Education

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of this statutory instrument. He has stated—we do not intend radically to dispute the point—that the regulations largely make consequential amendments to existing primary legislation, to make it consistent with the objectives and content of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, in addition to the points he made about the Charities Act 2011. However, I am informed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place decided yesterday to defer consideration of the regulations for one week. Can the Minister shed some light on why his colleagues in the other place have decided to do so? It is rather puzzling.

The Higher Education and Research Act created a new regulatory framework for higher education in England, including a new regulator—the Office for Students—and a new register of higher education institutions, essentially creating a new legal category of “registered higher education provider”. That will now include institutions in the further education sector, and my own college, Blackpool and The Fylde College, will be one of the institutions to benefit from that.

The regulations amend existing primary legislation so that, where appropriate, it refers to registered higher education providers. That is not a contentious decision; it is a legal tidying-up exercise, following the creation of a new regulatory framework. However, as the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), pointed out on the Floor of the House and several times in Committee, the OfS, to which many of the powers are being transferred from HEFCE, is a very different bird, with a different remit and different powers. It is therefore reasonable that we look carefully at how these changes might have an impact on HE providers.

The regulations ensure that all registered higher education providers can use an existing legal opt-out of certain laws governing charities, so that they will instead be governed by the OfS. We remain concerned about the Government’s continued marketised view of the OfS. We continue to be critical of the wider regulatory regime underpinning the 2017 Act and the way in which it is being applied, in particular the extent to which the Government are forcing the operations of free markets into the higher education system, without any sense of the consequences, in a Bill that was put together before Brexit and takes no account of its consequences. Can the Minister confirm that the OfS will be the sole arbiter in those cases, rather than the Charity Commission?

The explanatory note to the regulations says:

“Part 4 (regulation 43) makes amendments to Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011 in relation to exempt charities that are regulated by the OfS as their Principal Regulator. The amendments enable any registered higher education provider that is a charity to become exempt by an Order in Council, and remove exempt charity status from a provider that ceases to be registered with the OfS.”

These are important and powerful instruments. On the final point, about removing exempt charity status from a provider that ceases to be registered with the OfS, how will that be actioned and followed up, and what mechanisms will be in place? How will those decisions thereafter be scrutinised?

Two years on from the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we are still tidying up the legislation that has come from it. The Minister said, no doubt with a sigh of relief, that we are reaching the final set of regulations directly relating to the 2017 Act. However, as the former universities Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington—my opposite number during the Bill’s passage through the House—said in a Delegated Legislation Committee last week:

“It has been almost four years now that we have been at it.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 May 2019; c.11.]

I have to confess that I have been at it on this legislation throughout that time, and the Minister may begin to feel that he too is becoming accustomed to being at it, because this is the third week in a row that he and I have debated regulations relating to the Act.

The Minister and I had a lively discussion last week on the Higher Education (Monetary Penalties and Refusal to Renew an Access and Participation Plan) (England) Regulations 2019. It might not sound like the most fruitful possibility for a lively discussion, but we managed it. That gave Members on the Statutory Instrument Committee, including Government Members such as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Member for Orpington, the ability to raise important questions about access and participation, adult and part-time learning, the status of the Office for Students and, importantly, the current progress of the Augar review, on which we are still waiting for an update from the Government. The Minister is very welcome to update the House today if he chooses to do so.

The week prior to that, we challenged the Government over a number of unanswered questions relating to the Higher Education (Registration Fees) (England) Regulations 2019, about which we and the universities sector have had a number of concerns, including the special arrangements for micro and new providers, the formula used to determine the cost of registration for providers and the alarming nature of how quickly the Government’s proposed contribution to this exercise has fallen. In particular, we were concerned that the Government were making new and extraordinarily bureaucratic and expensive demands on universities at a time when their future is uncertain, and that is why we voted against the regulations.

These naturally reflect on the motion that the Government have chosen to bring forward on the Floor of the House today. It is our belief that, in principle, this statutory instrument is not unduly contentious, and I am led to believe that that opinion is shared by the Government. Why, therefore, do they need to use the time of the full House, rather than a Delegated Legislation Committee, to attempt to rubber-stamp a series of consequential amendments and the other issues pertaining to the Charities Act? The reason really is that the Government are bringing business to the House when they have very little else to debate. It is in sharp contrast to the way in which the Government dealt with the previous two SIs, to which I have referred, both of which were far more contentious and both of which touched on continued concerns about the operation of this Act. In my submission, those would have been far more suitable for debate in this Chamber.

It is a stark reminder that the Government have no domestic agenda to bring to this place at the moment, and that the Prime Minister lacks the power and majority needed to advance those few policies her Government do have. I suggest that the Government should be using this time to bring forward new policies and actual legislation, or matters that, from previous legislation such as HERA, are contentious and continue to give concerns as they are taken forward in detail and that should be debated by the whole House. As these regulations appear to contain no substantive matters of new policy at all, will the Minister tell me why it was felt that they should be debated on the Floor of the House today?

The explanatory note on the regulations also says:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”

So what implications do these changes have? We have of course been critical of the wider regulatory regime underpinning the 2017 Act, particularly, as I have said already, the extent to which the Government are forcing the operation of free markets on to the higher education system. As the regulator, the OfS is legally required to promote competition between HE providers, encouraging them to operate as if they are part of a competitive market, rather than a co-operative education system. We have previously committed to removing this duty on the regulator.

We have also expressed our concern about some of the powers designated to the Office for Students on data sharing. In July 2018, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), and I debated the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Cooperation and Information Sharing) Regulations 2018 in another Delegated Legislation Committee relating to this Act. As part of that debate, I referenced the fact that section 63 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, to which the regulations refer, does not place a limitation on the type of information that may be provided, and therefore that it could include personal data. You and I, Mr Speaker, were in this Chamber to hear the urgent question earlier on the issues of WhatsApp and the use of data, so I think it is entirely appropriate that we raise this issue again today.

With these regulations, we are exhibiting potential issues with data sharing, as is attested by a briefing I received in advance of this debate from defenddigitalme. For the assistance of the House, defenddigitalme advocates for children’s privacy in data and digital rights, and in response to concerns from teachers, parents and campaigners about the invasive uses of children’s personal information collected in the course of their education in England. That is one of the issues that I now want to raise further with the Minister. On the effects of the new regulations, it has said to us:

“Over 25 million students, children, and staff across England’s Education sector will be denied control over their digital footprint, in perpetuity. Data will be copied to an indefinite number of data recipients, without clear safeguards for scope creep, of new or onward uses, or users…

There is no meaningful limitation in its existing powers for what purposes OfS may pass on personal data to third parties; nor for which purposes those third-parties in turn may use the data on the face of the Act…or in the 2018 Regulation no 607…

By giving the OfS—and potentially its own prescribed persons (third parties), access to the entire education dataset of the population, past and present, since 2002:

There is no oversight”—

as far as we can see—

“of its data handling or accountability for processing…

There is no published plan to inform each…adult of the change of data controller or new processing purposes by any new body…

There is no route for redress if data are wrongly processed or mistakes made…

There is no route for redress if data are wrongly processed…in any processing of anyone’s records for the purposes of fraud.”

These are important issues. They may be quite technical issues, but they are important issues that bear upon the statutory instrument we are being asked to pass today, and they are issues that we took up during the Committee stage of the Bill.

The regulations bring both the OfS and UKRI on to the list of organisations in schedule 8 to the Digital Economy Act 2017, but there have been widespread concerns about data sharing between higher education providers and private companies. Is the Minister able to tell us today in what circumstances data will be shared and when students will know this has happened? As a point of process regarding part 2, regulation 14, on new powers under the Digital Economy Act 2017, can the Minister confirm whether the regulations have been prepared in line with parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the Cabinet Office debt and fraud information sharing review board code of practice, which was passed by this House in November? There does not appear to have been any publication or preparation of data protection impact assessments in relation to the documents accompanying this SI. Applications to amend the schedule should be made through the secretariat, but as we are told that the Cabinet Office committee does not publish any minutes it is unknown whether this happened. Will the Minister tell us why—in respect of the regulations before us today, which the Minister has signed off—his colleagues in the Cabinet Office do not publish minutes in this way?

Is it the intention of the new regulations that through the new data powers they give OfS to receive data in regulations 28 and 32 they can also enable the distribution by OfS of population-wide personal data? I repeat: that includes the personal, confidential data of every pupil from state education since 1996, past, present and future and in perpetuity—over 25 million people, and growing every year—distribution to its own third-party prescribed persons, including potentially Pearson Education Ltd, among other commercial parties, for such wide-ranging company purposes, through the powers of last year’s regulations, which set out who the OfS could give data to, and for purposes defined only by that company’s memorandum and articles of association, most of which were not even mentioned in the explanatory notes that accompanied that negative statutory instrument?

I would argue that if the Department wishes us to be entirely happy with this SI today, the necessary and proportionate purposes should be made explicit and set on the face of the Act, or corrected in each set of regulations. These are matters on which it would be helpful for the Minister to respond briefly now, or at least for him to put a response in writing for Members of the House, given that they have been raised on the Floor of the House today. We do not, though, propose to divide the House on this statutory instrument today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank hon. Members for participating in this debate. I shall try to respond briefly to the points that have been raised.

I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for her remarks on the Scottish system. I will be heading to Scotland in early June and will endeavour to focus also on some of the issues of widening participation. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, Richard Lochhead. On the points that the hon. Lady raised about research, I know that we are going a bit off piste in relation to the statutory instrument before us, but I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that we maintain our common research links with our European partners. When I was in Berlin, speaking at the “Going Global” conference hosted by the British Council, I met Minister Karliczek, Federal Minister of Educational Research, and had meetings with the Fraunhofer and Max Planck research organisations to make that commitment.

Regarding our association with such future programmes as Horizon Europe, yesterday the Government published our international research and innovation strategy, making clear our commitment to being outward-facing and ensuring that we continue to endeavour to have strong global research links.

On tier 4 visas—the hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Secretary is sitting beside me—we must remember that researchers from international countries are still able to come to the United Kingdom. We recently launched the first Future Leaders Fellowships programme, £900 million of investment in 550 international fellowships, which has seen people from Japan to Canada coming to the UK. We recognise there are issues relating to visas that need to be looked at as part of the consultation for the immigration White Paper, but issues around tier 4 visas have not prevented existing international researchers from being able to participate in UK research life.

Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), on the amendment to schedule 3 of the Charities Act 2011, which sets out that charities are exempt from registration with and direct regulation by the Charity Commission for England and Wales, HEFCE was the principal regulator for HE providers that were exempt charities under the existing schedule 3 of the 2011 Act, and the OfS was made principal regulator for higher education under the earlier consequential and transitional regulation which came into force on 1 April 2018. The amendments to schedule 3 require that currently exempt HE charities remain registered with the OfS to continue to hold exempt status and provide the opportunity for any provider registered with the OfS to be exempt by applying to the Privy Council. That will mean that exempt charities registered with HE providers will not have to register with or make returns with the Charity Commission, but will instead report to the OfS as principal regulator.

The amendments have been made with the intention to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on charities and ensure that the OfS has a sufficient regulatory relationship with the relevant exempt charities to be an effective principal regulator. The amendment to the Charities Act made the removal of exempt status automatic upon deregistration, so no action is actually required by the OfS. The OfS can deregister a provider only if certain conditions are met. That covers both conditions on registration, and consideration of the denial of an access and participation plan.[Official Report, 4 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 1MC.]

On the impact assessment, the regulations contain two sets of saving provisions. The first deal with the applications made for university title that were made before 1 April 2019. The second type of saving provisions relate to the repeal of a particular statutory provision under which so-called designation orders were made. Those orders designated certain providers as higher education institutions. There are a number of references and regulations governing teachers’ pension schemes and local government schemes to designated institutions. If we do not preserve the orders for those very narrow purposes, future staff’s eligibility for the schemes will be lost, so there are benefits in ensuring that staff have access to those pension schemes.

The entire purpose of the consequential saving provisions is to preserve the intention and scope of the underlying legislation in the context of the changes brought about by HERA. We therefore do not anticipate any additional regulatory burden as a result of the regulations. As I said in my opening speech, the main purpose of the consequential amendments is to minimise the risk of chaos and disruption to students, staff and providers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the SLSC asking for clarity on a few of the provisions in the regulations. I understand that it often does so as part of the scrutiny process and we will respond in due course.

The hon. Gentleman focused on the risks around data sharing in relation to regulation 14 and schedule 8 to the Digital Economy Act 2017. Schedule 8 allows bodies named in it to disclose information to each other for the purposes of taking action in connection with fraud perpetrated against a public authority. The amendments replace Innovate UK and existing research councils with references to UKRI, HEFCE and the OfS, because HEFCE has been abolished, and Innovate UK and the research councils have been incorporated into UKRI. If we do not make the amendment, the OfS will not be able to make or receive fraud-related disclosures envisaged under the Act. There would also be ambiguity as to whether disclosures could be made or received by relevant constituent parts of UKRI.

Separately, regulations 28 and 32 amend the Education (Information About Children in Alternative Provision) (England) Regulations 2007 and the Education (Individual Pupil Information) (Prescribed Persons) (England) Regulations 2009. The provision requires institutions that are not schools in receipt of funding from the Department for Education to provide certain pupil information to the Secretary of State and other bodies, including HEFCE. The amendment will substitute OfS for HEFCE, as HEFCE no longer exists. That is the same for regulation 32.[Official Report, 4 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 2MC.]

It is important to state on record that we need data sharing to track pupils to ensure, when it comes to improving the position of disadvantaged students and students in widening participation categories, the data is available.

[Gordon Marsden]

I appreciate the detailed explanation of the technical reasons for the changes and I have no wish to prolong the debate unduly, but the thrust of my remarks was to express our continued concerns about the inadequacy of the protections in this area. Will the Minister give the House an assurance today that he is confident the status quo in terms of the safeguards will in fact do the business, given that we and other bodies have raised substantial concerns about the current procedures?

[Chris Skidmore]

The section 3 regulations the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his earlier contribution were debated at the time of the regulations. The consequential provisions substitute the OfS for HEFCE. I will put on record that the Department takes its obligations under data protection laws very seriously. There is a panel that assesses each sharing request for public benefit, proportionality, the legal underpinning, and strict information security standards. I reiterate that no data sharing will take place without the Department ensuring that those measures are taken into account.

That takes us to the wider issue of the OfS being part of the regulators code and the application of that code meeting the commitment the Government made during the passage of the Act. In addition to the matters the OfS must have to regard to under HERA are the five principles of good regulation under the regulators code. It is worth putting them on record: the regulator should carry out activities in a way that supports those it regulates to comply and grow; regulators should provide simple and straightforward ways to engage with those they regulate and hear their views; regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk; regulators should share information about compliance and risk; and regulators should ensure clear information, guidance and advice is available to help those they regulate to meet their responsibilities to comply. The opportunity for the OfS to be a part of the regulators code is an additional indication of the responsibilities that the OfS takes its new role very seriously.

If I had longer I would go through the importance of why we are debating the regulations. As Universities Minister, I am delighted they have reached the Floor of the House rather than Committee Corridor. I believe this marks a significant moment in the reforms that began way back with the first Green Paper in 2015, all the way through to the final provisions of the Act being put in place. We have seen a shift from a provider-focused system to a student-focused system. We have seen a system that will now move to focusing on how we can best ensure we have value for money for students and deliver the best student experience. We can ensure that new providers, including FE providers, are able to enter the market.

When addressing the Education Committee this morning, we spoke at length about how we can ensure that FE and HE providers have greater opportunities to work together. One important part of the regulations is ensuring that FE providers will be able to have degree-awarding powers and apply to a much more streamlined system through the OfS. My ambition and long-term hope is that it will allow FE providers to have degree-awarding powers, rather than going through the rather complex and nuanced current franchising route. That will ensure we create a single system for a post-18 education world that benefits students, so they understand their role in the education system.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Further Implementation etc.) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 29 April, be approved.

House of Commons Commission

Resolved,

That Pete Wishart be appointed to the House of Commons Commission in place of Stewart Hosie in pursuance of the House of Commons Administration Act 1978, as amended.—(Jo Churchill.)

Draft Higher Education (Monetary Penalties and Refusal to Renew an Access and Participation Plan) (England) Regulations 2019

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to discuss and debate the regulations. The Minister and I may have some sense of déjà vu because we were in this exact room at the exact same time last week. However, this is a case of sliding doors, for those Members who have seen the movie, because the outcome will be different today—we will not oppose the regulations. Having said that, these are important regulations that deserve to be probed properly. I will therefore ask the Minister a number of questions pertaining both to what he has said and to the content and implications of the regulations.

Talking of déjà vu, it is a great pleasure to see—I will not call him my old opponent—my old sparring partner from the Bill, the hon. Member for Orpington, on the Committee. I hope he does not have too many senses of déjà vu, because I will be returning to one or two of the arguments we talked through on that Bill.

The Minister has laid out in considerable technical detail how this process has come about. That is welcome, as is the fact that the Government have listened to some of the elements relating to the operation of the penalty clauses.

On the subject of participation, I absolutely agree with the Minister. Indeed, I will praise my friend, as I can call him in a non-parliamentary position, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It is extremely important that the letter of the regulations embodies the spirit in which access and participation need to go forward, to which I will make a couple of references.

For the moment, I would just ask the Minister two or three questions on the text of the draft regulations. He referred to monetary penalties, a matter to which the OfS has regard. I refer to regulation 4, which mentions having regard to

“any financial or other gain made by the provider”

or “loss avoided”.

It is true that paragraph (g) refers to the impact this is likely to have on students on higher education courses, and on students in general. However, this matter goes beyond the implications for students of a particular refusal or monetary penalty. In my view, which I will come to in relation to another part of the proposals, the measure needs to involve as closely as possible both students and staff at the institutions concerned.

There is a grave danger, as we discussed previously with the Bill, that we talk about the actors as though they are simply the university bodies and the Government or the Government’s new organisations, in this case the OfS. That is not the case. The measures also intimately affect the people who work day to day for those higher education providers and the people who study with them. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that area.

Regulation 5 talks about

“the impact that a decision under section 21(2) of the Act is likely to have on—(i) students or prospective students on higher education courses at the provider”.

It would again be interesting to hear the Minister’s explanation as to how that might be addressed in practice and what discussions there might be between the OfS and the Department on how that matter would be taken forward. The Minister will understand that one of the things I am probing here is what precisely the future relationship between the OfS and the Department will be.

We debated that issue long and hard during the passage of the Bill. Now we have an opportunity, with these statutory instruments, to see how the measures will work in practice. The Minister will be aware, as was the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, of our concerns that the OfS should not simply be a micromanager implementing minute Government decisions. In cases such as this there is an important argument for discussion.

Those are the main points I would like to raise on the regulations. The only other point I would make relates to the explanatory note that says:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”

I am not sure that I agree with that conclusion. We all hope, of course, that the regulations will be largely honoured in the observance rather than the breach. If a significant provider were to get into trouble and were to be subject to these penalties, I fear it would have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors.

I am not saying that there absolutely should have been a full impact assessment at this stage, but it seems a slightly cavalier way of looking at it. Perhaps the Minister would give some indication of whether, for instance, this might come as part of the OfS’s annual report to Parliament, maybe a year or so after these regulations have gone through. As I say, I hope we do not have such incidents, but if we do, I hope some account will be taken of their impact in the way I have described.

Those are the specifics of these regulations. On the broader implications, the Minister has talked about consultation, and it is true that there were considerable concerns across the university sector about the size and relevance of any potential fines. I think it is still the case that the sector, whether individual organisations or Universities UK itself, harbours, with good reason, some concerns about how the specifics of these sanctions might be taken forward. I want to probe the Minister about two or three of those.

In particular, UUK has talked about the way in which the OfS will judge higher education institutions that are judged to be of higher risk and that will need additional requirements for access and participation. In a note to me, UUK has said:

“While we agree that the approach by the OfS to access and participation would, theoretically, reduce burden for providers with a low risk of a future breach, it is currently difficult to understand levels of burden in practice without more detail on the risk assessment methodology. UUK would welcome more detailed clarity in the area of risk classification and associated timeframes.”

It may well be that such details exist at some level in the bowels of the Department and that it has not been felt appropriate or necessary to burden the Committee with them today. However, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to indicate whether such issues have been taken forward.

On the positive side, Universities UK and the Opposition welcome the fact that these plans now focus strongly on access and participation, and we support many of the OfS’s wider measures to make progress in this area. We particularly welcome the ability of the OfS, and its new director Chris Millward, to look at the performance of institutions on access and participation over a long period of time—three to four years. However, that has to be balanced by the ability of the OfS to act sharply, and of the Government to support it in that process, if institutions appear to be in a rocky position.

UUK also says that it would welcome

“access to more contextual data to inform universities' access activity”

and

“a suitable basket of indicators of disadvantage”.

Here, again, I wish to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He made a specific and important point about disabled students that could be made about other areas, such as potential students from a black and minority ethnic background, service veterans or care leavers. This has not been discussed in detail today, but there are worrying signs that, in some areas, the Government are not necessarily following through on some of the promises they have made to care leavers. I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the Department will convey to the OfS the importance of looking at people who come from a care-leaver background; I hope that the OfS would do so anyway.

The issues about access and participation cannot be understood unless there is clarity and assurance about the minimum entry requirement. This obviously depends on what happens with the Augar review. However, there are concerns that a minimum entry requirement based on prior attainment would disproportionately affect young people from the most disadvantaged areas and under-represented groups.

In particular, it would severely disadvantage adult learners wanting to return to higher education because, by definition, in many cases they would not have those formal prior attainments—certainly not in the form that is required. I press the Minister on that issue. The master of Birkbeck College, David Latchman, and various other people have made those points, too. We want to ensure that these groups are not caught out by the unintended consequences for access and participation that might come from this legislation.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not intend to delay the Committee unduly, Mr Hosie—not that you would allow me to. On that point, the key is the structure and nature of courses. Birkbeck’s success—the hon. Member for Blackpool South knows that I know that place well—is borne from the fact that people study in the evenings, in modular fashion and part time. All those things allow all kinds of learners who would not otherwise engage to do so. It is high time that we revisited the structure and character of how people learn to allow them to engage.

[Gordon Marsden]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations, with which I absolutely agree. I also agree with the revisiting to which he refers. I have had conversations—I am sure the Minister has had similar conversations—with the Office for Students about the issues around adult students and how we deal with them in the context of standardised access and participation measures. I am not saying that the Government are not considering those things, but it would be useful as we move along to have a bit more detail.

There are a couple of other points in that particular area on which it would also be good to have clarity. For example, it would be useful to have clarity on what might happen regarding fines for providers, as detailed in the regulations, that are subsidiaries of larger organisations, some of which will be based overseas. I do not propose to reopen the debate I had with the hon. Member for Orpington about our concerns on how those processes with new providers might work, but it will be a fact—it is not necessarily damnosa hereditas—that a number of these new providers will be subsidiaries of overseas organisations. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister clarified how they will be dealt with and how the opportunities for evading such fines or instructions might be avoided.

We are talking today about a situation where we have come to the eleventh hour and various pressures have been put on by the OfS and the Department, and the institutions concerned have not budged. It is important that the Department and the OfS, in particular, keep a very close eye on how new providers, particularly those without much of a track record, go forward. That relates to the issue we most want to avoid. It is one of the reasons why we were concerned, and remain concerned, about the proviso that new providers can assume all the advantages of university status, including access to public funding, from day one.

I want to conclude by returning to a couple of points that we raised in the Bill Committee in September 2016. Those points related to how decisions would be made in the OfS. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Orpington and I had a detailed set of exchanges. We would have liked the issues to be resolved in legislation. They were not, but we had a number of assurances from him. However, with all due respect to him, I want to make the points again to the current Minister, because he is responsible for taking such things through.

One of the things we were most concerned about—something that was certainly given in evidence to the Committee by Professor Les Ebdon, the previous director for fair access and participation—was where the ultimate responsibility for decisions lies. That is not stated in the Bill. I said in the Public Bill Committee that

“the ability of the director for fair access and participation to negotiate with institutions...would be seriously compromised if the director did not have the ultimate authority to approve or refuse access and participation plans.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 132.]

We also pointed out that the way in which the director had operated under the previous structures had led to some useful improved targets at various institutions and an increased level of predicted spend.

I will not return to the debates about whether the Higher Education Funding Council for England did better than the OfS—they are different bodies designed to do different things—but how the functions will be carried out remains an issue. It is crucial that the director for fair access and participation has the independence to challenge higher education institutions robustly, particularly in such areas, so I would welcome any further thoughts or clarifications that the Minister can offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank hon. Members for their participation in the debate. The hon. Member for Blackpool South said he wanted to probe me properly, and indeed he did. I was also suitably amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I will touch on some of the points raised and valuable contributions made.

It is important to repeat that the OfS can use the statutory power to sanction a provider only when it appears that there is or has been a breach of that provider’s ongoing registration conditions. Before that, as well as imposing monetary penalties as a last resort, the OfS may suspend a provider’s registration entirely or, for specified purposes, deregister a provider. In the case of a provider breaching an access and participation plan, it may refuse to renew that plan.

In addition to those formal sanctions, the OfS has other regulatory interventions available to it, which it is already using, such as enhanced monitoring of providers and the ability to impose specific ongoing registration conditions. Those less formal interventions may be used instead of or in addition to sanctions to address the specific risk presented by a provider. They may also be used when a registered provider is at risk of but has not yet breached an ongoing registration condition.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire asked about monetary penalties and the amounts expected to be raised; this also touches on the overall impact assessment. We hope that such penalties will be used very much as a last resort when all other measures have failed. We do not expect this to be a revenue-generating exercise. Money from monetary penalties as well as income derived from its interest is required by HERA to go back to Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Consolidated Fund. That prevents the OfS from imposing penalties or charging interest to raise income, or of being accused of doing so. The OfS will account for all penalty income separately from its existing funds. It is important to put that on the record.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South touched on the processes of engagement. It will be for the OfS to work with providers on the implications for students and prospective students of refusing to renew an access and participation plan, as referenced in regulation 5. It is also legally required to have regard to those mandatory factors when deciding to impose a monetary penalty. At the risk of repeating myself, when making a decision it will need to have regard to its regulatory framework, its duties under HERA, and section 2(1) in particular, the regulators’ code and any Secretary of State guidance.

On Secretary of State guidance—this touches on the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the relationship between the Department and the OfS—it is important to note that the Secretary of State issues annual guidance but has the ability to update that guidance at any point. As Universities Minister, I have a regular monthly meeting with the chief executive of the OfS to talk about specific issues that might be coming up on the agenda that require a discussion between the Department and the OfS.

The OfS must also comply with the principles of administrative law, such as reasonableness and taking into account relevant considerations while discarding irrelevant ones. I will come on to legal processes in a moment. The OfS must also follow the procedures in schedule 3 to HERA when informing the provider of its intention to propose a penalty and the reasons for that decision. Importantly, that allows the provider to make representations before the penalty is imposed. The OfS will therefore need to be transparent about how it has balanced those mandatory factors and other considerations, such as the individual circumstances, to determine the final monetary penalty amount, if indeed it has gone down that route.

The provider can also appeal a decision to impose a penalty, or the amount, to the first-tier tribunal of the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber, which is part of the court system of the United Kingdom. The provider’s appeal can be on either the decision to impose the penalty or the amount, on the basis that the decision was based on a factual error, was wrong in law or was unreasonable.

The regulations include provisions to review decisions by the OfS to refuse to renew an access and participation plan. Since 2004, providers have been able to seek a review of such a decision. No such review has ever taken place. A new statutory reviewer was appointed as part of HERA 2017. Given the significant impact on a provider of a plan being refused—the provider cannot charge higher-level fees—it is right that providers have the opportunity to have such a refusal tested through an independent review.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned Universities UK. I, too, am keen to reflect on any of its concerns, ongoing or otherwise. I am assured that the OfS has considered the risk in developing arrangements for future access and participation plans. That has been subject to consultation with providers, and is being implemented for 2020-21.

A veritable feast of specific points came up that I could be tempted down the route of addressing. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington raised Philip Augar’s report. Hand on heart, I have not read it, as I said on Sky News yesterday. I wish to make it clear to the Committee that I have not seen the report, which will be published in due course. I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, and that he wishes to engage with whatever recommendations come out of it. However, he will be well aware that it is just one part of the overall post-18 review.

There has been additional work on the level 4 and 5 consultation that is taking place. I think there has also been some work by PricewaterhouseCoopers, looking at how much a degree actually costs a university. Whenever the report is finally published, I am keen to ensure that we engage and work with the sector.

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister is being extremely helpful, and I do not wish to detain him from being so, but he referred to the report being published. Does that mean that it will be published for public or stakeholder perusal before the Government give their response?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am unable to comment on decisions that may yet have to be taken. I expect a report of this magnitude to be published and, when it is, I am keen to ensure that the sector—as I have said to it—has the opportunity to engage with the report and its consequences. I am on record on specific issues and rumours. I will not prejudge the contents of the report.

Higher Education (Registration Fees) (England) Regulations 2019

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Higher Education (Registration Fees) (England) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 543).

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to introduce this debate. Having prayed against the regulations, we are glad to finally have a chance to debate and express an opinion on them, because there are several outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Some of those issues go back to 2016, when I took the Higher Education and Research Bill through Committee with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson); others have arisen from changes made by the Government via their consultation on the registration fees that higher education providers are now being asked to pay.

Considerable disappointment has been expressed to us by MillionPlus and other HE sector bodies about the relatively short notice the sector has been given of the regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the Labour Front Bench notification of them some time ago, but there is a feeling among those in the sector that they have not had enough opportunity to look at them—I think the regulations were laid only about 10 days ago. To some extent, I am afraid, that suggests that the Department for Education is less willing to work collaboratively with the sector and is more interested in a combative approach. It is unclear, at least to me, whether that is in the long-term best interest of students. What is clear from drilling down into the small print is that the Government have further reduced their funding of the Office for Students and the regulatory functions that it provides in the higher education sector. That has put more of the burden on the institutions and, indirectly, on the students.

Members of the Committee need to be aware that OfS registration fee assessments have increased significantly since the original impact assessment for the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. When we debated these proposals in the Bill Committee in 2016, we expressed our concerns that the figures might change. OfS fees are banded by provider size, which is calculated according to the number of full-time equivalent higher education students. Under the regulations, the maximum annual fee payable by the largest providers—those with more than 20,000 students—is £186,600.

According to a briefing provided by Universities UK, the new fees represent not only an average increase of 62% on the figures in the 2017 impact assessment, equating to an increase of £66,900 for the largest institutions, but an average increase of 18% on the estimates in the DFE’s February 2018 fees consultation, equating to an increase of almost £29,000 for the largest institutions. The fact that the estimates have varied so dramatically within a year, and that the cost to institutions has shot up, strongly suggests that the Department does not have a handle on where it might go next—indeed, it suggests that its whole calculation mechanism and strategy has been flawed. Given the multitude of other unknown factors that universities have to deal with, some of which I shall refer to shortly, how are they supposed to plan for and cope with these new burdens if there is no clarity?

The Department would have us believe that the increased registration fees are a result of increased operating costs for the OfS. According to the figures before us today, the total operating costs were estimated at £26.2 million in 2017, but are now forecast to increase by at least £1 million. The Department says that that can be explained, first, by the registration of fewer new providers than expected. The OfS predicts that a total of 464 approved and approved (fee cap) providers will be registered in 2019-20—67 fewer than in the original impact assessment for the Higher Education and Research Bill. The over-optimistic, rather gung-ho assumptions about the new providers coming forward that the Department made when discussing the issue in the White Paper and the Bill Committee in 2016 have now been shown to be false, as we warned they would.

A reduction in expected efficiency savings for 2019-20 is the second reason given. Estimates have been revised down from 10% in the 2017 consultation impact assessment to 5% in the 2019 impact assessment, which again hints at how flawed and over-optimistic the 2017 assessment was. The Department tells us that it has absorbed the £500,000 cost of the student information programme; costs associated with Prevent, which are not specified; subsidies for new providers; and a fee waiver for providers with fewer than 300 students—a combined total of £800,000, subject to the spending review.

We are alarmed by how quickly the Government’s proposed contribution has fallen, from the 2017 impact assessment to the proposals before us today. The amount the Government are contributing has decreased significantly since the 2017 Act. The 2017 impact assessment shows that £26.2 million would be contributed from the sector and £6.6 million from the Government—a split of 75% to 25%. The statistics we have been given suggest that the 2019 statutory instrument shows a £27.2 million sector contribution by the providers and only a £800,000 contribution by the Government—a split of 97% to 3%. If those figures are accurate, that is a huge change and a huge new burden on those hard-pressed institutions. That is another factor explaining the increase in sector registration fees, alongside the reasons I mentioned earlier. Can the Minister tell me why the Government have chosen to push this burden further on to institutions and students since the Act was passed?

As I have indicated, this financial burden coincides with a range of other challenges: the potential costs of the subject-level teaching excellence framework that the Government have proposed; pension increases; the implications for HE institutions of Brexit and the Immigration Bill; and funding changes, all of which have a potential knock-on effect on institutions and the opportunities available to students. In that context, it is not surprising that the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for East Surrey, who is serving on this Committee, said only on Monday, in the urgent question:

“the cumulative impact of some of our policy decisions…could be that we undermine the university sector”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2019; Vol. 659, c. 29.]

We would argue that this is one of those factors.

Universities UK has therefore asked for more accountability regarding the overall cost of the OfS and the reasons why the costs for providers have increased so substantially from previous estimates. We believe these costs are unexplained and potentially unwarranted. Can the Minister clarify any of that? On top of that, page 2 of the impact assessment states:

“There will be small familiarisation costs for HE providers when the new system is introduced.”

Can the Minister tell us what constitutes a small familiarisation cost and how much the Government expect that to be per institution?

I referred earlier to the fact that the DFE had absorbed the costs of the fee waiver for small providers. Regulation 4 proposes that micro-entities with 300 or fewer full-time equivalent students should be exempt from paying either initial or ongoing registration fees if they retain that status. We are concerned about that on two levels. First, those institutions often require a higher level of monitoring than larger, well-established ones. Is it fair, therefore, that others have to pay while those micro-institutions are allowed the same benefits of registration without having to bear any of the cost?

Secondly, and possibly more alarmingly, the way in which the micro-entities category has been established in the regulations provides the potential for creative abuse by large groups or companies seeking to enter the market but circumvent fees. Could a situation arise where an individual or company set up a number of micro-entities, which each specialised in a single university subject, but which collectively would be a far larger institution? That way, could they not maintain registration across a substantial area of activity without having to pay the fees? How does the Minister respond to that? There seem to be no safeguards in the regulations to prevent that.

Regulation 8 states:

“The OfS may waive or refund part or all of any fee payable under these Regulations if it considers it fair and reasonable to do so in an individual case.”

However, nowhere in the explanatory memorandum is there any clear indication of what those fair and reasonable circumstances may be. That may be another potential loophole. It is not clear anywhere in the materials how that would pan out. Will the Minister enlighten us?

MillionPlus told us in its briefing for today’s debate that the OfS was established under the principle of risk-based regulation, but basing the fees on student cohorts rather than on the amount of regulatory effort or risk is in direct contradiction to that—for example, a larger established provider may be a far lower risk than a new provider recruiting 100 full-time equivalents for the first time. DFE officials suggest that they have taken that approach because the latter approach is not possible at the moment, so bandings based on student numbers were used as a necessity.

MillionPlus also stated:

“there are some cliff-edge changes throughout the bandings, especially at the upper end. Although the difference is around a 25% increase each time, it is possible that fees based on student numbers will act as a disincentive to growth, which is unlikely to be in the interests of students.”

Universities UK has echoed that call, asking for a commitment to move to a model of charging fees that properly reflects the costs of regulating different providers.

Given the current proposal, and the fact that registration fees are just for the upcoming academic year and are not confirmed beyond that, can the Minister clarify whether we should expect the process to change in due course as the OfS understands where the effort and risk lie? If so, and changes do take place in the criteria by which regulation fees are assessed, will they need to come back to a future SI Committee?

The questions we have for the Minister are many, substantial and significant. We look forward to hearing his response, and I reserve my right of reply at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

Taxpayer.

[Gordon Marsden]

Government.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Yes, from the Government. We can talk about the sources of Government money. Why are these costs going up? In a response to me in 2016, the then Minister made it clear that fees would only be charged on a cost-recovery basis—it is in Hansard and I am happy to pass it on to the Minister—yet that is not the system that we have in front of us today. This SI does not seem to marry with what we were being told in the Bill Committee.

We have to return to the points made by Universities UK. I am not sure that the Minister answered those questions, so I will ask him again. First, Universities UK makes the point about accountability in relation to the overall costs of the OfS and the reasons why the costs for providers have increased so substantially from previous estimates. We have not had a clear answer from the Government or from the OfS about why that is the case and we have absolutely no idea why the Government think the cost will increase by another £5 million in the next five years. We need an answer to that.

The Minister should be concerned about the way in which the OfS is growing like Topsy. It is a quango; what happened to the Government’s desire to see a bonfire of quangos? This one is being let grow more or less out of control.

The second point was about a commitment to move to a model of charging fees that properly reflects the costs of regulating different providers, rather than just size. The Minister reiterated the importance of looking at size today, but in our initial discussions, the Bill Committee felt that if fees were charged on a cost-recovery basis, particularly for universities that have clear systems and can easily provide information to the OfS, that would perhaps result in more limited costs than for new providers coming into the market and that would be reflected in the fees. That has not happened; quite the opposite. In fact, what the Government appear to be doing through exempting smaller providers is ensuring that their marketisation agenda continues apace, rather than reflecting the cost to universities.

The third point is that there should be appropriate funding from the DFE so students are not paying for Government policy priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

It is nothing to do with the regulations.

[Chris Skidmore]

It is important, because this is about the scope of the OfS. Our debate today has focused simply on the financial role of the OfS in regulating universities. It also has a role in promoting access and diversity, to ensure that all students have the opportunity and the freedom to study. That work is not some spread of a quango, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said; it is really important work. We should be able to look at how we ensure that hate crime is addressed effectively and that we adopt a collaborative approach. The OfS as a body provides a national focus to ensure that these measures are taken forward constructively.

When it comes to the development of the OfS, I urge all Committee members to support it and look at its work in universities in their region, because it is an important organisation that will benefit students, and not just by providing best value for their courses. We can talk about the cost of the registration fees; I think the OfS will pay back the cost of the registration fees to the universities more, and not just in kind, but by being able to look at what is an incredible value-for-money argument.

It is important that we work to ensure that the OfS can continue to develop its plans for the future. I have already helped to sign off the access and participation plans framework guidance for the OfS this year. I am keen to ensure that we work on developing that for next year and the years after and on ensuring a positive relationship with the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

As I have observed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who has just spoken, has observed, today’s debate concerns registration fees and their implementation. While I have considerable respect for the Minister, as he knows, I have seldom heard such an inadequate response to a debate about a statutory instrument in which specific questions were asked about specific financial issues and why they have changed.

Members will be relieved to know that I will not detain the Committee by going through all the questions I asked that the Minister failed to answer. I appreciate that he cannot answer some of them here and now, but I thought that he would be capable of answering one or two. I certainly think that all members of the Committee deserve answers to those questions, because they are absolutely at the centre of whether the provisions before us have been properly thought out and whether we can rely on their financial probity, given what we have seen over the last two years.

The Minister totally ignored the issues that we raised about the potential for abuse with micro-entities. I give him notice that we will be watching progress in this area very carefully, and if any scandals or problems occur as a result, unless he wishes to expand on the matter in writing to me, his complacency today will be noted and taken into account in future discussions on these matters.

The truth of the matter is that the Minister has attempted to glide through a number of bromides about what he thinks the OfS might be doing in future, and about this, that and the other. Of course, the things he talked about are laudable, and of course I support what the OfS is doing, particularly the work of Chris Millward, on access and participation, but that was not the issue. The OfS is a sort of passive bystander in the process. The Government are making an extraordinary demand on universities at a time when their future is uncertain, which is why the Minister’s response is inadequate.

We are not going to let this matter go. I shall write to the Minister and ask him to spell out specifically responses to the questions that he failed to answer today, in respect of what my hon. Friend and I have said. It is regrettable that the Minister talks about co-operation and collaboration with universities, yet does not see the HE sector as a partner to be worked with, but as a partner to be listened to, then ignored. That is essentially the outcome of the regulations. On that basis, we cannot conclude that there has been sufficient or adequate discussion, or even a response to the issues that we have raised, so we propose to divide the Committee.

Question put.

Young Carers Support

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I echo the sentiments already expressed in both interventions and speeches, including the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). If I may say so, responsibility for the questions he posed to the Minister does not sit only in the Department for Education but across Government. If we are serious about this issue, the need to break out of those silos, and perhaps to have a cross-departmental take on all this, is really important.

I will speak principally on the excellent and enormously positive work done in Blackpool, often by our carers centre, which is of long standing. I have had the privilege to work with the centre over my 22 years as the local Member of Parliament, and particularly with its young carers. Over the past 12 months, the centre has supported 666 young carers. Let us bear in mind that this is—I will not say that it is the tip of the iceberg—certainly not the actual number of young people caring for a parent or family member in Blackpool. Various surveys over the years have suggested that the figure is anything between 2,000 and 3,000, which gives some sense of the scale of it.

The other thing about Blackpool, which is also an issue for many inner-city areas and other seaside and coastal communities, is the degree of double transience—of families coming into the town and of people moving within the town, often because of family break-ups or economic hardship. That means that the ability of people who need care to latch on to a local community is much reduced on what it might be in other parts of the country, which puts even more pressure on the work of those young carers.

Nevertheless, the good news from Blackpool is that there has been tremendous progress in the last few years. I have been privileged and very proud to be part of that. In 2016 we all got a little bit of BBC showbiz dust sprinkled on us, because the BBC’s “DIY SOS” programme, which some hon. Members may be familiar with, descended on Blackpool to transform a building, Blenheim House—which is in the constituency of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), but which serves the whole of Blackpool—into a young carers centre. Literally hundreds and hundreds of volunteers came from across the community, and I, along with some of my councillor colleagues, lent my hod, as it were, by clearing rubble and doing general labouring tasks in the morning. I also pay tribute to the Beaverbrooks Charitable Trust—the local charity and local business that provided the property and has supported the centre very strongly ever since. It is invidious, when one thinks about the work that is done by young carers and the carers associations that support them, to single out lots of individuals, but I do particularly want to single out Michelle Smith, who has done extraordinary things with the centre and everything that has been taken forward from it.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is paying fitting tribute to the organisations in his constituency. Will he join me in recognising the work of volunteers, particularly the volunteers who assist in my constituency, Gloucestershire Young Carers, because it is their contribution that means that the work can reach so much further and change so many more lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the multiplier factor is very important, but it is also very important that young carers themselves do not get burned out. That is one of the key issues. It did not involve young carers, but I have a family history in this regard, in that my father cared for my mother for nearly 25 years; she had severe osteoporosis. Unfortunately, he would not take advantage of the things that were available, and I saw, in his latter years, how he was absolutely worn down by the process. Young people may not show that, but they have the same sorts of issues. When I tell hon. Members that 48% of those young people in Blackpool are caring for a parent because of substance misuse or mental ill health, they will get a sense of the sorts of issues that young carers have to face and deal with.

Last autumn, very important new research from the University of Nottingham revealed that the number of young people between the ages of 11 and 16 who act as carers has more than doubled since a comparable BBC survey in 2010. I was privileged to discuss those findings with people from the carers centre in my area, but also with two young carers, Caitlin Churchill and Claire Taylor, who had written to me over the summer with their personal experiences as well as with ideas to give young carers more support in the classroom.

The classroom is a key factor in this area. We have heard today about the need for Ofsted to be more forthcoming in this area, but school heads and schoolteachers also need to take the issue on board. They may not even know that they have young carers in their midst, and those young people, who sometimes turn up looking bleary-eyed and without having had a meal, may be disciplined for that, because they do not regard it as a caring thing; they think that it is just something they do for mum or dad or sometimes for an older sister or whoever.

That point is very important, as is the mental health project launched by Blackpool Carers Centre for young carers last spring. There have been workshops on this subject, and it is my experience that sometimes, when we bring young people together outside their school frameworks and put young people from one school or college with those from another, they work more collaboratively and do not feel as constrained. However, we need to ensure that the voluntary efforts and voluntary research by those young people outside school feed into schools and colleges as well.

The role of the local authority is also important. Blackpool is a small unitary authority, and I am sad to say that we have been hit very strongly by cuts over the last six or seven years, but it does support the carers centre.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he might want to bring his remarks to a conclusion?

[Gordon Marsden]

Yes, Mr Owen. The authority does support the carers centre, with a relatively modest amount of funding, so there we have it—a good example of people taking things forward. May I just say one last thing to the Minister? The role of young carers ought to be recognised not just by Ofsted, but in our thinking about bursaries and so on, and particularly when they want to enter higher education and apprenticeships.

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits for Accelerated Courses) (England) Regulations 2018

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is probably almost too late, but may I wish you, Mr Robertson, and the Committee—not least the Minister—a happy new year?

I am glad that we finally have the opportunity to debate the proposed changes, because over the years—I do not think it is down to any particular Government—the gap between something being passed and in some cases being implemented, and its reaching the backstop of parliamentary approval seems to have become longer and longer. I am glad we now have the opportunity to continue the significant debate we had on the Higher Education and Research Bill.

I welcome the Minister’s enthusiasm for the broader issues that he believes accelerated degrees may open up. We can all agree that there is a need urgently to address the lack of flexibility in our higher education system. With the emerging challenges of Brexit and automation, the world of work changing, and higher education, further education and online learning slowly merging, our education system urgently needs to adapt. I have said frequently that that will involve people, young and old, doing not only the traditional three-year degree model, but short, sharp training courses to help retrain and upskill, and being able to drop in and out of education to suit their life circumstances. Incidentally, these are all things that our party’s national education service and lifelong learning commission will focus on. We must develop a higher education system that will produce a high-skilled workforce to meet those growing demands and fit our local economies.

The essential question—where, I am afraid, I begin to part company with the Minister—is whether today’s proposals, which greatly expand and increase accelerated degrees on an annual basis, will help or hinder that process. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have posed questions, as the Minister has already heard some concerns and about the need to nail down not just aspirations but facts about how this is will be taken forward and what its implications will be.

During all the stages of the Higher Education and Research Bill, in both Houses, we talked about the importance of making the current system fit for the 21st century. Accelerated degrees might play a useful part in a more flexible HE system for all ages. However—this is crucial to our misgivings about the regulations, not just about what they say but about when this will happen—as my colleague Lord Stevenson said in the debate in the Lords, it should only be as part of a wider overhaul in the sector. That overhaul is nowhere near happening yet.

[Gareth Thomas]

Would it be fair to say that today we are being asked to vote for a 20% hike in tuition fees, albeit for accelerated degrees, without any commensurate guarantees of an improvement or at least maintenance of quality of tuition and other provision from universities?

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head and echoes the other misgivings expressed by colleagues.

As the Minister pointed out, accelerated degrees—fitting three years into two—are not new, and have always been with us. He has quoted some examples. They have often been crafted closely to specific needs of individual HE institutions. I hear what he has to say about the various universities; they have clearly found that that is a good model, which they have wanted to take forward. The devil is always in the detail; it is the details and the firm focus on increasing the maximum fee cap to which we are vehemently opposed, because we do not believe that, at this stage, they will bring the wider benefits to universities and most importantly to would-be students that the Minister thinks they will.

It is not just us saying that; a large number of dissenting voices the demand for accelerated degrees in the form that the Government propose. It is all well and laudable for the Minister to talk about how we might see the effects that we would all like to, but at the moment that has not been the case. That is reflected in the comments of the various university groups. The chief executive of the Russell Group, for example, Dr Tim Bradshaw, said:

“Greater choice for students is always good but I would caution ministers against ‘overpromising’…The Government’s own projection for the likely take-up of these degrees is modest and we actually hear many students calling for four-year degrees, for example, to spend a year on a work placement or studying abroad.”

The group MillionPlus said something similar:

“Demand for accelerated degrees has been low for many years and is unlikely to increase significantly on account of these fee changes.”

Who therefore will the accelerated degrees benefit? The trade union that represents many of the staff in universities states that

“there is little evidence of solid demand for this type of course”,

and that—I am afraid to say that I agree with this, in particular because it is the thrust of what the Minister’s predecessor but one, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), laid out clearly in the White Paper and the Bill that followed—

“this decision is being driven by the government’s marketisation agenda and the need to row back on the spiralling costs of university education, particularly in light of the withdrawal of maintenance grants.”

We await the Augar review, and lots of promises are floating around, but as of this moment nothing concrete is in place.

I have emphasised time and again that the Government’s need to facilitate changes for a better work-life balance and the progression needed to benefit our economy must include looking at credit transfers, flexible courses and urgent action to address the catastrophic fall in part-time learning since 2010. Unfortunately—which this is, because I wish we could have a consensus on it—the Government’s pitch for the accelerated degrees we are debating smacks simply of a PR initiative that has been fashioned for new HE entrants, often with narrowly focused HE objectives, which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and others were worried about during debate on the Bill.

The result of the Government’s 2012 HE funding changes, including the tripling of tuition fees—we cannot get away from this—is that the average debt for students in England is £46,000. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the removal of maintenance grants from students from low-income families meant they were graduating with the highest debt levels, which are in excess of £57,000. We therefore have clear evidence that the nudge factor, which the Government—or their predecessor—have been very keen to push, is actually operating to nudge people against participating in higher education. Yet the Government have chosen this time to introduce this statutory instrument, before the Augar report has even appeared.

During the passage of the Bill, we challenged them consistently about the way in which they wanted to use the teaching excellence framework to increase or remove the fee cap. The draft SI increases the higher amount to start a degree to £11,100 on an annual basis. We have to address the impact that that will have on less well-off students’, or would-be students’, ability or willingness to take places on those courses. Can we realistically expect all the people who might want to do such a course to ratchet up to the figure mentioned?

As the University and College Union has said:

“This is not about increasing real choice for students,”

but it could allow

“for-profit companies to access more public cash through the student loans system…Instead of gimmicks which risk undermining the international reputation of our higher education sector, the Government should focus on fixing the underlying problems with our current student finance system, which piles debts on students.”

The idea that accelerated fees only mean a cut in student debt is, I am afraid, knowingly or unknowingly, hiding another motive. Wedded as they still appear to be—I have heard no repudiation of the broad themes that the hon. Member for Orpington spelled out when the Bill was introduced—to an outdated market-driven view, the Government have pinned their hopes on a rapid expansion of new providers that charge the higher fees on a two-year basis. All that is all in the various secondary papers and instruments that were produced during the Bill. So far, we have seen no evidence of that expansion.

Do all the leaks that suggest that Augar is now under pressure from the Government to lower tuition fees per year make nonsense of the rhetoric and the introduction of this statutory instrument? Incidentally, will the Minister give us the latest estimate for when the Augar review is to report?

The draft explanatory memorandum lists the theoretical benefits for providers and students, but it also refers to the numerous concerns that have been expressed across the sector. It says:

“Students on existing accelerated degrees report a very high level of satisfaction, and highlight the opportunity to graduate and start or resume work a year sooner”—

the Minister talked about that—

“together with costs savings and academic benefits.”

How many and what sort of students, and with what financial background, were interviewed to reach that conclusion? It ignores the fact that those degrees would be available only to students able to study all year round. That has major implications for access and participation, which are already faltering for part-timers under this Government.

The total number of English undergraduate entrants of all ages from low-participation areas fell by 17% between 2011-12 and 2016-17. There were 12,600 fewer English undergraduate students from low-participation areas starting university courses each year than there were in 2011-12. We must ask ourselves what these accelerated degrees, on the basis on which they have been put forward in the statutory instrument, do for them, and the answer is relatively little. There has been a 54% fall in entrants from low-participation areas studying part time, who will not be able to access funding for accelerated degrees. How does the Minister plan to address that? Can he explain in any shape or form how accelerated degree will address the devastating fall in part-time HE study?

Critics have also pointed out the danger of squeezing three years into two for personal development opportunities or participation in extracurricular activities and volunteering. Does the Minister not value the important personal development that our universities provide outside the classroom, which could be denied by this acceleration? UCU also pointed out:

“Accelerated degrees...result in reduced opportunities for students to engage in part-time employment over the course of their studies. This limitation is particularly acute for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to need to seek employment…to fund themselves through university.”

We would like a situation with fees in which students did not have to work part time as much as they do, but given that that is the case, perhaps the Minister will admit that the giveaway in the accelerated degree proposals is that they are not focused on those sorts of people, but in many cases on richer or employer-funded applicants. UCU also said:

“The lack of holiday time factored into these degrees also means that they could prove difficult to student parents; those with caring responsibilities; and students whose disabilities mean that they might benefit from low-intensity study. For this reason, there is a risk that take-up of these courses could have strong socio-economic stratification and that students from less advantaged backgrounds might have lower attainment on these courses.”

Incidentally, there is a reference in the draft explanatory memorandum to the impact of the statutory instrument on the Erasmus+ programme. Will the Minister tell us the situation regarding ensuring our continued participation in the scheme?

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman for some time now. He seems to be talking an awful lot about accelerated degree courses and very little about fee limits, which is what this statutory instrument is supposed to be about. What he has not mentioned but might want to, because it was mentioned by one of his colleagues, is value for money.

I have two daughters, one of whom has just left university and one of whom is still at Cambridge, where she has intensive tutoring. The one who has just left was at another university, where she was lucky to get five hours a week. Even if that were doubled, it would not mean a shortage of time outside the lecture room. Does the hon. Gentleman think the proposals offer better value for money? Should not he really be getting at the question whether students get value for money? At the moment, in my experience, they do not.

[Gordon Marsden]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are enlivened and enriched by his personal family experiences, but the difference of outcome in his family rather makes the point. It is not just a matter of what students get and do on courses, although I fully accept that that is important. It is also about how students are put off courses in the first place. I think most of my hon. Friends would, like me, find it difficult to see how a suggested 20%-a-year increase will encourage, rather than deter, people who already find it difficult to make such a decision.

The Open University says that

“there needs to be increased choice and flexibility for students to study at a time, pace, mode and place that they choose.”

One of the stated objectives of the 2012 funding reforms in England was to

“allow greater diversity of provision, which means more short two-year courses and more part-time opportunities”.

However, we know that the reforms have failed spectacularly to achieve that objective, with 59% fewer people in England entering part-time undergraduate higher education each year than in 2011-12, before the reforms. That is why it is vital to increase options.

However, the Government have failed to address the crisis for the OU and other adult learning providers. Another increase in tuition fees, which they are now presiding over, and which would allow higher education providers to charge more per year, will not help the process. MillionPlus agrees. It says that

“accelerated degrees are just one form of flexibility”

and that Government have missed out on the opportunity of creating

“greater flexibility in fee structures and loan availability to enable students to access financial support for periods of study of less than a year (for example to borrow by modules rather than by year)”.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham prayed in aid his personal experience. My experience as a former Open University tutor—although somewhat long in the tooth—is that it is precisely the people, particularly adults, from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would like support for funding by module. That is what they do not get at the moment.

“True flexibility…can only come when students are not penalised for studying part-time, or for shifting between full and part time study.”

Those are not my words but the words of MillionPlus.

The Government have given little thought to the impact on staff workloads of accelerated degrees. UCU has rightly expressed concern that the changes could put yet more pressure on its members without much immediate or direct benefit to them, at a time when they believe—and we agree—that they are getting a raw deal on full-time contracts, pay increases and progression.

Despite the Minister’s enthusiasm and good intentions, there is no guarantee that existing university teachers will be willing or able to teach the new accelerated degrees as configured. There is a risk that the move to accelerated degrees will compromise time currently allocated by such teachers to research, and fuel—of necessity, if they are not prepared to do the relevant work—the use of even more casualised teaching staff to deliver provision during the summer months. With threats to our existing world-class higher education institutions and research piling up from the uncertainties of Brexit, should we be taking that chance?

Issues to do with short-term contracts, extra bureaucracy and guarantees of quality still need to be addressed. What steps have the Government taken to alleviate the pressures on staff that these courses may create? Ministers should focus not simply on accelerated courses for a market driven by untested new providers, but on protecting the global strength and reputation of UK higher and further education.

The proposal is irrelevant to the main priorities of the HE sector in 2019. It is irrelevant to the multiple threats that existing universities and providers face from a chaotic Brexit, and the collateral damage they face from lack of certainty about our participation in Horizon research programmes through the 2020s after we leave; lack of certainty that HE students, providers and staff will continue to benefit from Erasmus+ over the same period; and the withdrawal of European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund funding, from which many community-focused universities and providers have benefited.

The proposals, cast as they are today, represent a developing market model that the hon. Member for Orpington left in the out-tray for his successors. They do nothing to strengthen our HE sector internationally or nationally. They do not address the important issues that Augar is supposed to be looking at. That is why we will not support the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s heckle in a moment. I wanted to start on a point of agreement, which is that Members on both sides of the Committee share the ambition that we can and must do more for post-18 education. As for the regulations—the point on which the hon. Gentleman heckled—increasing the cost of fees by 20% must be seen in the round: this is a saving of £5,500 for a two-year degree as opposed to fees for a three-year degree. It is a saving of one year, or £7,500, on living costs and, crucially, potentially a gain of up to £19,000 of annual earnings if that student is able to access the workplace early. I stress that this is not a silver bullet. It is not the only part of a strategy that must deliver for students in higher education; it is opening up a menu of options that we hope to develop.

The shadow Minister talked about access for disadvantaged students. The Government want to ensure that the most disadvantaged students are able to access this provision. Our consultation on accelerated degree proposals asked higher education providers specifically about access arrangements, and 74% responded that they wanted accelerated degrees to be treated the same as any other higher course fees for the purpose of access. We have seen a revolution in the amount of funds spent on access and participation over the past four or five years, from £440 million to £860 million. We must look at how we can invest to ensure that we open those routes for the most disadvantaged students.

[Gordon Marsden]

I appreciate that I spoke at some length. Access and participation are absolutely crucial, but one question is whether the money is spent well in the first place. I am sure the Minister will look at that. He also talks about the financial details and all the rest of it. The truth of the matter is that many people, particularly adult students, for perfectly good reasons will not sit down with a three-year prospectus but will ask themselves what they can afford that year. That is the crux of it, and that is why we are concerned that this 20% increase will nudge people away from participating, rather than nudging them towards it.

[Chris Skidmore]

I politely disagree with the hon. Gentleman on discouraging access. The figures demonstrate that, when students have been asked about potential two-year degree routes—in the context of saving over an envelope of two years instead of three—60% responded that they would have considered it had it been on offer. It is important that we allow an opportunity for this course provision to be established. We are not forcing universities or HE providers to offer accelerated degrees as an option. We are just ensuring that we can incentivise it for the future.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the view expressed very strongly by my constituents in Wigan. Over in Oldham, Members have had a significant response to a public petition that they set up for precisely that reason.

A Citizens Advice report showed that in those post offices that have been franchised, the result is longer queues, reduced counters and a significant loss of experienced staff. No wonder disability groups and pensioners groups have been critical of such plans.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I wish her campaign in Wigan every success, as I do the campaigns of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) in their constituencies.

For us in Blackpool, sadly, the boat has already sailed. Our Crown post office, which was a grade II listed building, now lies empty, while my constituents have to go down stairs, which is not easily accessible to people with disabilities, to an unprepossessing place in the middle of the shopping centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides the intimidation she described, the Post Office is on a hiding to nothing purely in commercial terms if it continues to outsource branches in that manner to WHSmith, which is widely regarded as one of the worst retailers on the planet?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) might have an issue from his constituency that is relevant to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for her thorough and eloquent opening speech, which set out very clearly why this is such an important subject. It means a lot to my constituents, particularly in the Middleton area, where in October last year we learned of the plan to move our busy town centre Crown post office into a branch of WHSmith. My constituents are extremely concerned about the potential loss of their post office from its current site and its proposed move into a struggling retail outlet in the town. If I was told that the branch of WHSmith was moving into Middleton post office, to increase its footfall, that would have made a lot more sense. I might have supported the move as mutually beneficial, but to do it the other way round is simply farcical.

WHSmith faces an uncertain future. Last year it announced the closure of six of its high street stores, plus the planned closure of 24 of its budget Cardmarket outlets, over the next three years. It is well known that WHSmith’s high street stores have struggled and that they are shored up by overpriced airport, railway station, motorway service and hospital outlets.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not the time of year to promote chocolate or other consumables, but would she agree that some of the prices that WHSmith charges at the outlets in railway stations and other places are scandalous in terms of the mark-ups?

[Liz McInnes]

My hon. Friend is right. There was a scandal last year about a particular hospital outlet that was charging eight times the high street price for toiletries, and getting away with it because it had a captive audience. Last year, a 7% rise in trading profits at WHSmith’s hospital and travel stores helped to offset a 3% fall in sales and profits at its high street stores, so we clearly have a business that is struggling. It is a huge risk to relocate vital post office services into a business that is closing stores and might lose more.

Over the past five years, the Post Office, which is entirely owned by the Government, has announced the closure of 150 flagship Crown post offices. The announcement that a further 74 Crown post offices are to be closed and franchised, including the one in my constituency, means that the Crown network will have been cut by 60% since 2013. Closing flagship branches, getting rid of experienced staff and putting counters in the back of a WHSmith is not the plan for growth or innovation that the post office network so desperately needs, and does not offer the level of service that the public should expect. At best, the relentless closures point to a lack of vision; at worst, they suggest the managed decline of a public asset.

My constituents have shared their concerns with me about the potential closure of our post office, and a local petition to save Middleton post office has so far attracted nearly 1,000 signatures. Our high streets are already struggling, and the loss of our flagship post office will be a major blow to Middleton town centre. Many constituents have made the point that it makes no sense to move the post office counter service to WHSmith 500 metres away, disconnecting the counter service from the sorting office, which will remain where it is. We are assured that public consultation on the future of Middleton post office will be happening at some point but my constituents are quite rightly concerned that this is already a done deal and that their responses will be ignored. I would like reassurance from the Minister, which I can pass on to my constituents, that she will ensure that any public consultation is meaningful and that the concerns of the general public will genuinely inform and shape any final decisions.

The chief executive of WHSmith, Stephen Clarke, has said that the franchising of post offices into his stores is attractive to the Post Office because his stores cost less to rent and run. It is wholly unacceptable that this is used as justification for backdoor privatisation of our Government-owned post offices. In the absence of a business plan for the Post Office, it would seem that saving money is the only motivation for the move. It seems odd that a party that claims to be the party of business has no clear plan for improving the performance of the post offices it runs. It is also highly significant that the so-called party of business cannot turn out a single Back Bencher for this important event.

I end by asking the Minister to put a stop to the process of privatisation by the back door and to begin a review of how the Post Office can grow its business through new products and innovation. We expect nothing less from the self-styled party of business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; clearly that has not been taken into account at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan referred to an attempt to site a post office in a retail outlet called Bargain Booze. How inappropriate is that for many people—children, for instance, who might be going to a post office to use its services, but are walking through aisles of cheap, low-quality alcohol? That is entirely unacceptable.

[Gordon Marsden]

I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. We had exactly the same situation in Blackpool, where a very well used sub-post office was transferred into that position. We managed to get some amelioration of the presentation of the booze, if I can put it that way, but it is not a welcoming environment for people to go into late at night to get the services of a post office branch.

[Mr Reed]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend’s important point.

Of course, it is not just customers who are suffering from the current franchising model. Many staff lose their jobs, only to be replaced in due time by lower paid staff. That, fundamentally, is how franchise partners deliver a service more cheaply. They cut staff numbers, they cut staff pay and they cut staff terms and conditions. In all seriousness, we are not going to protect our high streets or tackle growing levels of in-work poverty through a race to the bottom.

My final point is about the lack of a real forward vision for our post offices. Of course services have to change as society changes, but change does not only mean closure. The CWU has called for the Government and Post Office Ltd to set up a “post bank”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan referred to earlier, along the lines of those seen working effectively in other European countries. Thornton Heath is an important district centre in my London constituency. Like many towns outside our cities, it no longer has a bank at all since Barclays closed its branch last year. Many small businesses in such areas trade in cash, and they need a bank in the locality—in the neighbourhood—to deposit the day’s takings. Not all businesses are digital and not all businesses are online. We are driving small businesses into ruin by allowing basic facilities like banking to be withdrawn. What a fantastic opportunity a post bank would be to revitalise our Post Office and our hard-pressed high streets at the same time—and what a crying shame that we lack a Government with either the ambition or the vision to seize it.

DRAFT HIGHER EDUCATION (TRANSPARENCY CONDITION AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2018

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. May I give my profuse apologies to you and the Minister for being slightly late this morning; I was stuck for 40 minutes on a Network Rail train.

We welcome the Minister’s introducing the regulations for discussion today. We largely agree with him on the importance of widening participation and access to our higher education institutions and providers and the part that these transparency conditions can and should play. The devil is in the detail, however, and though there may be consensus on their importance, we disagree about some aspects of what should be included in these conditions, which are not included now. I will therefore try to persuade the Minister to strengthen them as much as possible. Before I do that, I must revisit what I said in 2016, when we discussed this clause and amendments that we tabled for the Minister’s predecessor. We said that the transparency duty was to be welcomed, but that there was a serious oversight in restricting the categories that higher education institutions had to publish information on participation. In particular, we said that there was no valid reason why data on students with disabilities, and the age profile of students, should not be included. We then tabled amendments to insert data on students with disabilities and care leavers and on students’ age profile.

It is absolutely essential that more work is done to reduce unequal access and success in higher education. Supporting people at all ages, not just at 18, is key. Overall social mobility is down, not up. The total number of English undergraduate entrants from low participation areas fell by 17% between 2011-12 and 2016-17. As a result, 12,600 fewer English undergraduate students from low participation areas started university courses each year than in 2011/12. So adding age and disability, as the Open University, Ruskin, the WEA, Birkbeck and a host of other adult education providers have said, is a way in which we can drive forward social mobility. Including age will encourage HEIs to promote the participation of older students as well as provide a further spotlight on the number of adults participating in HE.

Making it compulsory to publish data about the access, participation and attainment of disabled students will not only improve transparency but encourage HEIs to take greater responsibility to work towards eliminating the disabled student attainment gap. Is that not an important aspect of what the Government are trying to do by addressing the disability employment gap? They need not only to act on the recommendations on learning disability in the Maynard report, which was convened by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is also a member of the Government, but to look at the format and implications of the gap.

I know that the OfS has just closed its consultation window on access and participation plans, which included asking whether respondents agreed or disagreed that it should explore requiring providers to submit and publish transparency data by age and disability. To what extent does the Minister agree or disagree that the OfS should do that? His colleague, Viscount Younger, said from the Front Bench in the House of Lords that “a good case” had been made,

“for the inclusion of age as a characteristic and I am sympathetic to his aims. Although I cannot pre-empt the consultation, I am prepared to say from the Dispatch Box that we fully anticipate that age will be part of the information the OfS will ask institutions to publish.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2017; Vol. 782, c. 1001.]

What is the Minister’s reflection on that?

The third issue that we raised was that of care leavers, which has come up as a consistent theme across Government policy over the past few years. Ministers in the Department have been strong on supporting care leavers, and we think that it is important to add that category to the list, even though it is a relatively small and modest group. We also believe that, if the transparency duty is to have any impact, it needs to include as many different dimensions of participation as possible by social background. That view was echoed strongly by the Sutton Trust, which did not believe that the Bill and the regulations went far enough in that area. It said,

“evidence suggests many universities are favouring more privileged candidates even when levels of attainment are taken into account…The Bill should be amended to require universities to publish their contextual admission policies clearly on their websites”.

What recent discussions did the Minister have with the Sutton Trust and with the National Education Opportunities Network before the regulations before Parliament today were published on the need to strengthen them further?

The trade union for academics and other university workers, the University and College Union, has also said that mandatory reporting requirements should be extended to cover key workforce data that has the potential to impact on the quality of students’ education, such as the use of insecure contracts and student-staff ratios. Will the Minister consider including those in further regulations that might come before the House in relation to transparency and fair access? How often will the conditions be reviewed?

Having read through the explanatory memorandum, I have a few specific observations and questions for the Minister on the regulations we are discussing today. Paragraph 2.1 confirms that the OfS,

“must ensure that the ongoing registration conditions of each registered higher education provider...includes a transparency condition.”

Although we too think it is important that all approved institutions are required to have transparency commitments, could the Minister expand on the timeframe for those to be put in place? This is not only relevant to new institutions, but to all of our existing higher education institutions, and therefore the logistics are bound to be challenging. Can the Minister tell us within what timeframe all institutions should meet those expectations, and does he agree with the University and College Union and others that all providers should be required to produce an access and participation plan, not just a statement, as is currently the case for the approved category?

I do not wish to be unkind, but paragraphs 3.3 and 3.7 of the explanatory memorandum make me think that the Minister may have in the Department a budding Lewis Carroll. The opening sentence of paragraph 3.3 says:

“The Department notes that this instrument contains reference to a document that does not exist yet but is of the view that it is necessary to refer to it for the following reasons.”

That is not exactly the famous phrase from “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”, but clearly there is an issue in relation to how that will be taken forward. Can the Minister update us on the progress on producing that regime?

Paragraph 3.7 states that

“an institution can only be registered on the OfS register…if it is, or intends to become, an English higher education provider.”

Paragraph 3.9 explains the place of education in the devolved legislation competence of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That is true in terms of the specifics of the regulation, but the Minister will be aware that tens of thousands of students from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be at English universities and therefore subject to the provisions. Can the Minister tell us what discussions have been had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on that?

Paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum state that

“although as of 2017 there are record numbers of 18 year olds entering higher education and the entry rate for the most disadvantaged English 18 year olds (measured by POLAR) has increased to 20.4%, it is considered that there is still more work to be done to reduce unequal access and success in higher education…In this context, the Department is of the view that greater transparency is one of the best tools available to drive social mobility.”

Indeed it is, but it also essential that a broad range of measures on socioeconomic background are looked at. Commenting on today’s statutory instrument, the Sutton Trust said to me:

“It is important that the OfS don’t just consider POLAR, as socio-economic disadvantage is complex and multi-dimensional. We think that the OfS should use a number of different measures, including POLAR, MEM”—

I am awfully sorry, but I have not got my head around that particular acronym—

“and free-school meal eligibility, FSM, so that there isn’t an overreliance on one specific measure.”

I hope that the Minister and his officials will muse upon that.

As I say, financial support is essential for widening participation. With that in mind, and given the clear priority to drive social mobility, do the Government still intend, as was outlined in the 2015 spending review, to cut the widening participation funding of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, as it then was, by up to 50% by the end of the spending review period?

The OfS is set to review all its funding allocations next year after the post-18 review has reported. The Open University has said that the part-time student premium, as part of its widening participation funding, is essential to those higher education institutions that do the heavy lifting in relation to social mobility, so as to deliver on access and student support for widening participation students. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will protect that?

On the consultation outcome, the explanatory memorandum to the regulations says:

“Sufficient input from the sector was received during the above consultations to inform policy development.”

I understand that the consultation took place under a previous Government, and indeed a previous Department—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—but, in relation to these regulations and others that will come as a consequence of the 2017 Act, does the Minister consider that the Government have consulted widely enough with the people who use the system? I believe, as many in the sector do, that it is inadequate to consult simply the HEIs. There should also be some input from student organisations, qualification providers and employers.

On access and participation, we should all be concerned about not just the input but the output—how many disadvantaged students complete the course—and the outcome: the jobs and futures they move to. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Government to do any major longitudinal studies at this stage of proceedings, but I would like the Minister to give attention to that in relation to both these regulations and what will come out as a result.

Finally, I turn to the issues touched on in paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum on monitoring and review. We are told that the Department will ask the OfS

“to monitor the effectiveness of the condition in delivering the policy aims to widen participation in higher education and identify whether changes should be considered.”

Again, we agree. It is important to monitor the impact of conditions placed on providers, but the big question is what capacity the OfS will have to do that effectively. I say that deliberately, without straying from the narrow terms of the regulations, because at the Higher Education and Research Bill Committee we expressed concerns about the stand-alone nature of the new director for fair access and participation. The Minister will know that previously that director had his own establishment outwith the OfS, whereas now he is essentially in it. I am not commenting on whether he has enough people working for him; essentially he is not in charge of his department and it is up to the OfS to give him the tools to finish the job.

While we are talking about tools, Universities UK has raised concerns with me about the regulations. I do not know whether it made this request directly to the Minister or indirectly through his officials, but from the note I have had it is clear that it wants to see more information on the level of detail that institutions will have to submit for access reports and action plans. We know that the OfS has been given a risk-based approach to intervening on institutions, so can more information be provided on what the methodology for that will be? UUK also asks whether the Government will ensure that the OfS engages with the sector on defining the roles and the self-assessment tool, which will have to cope with a broad range of potential providers, including small and specialist institutions.

In connection with that, I have to say that the Government’s job, the Minister’s job and particularly the OfS’s job would have been greatly strengthened if the previous Government had not taken the inexplicable decision to get rid of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which was of major assistance in providing longitudinal and attitudinal advice. The Government now find themselves having to commission bespoke assessments, which we and many people in the sector believe are an inadequate way of examining the issues. I accept that we are where we are, but that point lends weight to the concerns of UUK and individual HE providers.

With those observations, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I repeat that we strongly support the principle of the draft regulations and their direction of travel, but that as they are implemented—I accept that registration is a rolling process—we would like to hear more from the Minister and the Department to satisfy our concerns.

University of London Bill [Lords]

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who I gather is, according to the nomenclature, the promoter of the Bill. She cut through the thicket of a highly technical and somewhat convoluted selection of arguments with a crisp and concise message—the Minister has just echoed it—which is that at the moment, in technical and practical terms, there are significant concerns for the colleges concerned that, to use the old adage, they are neither fish nor fowl. For all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out and the Minister reiterated, at a time when it is so important that the international reputation of our existing universities and institutions is understood and held in high esteem, especially given the situation in which we find ourselves with Brexit and other challenges from competitor countries with universities, our institutions must not be hampered or impeded with regard to the way in which they are understood by people not just in this place or even in this country, but internationally. That is an important part of the process.

I want first to declare a triple interest, albeit an historical one, in this debate. First, I am a former postgraduate of London University—from the Warburg Institute—which serves as a reminder that the University of London consists of not only colleges, but a number of separate institutions and institutes, many of which found themselves in quite a difficult position in the 1990s and 2000s when the changes that we know about began to take place in the relationship of the central university and the colleges. Secondly, of course, this took place some time ago, and, thirdly, to illustrate that, in the 1990s I was a member, by virtue of my editing the magazine History Today, of the board of the Institute of Historical Research. At that time, the debate about the relationship of the university to the various colleges, and what would happen to the university and its institutions, was a strong and fevered one. Thankfully, in the years since, there has been a coexistence—I suppose that that would be the word—between the central register of the university and the colleges, and that coexistence has brought about the uncontroversial Bill before us today.

I do not want to repeat the points made by my hon. Friend and the Minister about the technicalities of the Bill and the processes, but I do want to make one or two observations about the 1994 Act and where this new settlement might take us. In the promoter’s statement of support for the Bill’s Second Reading, we are told:

“The current arrangements are…unnecessarily cumbersome. The 1994 Act allows consultees 4 months in which to make representations”,

and

“if the governing body wishes to take forward its proposals, it must pass two resolutions with an interval of at least one month.”

That is all very true, but I believe that it has a broader relevance than simply today’s technical debate, as it puts the onus on all the member institutions, when they are changing elements of their statute in the way my hon. Friend has explained will happen under the new set-up, to consult strongly with all their workforce—all their academic staff and students. The Minister will be well aware of the Opposition’s concerns in this area in the light of all we said in the debates on the Higher Education and Research Bill with his predecessor, and the various exchanges that he and I have had about this area since.

The importance of giving the colleges university status cannot be overstated, and I understand the concern of all hon. Members and those involved with the colleges that they should not be hampered externally. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), citing his role as a Government envoy to Nigeria, was worried about this, which I can understand, but in defence of the central functions of the University of London, I would like to reassure him that the status of the university as a brand is still very strong internationally. I pray in aid of that argument the tens of thousands of graduate students whom I see every year at the enormous graduation ceremonies, which are often presided over by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, the chancellor of the University of London. I do not think we should entirely set aside the brand value, if I can put it that way, of the University of London.

Clause 3 of the Bill refers to conferring a general power on the university’s governing body—the board of trustees. The Bill was amended in the House of Lords, and I have taken the time to look at the evidence given to my noble Friend Lord McFall over two sessions in February and March this year, which was very interesting. In putting forward its proposals, the university made a number of claims about the existing process being unnecessarily cumbersome and protracted and the need to refresh its status in a more dynamic way. I pay tribute to the diligence of my noble Friend, because he pressed the university quite hard on the relationship between the university and the colleges. In particular, he was concerned that there should not be a sense of mission creep regarding to what needs to be done to establish that relationship. As a result of my noble Friend’s probing, two amendments were tabled, one of which restored the right of the trade unions at the colleges and the university to be consulted—[Interruption.]

[Bob Stewart]

I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman can have a short break to get his cough under control. I should like to ask him, and indeed the Minister, how much these changes are going to cost. Has there been a cost analysis of the changes?

[Gordon Marsden]

That is a good point. I do not have the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the Minister might be able to give him an indication. I would simply say that it is important that these processes are taken forward as economically and speedily as possible, which will obviously involve some degree of expense. I hope that no one would wish to see flights of enthusiasm for spending lots of money to promote new titles and logos, for example, especially at this time. That is not the official Opposition’s view; it is just my personal opinion.

I shall return to the question of amendments having to go out for consultation by recognised trade unions. This needs to be widely and substantially understood, particularly by the heads of the colleges and particularly in relation to the two unions involved—the University and College Union and Unison. It is important that the workforce should be involved in the process.

The second change relates to the Privy Council, and I understand the need for that change. As a general principle, however, we remain sceptical about the diminution of the role of the Privy Council in the position of universities. Members of the other place made that point when the Bill was going through. This goes back to the old Bagehot definition of the monarchy: it is not the powers that it confers, but the powers it denies. The Privy Council has historically been a useful backstop against the flights of fancy of higher education administrators, and I will be sorry to see its role entirely extinguished. That said, I understand the reasons given in the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. When evidence was given to the other place, every time there was a challenge that these new powers could be abused, the defence was that, ultimately, there was the safeguard that approval would need to be given by the Privy Council, yet clause 4 envisages a time when the Privy Council will no longer be able to exercise its power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not want to prolong the debate unduly on this subject, but the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and my generic misgivings, which are not specific to the particular issue in the Bill. We remain not entirely persuaded that there is not a role for the Privy Council.

In paying tribute to my noble Friend Lord McFall, I repeat some of the things that he said in persuading the university to restore these points:

“the focus should be on what values our society expects to see reflected in our universities; it is not just value for money”—

important though that is. He continued:

“In that context, I am very pleased that there will be the opportunity for the widest consultation on this Bill”—

I believe that that has been the case—

“so that it is transparent and we can see exactly what universities will be.”

Finally, I have a warning with wider relevance not just for the University of London but for the Government and other universities. The promoter’s agent, writing to the House of Lords Clerk on 27 February 2018 after the Lords Deputy Speaker had requested evidence that member institutions and trade unions were aware of the couple of procedural changes in the Bill, stated:

“We did not specifically draw the Member Institutions’ and trade unions’ attention to the effect of the Bill in reducing the size of the quorum”—

that would, of course, have made it a lot easier for the board of trustees to make alterations in statute without consultation—

“since it was not a matter we thought it necessary to highlight in the way that it was framed”.

I hope that I am not being unkind, but I detect a slight degree of administrative arrogance in the idea that people who are intimately involved, day by day, with the activities of the university should not be consulted. That way madness and disconnection lies. That said, we support this necessary and proportionate Bill.

Shale Gas Exploration: Planning Permission

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the complexity of the geology. He is absolutely right that local geological knowledge and seismic management and measurement are, and will remain, a vital part of any exploration or production site. However, many of his constituents will have been told that there are massive seismic risks from any form of shale gas exploration. In fact, our environmental standards are so tight that if there is a seismic tremor less than that brought about by the rollercoaster on Blackpool seafront, that well process—

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Come on.

[Claire Perry]

It happens to be true: the well process will have to be paused. I refer back to the fact that we have the toughest environmental standards for oil and gas extraction in the world. Other countries are coming to us and saying, “Could we use those standards, because we also recognise the opportunity presented by shale gas extraction?” Frankly, if anyone in this room believes that the UK, with its proud history of environmental regulation, would want to do anything to endanger its green and pleasant lands, they need to go away and have a nice cold drink.

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) Regulations 2018

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for the indications he has given today. I give notice, for the relief of Government Members, that we do not intend to oppose these regulations. We do, however, intend to hold the Government to account—that is the role of the Opposition—by asking one or two questions about them.

We are discussing regulations that will, as the Minister said, freeze tuition fees for a second straight year and set the levels at which institutions can charge students, depending on their place in the Office for Students’ new register. I emphasise for the benefit of all Committee members that we are entering new and uncharted waters. The OfS is not the same as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and the Government do not wish it to be the same; that was made very clear during proceedings on the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That means that we have to tread carefully, both in establishing precedents and in evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of the regulations, the capacity of the OfS to implement them, and the outcomes. I will be asking the Minister one or two questions about that.

In the 2017 Act, the Government balanced the introduction of differentiated fees for institutions with the creation of the teaching excellence framework. The TEF was one of the ways in which differentiated fees would be established, which is why the Government used the Act to put those mechanisms in place. However, the Government have not been able to do as they originally intended with these regulations, because they are committed to a full review of the TEF. Although the Minister was not involved in the discussions that took place between Labour and Conservative Front Benchers before the previous general election, he will know that that review was one of the concessions that the Government made in the so-called wash-up period. We and a large number of Members of the House of Lords were concerned that that should be done, and amendments were tabled to that effect, so the Government have to begin the process this year. Will the Minister let us know what progress has been made on appointing the independent chair for that review? If the review does not go forward in a timely fashion and is not accepted by all parties, it will be difficult to make the TEF work in establishing differentiated fees for institutions.

Although it is important and absolutely right that tuition fees do not go up any further—we await the outcome of the Government’s post-18 review—it is instructive to look at why the Government have had to do what they have done. The Minister, perfectly reasonably, said that they had listened to Parliament and various groups, including universities and young people. All of that is highly laudable, but they also had to listen to the growing clamour of concern about the long-term implications of the system they have put in place.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the removal of maintenance grants from students from low-income families meant that those students were graduating with the highest debt levels—in excess of £57,000. That makes the current educational climate for students not favourable, despite what the Minister said about the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds under the age of 18; that is an important caveat. Since 2010, Governments have repeatedly raised tuition fees. They trebled them to £9,000, with a subsequent increase during the 2017-18 academic year to £9,250. According to a Sutton Trust report from late last year, the average debt for students in England is £46,000.

There has been a steady stream of reports in recent months criticising the Government’s market model for higher education as completely unworkable. Bodies such as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have said that the student loan system is economically unsustainable and damaging to social mobility.

I understand that in introducing the regulations, the Minister wants to put the best gloss on the Government’s motivations. I appreciate that he has listened, as he said he would, to the views of students, but the Government are also introducing the measures for practical and political reasons. Whatever the basis for it, however, this freeze is highly welcome and definitely desirable, which is why the Opposition will not vote against it. We do not believe that we should place any further burdens on students at this stage. The freeze is the bare minimum that the Government should do, and there are other impacts on students and certain groups that must be looked at urgently.

Before I turn to those impacts, I will ask the Minister one or two questions about the detail of the regulations. For the benefit of the Committee, I will refer to the explanatory memorandum that we have been given. I said earlier that the OfS was a different animal from HEFCE, and it behoves me to ask a couple of questions about that. Paragraph 4.1 of the memorandum describes the background to the establishment of the process, how HEFCE currently imposes the limit on tuition fees and how the regulations

“will prescribe the maximum tuition fees that will apply to higher education providers which are registered in a certain part of the register maintained by the OfS under section 3 of the Act.”

In advance of introducing the regulations, what discussions has the Minister had with the OfS about its capacity to register the various higher education providers? We know, of course, what the Government anticipate. Indeed, one of the elements of the pitch made by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), was that we were going to get a great influx of new higher education providers, not least in the private sector; he made great play of that throughout proceedings on the Bill. What consultations has the Minister had with the OfS about how it is proceeding with the register, and what differences does he anticipate between the OfS’s handling of the register and how HEFCE handled it?

The Minister also spoke about the differential between providers on the register that have in place OfS-approved access and participation plans—I refer to paragraph 4.6 of the memorandum—and those that do not. The regulations prescribe an absolute commitment to fair access and participation as part of being on the register. Furthermore, paragraph 4.7 states:

“These Regulations similarly set a limit on the maximum fees that prescribed registered providers which do not have access and participation plans approved by the OfS in place, but which do have a high level quality rating may charge for full-time or part-time higher education courses…This limit is known as the ‘basic amount’.”

I have two concerns about that. Is the Minister absolutely confident that the OfS has the mechanisms it needs to distinguish between higher education providers that come under the higher amount category and those that come under the basic amount category? The phraseology in the explanatory note is those that can charge the basic amount must have a “high level quality rating”. The words “quality” and “high level” are potentially quite subjective, so it would be helpful to have some illumination from the Minister about whether it is down to his Department or the OfS to decide what a high-level quality rating is.

The last thing we need is for providers to go on to the basic amount register if they do not provide even that. Right from the beginning of proceedings on the 2017 Act, we raised the question of whether new providers could assume that they would eventually be taken as higher education providers. We argued strongly against that “day one” scenario. We accept that we were not successful, but that makes further reassurance in that area all the more important. I ask the Minister to look at that issue, in particular.

I turn to the broader issues that must be addressed with this freeze. The Minister said that the Government have had consultations but, as the former Universities Minister, Lord Willetts, admitted, the fee increases have had a major—indeed, devastating—impact on part-time and mature learning. I hope the post-18 review will look at that very closely, and I am concerned that these regulations contain nothing to remedy it. We know from the Sutton Trust that the biggest decrease has been in the number of students aged over 35—people of prime working age—and we know about the disastrous effect that that has had on the part-time sector. The Government have a key role in widening access for older people, but unfortunately they have had a funny way of showing it in recent years. There is nothing in the regulations to tilt the status quo in favour, or even in support, of mature students.

I must challenge the Minister on one point. Contrary to popular belief, and according to the Open University, the total number of English undergraduate entrants from low-participation areas actually fell by 17% between 2011-12 and 2016-17. I know I have written to him about that recently, but I am extremely concerned about it.

The regulations freeze fees for a year but do not diminish them. Given the nature of statutory instruments, they contain no measures to mitigate the effects of fees. We are agreeing to a freeze for a second year, but who knows what will happen after that? Whatever comes out of the post-18 review, it will not have any effect until the 2021 academic year, at the earliest, and the sector needs some remedy before then. What immediate remedies can the Minister put in place, financial or otherwise, to encourage more take-up of part-time courses and more take-up from mature students?

I want to return to the specifics of the regulations, which talk about the areas and the types of students that will be affected by this process. What the regulations say about maximum fees for specified cases for full-time courses includes students who come to the UK and study on an Erasmus study or work placement year. There is a great deal of concern about what the status of those students will be in terms of funding and eligibility for loans, in relation to the maximum fees that will be charged. In the HE sector, an Erasmus year is the academic year in a course when a student participates in the European Union’s Erasmus+ programme.

I wrote recently to the Minister about the application of Erasmus in 2019-20. I was grateful for his response, which said that EU27 students will be guaranteed for course studies in September 2019, possibly lasting until 2023. We welcome that and I know the HE sector welcomes that, because of the important security it offers the university sector at a time when it has lots of concerns and fears about the implications of Brexit.

However, I also wrote to the Department about whether it would provide a parallel guarantee for those in the further education sector, given that one in 10 higher education students in this country takes their degree via the FE sector. Nothing has been said about a parallel guarantee for adult education courses and apprenticeships or for those participating in the FE sector. Can the Minister chivvy up his colleagues in the Department for Education, particularly the Secretary of State, to make a parallel commitment? It would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, the Minister has talked about the importance of freezing the fees. He has talked about the rise in the threshold, but he did not talk about the interest rate payments, which brings us to the vexed issue of the retail prices index. According to the Library’s research, graduates with student loans in England will be saddled with up to £16,000 more debt because of the Government’s use of RPI instead of the consumer prices index to set interest rates. Analysis shows that the use of RPI, which has been criticised by the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics, adds the most interest to the debt of the lowest paid graduates.

As I have said, on average students leave university with £46,000 to £50,000 of debt, which is bad enough, but because of the Government’s current interest rate system, they are being charged an additional £16,000 on their loans. In other areas, the Government have dropped RPI in favour of CPI: for example, for uprating public sector pensions. The House of Commons analysis found that switching to CPI would result in £16,000 less interest being added over 30 years to the debt of graduates. Why has there been foot-dragging on that change? What representations is the Minister making to the Treasury team and the Chancellor for his autumn Budget to make a significant change?

At the risk of being accused of being a dog in the manger about this, it is all well and fine to freeze the fees at what the Labour party would consider to be an excessive sum of money in the first place, but if the Minister and his colleagues do not do something to address the issue—or perhaps we are supposed to wait for the post-18 review—the promise of relief that they are trying to offer students and which is embodied in the regulations today will be only half fulfilled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

There are two points to make about that. If someone got a £3,000 grant in the previous system and then had to go to a bank to borrow, that would cost them a lot more than it does to borrow under the current loans system. The truth about the current system, which is obviously under review, is that it is a hybrid between a loans system and a contribution system. Opposition Members do students a disservice by pretending that it is similar to a loan from Lloyds bank. It does not go on their credit score if a student is not able to pay the money back, they will not have a bailiff knocking on their door, and there is the issue of their having a job in which they earn more than £25,000. That is very different from a commercial loan, and we do students a disservice by not explaining the system to them and pretending that it is something it is not.

[Gordon Marsden]

I am sorry to have to intervene on the Minister on that point. He accused the Opposition of not talking about the raising of the threshold. Let me put it on the record to satisfy him, for what it is worth, that we welcome the raising of the threshold. We have persistently and continually argued for the need to raise it, not least because of its implications for students in certain parts of the country who leave university and do not get a decent graduate premium immediately. They are in a very different situation.

However, I really must take issue with the Minister saying, “Oh well, they don’t have to pay it back.” I thought that this was supposed to be a fiscally prudent Government who wanted to look to the future, but the Minister is throwing around public loans like a man with no arms. We all know—surely the Minister has seen this too—that the resource accounting and budgeting figure for the debt that will be lain on future generations is going up and up. We cannot simply work on that basis.

The other point I will mention briefly is that the Minister says that it is much better to take up a loan, based entirely on the assumption that the cohort is made up of 18 to 22-year-olds. I am not sure that is even correct for them, but it is very different for older people—mature students in their 30s and 40s and those doing part-time courses—to take on a debt of the sort of amount we are talking about. The statistics are clear that there has been a catastrophic drop in the number of mature students and part-timers. Although we cannot say absolutely that the tripling of the fees is 100% responsible, it certainly bears a great part of the responsibility.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thought that was meant to be an intervention but it was a mini-speech. At the risk of drifting into a Second Reading debate on the student finance system, there is one clear difference between Government Members and Opposition Members: if university education was made free, which the Opposition argue for, the numbers would have to be capped. If it is free, it is capped; and if it is capped, it is the well-off who will benefit the most. The system we have introduced means that more disadvantaged students are going to university than ever before. We do not say that the system is perfect, and that is why there is a post-18 review with a wide-ranging remit looking at the issues, including the interest rate, which was raised by the Opposition. If the Opposition would make it free, they have to tell us whose child will not go to university under their scheme when they cut the numbers.

A number of other questions were raised. On the OfS and its capacity to register, it does have that capacity. A lot is going on, and it is on track to deliver in the timeframe that has been set. On new providers, the OfS is dealing with a number of inquiries from them. On EU students and whether the clarification regarding university students applies to FE students, I would like to put it on the record that it does.

The issue of part-time students is of serious concern. We have adopted a number of measures to support part-time and mature students. For example, in the next academic year, part-time students will for the first time be able to access full-time maintenance loans, and we are looking at a lot more support for such students as part of the Augar review.

The regulations must be introduced now because universities have to market their courses for the next academic year, but this is by no means the end of the matter as far as student finance is concerned. I thank Members for their contributions and I welcome the points raised by the Opposition. We must ensure that access to our elite universities is as open as possible, without resorting to any kind of social engineering, so that wherever in our system someone is educated, they are competitive and can apply and get into the top universities if they have the grades. That is a real focus and passion of mine, and I will say lots more about it in due course. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) Regulations 2018.