that the Secretary of State has directional powers over the institute to achieve this.
No one doubts the need to ensure that relevant literacy and numerical skills courses are available to young people aged 16 to 18 that clearly support further technical education and apprenticeships. Clearly they are an opportunity to get employment. There is, however, a real concern that at the moment too many young people are having to go through a very dispiriting process of repeating studies that they have already failed, and which many of them will continue to fail.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government are looking again at this area, in parallel to Sir Adrian Smith’s study into the feasibility of compulsory maths being continued for all pupils to the age of 18—the two very much run together. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 24 and 25 in my name in this group. I pass on apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has had to leave for an emergency meeting and has said that she will bring her Amendment 23A on Report.
Amendments 21 and 25 deal with issues of copyright. The Minister addressed issues of copyright in the previous group and I have been left somewhat confused. Issues of copyright were not referred to in the skills plan. It appears that the Government wish to retain copyright and intellectual property rights of qualifications, thus enabling them, if they should so choose, to transfer delivery of qualifications from one awarding body to another. It is not clear why the Government should wish to do this. It is hard to think of another market in which a supplier would freely cede ownership of copyright of its product for no material benefit. The model offers no incentive for any provider of regulated qualifications to enter into a market or take the responsibility for developing and supporting a qualification for which the copyright ownership has been transferred to a third party.
The issue of copyright is complex. The policy intention here seems to be one of control and safeguarding delivery of a consistent qualification should the Government wish to remove a supplier from the market. Surely adding further complexity to intellectual property ownership is not the best way to meet this policy objective. There is no detail on how the process might work. A lack of clarity in this area, especially if export earnings were put at risk, could be a further disincentive to awarding bodies to engage.
If the proposal is that the qualification should be wholly owned and developed by government, we would counsel some detailed research into previous forays by central Government into the vocational qualifications market space, including individual learning accounts or as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has mentioned, the 14 to 19 diploma. I bear the scars of the development of GNVQ, which nearly bankrupted BTEC when the Government came up with a new design of the qualifications, and it was not at all clear that any promotional material had gone into convincing the public, pupils, teachers and learners that this was a good qualification. GNVQs did some good things, but they had such rotten publicity that they never had the chance really to get off the ground. A great deal of time and money were spent in trying to promote those. If we are to learn anything from the past, surely it is that qualification and assessment ownership, and design and development work, are better left to professional bodies with specialist expertise in qualification and assessment rather than being controlled centrally by civil servants or quangos or, dare I say, even by politicians.
Government ownership of qualifications is not a feature of other qualifications, or of undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications offered by the higher education sector. No evidence base has been provided to support the proposal to move to nationalisation of qualifications, nor any assessment of the intended benefits, costs or risks of any such model. If an awarding organisation did not wish to hand over its intellectual property, it would be in a position where the institute would not approve its qualification for use in the funded market. This effectively closes the 16 to 19 market to awarding organisations which do not wish to relinquish their intellectual property.
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes an interesting point, but I certainly would not want to commit on that. Let me clarify: they would study and do these resits, as we have been calling them, through the apprenticeship process—they would do them at the same time.
I want to attempt to reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who asked what would happen if awarding organisations have business overseas. The answer is that the institute can grant a licence back to the awarding organisation for use of the qualification documents—in other words, for use abroad. If there is an existing qualification for an awarding organisation that is out of the institute’s scope then the institute holds no copyright on that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for tabling Amendments 21 and 25. I appreciate why she has put forward these amendments, which would allow awarding organisations to retain ownership of the copyright of documents under the new reforms. However, with respect, I cannot agree to them for the following reasons.
First, the qualification is to be approved by the institute, so it is right that the institute is the ultimate owner of the copyright. This will ensure that it can carry out its functions, including awarding licences for the delivery of the qualifications. Also, as there are likely to be multiple contributors to each qualification, the amendments are likely to make it impractical for the institute to carry out its functions to approve the new qualification. All contributors are likely to want a say in matters that relate to their particular part of the qualification. The institute should have the final say if the qualification is to be approved by it.
Secondly, the amendments would be likely to stifle competition once the licence comes to an end. Those awarding organisations whose documents have been approved by the institute would be in a far stronger position than those who were unsuccessful to rebid for a licence. Of course, the authors of documents that make up a technical education qualification should decide whether to give their consent to the copyright being transferred to the institute before the qualification is approved. If they do not, the institute can remove that document from the qualification. That is provided for in the Bill: I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the provisions in new Section A2DA which provide safeguards for both the institute and the awarding organisations.
Furthermore, awarding organisations do not have to submit a bid to the institute for the new approved qualifications if they do not like the arrangements offered. Under the reforms, it is expected that awarding organisations will go through a comprehensive procurement process before being granted a licence to deliver a qualification for an occupation or group.
Baroness Buscombe
I just want to reassure the noble Baroness that we absolutely understand that the market must be attractive for awarding organisations to operate—I wonder if that is what the noble Baroness wanted to touch on.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Yes, that is the gist of it, but the question that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised was: what possible incentive is there for awarding organisations to put a whole lot of their expertise into developing materials towards qualifications if they will all be snaffled by the institute?
Baroness Buscombe
It is not a question of their being snaffled by the institute. This happens in other sectors where people develop something but the copyright is retained by someone else. It is not peculiar to this sector, a first in this area or unique. If we are to have a single organisation that is to retain and underpin the standards and quality which we all want, and have flexibility without compromising the students, it is really important that we have one body that retains the copyright: the institute.
I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from: people feel that because they have created the content, they should hang on to it. However, the point is that we are changing the system so that the copyright will be with the institute, but those who have created the copyright can bid, along with others, for the licence. It is clarifying for awarding organisations what part of copyright should be retained by whom.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I wonder whether we could have a meeting on the copyright issue, because I find what is proposed incredibly confusing, and I do not think I am the only one around the table who finds that. It would be helpful if we could see how this ends up being a win-win situation for the awarding organisations and the institute, because at the moment it seems to be lose-lose for the awarding organisations.
Baroness Buscombe
I am perfectly happy to have such a meeting between now and Report. I re-emphasise that the whole point of this is not to undermine those who produce the copyright but all part of developing a new ethos, so that the best can be retained and be consistent across the board for all those who bid for the licence for those qualifications. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
“(b) about permission for the use of the DfE logo and standard wording on technical education certificates.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, we now move on to the question of certificates, which has been raised already this afternoon. There are quite a few questions to be asked about the institute’s power to issue technical education certificates. This is another significant proposal and was not canvased in the skills plan. The proposal potentially removes any continuing link between the awarding organisation and the qualification that it has produced.
The amendment seeks clarity on the relationship between the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification certificates issued by the awarding organisations. Will these technical education qualifications be alongside the awarding organisation certificate? The Minister said that employers would pay for this certificate. Does that mean that the submission for it would come from the employer, the training provider or the awarding body? What assessment has been made of the resources required by the institute to authenticate, print and send out the 3 million apprenticeship certificates to meet the government target? Will the institute require the addresses of all the candidates, or will they be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute?
Government issuing of certificates is not common procedure at qualification level in any other area of the education and training system and would appear to bestow unnecessary cost, duplication and complexity on the Department for Education and/or the institute. Would it not be simpler if the certificate issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the institute or of the Department for Education? The amendment proposes the much simpler solution of adding the backing and status of the institute or DfE to a certificate which has already been validated, processed and issued. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, and the Labour Benches support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. She has a great deal of experience in the field of technical qualifications, so I have little meaningful to add. In earlier debates on the Bill, I have said that I hope to see a situation develop which leads to a small and relatively focused group of technical education qualifications. GCSEs and A-levels are instantly and universally recognised and accepted; I want to see something similar for technical education certificates. The current plethora of qualifications means that too few are understood, far less valued, and that diminishes the hard work that young people put into gaining them. How dispiriting it must be to emerge successfully from the end-point assessment only to find that the qualification gained is not widely recognised or transferrable to other employers.
Allowing the use of the DfE logo and consistent wording would standardise the technical education certificates issued, make it clear that they are overseen by the Department for Education and thus have a value transferrable throughout England. That measure is long overdue.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, we have had some interesting discussions this afternoon on various aspects of the Bill.
I am not sure that my questions about certification were entirely answered. We had a lot of experience with this when NCVQ came in. I realise that my memory is longer than others’. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, some of us go back a bit too far. There was never any problem about putting that brand on the certificate along with BTEC or whatever else it was. Awarding bodies are quite used to having a national branding on their certificates alongside their own award. The Secretary of State is going to have his job cut out issuing all these certificates to people. I would be interested to see the detail of how that is going to happen. The duplication of certificates is not necessarily helpful and will not help employers.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, on getting her idea of “professional” at least agreed to be thought about. It would be something if we could add that word to the title of the Bill, because many of us are a bit concerned about its narrowness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought up the business of post-nominal letters. When I worked for City & Guilds, I set up the senior awards department there, which was rationalising post-nominal letters for levels 4 to 7, some of which had been awarded for over 100 years. Because of the royal charter, we had to get Privy Council approval to do an additional one. It always struck me how much it meant, particularly to the level 4 people who got a licentiate award and could put the letters “LCGI” after their name. They often went into being small business people, and it raised their spirits and gave them status and standing to know that they could have LCGI after their name on their cards. I went on to get robes designed for them, but I am not suggesting that we do that for apprenticeships. Post-nominal letters are an issue. I am not sure how it would work with the institute to get approval for them, and I entirely take the Minister’s point that it can be more confusing to get a whole range of post-nominal letters that people do not understand. In our case, we were starting with 100 years of people having understood some of our City & Guilds post-nominal letters.
I am still baffled about quite how the mechanics of issuing all these certificates is going to happen and what the benefit is to the students and people who have succeeded in getting one certificate from the awarding body and a duplicate one from the Secretary of State, however prestigious that might be. I would welcome a little bit more clarity on quite how this is going to work but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsWednesday 22nd February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 55KB) - (21 Feb 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too support these amendments and the words we have just heard about the importance of raising the profile here. Only one thing concerns me about these amendments, which is that the institute will be set up with a remarkably small number of people to sort things out. If it were to undertake these safeguards and produce all these reports as quite reasonably requested in Amendment 1, and on standards in Amendment 4, it will probably need more staff than is currently envisaged. My question for the Minister is: what are the priorities for the institute among the aims and objectives it has been set? It will need to prioritise quite carefully where it concentrates its efforts.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments because their aim is the right one in the circumstances. I thank the Minister for our useful meeting with him. He responded promptly, although he did not cover quite all of the issues we raised, and I will come to that in this contribution.
The concerns that have been raised by my noble friend Lord Watson are legitimate because, as we have said on a number of occasions, both at Second Reading and during meetings with the Minister, aiming for a target of 3 million apprenticeships is very ambitious but there must be complete consensus in the Committee that what we want to achieve is quality as well as quantity. If we fail, I think we will do real damage to the apprenticeship brand. Here I must part company with some others because a lot of good, high-quality apprenticeships are out there. Some people know how to run them, although perhaps not as many as we would like. But when we look at the number of applications for apprenticeships at BT, Rolls-Royce and a range of others, we find that they are inundated with applications. There are those who argue that it is harder to get on to some of these schemes than it is to get into Oxford or Cambridge. However, I do not know whether that is an anecdote or statistically correct.
The real point here is that of preserving the quality of the brand and encouraging trust among would-be apprentices and their parents. We have another problem that we will probably address elsewhere, which is getting schools to recognise that the vocational or technical path is just as valid as the academic one, and indeed that one can lead to the other. I hope the Minister will take these amendments as being constructive and designed to ensure that the Government can reassure us that they will be safeguarding the quality of these apprenticeships.
I have had a quick glance at the letter the Minister sent on 22 January, and unless I missed it because it was a bit of a skim read, I do not think he covered a question we put to him. We were told that two groups would be dealing with these issues. As I understand it, one will be the Skills Funding Agency, which will deal with the money side and ensure that they are getting the bang for their buck, and Ofsted, which will look at the quality of the apprenticeships.
At our meeting with the Minister, we said, “Okay, in theory, but given the expansion rate of these apprenticeships, that’s going to put quite a degree of pressure on Ofsted. Can we be sure that there really are enough resources there, so that they’ll have the means of carrying out the inspection, which is a vital part of them?” Those are my concerns in supporting these amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The noble Lord, Lord Baker is, of course, a novice at these procedures; or perhaps, like me, he is still getting his breath back following the words “I accept” from the Minister, which were much welcomed.
This is a probing amendment and, to some extent, a read-across from the Higher Education and Research Bill. It is pretty much self-explanatory, although that does not mean I can resist the temptation to say a few words. Almost three decades have passed since the Education Reform Act 1988 ended the tenure that had long been enjoyed by British academics, but an amendment to that legislation protected in law the freedom of academics to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial and occasionally unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have had at their institution. That right that should apply across the board to all academics, whether in higher or further education. I accept that this is an issue of more concern in higher education, but increasing staff insecurity in further education colleges and other further education providers leads us to believe that the principles that apply in higher education should also apply in further education.
The Minister may well say that academic freedom is already established by common practice, but that is not the view of teaching organisations. This amendment applies to the Secretary of State in issuing guidance and directions, and to the institution in performing its functions, giving them a duty to uphold the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It is not a draconian measure; it merely states unequivocally that institutions have the right to determine which courses to teach and who they appoint to teach them, and that academic staff have the right to speak freely about how their institution is run, what courses should be pursued and how, and to advance unconventional or perhaps unpopular opinions. Such expressions should not impact on the job security of academic staff, and for that reason we believe they have the right to have such protections clearly set out in the Bill.
Amendment 3 would also incorporate the human rights to freedom of expression, assembly, thought and belief. It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary but, given the threats felt by universities as a result of the dramatic changes being introduced to the sector by the Higher Education and Research Bill, who is to say that providers in the further education sector will not sooner or later experience a similar feeling of threat? Forewarned is forearmed, which is why this issue must at least be highlighted today.
Freedom of speech is the subject of Amendment 7. It, too, is a provision that ought not to be necessary, but the hard facts are that it is necessary. Recent events, particularly in some educational institutions involving Jewish students or staff, demonstrate that for some people freedom of speech can and does become unlawful speech. My view on this goes back to my days as a student activist, some four decades ago, and is that a demand to no-platform a particular speaker is wrong. I have never believed that you deny someone a platform simply because you disagree with them. Even if you disagree vehemently with what they are saying, my response is that you should take them on by argument, but when that kind of speech enters the world of racism, misogyny, homophobia or threatening behaviour, it contravenes the law, and the law should intervene.
It is unfortunate that these matters have to be aired, but I believe they should be. They are matters of concern in the further education sector as well as the higher education sector. I hope the Minister will take them on board and given them due consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I support these amendments. We had extensive discussions on these issues during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, and they are no less relevant to further education colleges. Institutional autonomy is as important for colleges, where the people who work in them really know what works for their pupils and students, and academic staff having the freedom to question and test received wisdom is just as important for colleges as it is for universities. So is freedom of speech and preventing unlawful speech, which seems an increasing aspect of student life these days. In a way, it is almost more relevant for colleges as they have such a wide variety of students under their roofs. Both these amendments are entirely relevant to this Bill.
Lord Storey
I feel quite strongly about this at both levels. Looking back 10 or 20 years, we would never have thought that we would be debating the need for academic freedom and freedom of speech in 2017. If something is against the law of the land, that person should not be allowed to propagate it in any way, but the notion that students no-platform particular speakers is totally wrong. We should say loudly and clearly that it must not happen. I just want to add my voice to these two very important amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I should say at the start that I am not quite sure why Amendments 6 and 8 have been grouped but, as they say, we are where we are.
Noble Lords may feel it a little odd that, in a Bill very largely concerned with assisting further education colleges that have slipped into insolvency, we find an amendment seeking to address new further education institutions. I am being upbeat here: it is to be hoped that the time will arrive when the Government of the day fund the further education sector adequately and the post-16 skills plan and the 15 occupational routes for apprentices are successful, so that the sector will be seen as attractive to new entrants. That is the situation in higher education and safeguards have had to be built in in anticipation of an influx of more new entrants. It may well be the case that a so-called challenger institution will seek to establish itself in the further education sector and, when that happens, the sector needs to be prepared.
It is no more than reasonable that, before the institute recommends to the Secretary of State that a new further education institution be admitted, that institution should be able to demonstrate that satisfactory validation arrangements have been in place for a minimum of four years. Noble Lords may be aware that the Higher Education and Research Bill suggests that new entrants should be able to be given, albeit temporarily, degree-awarding powers from day one. We strongly believe that that is not appropriate and that there has to be an amount of time in which an institution has shown its ability not just to operate as a business but to provide students with everything that they are entitled to expect when they sign up for courses. That is what is behind the mention of a minimum of four years in the amendment.
The Minister may say that this is unnecessary, but he said at Second Reading that he did not envisage the insolvency procedures being used other than in very rare cases. With 28 out of 45 clauses in the Bill concerned with insolvency, methinks he may have protested too much. None the less, reasonable man that I am, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that these clauses may well prove necessary from time to time and that we need them. In return, I hope he will be willing to accept that Amendment 6 envisages a situation that may prove equally necessary in the future, and I await his response on that point with interest.
Amendments 13 and 14 are concerned with broadening access to post-school education or training, and Amendment 14 is specifically about equality of opportunity. The Learning and Work Institute gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place in which it said that people with disabilities and learning difficulties and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds had been under-represented in apprenticeships for many years. The introduction of the institute offers an opportunity to make a real difference by improving access to apprenticeships for traditionally under-represented groups.
The Government already have targets to increase the proportion of BME apprentices by 20%. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the intention is to do the same—not necessarily in terms of the percentage but in setting targets—for people with disabilities and those leaving care. Giving the institute a duty to widen access and participation would be beneficial for all parties. Only 50% of disabled people have a job, compared with eight in 10 able-bodied people. The Government have stated their aim of halving the level of unemployment among people with disabilities, so we believe that this offers an opportunity to use apprenticeships as a step towards narrowing that gap.
When it is fully established, we believe that the institute should consider as a priority what can be done for groups which are under-represented, not only women, those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds or those leaving care but also those who leave school with no qualifications at all. During consideration of this Bill in another place, the Minister for Schools, Mr Robert Halfon, talked about traineeships and the possibility of them forming an introductory route into apprenticeships. Traineeships would be particularly appropriate for the groups of people I have mentioned when it comes to promoting equality of opportunity for access and participation. Traineeships are also appropriate for retraining, particularly as the institute has now been given additional responsibility for technical education. I hope that the Minister will follow that up with his colleagues to consider what might be achieved. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 8 in this group, which covers some of the same ground that we have already addressed. It seems appropriate, in setting up this new institute, to specify what it is supposed to do—its functions and duties. I have rather optimistically put its “additional” functions and duties because, looking through the Bill, it is difficult to see any clarity on what its functions and duties actually are. However, the role it will play in apprenticeship standards is obviously set out clearly in the Bill. I have added certification, although I think there is a later amendment on this aspect, which perhaps we should address at that point because I do not think it is as straightforward as it appears. It is particularly important that the institute should have an overview of where the skills shortages are and be in a position to divert funding and encourage participation to address those shortages.
The second part of the amendment deals with promotion and consultation. As we have discussed on previous amendments, having set up the new institute, surely it is only right that it should have a role in promoting apprenticeships and work-based skills. It would be a pretty poor body if it did not support the qualifications it has been set up to oversee, and we have such a long way to go. We have already discussed careers education, advice and guidance quite comprehensively, but we have heard from school leavers many accounts of the difficulties they face if they want to pursue the apprenticeship route rather than the university one.
There are steps that the Government could take, as we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. One would be to expand the measurements for school league tables to include vocational and practical achievement alongside academic results. Currently, schools get public recognition purely on their academic results, so obviously there is a lot of pressure on them to make sure that youngsters are diverted on to those routes regardless of where their aptitudes lie. They could also encourage schools to celebrate their students who leave to take up apprenticeships with the same enthusiasm they give to their university entrants. One can see on school noticeboards long lists showing how many students have gone on to university, and it would be cheering to read alongside them that a certain number went on to take up apprenticeships. However, schools do not seem to take that on board as something to celebrate. Instead, they keep trying to dissuade bright young people from seeking out apprenticeships, as we discussed when we were considering careers advice.
There was too little consultation with stakeholders before the Bill was drafted. It is difficult to believe that, in a rare further education Bill, they would have chosen that a major part of it—more than 30 clauses—should be devoted to the insolvency and financial difficulties of further education bodies. What a negative view of the sector when there are so many positive aspects of further education that could have been assisted through legislation. Even before the Bill has become law, this is having an impact. We are already hearing that, because of these provisions, banks and other financial organisations are treating colleges with some suspicion. The biggest area of current concern for colleges is the impact on local government pension scheme funds. What was the rationale in casting doubt on colleges, which will be one of the main providers of the qualifications the Government have said they wish to promote? With so many doubts being cast on the viability of the providers, how will that help to generate the 3 million apprenticeships being sought? There appear to be only sticks and no carrots from the Government.
The current situation requires very expensive financial consultants filling in enormous spreadsheets and application forms to the transaction unit—time and resources that could be spent more constructively. It may be better to have an orderly college insolvency regime that colleges hardly ever use than continuing the risk of a disorderly one, but why make it such a large part of the Bill? Which of the stakeholders supported this part of the Bill?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for the four amendments in this group. They address important issues relating to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and, in particular, what functions it will have. I will address my remarks only to these four amendments and will start by responding to Amendment 6. Ensuring that new further education institutions provide high-quality provision is of course of the utmost importance. Through the area reviews process for the further education sector, we are also putting the sector on a secure financial footing by ensuring that the provider base matches student demand.
However, the institute is to be established with a very specific remit in relation to the quality of reformed apprenticeships: to set the quality criteria for the development of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans; to approve or reject proposed standards or plans and review them periodically, as appropriate; and to ensure that all end-point assessments are quality assured, including the potential to quality assure them itself. It will also advise the Government on the maximum level of government funding available for each individual apprenticeship standard. And, of course, the proposals in this Bill seek to extend its functions to technical education qualifications and related matters. It has no role at all, and is not expected to have a role, in relation to the authorisation of new further education institutions, even those that will deliver technical education qualifications in the future. It is therefore not appropriate to make this amendment to the Bill in the light of the expected remit of the institute.
I turn to Amendment 8, for which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and I wish her a happy birthday.
Lord Nash
I hope that she will be pleased to hear that we plan to finish at 7.45 pm, so she will have time to enjoy it and celebrate.
The amendment includes a number of functions that are essential for the institute to be able to discharge its remit effectively. However, the institute already has responsibility for carrying out the vast majority of these functions. Setting, maintaining and overseeing standards for apprenticeships and technical education is absolutely central to its role. We will also ensure strong recognition and transferability through continuing to secure the delivery of apprenticeship certificates for reformed apprenticeships which have real value and worth for the employer and the apprentice. We expect that the institute will also have some responsibility in relation to certification, working with the Skills Funding Agency in its operational role of delivering certificates. As part of this, a record of all apprenticeship completions will be kept. The institute will use this to inform a number of its functions, including the review of standards in the context of the country’s wider skills needs.
Section ZA2 of the 2009 Act, inserted by the Enterprise Act 2016, requires the institute to have regard to the reasonable requirements of those with an interest in apprenticeships. This includes many of those listed in the amendment, including employers, apprentices and technical education students. The Government are able to write to the institute with guidance to which it must have regard when carrying out its functions; this can include asking it to consult certain bodies. We have just completed a consultation exercise on the draft of the first guidance document which asked the institute to work with particular organisations, such as those listed in the amendment, when carrying out particular functions.
We share the noble Baroness’s enthusiasm for the promotion of apprenticeships in schools and colleges. Legislation is in place that requires schools to inform pupils about apprenticeships and other options. Noble Lords will be aware that we have recently announced a careers strategy and we will consider how apprenticeships can be promoted in schools and colleges as part of the development of that strategy.
Moving on to Amendment 13, I fully understand the importance of ensuring that all young people are able to access a range of suitable education and training opportunities, including technical education and apprenticeships where appropriate. I know that this concern is shared by a great number of noble Lords, some of whom made eloquent and most welcome contributions at Second Reading, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The key to achieving this aim is to ensure that suitable provision is available to accommodate the needs of a wide range of learners. The effect of this amendment would be to require the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, when exercising its functions, to have regard to the duty of local authorities to ensure that sufficient provision is available for all young people in their areas between the ages of 16 and 19, as well as for those young people in their areas aged 19 to 25 who are covered by an education, health and care plan.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that I am absolutely mindful of the need to ensure that the institute takes account of the needs of all learners, including those who have had a difficult start in life or who have special educational needs and disabilities. However, legal provision has already been made to ensure this. Section ZA2(1) of the 2009 Act, when it is commenced in April, will require the institute to take account of a range of factors, including the reasonable requirements of persons who wish to undertake training and education, when carrying out its functions. This will apply regardless of the type of provider serving those learners or indeed how that provision has been commissioned. As many young people as possible should be able to access technical education, which is valued by employers and has been approved by the institute. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public sector bodies, including the institute, to promote equality of opportunity across all forms of education and to ensure that their actions do not disadvantage those with protected characteristics, including disability, pregnancy and maternity.
Our wider reforms will also support access for those who have low prior attainment or require additional support. In particular, the transition year will provide young people aged 16 or older where their education has been delayed, with tailored catch-up provision to enable them to access the same range of education and training opportunities as their peers, getting them back on track and helping to tackle the challenges they face obtaining qualifications valuable to their future career prospects.
“Technical Education Qualifications”
In this Part “technical education qualifications” means the full range of work-based qualifications, whether technical, craft, creative, public sector, or professional.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey. I have previously raised concerns about the limitations of the word “technical” in the Bill. The long-standing term “vocational”, which was inclusive of all trades, crafts and professions that involved skills and practical aptitudes, has apparently fallen out of favour and “technical” has been deemed to carry more status. However, stonemasons, florists, film-makers, nurses, care workers and caterers do not see themselves as primarily technical operatives.
I worked for City & Guilds for 20 years. In my day, we did not think of it as a quasi-governmental organisation but rather as a long-standing, highly respected, royal chartered, charitable educational organisation. But there we are. I hope that times have not changed too much. In my day there were two main strands of vocational qualification—technical and craft. Then there were personal services, which was another important skill area, in which people skills were of paramount importance.
At Second Reading, the Minister, in reply to my question about whether craft, creative and service skills were intended to be covered by technical education, said:
“The answer is that they are”.—[Official Report, 1/2/17; col. 1261.]
However, the Bill does not say that. It is surely only in an Alice in Wonderland world, or perhaps even under the new American regime, that words mean what I say they mean. I checked the dictionary—at my age, one has to do that sort of thing—and found that the prime definition of technical is,
“pertaining to the mechanical arts and applied sciences”.
It was some comfort to find a secondary definition, which was,
“appropriate to a particular art, science, profession or occupation”.
That is better but not what is widely understood by “technical”.
For everyday purposes, the Bill should not be marginalising all those whose practical, work-based achievements are in craft, personal services or creative fields. The wording in my amendment may need some changes but the gist is that “technical” does not cover the myriad of work-based achievements. It needs expanding to be more inclusive if the new institute is really to be seen as a champion for all types of skill and practical achievement.
Rather than go through the whole Bill expanding “technical” each time it is mentioned, I propose that at the outset we explain that non-technical work skills will also come within the remit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will see that this makes sense and be prepared to accept this modest and, I hope, helpful amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, there is virtue in encompassing all this sort of education within one structure. I do not see the point in excluding bits because, presumably, they are felt to fall below the status of “technical”. Areas such as retail or caring are as technical as a lot of jobs that are included in this structure. I therefore hope that this is an amendment and approach to which the Government will give consideration.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Before the noble Baroness responds, I have two points. The Minister quoted from the Sainsbury review the definition of “technical” education. Why has that not found itself in the Bill? If the Sainsbury definition is going to set the boundaries of the 15 pathways, would it not have been helpful to pin it down some more? The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is absolutely right to say that it would have been helpful to have that in the Bill.
My second point comes back to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Sadly, in this country, “technical” does not have the status that we want it to have. You cannot legislate for that, but as we go through this it would have been interesting to hear from the Government how, in general, they think we are going to raise the status of the word “technical”, so that when young people in particular consider a technical education, they see it as something to aspire to.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I am sorry that this has become more complicated to involve occupational maps and routes. I thought it was a very simple explanation: that there are different emphases in different vocational routes, for the want of a better word. Actually, included in the routes there are such things as “hair and beauty”. There are technical elements to that, but there is a tremendous amount of personal skills and creativity also. Also included are “creative and design” and “catering and hospitality”. There are technical aspects in just about all of these, but that is not their prime activity or focus. The people who go into those sorts of fields are not doing so because they love doing technical things but because they like working with people and creating things, and doing things that are not primarily technical.
I am sorry if the word “technical” has now been downgraded, but we really are running rings round this. We apparently do not like and have abandoned the word “vocational” because it is considered downmarket. The word “technical” was supposed to raise the profile and be a lot better, but now, suddenly, here are the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Aberdare, saying that “technical” is a pretty rubbish word too. I always quite liked “work-based”, which is one of the terms that we used, as well as “practical”. There are other terms that might not be deemed quite so lower class as “technical”.
As I said, my amendment was intended simply to try to protect all those people working in fields where they think of themselves primarily not as technical but as creative, with personal skills and so on, which is what the Government are trying to include in the Bill. I accept that the Institute for Apprenticeships has to encompass all those routes too. I am sorry but I may have to bring this back on Report. We will perhaps have a discussion before then to see whether the noble Lord can think of a really upmarket word to take in all the different aspects of practical skills that we are looking for.
Lord Nash
I shall be delighted to have a very technical conversation with the noble Baroness about this. I heard what she said about words meaning what they mean, but I am sure that she did not quite mean what she said when she used the expression “lower class”. However, we can have a discussion about this to see whether we think that anything more needs to be done.
Social Mobility
Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
My noble friend makes a very good point. I think that she is talking about what the Sutton Trust has termed “essential life skills”. It recently pointed out that Harvard University has said that the people who have been successful in recent years and are likely to be successful over the next 20 years are those with essential life skills. It is very important that all schools develop these, and I know that many of them do. Certainly, the Civil Service has a talent programme for bringing on people from a wide range of backgrounds.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, building on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Careers & Enterprise Company launched a mentoring community and fund. What resources are the Government providing to ensure that this mentoring, particularly in soft skills and confidence-building, is available for children from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to the Careers & Enterprise Company, which seems to have got off to a great start. It is very ably run by a bright young woman called Claudia Harris, formerly of McKinsey. We have made £90 million available over this Parliament for the Careers & Enterprise Company and for programmes that use the mentoring approach. The CEC has already appointed 1,300 advisers across the country to help improve links between employers and schools.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsWednesday 1st February 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 January 2017 - (9 Jan 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all those who have spoken in this informed debate, and thank the Minister and the Bill team for their helpful briefings. I regret that those of us involved in the Higher Education and Research Bill were unable to take part in the meeting with the Skills Minister earlier on.
We have missed today the voice of Baroness Wall of New Barnet, who was such a great champion of further education. In addition, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I miss my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, who took very well-earned retirement but, sadly, ahead of two Bills on which she had enormous expertise, which has left me in the hot spot where she would otherwise have been.
As we have heard, there is general welcome for this Bill—odd little friendless Bill though it may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said—but I agree with the noble Baroness, and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that it could have been helpful if this Bill had been combined with the Higher Education and Research Bill, although I am not sure we would have much enjoyed a Bill of 160 clauses.
On the term “technical”, as my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Addington have said, I understand that the long-standing term “vocational” for non-academic, work-based training and qualifications may have become debased over the years, but could the Minister give reassurance that the use of “technical” does not ignore craft, creative and service skills, which are key to many of the vibrant parts of our economy, such as fashion, hair and beauty, hospitality and media? Craft, creative and service skills are not automatically seen as part of “technical”, although of course they do feature in the 15 designated technical education routes.
We regret that there is so much focus in the Bill on insolvency. We are not aware that many FE providers have gone bust, so why start the Bill first and foremost with the presumption that insolvency measures will need to be put in place? That does not really set the scene for a vibrant and vital sector. We understand that it has already changed the behaviour of banks and pension regulators towards colleges—unintended consequences, perhaps—so could the Government not have started the Bill on a more positive note? Where colleges do struggle, it is often due to short-term changes in government plans and funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out. The right reverend Prelate quoted from the City and Guilds report, which mentions, among other things, the fact that there have been 61 Ministers. This constant churn is not healthy for the sector.
I would add my support for the point made in many speeches—those of the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Lucas, my noble friend Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and many others—on why the institute does not have a duty to promote apprenticeships and work-based skills as worthy career paths. As we have heard, apprenticeships rarely feature as a possible route in what passes for careers advice and guidance in schools. This lack of awareness among school leavers does not bode well for the government target of 3 million apprentices.
Many apprenticeships will continue to be adult apprenticeships. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, feels that those should not be called apprenticeships, but the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, stressed the importance of adult education. The Careers & Enterprise Company should surely have an active role to play in this, but we need somehow to reach parents as well and impress upon them the value of work-based routes.
The Bill proposes to consolidate the vocational awarding market and to remove “overlapping and low-value qualifications”. I would challenge the idea that any qualification is intrinsically “low-value”; even if it is low-skill, it could prove the stepping-stone for underconfident, underqualified learners to gain the confidence to love learning.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on the work that she does and how much she has done to give young people confidence in learning—and, by the way, I do not think that she has done too badly either. We also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, on the valuable work she does in this area, and she also gave interesting insights into underwear that we have not often heard in this Chamber. We also heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who works constantly to support opportunities for care leavers in particular and for other less-advantaged people.
On the single award, what evidence is there that the current awarding arrangement has led to distortions in the vocational market? There is a certain inconsistency here in government policy, which is going all out for more competition in universities—that caused considerable concern in the House during our consideration of the HE Bill—but moving to a monopolistic model for vocational awarding. The current mixed market model may not be perfect, but it supports and encourages investment and innovation and safeguards learner interests in the event of any awarding organisation failing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke of previous initiatives and the importance of robust assessment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, spoke of the multiplicity of awarding bodies, which increased greatly with the introduction of national vocational qualifications in the 1980s. At that time, I was working for City and Guilds—I should perhaps declare an interest, as City and Guilds now pays me a pension—which had more than a century of reputation and expertise in awarding. There was some concern then that some of the new kids on the block were offering much lower fees but with much lower quality assurance.
When a single model was proposed for GCSE and English baccalaureate subjects, as the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Lucas, pointed out, it was abandoned following robust evidence from the Education Select Committee and Ofqual. Why should vocational qualifications be treated differently? If a single-supplier franchising approach was deemed too high risk for the general qualifications market, why should it be deemed suitable for vocational qualifications?
In Schedule 1, as has been mentioned, the Bill makes provision for the transfer of copyright for any “relevant course document” to the new institute. It is unclear whether awarding bodies would retain any copyright in key documents relating to a qualification once ownership transfers to the institute. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pointed out, these provisions could have significant implications for awarding body business outside of England, including export activity overseas. In other studies, there has been no attempt by government to own the copyright for qualifications. The institute could justifiably lay claim to copyright of national standards, but the qualification and assessment material design should surely remain with the awarding organisations.
Also in Schedule 1, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, there is provision for the issuing of technical education certificates by the institute. Could the Minister explain how the institute will set about authenticating and issuing certificates for 3 million apprentices without spending disproportionate amounts of time and money? Will apprentices be required to foot the bill for this certificate? What level of staffing is envisaged for this service?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, pointed out, there is a query over the remit of the institute and the number of staff available. After all, it was originally conceived with a specific focus on delivering apprenticeship reforms. Will its expanded remit become unwieldy?
The institute has explicitly been developed as an employer-led body and the Government’s appointments on the board of the institute are predominantly employer representatives. We are pleased to hear that there are at least two college heads, but should there not also be greater representation for higher education, which will have a crucial role in delivering higher-level skills? And what role will there be for learners, assessment experts, workforce representatives and indeed trade unions in the governance of the institute and in the structures for developing standards? It is vital that qualification reform works for everyone, so we would welcome clarification on how different groups will be represented. Will the new institute be balanced in its approach to developing different routes for learners or will it focus solely on apprenticeships? As we have heard, there are many other forms of training, which need to be matched to skills shortages and indeed to soft skills, as the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, mentioned.
To those of us who have long been champions of work-based learning and achievement, the initiatives in this Bill to raise the status of apprenticeships and technical and work-based skills are a welcome move. The country faces a severe skills shortage and we need to ensure that the Government act as an enabler and work with employers, trainers and awarding bodies to produce the most appropriate routes to success. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the scrutiny in Committee to ensure that any unintended consequences are addressed, in the hope that we can move closer to the great aspiration of parity of esteem between academic and practical routes and, as the Minister has said, to giving genuinely equally valued choices of routes to success.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsWednesday 25th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 214KB) - (23 Jan 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment for all the good reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf.
The ability for the regulator also to validate degrees, and thereby operate within the market it regulates, continues to be widely seen as wholly inappropriate for a regulator, and unnecessary. There is no evidence to support the lack of a suitable validator being a barrier to entry. We believe, furthermore, that there are no circumstances in which the proposal in Clause 47 would be appropriate or necessary, so there is no reason for the clause to remain in the Bill, even as a backstop power. The policy intent is covered by Clause 46, which allows the Office for Students to make arrangements with a higher education provider to act as a validator of last resort, and, as we discussed on Monday, the Open University could very well provide this service without any conflict of interest.
The removal of Clause 47, therefore, does not remove the policy intent of opening up the market through a wider choice of validation arrangements—as the noble Baroness has pointed out—but removes the need for the OfS, as authorised by the Secretary of State, to enter into validation arrangements with providers.
We support the option of identifying a central validation body. The current system of awarding bodies works well, though it is recognised that protectionist practices are sometimes adopted on both sides. We therefore agree that validating bodies should commit to competition, diversity and innovation, though that should not mean that all comers must be validated. Expertise in validation —as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has set out so clearly—lies in the objective and impartial appraisal of an institution’s capacity to deliver and maintain appropriate standards of quality and student experience. We acknowledge that many universities already offer validation to students whose provider institutions are in trouble and such arrangements should be allowed to continue.
Whichever way you look at it, there is no need for Clause 47.
Lord Browne of Madingley (CB)
My Lords, I speak for Clause 47. I have not spoken on the Bill to date but I have followed its progress closely because I was the author of the last review of higher education funding and student finance, commonly referred to as the Browne review. It looked at three pillars of the system: quality, participation and sustainability. Its recommendations were conceived as part of a holistic package. Much needed to change to secure the future of the sector. I welcome the Bill for completing many of those recommendations: by linking teaching excellence with fees charged to students; removing barriers to market entry for new providers; and creating a new regulator that is fit for purpose.
One of the principles that guided the review was diversity of institutions being essential to creating a competitive market that can provide quality teaching and satisfy student demand. Organisations offering courses validated by a provider with degree-awarding powers are critical to this diversity. However, in compiling the review, my panel and I spoke to many such organisations and found that in many instances the validation arrangements simply did not work. Highly lucrative for the established providers, they created a closed shop that stifled innovation and competition among new entrants and as a result reduced student choice. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will prompt traditional providers to recognise the benefits for all in expanding the higher education sector, promoting greater choice, greater opportunities and excellence in higher education. I hope they will respond positively to such competition.
In the rare case where that does not happen, however, it seems entirely right that the Office for Students should be able to step in as a validator of last resort. In doing so, it is essential that the regulator is independent. The OfS’s board must be populated with those with no vested interests in the sector. If it is not, the reforms proposed in this Bill will be neither sustainable nor credible.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 371 urges the Government to make as much of these data open as possible. This is not really the pattern with university data at the moment. Even HESA, which is an easy organisation to deal with, none the less guards them closely so that it can charge fees for their release. I think life will be a good deal better for prospective students if that information is more widely used, available and circulated. It is a principle the Government have established in other areas such as Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry, and it has worked extremely well. I would like to push the Government in that direction so far as university data are concerned.
My second amendment is Amendment 383 and we have been here before. It should be obvious that the principal customers for these data are prospective students. They are the ones who need to know about universities. We really ought to take the views of people who look after prospective students into account in deciding how data should be made available.
I have tabled Amendment 413 because there is a tendency for bodies, once you have given them the power to charge, to start inventing things to do, because they can always get them paid for. Look at UCAS, for example; it probably does five times as much as it needs to. The central “apply” function, which everybody uses, is only about 20% of UCAS’s activity. The rest it can get paid for and it is interesting, so it does it. This body ought to be under tighter financial discipline than that.
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.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, the possible proliferation of new universities is likely to include a great many offering subjects such as business and management, and far fewer offering subjects such as civil engineering, artificial intelligence and modern languages—whereas it would make sense for any new provision to arise out of shortages in disciplines and skills within the UK.
Secondly, there are parts of the country that are ill served by further and higher education. I have noble friends from Berwick-upon-Tweed who often relay the lack of local provision for local people to study. This is a cause of unfairness, not only in the north-east but in other parts of the country which are also ill served. If new provision were being set up it would make a lot of sense to look geographically at the parts of the country where there is less provision for people to study. Surely it would be a helpful part of the duties of the Office for Students to ensure that new providers should be established only—or mainly, perhaps—where they meet needs both of location and of provision. The amendment therefore seems a helpful addition to the Bill.
Lord Lucas
I too support the amendment. There are things that only Governments can do. If we want an example of creating universities, we should look at the career of our late colleague Lord Briggs and what he did, and what the status of the institutions he created is now. They are considered to be top-ranking universities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, they were just made and put in place and they ran. It can be done. Indeed, it is happening overseas: other countries are doing it.
We are proud that we have a collection of top-ranking international universities. Why do we not want another one? What would it take to make another one? It would take substantial action by the Government. Do we need a tech powerhouse on the lines of Stanford or MIT? Yes, I think we probably do. As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, there is a space for that—but it is not going to happen through little institutions founding themselves. We have seen enough of what that is like. I am involved with a couple of small institutions trying to become bigger ones, and it is a very hard path. Reputation is hard won in narrow areas, and it takes a long time. Look at how long it has taken BPP to get to its current size: it has taken my lifetime.
The Government can make things happen much faster, and if they realise that things need to be done, they can do that. For them to come to that realisation, a process of being focused on it is needed, and the committee proposed in the amendment certainly represents one way of achieving that. I would like to see, for instance, much wider availability of a proper liberal arts course in British universities. By and large, they are deciding not to offer such courses. If the Government said, “We want to see it; we will fund this provision”, and if the existing universities did not respond, we could set up a new one, in a part of the country that needed it. That would be a great thing. Equally, the idea might be taken up by existing universities. That is not going to happen through the market, because the market in this area is far too slow. But the Government can do it, and they ought to be looking to do it.
“Student support: requirement to assess repayment terms
(1) The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) In section 22 (new arrangements for giving financial support to students)—(a) in subsection (3)(b), after “and” insert “, subject to subsection (3A)”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) must include a level of earnings below which a person shall not be required to make repayments of such a loan.”(3) After section 22 insert –“22A Duty to assess consumer prices in determining terms for loan repayments(1) In relation to regulations made subject to the requirement in section 22(3A), the Secretary of State must, for each tax year, review UK consumer price inflation for the period since the last review under this subsection.(2) If the review concludes that consumer prices for the previous tax year have increased, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 22(3)(b), amend the level of earnings specified in accordance with the requirement in section 22(3A) by the same percentage increase as UK consumer price inflation as determined under subsection (1).(3) If the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report explaining the reasons for arriving at that determination.(4) For the purpose of this section—“consumer prices” means the Consumer Price Index;“consumer price inflation” refers to the annual assessment made by the Office for National Statistics’ Consumer Price Inflation Statistical Bulletin.””
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Amendment 444, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to mirror the rules around the benefits system, which require the Secretary of State to uprate benefits automatically each year in line with inflation unless he passes, as is currently the case, law to freeze them. The clause would mean that similar procedures have to be followed in uprating the starting point of £21,000 for repayment fees. Under the current tuition fees system, a graduate starts to repay their fees only if they are earning about £21,000 a year. One of the principles we agreed in coalition was that this threshold should rise in line with inflation from April 2017 so that only those earning a decent salary are repaying their fees. This is important in ensuring that only those who can truly afford to over their careers pay back the full £9,000 a year fees.
Liberal Democrats therefore strongly oppose the bad-faith decision of the previous Chancellor to freeze the repayment threshold. This effectively amounts to a change in contract terms for those with fees to repay that would be wholly unacceptable in any private business dealing. It is no wonder that Martin Lewis, who helped explain the Government’s original scheme, has sought legally to challenge this unfair retrospective action. The freeze means that people on relatively low incomes will start paying back fees, meaning those on low and middle incomes will end up paying back more while those on the top salaries, who will pay off their fees before they reach the 30-year cut-off, will be unaffected.
The issue is even more important considering rapidly increased inflation due to Brexit. Our amendment therefore seeks to provide a mechanism to ensure that the repayment level must rise with inflation. It uses rules around social security benefit increases to require the Secretary of State to consider whether prices have changed over the last 12 months—ie, inflation has taken place—and, if so, to increase the repayment threshold by a similar level. This would therefore require a new order every year to be placed before Parliament, ensuring the Government can never again unilaterally decide to freeze the point at which students start to pay.
Liberal Democrats hesitate, for good reason, to talk about university fees. We suffered the political consequences of breaking our contract with the electorate. The Chancellor was very clever, but there was very little saving in the end to the Exchequer and there were concessions to the Liberal Democrats. What we are looking at now is the elimination bit by bit, piece by piece, of those concessions, starting with grants and moving on to access, and so on. So the policy has clearly worsened, and what we have currently, with the raising of the threshold, is nothing short of a scandal. A contract has been broken and there has been a one-sided redefinition of the terms of the loan. In any other context, as Martin Lewis quite correctly said, this would lead to legal action. The only reason legal action is not possible in this case is the small print, which, as far as most undergraduates are concerned, was very small indeed.
This amendment is simply an attempt to avoid a repetition of that bad situation by defining a minimum level of earnings and a mechanism for adjusting it in a rational, open way. It would avoid partiality, exploitation, misunderstanding and lack of trust, which is absolutely crucial. That, surely, is the way to go. The Government would be doing the right thing by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts
My Lords, perhaps I could briefly challenge the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I do so very aware of how the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats worked together on this years ago, and I pay tribute once again to my former ministerial colleague, Sir Vince Cable, with whom it was a pleasure to work. But I think her account of the way the decision was taken is not quite correct and I do not think that her proposals for the future will work in the best interests of students or the Exchequer.
When we set the £21,000 repayment threshold in 2011, we were working on the basis of forecasts of where earnings would be by 2017. We thought we were setting the £21,000 repayment threshold at about 75% of earnings—I cannot remember the exact figure. What has happened since then is that earnings have grown by much less than was forecast, as a result of which the repayment threshold has become significantly more generous relative to earnings than we expected when we set it. With the wisdom of hindsight, I wish that we had put in brackets alongside £21,000, “that is, approximately 75% of earnings”, but what is relevant for graduates is that this is relative to their earnings and average earnings. On that basis, the purpose of the current freeze of the £21,000 threshold is to bring it back gradually towards the kind of relationship to average earnings that was envisaged when it was first proposed in 2011.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that it would be worth having some kind of mechanism for review of this threshold. I have proposed a kind of five-year review at the start of each Parliament of the right place to set the repayment threshold. I do not think some fixed relationship to the RPI is relevant. The big social decision—it is a decision—is where it should be relative to average earnings. Of course, the coalition decided it should be a significantly higher threshold than that in the old system. Although I remember working with Martin Lewis on this, I think his argument that this is some terrible breach of faith is incorrect. This is actually a relationship to earnings which has ended up much higher than was originally expected.
I also think that Amendment 449 is misconceived and would be very dangerous indeed. It proposes that these loans should be regulated as if they are commercial loans by the Financial Conduct Authority. The student loans scheme steers a very narrow course between two equal and opposite problems. One problem would be if student finance were once more counted as public expenditure, as a result of which it would be rationed and we would not see the increase in cash for universities that we have seen. Although some people think this is public spending—to my surprise, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about there being very little saving to the Exchequer—the fact is that the shift to fees and loans achieved a very significant reduction in public spending. We do not want to go back to the days of it being public spending.
However, neither do we want it to be a commercial loan scheme. It is absolutely not a commercial loan scheme. I worked very closely with Lib Dem colleagues at every opportunity to explain to prospective students that this is not a commercial loan. This is not like an overdraft or a credit card. It is a universal scheme accessible to almost all students and is in no way like taking out a loan from a bank regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. If the Student Loans Company were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, it would immediately have to go through requirements such as the “know your customer” requirement. It would have to decide: “Should we lend to young John Smith? Is he going to be able to repay? Should we lend to young Janet Smith? Is she going to be able to repay?”. That panoply of assessment of whether individuals should take out loans, which is part of the regulatory regime for commercial loans, should not apply to this provision. This is a universal scheme using taxpayer finance. Therefore, requiring it to be regulated as if it is a commercial loan would be a retrograde step and very regressive.
All three parties in this Chamber today, when faced with the dilemma of how to finance university education, have ended up with an essentially similar model: fees and loans, with a universal loan scheme. It is no accident that we have ended up with this model. It is because it steers between two equal and opposite perils. These Lib Dem amendments would destabilise that model, which is now working to the advantage of students, universities and the Exchequer.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am aware that this is an issue that stimulates debate and the contributions have been genuinely informed and reflective.
When the Government reformed student finance in 2011 we put in place a sustainable system designed to make higher education accessible to all. It is working well, because total funding for the sector has increased and will reach £31 billion by 2017-18. These amendments cover a number of areas of the student finance system.
I refer first to the issue of the student loan repayment threshold. The decision to freeze the repayments threshold for post-2012 loans was taken to put higher education funding on to a more sustainable footing. To do this, we had to ask those who benefit from university to meet more of the costs of their studies. I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for providing a very clear explanation of the threshold freeze and the circumstances that led to it. Freezing the threshold enabled us to abolish student number controls, lifting the cap on aspiration and enabling more people to realise their potential.
On average, graduate earnings remain much higher than those of non-graduates. Students continue to get a fair deal: the current threshold remains £3,500 higher than that for pre-2012 loans. Uprating the threshold in line with average earnings would cost around £5 billion in total by April 2021 compared to the current system. The total cost of uprating by CPI would be around £4 billion over the same period. Taxpayers—many of whom will be non-graduates earning much less than the graduates who would benefit—would have to bear that cost.
On the matter of student loan terms and conditions, I share your Lordships’ desire to ensure that students are protected. That is why the loan terms are set out in legislation. However, it is important that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Government retain the power to adjust terms and conditions. Student loans are subsidised by the taxpayer, and we must ensure that the interests of both borrowers and taxpayers continue to be protected. This amendment would also prevent the Government making any changes to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower. Finally, we believe 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.
With regard to the replacement of maintenance grants with loans, I reassure noble Lords that this Government remain committed to increasing access to higher education. Indeed, the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education has increased from 13.6% in 2009 to 19.5% in 2016. We have, furthermore, increased support for students on the lowest incomes by over 10%. Reinstating the system of maintenance grants would reduce the up-front support available for students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, while costing the taxpayer over £2.5 billion each year. Students recognise the value of a degree. Lifetime earnings are, on average, higher for graduates than non-graduates and it is right that students who earn more contribute towards the cost of their education. Repayments are related to the ability to pay and start only when a borrower is earning £21,000.
I turn now to the amendments relating to the regulation of student loans. I agree that it is important that students are protected. However—as my noble friend Lord Willetts set out—student loans are not like commercial loans: we must remember that. They are not for profit and are available to all, irrespective of their financial history. Repayments depend on income and the interest rate is limited by legislation. The loans are written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower. The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. This means that additional regulation is unnecessary.
Lenders regulated by the FCA are obliged to assess the creditworthiness of all their borrowers, and the affordability and suitability of the loan product for each borrower. Were the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate student loans—as Amendment 449 seeks—it could affect the ability of some students to obtain them. My noble friend Lord Willetts spoke powerfully about that.
Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills of our citizens. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords and I therefore ask that Amendment 444 be withdrawn.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I bow, of course, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. I remember working with him in coalition when I was Higher Education Minister in the Lords—heady days indeed.
In spite of his reassurances, I am still concerned that the less well-paid and less privileged students should not be disproportionately penalised or deterred by repayments. After all, they repay for longer than the better-paid students, and there are problems in that. I also support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will find that we may touch on those issues when we come to the amendments on international students. She makes, however, a very valid point that needs consideration. At this stage, however, and in the light of the Minister’s remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment; I strongly support the words that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Patten. I, too, will try to be helpful because this amendment highlights the significant impact of international students and their contribution to the success of UK universities. It builds on Amendment 127, which I spoke to earlier in Committee, so I shall curtail my remarks at this stage.
As has been said, counting international students in migration targets is a poor policy choice. It damages the reputations of UK universities. There seems to be universal agreement that it should be reversed and that other countries do not treat their students in this way. We will doubtless hear from the Government that there is no limit on the number of international students who can come into the country. The trouble is that they follow that up by saying, “But we will count them in immigration targets and we are intent on reducing immigration”. This sends very mixed and misleading messages to students who are left mystified about this but feeling generally unwelcome. It does not help now that we make them leave the country as soon as they finish their studies, rather than staying on to make some postgraduate contribution to the country.
Our messages are unwelcoming and overseas students hear those unwelcoming messages. We understand that these decisions are within the Home Office, not within the department the Minister represents, but we ask him to take back to his colleagues in the Home Office—or, indeed, to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister—how very strongly this House feels that these measures should be changed.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. Everything has already been said. I would merely say that Nick Pearce is now a professor at the University of Bath—so that is good, isn’t it?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and all other noble Lords, I find it particularly bizarre that in this brave new world, where we want to be outward-facing, persuade the world to trade with us and attract people to study at our universities, we still persist in including students in the immigration figures, which, as the noble Baroness has just said, sends out bad feelings. It is perception that is important. The noble Lord may be right that we are welcoming everyone but, even if that were true—and I am not sure it is—the perception is that we are not, and that is a big problem.
In an earlier debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which unfortunately I missed although I supported his amendment, he said he was searching for ways in which,
“the university sector could organise and present itself so that the nation would be on its side and it would be equipped with the data”.—[Official Report, 11/1/17; col. 1999.]
Of course I agree with that, but I would add, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, that the public are already onside, with 57% of them saying that foreign students should not be in the immigration figures compared with 32% who thought that they should be. So as the Government are so determined to pursue a hard Brexit because a mere 52% of the population voted in favour of leaving the EU while 48% were against, why can they not now act on the 57% who say that they would be content with taking students out of the immigration figures?
We are all against bogus institutions, and we are glad that the Government have acted on that. We are all against those who overstay, but the figures on overstaying cited in the past by the Government are, at best, merely estimated and, at worst, being used for political ends. When will better data be available, and when will the consultation on the study immigration route be concluded?
I well understand the political importance of immigration and immigration figures, as well as the concerns expressed by the citizens of our country. However, bona fide students studying at bona fide institutions are not economic migrants but visitors, and that is the view of the people of this country. I hope that the Government will act accordingly.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I add my support to what has already been said. Amendment 463 builds directly on the discussion that we had on the previous group.
Amendment 464 complements Amendment 490, which we have tabled and which will be discussed on Monday. Amendment 464 would ensure that members of staff from other countries were not in future subjected to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force on the day this Act was passed. Both amendments point to the concern that restrictions on freedom of movement following Brexit will have very serious consequences for universities—both for students and for academics. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about the difficulties that academics currently face in planning their future, thinking ahead and considering what they will do about their families, with young academics in particular wondering where their future lies. Like a lot of people planning their lives, they want a bit of security.
Recently I spoke at a conference of modern foreign language academics, who were asked how many of them were EU citizens. There were about 80 people there and over half put up their hands. They were all wondering what the future held. Some were having difficulties becoming UK citizens. Even those who had lived all their lives in the country were being put through hoops. They had never lived anywhere else, but getting a British passport was suddenly proving to be incredibly difficult for them. They play an absolutely essential part in the provision of modern foreign languages in our universities. We heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about the important role that they also play in engineering. However, I assure noble Lords that those working in modern languages departments are really concerned about how they are going to continue their provision if EU academics feel unwelcome.
Therefore, this is a personal issue for a lot of valuable and skilled people, some of whom are already facing—unbelievable though this is—incredible hate crime and racial discrimination from universities where they have previously been seen as valued contributors. Of course, if they go, some of our courses simply will not take place. We need these people—the students and the academics—and our university life will certainly be the poorer without them.
This proposed new clause would help to remedy the very unfortunate situation that we now find ourselves in, and I hope that we can move forward in making life better for the EU citizens who make our universities much better places.
Lord Judd
My Lords, in at least one of the universities in which I am involved, I know of a specific example where a very able and impressive member of staff was offered, and encouraged to take, a promotion in the department but turned it down because he and his family had come to the conclusion that the UK was not a place where they saw their future.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, again, my noble friend Lord Dubs is not able to be present because he is attending another event, which I mentioned earlier. I am also aware that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, nor the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, can be here today, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, will make some remarks that will at least encompass those of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.
The amendment would disapply the statutory Prevent duty set in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in so far as it applies to higher education institutions. The reason for that is that we place a strong accent on—and we will discuss in a later group of amendments —the question of how and in what circumstances we can make higher education institutions, and in particular universities, centres in which the practice of freedom of speech and the prevention of unlawful speech are routine and built into their very fabric and operations.
When Parliament discussed the then Counter-Terrorism and Security Act Bill in 2015, there was considerable doubt about whether it should extend to universities because it imposed a duty on universities to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. It created a structure involving monitoring and enforcement of the Prevent duty and further mandated the co-operation of academic staff in the Channel referral process.
Accompanying government guidance has exacerbated concerns. While universities are not the only institutions affected by the statutory Prevent duty, the regulation of lawful speech and assembly in these institutions carries particular concern. Our higher education institutions, as I have said, should provide a space for the free and frank exchange of ideas. These ideas should be challenged through robust argument and not suppressed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded, as part of its legislative scrutiny of the 2015 Act, that, because of the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of university education, the entire framework that rests on the new Prevent duty is simply not appropriate for application to universities.
Having said that, university staff are bound by the law, including the requirement to disclose information to the police when they know or believe it could assist in the prevention of acts of terrorism. The removal of the statutory Prevent duty in universities would not remove the responsibility of staff and institutions to co-operate with police to tackle suspected criminality. The amendment would remove a heavy-handed structure designed to restrict lawful speech. Suppressing unpleasant or offensive views is not only illiberal, it is often counterproductive and risks pushing ideas into the shadows where they are less likely to be effectively challenged. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I added my name to the list, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who has overriding university commitments. He is a great expert in this area and has briefed me.
The application of Prevent to the university sector is different from its application to any other category of public body. In a university, the Prevent duty has the wholly unwanted effect of undermining an essential pillar of the very institution it is supposed to be protecting to the wider detriment of civil society. First, universities have a pre-existing statutory duty under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986,
“to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”.
Secondly, because of the foundational importance of free expression to intellectual inquiry and therefore to the central purpose of a university, which cannot function in its absence, it cannot be appropriate, in the university context, to seek to ban speech that is otherwise perfectly lawful, as the Prevent duty requires it to do.
The Prevent duty requires universities to target lawful speech by demanding that universities target non-violent extremism, defined in the Prevent guidance as,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
If applied literally as a proscription tool in universities this definition would close down whole swathes of legitimate discourse conducted in terms that represent no breach whatever of the criminal law. It is very difficult to imagine any radicalising language that a university should appropriately ban that does not amount to criminal speech in its own right, such as an incitement to violence, or to racial or religious hatred and so on. These categories of unlawful speech should therefore be banned by university authorities to comply with pre-existing law. To do so is entirely consistent with free expression rights and academic freedom. But banning incitement speech is sufficient. Apart from anything else, it is this speech that is more genuinely “radicalising”. We do not need Prevent in universities to protect ourselves. We need just to apply the current criminal law on incitement.
In the university context, “radicalising” speech that is not otherwise criminal should be dealt with through exposure and counterargument. Universities should be places where young and not so young people can be exposed to views and ideas with which they disagree or find disturbing, unpleasant and even frightening, but be able to address them calmly, intellectually and safely. Freedom of speech should be an essential part of the university experience.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I have to challenge the view that has been put forward by Members here whose views in general I respect greatly, but I pin my remarks to a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, just moments ago. He said that students come from overseas to this country for a great education in a liberal, plural society. Unfortunately, great damage is being done to precisely that concept. In no way would I dissent from a view expressed that freedom of speech within the law must be allowed. Non-lawful speech—and there are lots of statutes, whether you like it or not, that make speech illegal—should not be allowed, but the universities are not doing their duty.
I shall give a few examples. Jihadi John was a university graduate; Michael Adebolajo—Lee Rigby’s murderer—was at the University of Greenwich; the underpants bomber, Abdulmutallab, was at UCL. There are numerous other examples of killers who were radicalised at university right here. That is because, although the Prevent duty guidance requires such speech that we disapprove of to be balanced, this is not happening. Speakers are turning up and giving speeches to audiences that are not allowed to challenge them. At best, they can only write down their questions. There are tens of such visiting speakers every year—there are organisations that keep tabs. Just over a year ago, at London South Bank University, a speaker claimed that Muslim women are not allowed to marry Kafir and that apostates should be killed. A speaker at Kingston University declared homosexuality as unnatural and harmful, and another—a student—claimed that the Government were seeking to engineer a government-sanctioned Islam and that the security services were harassing Muslims, using Jihadi John and Michael Adebolajo as examples. The problem is not only coming from that area; it is the English Defence League turning up to present its unpalatable views too.
It is incomprehensible to me that the National Union of Students opposes the Prevent policy and has an organised campaign to call it racist—a “spying” policy and an inhibitor of freedom of speech. These are the same students and lecturers—the ones who oppose Prevent—who have been supine in the face of student censorship and the visits of extremist speakers and who will not allow, for example, Germaine Greer or Peter Tatchell to speak, but sit back and do nothing when speakers turn up who say that homosexuals should be killed.
The Home Affairs Select Committee and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism have identified universities as vulnerable sectors for this sort of thing. Universities are targeted by extremist activists from Islamist and far-right groups. Very often they are preaching against women’s rights and gay people’s rights, and suggest that there is a western war on Islam. They express extreme intolerance—even death—for non-believers, and place religious law above democracy.
Some misguided student unions and the pro-terrorist lobby group CAGE are uniting to silence criticism of their illegal activities. There is no evidence of lecturers spying on students or gathering intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences. Students are conspiring to undermine the policy; they ignore its application to far-right extremists, just as to far left, if there is a difference, and spread the misunderstanding that it targets political radicalism.
The Prevent guidance is necessary, but needs to be limited to non-lawful speech, which is a very wide concept and of course includes the counterterrorism Act, but I would not suggest for a moment that now is the time to lift it, especially when in its most recent report HEFCE claimed that more and more universities —though not all of them—were getting to grips with and applying the Prevent guidance in a reasonable way. I therefore oppose the amendment.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsMonday 23rd January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 214KB) - (23 Jan 2017)
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which is self-explanatory. She has set out very clearly the reasons behind it: to ensure that the OfS can place restrictions on the number of new students a particular higher education provider may enrol, if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the provider is in breach of a registration condition.
Given that the Bill aims to improve the student experience, it is particularly important that, if a higher education provider is falling short in the provision it should be offering, the OfS should, as part of its duty, have powers to intervene to prevent cohorts of new students being enrolled. The registration conditions in the Bill are important but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, set out, it is important that the OfS should have a range of sanctions available if a particular provider is not abiding by the registration conditions, and that those sanctions should be proportionate. On the amendment’s second paragraph, it is only right that that there should be regulations setting out the procedures, but only right too that rights of appeal for any such sanction should be added to the clause.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, set out very clearly, her amendment would allow the OfS to place,
“quantitative restrictions on the number of new students that the provider may enrol”,
if it has,
“reasonable grounds for believing that a registered higher education provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition with respect to the quality of the higher education provided … or to its ability to implement a student protection plan”.
She went into some interesting and rather unfortunate detail about what can happen when colleges or providers get into serious difficulty.
The amendment has echoes of Amendment 142, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, last week, which sought to replace the words,
“it appears to the OfS”,
with,
“the OfS has reasonable grounds for believing”,
relating to the power to impose monetary penalties in Clause 15. Restrictions on new students would be a new power following the provisions of Clause 15. In effect, it is another form of monetary penalty, which we support in principle, although we would be concerned if it were left open-ended. As soon as a breach is shown to have been brought to a conclusion, we believe the restriction should be lifted so as not to harm existing students, who are blameless but could be affected—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, graphically explained—to their detriment through the institution either being closed, or having fewer resources.
I read closely the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, from our debates on Wednesday. I cannot say that he made a convincing case for rejecting the rather stronger words in that amendment. He basically stated that as the wording in the Bill is used in other legislation—he quoted the apprenticeships Act of 2009—there was therefore no reason to change it. He did not come up with any other reason, despite the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, saying in moving the amendment that “it appears to” was but one of the options available and one of the lower ones at that.
Although the words “it appears to” are used in other pieces of legislation, few use the formulation in the context of a decision to take enforcement action, which is what raises concern with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, stressed that the aim was to raise the legal threshold before the OfS was entitled to take action. In doing so, he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, one of whose cases was quoted. It seems at least odd that the Government feel that their lawyers, who I suggest probably do not have the noble and learned Lord’s expertise and experience, know better on this matter. The same applies to some extent to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. Having had time to reflect, perhaps the Minister will—if not today, before Report—come to the view that it is appropriate to raise the standard required of the OfS in such situations.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 171, 202 and 213 in my name. Amendment 171 proposes that the chair of the quality assessment committee should be independent of government and party politics and builds on the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the importance of independence. There are concerns that, throughout the Bill, the Government will have powers more than is healthy in the affairs of higher education institutions. It is important that the chair of the QAC should be a non-party-political appointment.
Amendment 202 brings us back to a may/must debate—so beloved of your Lordship’s House across a whole swathe of legislation. Here we propose that the OfS “must consult”, rather than “may consult”, about whether there is a body that is suitable to perform the assessment functions. This should not be a matter of choice. Amendment 213 adds additional conditions to any directions given by the OfS to a designated body, such as ensuring that the powers of the OfS to give directions to a designated body do not adversely impact on that body’s suitability to carry out assessment functions, must be compatible with other duties, and must not relate to operational activity without previous concerns having been raised. These measures are designed to safeguard the authority and autonomy of the universities while acknowledging the duties of the OfS. I hope they will be seen as helpful additions to the Bill.
I support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the quality assurance office. Without doubt, with the new measures in the Bill, we need a really robust quality assurance system, and I think the measures proposed could provide that.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I support an independent quality assessment process, and I believe it is right that an organisation independent of the Office for Students should undertake this role. Most importantly, it needs to be a body that has the confidence of the sector to undertake assessment of quality on behalf of the OfS. As others have said, I would like to see a continuation of the co-regulatory approach to quality assessment, which would allow the QAA to continue in its current role. It is important to ensure that the relevant stakeholders, including the OfS, the Secretary of State and the sector, respect the principles of co-regulation.
Sector ownership of the QAA, with HEFCE and other devolved bodies as essential stakeholders that also fund and direct some of the QAA’s activities, has until recently been highly successful. It has ensured sufficient buy-in from the sector and the academic community, while providing processes for assuring the public about standards and quality that are seen as world-leading outside the UK. Also, the UK is a member of the European Higher Education Area, which is quite separate from the EU, and its standards and guidelines require that the body responsible for quality review be entirely independent of the Government.
I am rather anxious that a body appointed on a statutory basis would be for England only, so would undermine a UK-wide approach to quality. I hope that in his reply the Minister will address both those points. I also reiterate a point that has been made by others: I certainly would not want to see a quality assurance system that was vulnerable to political interference and would undermine the sector’s own vital role in quality assurance.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsMonday 23rd January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 214KB) - (23 Jan 2017)
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I think we can be brief on this one. It is a continuation of the debate that started two or three days ago to try to put flesh on the bones of the ideal which the Government say they have—and we certainly share—which is that higher education in future should be less regimented and less dominated by the three-year traditional degree taken full-time by students who come straight from school. We should try to open up the provision that is available in higher education, and made by higher education providers, to ensure that equal parity is given to those who wish to study part time, and in particular mature students who very often need to be more flexible in what they do. At the moment, they are disappearing too fast from the statistics, and we need to try and get them back.
This issue has been raised before in terms of the hierarchy of government policy in relation to the Office for Students, and is now down at the level of access and participation plans. The amendments seek to ensure that the governing bodies of institutions can and will take measures to enable flexible provision and allow students to undertake part-time courses, particularly to suit those who may be mature. I beg leave to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 237 in this group, which complements the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. With the collapse in part-time student numbers, this would ensure that the Office for Students has a duty to ensure that equality of opportunity is not neglected for those whose only opportunity to study is via part-time provision and at a later stage in life. It would also provide an assessment as to whether the Government’s new initiatives, such as the extension of maintenance loans to part-time students, are having the desired effect of boosting current numbers.
We remain concerned throughout the Bill that the opportunities for mature and part-time students should not be neglected. Putting them in the Bill will ensure that their contribution to higher education is fully considered.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, the Government agree that part-time education, distance learning and adult education bring enormous benefits to individuals, the economy and employers. Our reforms to part- time learning, advanced learner loans and degree apprenticeships are opening up significant opportunities for mature students to learn.
As part of the Bill, the OfS must have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students, and to encourage competition between providers where it is in the interests of students and employers. By allowing new providers into the system, prospective students can expect greater choice of HE provision, including modes of provision, such as part-time and distance learning, which can increase opportunities for mature learners.
As was noted during our debate on 11 January, we know that in 2014-15, 56% of students at new providers designated for Student Loans Company support were over the age of 25, compared to 23% at traditional higher education providers. This is alongside the other practical support that the Government are already giving for part-time students, including providing tuition fee loans where previously they were not available. We have recently completed a consultation on providing, for the first time ever, part-time maintenance loans and we are now considering options.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Baroness Garden of Frognal ExcerptsMonday 23rd January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 214KB) - (23 Jan 2017)
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to two amendments in my name, which are probing amendments. Since they refer to the awarding of ecclesiastical degrees by the Holy See, I am bound to declare my interest as the holder of a papal knighthood.
I will say a word about church universities. The Catholic Church has 16 higher education institutions, including five universities, which are classified as church universities. These are part of the so-called Cathedrals Group. There are 16 universities in the United Kingdom with Catholic, Anglican and Methodist foundations. All are based on ethical principles. They are rooted in their local communities and in Christianity. They have a common commitment to social justice. An example of that is St Mary’s University, Twickenham, with its Centre for the Study of Modern Slavery.
Some 5% of all UK students—about 100,000—study in such universities. That is the equivalent of the total number of higher education students in Wales. They are specially connected to teaching. Some 30% of all primary and 16% of all secondary teachers have been trained in church universities. Roughly half of all those students in this country studying theology and religious studies are in church universities.
My amendments refer specifically to Roman Catholic ecclesiastical degrees. These are academic degrees—bachelor’s degrees; licentiates, which are equivalent to master’s degrees; and doctorates—recognised by the Catholic Church. They are used throughout the world, particularly with regard to philosophy, theology and canon law. They are often necessary qualifications for office within the Church throughout the entire world. The Holy See is a full member of the European education area and in this country two faculties which award degrees from the Holy See in philosophy and theology are at Heythrop College. In this country they are awarded in parallel with degrees; at Heythrop it is in parallel with degrees from the University of London.
Legislation in 1988 criminalised the awarding of degrees which did not have the authorisation of an Act of Parliament or a royal charter. Any degrees which did not have those foundations after 1988 were in fact criminal. Heythrop College of course, because it was founded before 1988, was exempt from that legislation, but the reason for these probing amendments is that the future of Heythrop College is in some doubt and, were it to close, the faculties which offer philosophy and theology would have to be transferred to other higher education institutions run by the Catholic Church and, under current legislation, would therefore be illegal. These two amendments would allow those degrees to be awarded if the Minister, when he replies, is gracious enough to accept them.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who is unable to introduce it herself this evening, I shall speak to Amendment 269, to which I have added my name. I support all the amendments in this group that have already been spoken to. This amendment creates a new clause which confirms the role of the Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers within the designated quality body to provide independent, expert advice before degree-awarding powers and university title are conferred, or creates a committee of the Office for Students which fulfils much the same function as the current Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers where no body has been designated. This provides independent, expert scrutiny and advice to the OfS.
The Bill amends the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to give the newly created Office for Students the ability to give and remove institutions’ degree-awarding powers and to award or remove the use of university title. This power currently sits with the Privy Council, which acts on the basis of guidance and criteria set out by the department for business, with advice from the Quality Assurance Agency. It is important that any new higher education providers awarding their own degrees, or calling themselves “university”, meet the same high requirements as existing universities. Appropriately robust market entry standards serve the interests of students by minimising the risk of early institutional failure or the need for intervention by the OfS, and we are not reassured that this is currently the case in the proposals put forward by the Government. Of course, we support new providers in the system, but we need particularly to scrutinise the fast-track private providers, as proposed in the Bill.
We propose a new clause legislating for a degree of independent oversight of the OfS in awarding degrees and university title to provide checks and balances on these very important decisions. In practice, this would require the OfS to take the advice of an independent specialist committee within the designated quality body or, where no quality body is designated for the OfS, to set up a statutory committee along the lines of the existing Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the various amendments in this group.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Kerslake. I preface my contribution to this debate by reiterating my concerns about the Government’s proposals to make it easier for alternative providers to award degrees and subsequently to achieve university title. I have not been reassured by any of the Minister’s explanations or by the detailed letters he has so courteously sent us during our debates over the last two weeks. The Government want to further diversify the sector. Yes, we need to reach potential students with different offerings and different types of courses, and in parts of the country that are poorly served. Of course, I support that, but not at the risk of selling these students a pig a poke.
There are enough examples from the States in particular which should give us pause for thought. There is one very familiar name, which I will not mention, but the closure of one of the largest for-profit providers, Corinthian Colleges, has left 16,000 students without certificates or degrees. The risk that the same could happen here does not seem even to be acknowledged by the Government. The Government’s commitment to diversifying the sector will be undermined by introducing this additional risk for students, because the loss of reputation will send a very negative ripple across the whole sector and abroad.
Students are at the heart of the Bill, yet it is students who will suffer if private providers that are going to be given the benefit of the doubt with probationary DAPs cannot deliver, or go under. A recent QAA report highlighted the importance of new entrants working closely with existing providers through the well-established validation procedures. On the whole, these validation arrangements have worked very well and we have not been offered any convincing evidence to the contrary. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Cohen, whose university has successfully gone through this process, said that it worked well and that they learned a lot from it. Of course, if the Bill can improve these validation relationships for the benefit of students, so much the better.
I can understand that potential entrants to the market are frustrated that they have to prove themselves against strict criteria. But it is surely far better for students, and probably in the long term for the providers themselves, that there are high standards for entry which minimise the risk of institutional failure. Why do we need to fast-track? It is not as if we are desperately short of universities. There are around 130 well-established institutions; nor are we short of alternative providers. Nobody seems to know the exact figure, although I hope the Bill’s provisions on registration will correct that. The DfE thinks that there are about 400 which receive some sort of taxpayer funding. A much smaller number has been awarded degree-awarding powers. So far these providers have made a limited contribution to diversity. They are focused largely on law, business and finance, and BPP, we were told, is going into nursing. They are mostly in London and the south-east, rather than in the so-called cold spots, where provision is limited or non-existent. That is scarcely surprising as they need to be in the more lucrative markets to satisfy shareholders of the business’s viability. I do not see that that is changing, even if these new arrangements are introduced.
Finally, who really benefits from probationary DAPs? It is not students, who are essentially paying to be guinea pigs for a new provider; but possibly not even new providers, who may find the label “probationary” more of a challenge when recruiting students and staff than they might as new institutions with robust validation arrangements. I urge the Government to think extremely carefully about this. In doing that I support Amendments 251, 252 and 259.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That is the second speediest moving of an amendment I have heard so far in Committee. I will be almost as brief, since we have alluded to the fact, if we have not specifically mentioned it, that the answer to a lot of our problems about the validations issue, which will come up in both this and the following group, where there is a clause stand part, and the power of validation of last resort being given to the Office for Students is to pick up the fact that the CNAA, of blessed memory, still exists, in rump form, in the Open University. That is where all its functions and assets were transferred—not that it had very many assets, I am sure—at the time of its dissolution, around the time that the polytechnics were given their degree-awarding powers and we abolished the binary line, effectively. So we have a situation in which it would be possible, I think, to obtain a validator of last resort at very little cost and certainly at no considerable worry in terms of new structures or arrangements. It would certainly resolve one of the issues that is devilling the question of the powers of the OfS, and I very much hope that this amendment will be considered very carefully.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I will speak to Amendment 311, in her name and mine. We support the option of identifying a central validation body. The current system of awarding bodies works well, although it is recognised that protectionist practices are sometimes adopted on both sides. We therefore agree that validating bodies should commit to competition, diversity and innovation, although that should not mean that all comers must be validated. Expertise in validation lies in the objective and impartial appraisal of an institution’s capacity to deliver and maintain appropriate standards of quality and student experience.
While the precise terms of such an arrangement will be decided between the provider and the OfS, the amendment would require any such arrangement to make specific provision for the national validating body to be able to refuse to validate a qualification if it has concerns about the quality of higher education provided. There is much merit in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for using the Open University as a validator of last resort. It is a body with very wide-ranging expertise and would be a respected body for the task—much more appropriate than the Office for Students itself.