Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

Noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciate the personal commitment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to this issue. However, I have to say that there has always been a long queue of people who wish, for various reasons, to exempt students from fees. My view has always been that this is an extremely dangerous route to go down. Students do not pay fees, and as soon as one implies in some way that fees are a barrier to students getting into university, one feeds a misconception that can do enormous damage. Indeed, if students from care were not, through the Exchequer, repaying these fees, that would be a loss of revenues for the university. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has recognised that because his Amendment 449A provides an alternative means of financing their education out of public expenditure.

We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, quite correctly, that we need to support more care leavers in university. If there were ever any public expenditure of the sort the noble Earl envisages in Amendment 449A, rather than devoting it to a group of students being exempt from fees that they are not going to pay anyway, it should be devoted to helping people leaving care to go to university. Exempting them from a fee that they are not going to pay anyway, or will pay only if they are in a well-paid job afterwards, is not the most effective way to help care leavers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute, as I have in the past, to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his hard work in many areas, particularly in respect of care leavers. We worked together last year quite effectively on the Children and Social Work Bill, and made some progress in terms of government concessions; I hope that we might have some success here as well.

I am slightly disappointed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said about exemption from fees, as that is not what is sought here, as I see it. The amendment seeks a limit on or exemption of part of the fees, but not an entire reduction. In the circumstances that is important, because we have to understand that for people leaving care even to get to university is quite an achievement in many cases. Only 5% of care leavers make it to university, compared with 38% of the population as a whole at that age. So it is incumbent on us to do what we can to offer some assistance.

The amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, cover a number of areas, which together create a package which would be of considerable assistance. People leaving care are some of the most vulnerable young adults, and they need help and encouragement to make their own way in life after a childhood that has often been devoid of the kind of settled home environment that many of us simply take for granted. For that reason, it is surely right that any care leaver who succeeds in gaining the passes necessary to be offered a university place should not be denied it due to financial constraints. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made about a university degree leading to higher earning, and that is the general backing that the Government, and Conservatives generally, give for tuition fees. That has some traction, but in this case you are dealing with people who have had many difficulties in their lives.

We also have to think about the question of accommodation, which another of the noble Earl’s amendments touches on. Some universities already discount fees; some do not charge fees to care leavers. But another issue is what happens outwith term time. As the noble Earl said in speaking to Amendment 229B, the question of accommodation can be a crucial factor. All too often, care leavers who begin a course of study do not complete it because they have been unable to settle during holiday periods, having no settled home to go to, to the extent that they do not feel able to resume their studies.

Being in care does not prevent young people achieving a successful life, but those who have spent time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success. In many cases, there has been a gradual improvement in educational outcomes, but the rate of care leavers going to university has hardly changed in recent years. Children in care have the wealthiest parent of all—the state—yet it fails them in the most fundamental aspect of child development: education. The noble Earl’s Amendment 122 should not be seen as a cost to the public purse. In the longer term, care leavers who complete their courses will put back more than they have received—an argument understood in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government decided that all young people who have experience of care and who meet the minimum entry standards will be offered a place at university. Of course, although fees are not an issue in that part of the UK, those students are awarded a full bursary, which will be worth £7,600 from academic year 2017-18.

That is an example of the extra, targeted help to those who most need it, so that young people who have had life experiences that most of us can barely imagine are given an enhanced chance to succeed in building a life for themselves. Reduced tuition fees should, I believe, be automatic for care leavers, although I accept what the Minister said on Monday about not all care leavers wishing to self-identify as such. There are various reasons for that and I hope we can at least try to understand them, but we should do all that we can to minimise those reasons in offering a helping hand into higher education. The group of amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would provide a powerful means of doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I learned earlier this evening that he taught at the University of Pennsylvania, as did I and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. That university is about to be further distinguished by the fact that one of its alumni is to become President of the United States in two days’ time. But I did not agree with his saying that it is easy to assess university teaching, partly because of the mixture of research that is involved with teaching and the difficulties of making judgments in that area.

I will come to this issue in Amendment 189, in my name, but there is a real danger that the Government are aiming for a spurious scientificity in their attempt to deal with the problem. On the other hand, Amendments 133A and 133B hit on something that can and should be dealt with to protect students’ interests. It shows greater objectivity in the treatment of students, which is all the more necessary in the epoch we are now in, when these matters are greatly disputed, much more than they were a generation ago. Broadly speaking, it is easier, and I think more appropriate, to meet the requirements of the government manifesto by aiming at things which actually hit at what I might call the fecklessness of university teachers—not marking properly or quickly enough, not being good enough at getting in contact, not replying to emails. Those are things that legislation should be aiming to correct to protect teachers, but it should not aim at a spurious scientific metric, which is quite a dangerous thing to do.

The thinking behind Amendments 133A and 133B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is very solid and goes to the heart of putting, as the Minister said, the student and the legitimate protection of the student’s interests at the heart of things, rather than seeking a bogus popularity among students. This is a legitimate concern for students and they have a right to be protected in this matter.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, as someone who is not an academic, I find it quite surprising that amendments of this sort should be necessary, but given that they have been moved and supported by very long-established academics, it is clear that there is an issue here. I thought that that blind-marking assessment was what happened all the time in the established universities, but it may not be the situation in some of the newer or smaller providers, and the question is what will happen with some of the future providers. To me, this is something any student should have a right to expect. Nobody, whatever their background, should be discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, by whoever is involved in marking an assessment. If we are being told by academics, as it appears we are, that these amendments are necessary, I would certainly want to support them. I hope the Minister will take it in good faith that they are necessary.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for tabling these amendments, which speak to concerns about unconscious bias in admissions and assessment, which I know we all take very seriously. As we have established, institutional autonomy is a vital principle for higher education, and academic freedom will continue to be protected through the Bill. I suggest the matters raised in these amendments are for individual institutions to take their own decisions on, as independent and autonomous bodies.

Amendment 133A would add a new requirement to Clause 13 to ensure that judgments made by higher education staff when making an assessment of a student’s work are not pre-determined by knowledge of the student whose work is under consideration. Under the current quality system, this is covered by the UK Quality Code. Expectations and guidance to ensure that judgments of student performance are based on the extent to which the student is able to demonstrate achievement of the corresponding intended learning outcomes are of course the essence of what is intended by that quality code. Indeed, all providers are expected to abide by the requirements of the quality code, and that will continue under the OfS. We would not want to undermine the flexibility of providers to achieve a fair assessment by introducing a new level of prescription, which the amendment would do. We do not feel that would be in the best interests of providers or indeed of students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall not repeat how subjective the test is,

“if it appears to the OfS”—

but it is entirely subjective. These are very wide-ranging powers that are envisaged; they are very serious powers that will be exercised. Of course, as the Minister said on 9 January, they are powers that will have to be exercised reasonably, not on a whim, and would be subject to a judicial review—but a judicial review of such a decision would succeed only if the decision made by the OfS were unreasonable in a particular legal sense, so that no body exercising these particular powers in this situation could have exercised them in this way. It will not succeed merely because the decision is wrong.

If I may make it more personal, two reasonable people can disagree with each other and both can still be reasonable. If the Minister disagrees with me—perhaps he will, perhaps he will not—I may respectfully suggest to him that he is wrong, but I would certainly not suggest to him that he was being unreasonable. It is a point of view. There is a great deal to be noticed in the context of what the reasonable exercise of powers actually amounts to.

These amendments are designed, as I see it, to secure from the outset that the office must believe that there are reasonable grounds for its decision to deploy its statutory powers. Framed in this way, the grounds for relief can themselves be examined. Although there are passages in the schedule which deal with that, it would encourage greater thought and analysis being given to any process of deploying the draconian powers that are being vested in the office.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I do not rise to add anything to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I am not able to do so; the points they make sound very sensible and backed up with legal opinion. I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I rise on an amendment on which I and my colleagues have no involvement to make the more general point that I am sure that the Minister is going to say, “This is all very well, it sounds fine, but it’s not necessary—in the best of all worlds it will all be fine”. It is getting very tiresome. This is not the way in which legislation is meant to progress in your Lordships’ House. There have been absolutely zero concessions so far from the Government since the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. It is inconceivable that anyone outside looking in would accept that every amendment put forward is unnecessary or does not fit in with the Bill. That cannot be the case. I say in all good faith to the noble Viscount the Minister—and to the noble Baroness the Minister—that I am not making a political point as it is not one of my amendments but, with so many amendments on this Bill, they cannot all simply be turned down flat. I hope that he will bear that in mind, if not on this group of amendments then as we move forward.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I shall address the points raised by the noble Lord directly. He will know that we are and have been listening and that I gave some very warm words on certain amendments on the previous day in Committee. I therefore ask him to take back that point. I think that it is uncalled for, if I may say so.

I want to be brief in responding to this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for raising these issues. I will be brief, as they were. The Bill states that the OfS may take these actions if it appears to the OfS that a breach of conditions has occurred. While I understand and respect the honourable intentions of noble Lords here, this test is used in other legislation, as I have mentioned before. For example, under Section 151(1)(a) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, Ofqual may impose monetary penalties on a body that it has recognised for the purpose of awarding or authenticating certain qualifications where,

“it appears to Ofqual … that a … body has failed … to comply with any condition to which the recognition is subject”.

This provision has been in force since 1 May 2012.

It is also the case that the usual public law considerations will apply so that the OfS may be legally challenged if it acts irrationally or unreasonably or fails to follow the proper procedure. The OfS, as a public body, must at all times act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with public law when exercising its powers. In addition, before suspending a registration, imposing a penalty or deregistering a higher education provider, the OfS must give the reasons for the action. Decisions to deregister or to impose a penalty are subject to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. So it is my belief that,

“it appears to the OfS”,

requires the OfS to make a judgment and take responsibility for its decisions—and that, we believe, is the right approach. The OfS is obliged under Clause 2(1)(f) to regulate in a,

“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,

way. It is in all of our interests to want a more engaged OfS applying its judgment flexibly and sensibly. And Clause 2 of the Bill is relevant here too—making it clear that the OfS must follow the principles of best regulatory practice, including that its regulatory activities should be,

“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and … targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.

I think it is best that I write in full on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, when he spoke to Amendment 159. Therefore, without further ado, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 142.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

122: Clause 10, page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to “limit”;”

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I must point out to the Committee that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read: “page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to ‘see’”, not “limit”.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to the various amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, including Schedule 2 stand part.

Schedule 2 is about linking the case for a fees increase to the teaching excellence framework. It provides a mechanism for the setting of fee limits, permitting providers to charge fees up to an inflation-linked cap according to their ratings for teaching quality established through the teaching excellence framework, which is referred to—though not, of course, by name—in Clause 25. The Explanatory Notes reveal the name of the TEF, which is supposed to enable the impartial assessment of different aspects of teaching, including student experience and the job prospects of graduates.

We believe it is important to break the proposed connection between measuring teaching quality and the level of fees that can be charged. Increasing fee limits in line with inflation is of course nothing new. It was introduced in Labour’s Higher Education Act 2004 and was routinely applied between 2007 and 2012, until ended by the coalition Government. What is new is linking fee limits to teaching performance, and that is what has alarmed so many people and institutions in the higher education sector.

The framework is described in Clause 25 as a system for providing,

“ratings … to English higher education providers”.

Schedule 2 sets out the meaning of a high-level quality rating, which will be determined by the Secretary of State. Our Amendment 122B seeks to ensure that the high-level rating is established by regulation so that it can be subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament. That rating will be the gold standard, irrespective of whether we have a traffic-light system, and, as such, will be of crucial importance in the future of higher education in England—too important, we would argue, to be left to the Secretary of State alone to decide.

Universities are rightly concerned about the use of proxy metrics, including statistics on graduate earnings, in a framework that is supposed to be about teaching quality. Also of concern is the fact that a gold, silver and bronze rating system is proposed to differentiate the sector based on those metrics. This will undermine the sector’s reputation both within the UK and overseas because universities deemed to be bronze will have been independently quality assured and have met all expectations of a good provider, but that is not how it will appear to those outside, whether in the UK or, indeed, further afield. That is why we have submitted Amendment 195, which seeks to ensure that the scheme has only two ratings: meets expectations and fails to meet expectations. That has the benefit of being simple to operate and, perhaps as important, simple to understand for those considering whether to apply to a particular institution. It also sends a clear message beyond these shores and enables comparisons to be made with providers in other countries without the confusion of a bizarre system of three categories.

Where metrics are used, they have to be much more securely evidence-based than those suggested. Our Amendments 196 and 198 contain proposals that would oblige the OfS to make an assessment of the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is actually correlated to teaching quality and would ensure that, prior to making that assessment, the OfS consult those who know first-hand what is needed to measure teaching quality namely, academic staff and students. Having carried out those requirements in the interests of full transparency, the OfS should publish the assessments. Surely any inconvenience that the Minister may point to in terms of administrative burdens on the OfS would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits accruing in terms of the much more robust nature of the metrics produced.

We also believe it is necessary for the OfS to demonstrate the number of international students applying to and enrolled at higher education providers that have applied for a rating. It is important to protect the number of international students that providers are permitted to recruit; and to ensure transparency on that, the OfS should be obliged to lay a report before Parliament each year. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has added his name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on Amendment 200 to emphasise that we believe it is essential that the TEF must not be used as a determinant when providers seek to enrol international students, and I look to the Minister to confirm that, even if he is unable to accept the amendment itself.

Those faced with a wide range of institutions from which to choose when considering their course of study have a right to the fullest possible information on which to base that choice. That is why our Amendment 176 seeks to alter the wording of Clause 25, in much the same way as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his amendment, to ensure that all the relevant information is made easily accessible to staff, students and parents and that the information is made available in a consistent form in order to facilitate meaningful comparisons between providers.

Noble Lords on all sides of the House made clear at Second Reading their opposition to statutory links between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching. Since tuition fees were increased from £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a consequential improvement in teaching quality. Indeed, the National Union of Students has said that there has been no change in student satisfaction with the teaching on their course, while institutions have, in some cases, been shown to spend additional income from the fees rise on increased marketing materials rather than on efforts to improve course quality.

Why do the Government now believe that there is a link between fees and teaching excellence? Indeed, which should come first or be expected to come first? This is a clear example of the Government’s view that the Bill is as much a question of consumerism as it is about education. As I said at Second Reading, we on these Benches reject the concept of students as customers or consumers in higher education. Many universities have said in their response to the Bill that there is no evidence to point to fee increases improving the quality of teaching. The University of Cambridge stated in its written evidence that the link between the TEF and fees is,

“bound to affect student decision-making adversely and in particular it may deter students from low income families from applying to the best universities”.

Another point of concern in relation to the fees link is that in further stages of the TEF, the Government are moving to subject-based assessment. We do not take issue with that, because universities are large institutions within which there are a huge range of subjects and a great diversity of teaching quality, but linking a fee with an institutional assessment cannot do other than mask that range of teaching quality. People studying in a department where the teaching quality is not as good as in others will also pay higher fees. This flawed proposal does not enhance the Government’s objective, and we believe it should be rejected.

What Schedule 2 would do is introduce the provision that only those providers that can demonstrate high-quality provision can maintain their fees in line with inflation. The specious reasoning behind this proposal, based on metrics that are widely seen as an inappropriate method in which to take such decisions, would lead to a skewed outcome because, as we heard at Second Reading, several high-performing institutions would lose out on a high-level rating through no fault of the actual quality of their teaching.

We of course welcome any means of improving teaching quality in higher education, and we do not oppose a mechanism to measure such improvement if a reliable one can be found. But the TEF as proposed is not that mechanism, for reasons that I have touched on already and shall expand on when we come to debate what is currently group 17. Schedule 2 introduces the whole area of the fee limit and fee regime, a link which we believe is without merit. As such, Schedule 2 is not fit for purpose, and that is why we believe it should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which complement those that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to. The Government’s current policy is for fees, even for those having achieved the top rate of the TEF, to increase only by inflation. However, paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 2—on page 78, line 3—enables an increase by more than inflation if a resolution to that effect is passed in Parliament. Amendment 125 would remove this provision, thus requiring new primary legislation for any Government wishing to go further.

Amendment 199, which mirrors the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to, is somewhat of a pre-emptive amendment. No matter what your view of the TEF, it is clear that it is an attempt, albeit ham-fisted in our view, to give students more information and more security when choosing a course and to lift the standard of teaching in our university sector across the board. Both of these are noble aims. We agree with the aims, but challenge the methods proposed. We particularly deplore the categorisation of gold, silver and bronze, which seems to us to be extraordinarily damaging.

We do not have faith that the TEF will not be used for ulterior purposes in the future, in particular as part of the Government’s continued, blinkered action towards student immigration. This fear is not unfounded. Nick Timothy, the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser, is one of the biggest advocates of further crack-downs on student immigration. In a piece in the Telegraph in June 2015, he made clear his views that students should be,

“expected to leave the country at the end of their course, while only the very best of them should be allowed to work in the UK”.

In the piece, he states that these students are not, in fact, the best and the brightest and key contributors to our future prosperity, as,

“the number of foreign students at Oxford and Cambridge is a little more than 4,000, while there are about 66,000 at the remaining Russell Group universities”.

This attitude displays a staggering lack of understanding about the diversity and value of our higher education institutions and their graduates.

This amendment would prevent the TEF from being used in determining eligibility for a visa for students on leaving university. It would ensure that such a change would require primary legislation and not be possible through a simple change in Immigration Rules. If the Government were to seek to pursue such an approach, they should rightly have to make their case in Parliament. Can the Minister also clarify that the Government do not agree with the approach Nick Timothy has previously advocated? There are very many of the brightest and best students at universities outside the Russell group, and such discrimination can only be damaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, my noble friend made a statement of the Government’s policy regarding overseas students which was fuller and stronger than I have heard from anyone else—on which I congratulate him. Can he confirm therefore—it would be consistent with what he said—that the Home Secretary has now taken a step back from the remarks she made in her speech to the Conservative Party conference, and in particular the ones that implied she would reduce the number of students by refusing lower-quality courses, as she described them, the right to take overseas students?

On gold, silver and bronze, my noble friend is somewhat confused as to the effect of these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others pointed out, bronze is only valuable because so many people get worse. Under the old Ofsted rating system of outstanding, good and satisfactory, it was quite clear that “satisfactory” meant “avoid at all costs”. It was the lowest rating you could get above absolute disaster. That is the way it was perceived.

Although we in this country may manage to give things time, see them in perspective and understand why it is worth sending our children to a bronze institution, it would be extremely hard for agents overseas to do so. We will be competing with other countries which will not hesitate to ask, “Why are you thinking of sending this child to a bronze institution when we in Canada”—or Australia or wherever else—“can offer them a top-quality institution doing the same course in the same subject?”. It would be really damaging.

It is also unnecessary, because it is not valuable information for a student. It is the Government’s conclusion, but what is important is the students’ and their advisers’ conclusion. The way in which the Government choose to balance particular elements of their assessment of quality do not bear on the decision that an individual student may take. That must be a matter for individual decision. We should publish the information—absolutely—but not some arbitrary percentage. Someone in the Civil Service or in some committee may decide that only 20% of our universities are excellent. At least with Ofsted there are criteria that can be relied on. This will be damaging and will hurt one of our great industries. It is not based on anything useful or on fact, but it will be treated as if it is.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, as have many other noble Lords, gold, silver and bronze. At last year’s Olympic Games an event at which many British athletes and Paralympic athletes won medals was swimming—we won many gold medals, many silver and many bronze. The Minister must be in line for a gold medal at swimming because he has been facing a torrent against him throughout the debate. He has been swimming manfully but has not made very much progress.

By my calculation, some 13 noble Lords have spoken in the last hour and 52 minutes. Of those, all were in favour of improving teaching quality, as you might expect, and of having a teaching excellence framework in some form. As all noble Lords have said, we welcome the role of Chris Husbands in developing it. However, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, we all believe that it cannot be delivered in the form that is proposed—and even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, could muster no more enthusiasm for the TEF than to say that the current metrics are not as bad as claimed. That qualifies as faint praise.

Many noble Lords also spoke against the link between teaching quality and fees in principle, and more spoke in favour of rating on a basis other than the gold, silver and bronze. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quoted someone in Canada, looking at British institutions and spotting a bronze and thinking, “Why would I advise my son or daughter to go there rather than an institution in Canada because it is only a bronze?” The point is that the bronze institution in the UK could well be better than the institution in Canada, but the perception will not be that. Perception consistently outranks fact, and that is the big danger in the three-tier system being advanced by the Government.

I wish to make a serious point about two of the contributions in the debate—those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. Both highlighted and made powerful points on social mobility and the effects that the Government’s proposals not only could but almost certainly will have. I quoted Cambridge University in my opening remarks; that has the same fear. The Government claim to be committed to improving social mobility although some of us are unconvinced. That view is reinforced by the fact that the Minister, very disappointingly, failed even to mention social mobility in his reply. In his own terminology, he needs to reflect on that matter before Report.

In his response, the Minister referred to linking fees to quality of teaching but did not say how that would be achieved. That is the main reason for noble Lords’ opposition to the link. My noble friend Lady Cohen said that objectivity is the key here. That is what is required, and it is a quality that is lacking in the metrics as they stand at the moment.

The problem of rating on the basis of institutions has also been highlighted. The Minister said that, at the moment, the Bill allows for the scheme to be developed at institutional level and then at departmental level at some point in the future. The question mark is how. If the ratings are to be made on a departmental or faculty basis, how can you avoid, ultimately, differential fees being charged within institutions if the Government truly believe in that link? That certainly is not a road we would wish to go down. The bottom line here is that the Government need to build confidence within the sector that the path they are going down is one that will improve the sector’s quality and sustainability, particularly with so many new operators arriving.

My noble friend Lord Desai asked whether anyone would fail the exam. The Minister could not bring himself to admit it, but unless he believes that all institutions will be capable of being rated gold, the answer can only be yes. That is why our Amendment 195 recognised that fact and advocated a simple pass/fail rating. That way, every institution knows where it stands—as does everyone outside it when making their decisions. That is something that those looking at a course at a university have the right to have available when they make their choice.

I suggest that the Minister will need to come to terms with the fact he is not carrying noble Lords with him. I suggest he will need to change his position substantially before we come back to this matter, which we undoubtedly will when we next discuss it on Report. On the basis of an invigorating and very useful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on these amendments by looking at them from the perspective of how the old system has functioned. We have been told about the powers of the OfS, and your Lordships are scrutinising those very carefully. I think that perhaps the powers of the old HEFCE have been understated. In reality, HEFCE was not only the funder but was using its funding power to be the regulator—a highly discretionary regulator that operated with very little transparency and few constraints.

HEFCE was the extremely successful buffer body between government and universities, and the Government communicated with HEFCE notably through the grant letter—and the grant letter, I suspect, is the origins of the guidance provision in front of us today. The grant letter is the way in which the Government have historically set out their policy, week by week, year by year, for universities, and so, for example, it has been historically possible for the Minister for Universities to go to the Chancellor and say, “High-cost subjects are not being sufficiently funded. We do not think that the extra costs of doing them are properly reflected in the higher cost bands. Will it be possible to have extra funding attached to that?”—and then in the grant letter to suggest to HEFCE, “In the light of the funding we have available, it would be excellent if HEFCE were able to identify and set aside more funding for high-cost subjects”. Indeed, I used to write such grant letters with my excellent former colleague Sir Vince Cable.

What is happening—this goes back to discussions we had last week—is that as we are now moving from that old discretionary high-trust system to a new rule-bound system with a regulatory function, quite understandably your Lordships, at each stage of the process, are trying to pin down what kind of decisions will be taken and how they will be taken. I think that a power to give guidance distinct from a power to give instructions, and a reasonable amount of flexibility for Ministers to use it so that they can communicate the same kind of messages that they used to in the old HEFCE letter, is in the interests of the sector as a whole.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the group contains several common-sense amendments that would strengthen the Bill and one of the amendments within this group seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State should have regard to any advice given to her or him by the Office for Students. The Government are placing a huge amount of faith and power in the Office for Students and it makes sense that the Secretary of State should not only give guidance to that body but should have regard to what the OfS says to her or him. Why would it not be sensible to do so?

It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did several times in Committee, that he does not want to see too much detail on the face of the Bill. In effect, he is saying, “Trust me. There is no need for it. Everything will be fine”. With the greatest respect, even were we to accept that from such a find upstanding Member of your Lordships’ House as the noble Viscount the Minister, he cannot of course bind his successors, who, I suspect, would not be willing to be bound by him and his colleague Mr Johnson. Who knows what might or might not follow in the months and years after this Bill passes into statute? For that reason, it is helpful to have this sort of detail in the Bill. At the end of the day, it is only a question of having regard to what the OfS says, but it will have built up considerable experience and wisdom over time and the Secretary of State should surely benefit from that.

There are also amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the need to ensure that the Secretary of State does not take any action that would prohibit the Office for Students from funding a particular course of study. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, eloquently explained the reasons behind that and there was some discussion on this last week as well. I trust that the noble Viscount has taken note of the arguments advanced in support of those amendments.

The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 69 and 510, which seek to make the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance to the OfS exercisable by statutory instrument. Last month, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House reported on its consideration of the Bill. When commenting on Clause 2(2) which requires that the OfS,

“In performing its functions … have regard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State”,


the committee said:

“There is no Parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance and there is no requirement for it to be published. The absence of any Parliamentary scrutiny is explained in the Department’s memorandum”,


but that,

“We are wholly unconvinced by the Department’s reasons”.


However, it did not stop there. In summation of its consideration of that part of the Bill, the committee concluded:

“The wide range of functions which are being conferred on the OfS will give it the ability to bring change to the whole of the higher education sector. We consider that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under clause 2 will act as a significant control over how the OfS exercises its functions. Therefore, far from having no Parliamentary scrutiny, we recommend that guidance issued under clause 2 should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and that the affirmative procedure should apply”.


That does not leave much room for doubt, and I am not aware that the Government have yet responded to the committee’s report, but I hope that they will be able to take such trenchant criticism on board—or will this be yet another example of the Government saying in effect that, “We know best. We have a monopoly on wisdom and we intend to plough on regardless”? I certainly hope not. The Delegated Powers Committee is of course cross-party and in this case was actually chaired by a Conservative. If its role is to be treated with respect, its considered view should surely be weighed heavily by the noble Viscount and his colleagues.

Last week the Minister undertook to reflect on the amendments debated and it is to be hoped that, as regards Amendments 69 and 510, the issue really is rather a black-and-white one. I hope that he will be able to give a considered response to it when he rises to speak in a few moments.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cohen of Pimlico]

My Lords, at the risk of lowering the tone after my noble friend Lord Judd’s speech, I say that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Not only are we cutting ourselves off from the intellectual, social and international contribution from the students we are refusing or discouraging, we are behaving with staggering ungraciousness to those students who have already made an enormous financial contribution to the welfare of our universities. It would serve us right if they stopped doing so. Anyone who, like me, has been instrumental in raising money for universities knows how we can depend on the generosity of foreign students educated here to support our universities. I cannot bear it that we are treating them with such ungraciousness.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was quite relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, delivered his intervention—because, up to that point, he was very much cast in the role of guest at his own party. As ever, I enjoyed his contribution. His amendment is an important one; it highlights the need to pursue transparency, accountability, equality of teaching and how it is to be assessed—issues that you would think cannot fail to command the support of all noble Lords, although I suspect that the Minister will find a way to disagree.

I diverge a little from the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who prayed in aid the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment as products of high-quality university scholarship of their ages. I have to say that two out of three ain’t bad—but, as a fellow Scot, he will know what I mean when I say that I hae ma doots about the Reformation.

Schools: Volunteer Reading Helpers

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes a very good point; I know that he is very experienced in this area. Since the introduction of our phonics check, the proportion of pupils reaching the accepted standard has risen from 58% to 81%. The proportion of good and outstanding primary schools has risen in the past five years from 69% to 90%. Ofsted reports that the focus on reading and synthetic phonics has been a particular strength. However, my noble friend is right about the importance of primary, because those pupils who do not achieve level 4 when they leave primary school have only a 6% chance of getting five good GCSEs.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, perhaps underestimates what is involved in the teaching of reading. Children who have difficulty with reading require specialised help from teachers and teaching assistants in their preparation and supervision. As the Minister has conceded, a firm grasp of phonics is absolutely essential, which may not apply to volunteers. Children in the poorest families have lower literacy rates than their peers, yet last month the Government chose to abolish the child poverty unit. What effect does the Minister expect that to have on education policy and the attainment of poorer children?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord is quite right that children from less advantaged families struggle more to read. They hear many fewer different words and we all know that hearing words at home is incredibly important, which is why we have to place such a strong emphasis on teaching phonics and other programmes such as Read Write Inc. and Talk for Writing, and on volunteer programmes to make sure that our pupils are literate at as early an age as possible.

Children: Safeguarding

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

We have fairly limited visibility on this but I will write to the noble Earl with any up-to-date figures.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the recently departed HM Chief Inspector of Schools made determined efforts to uncover and root out illegal schools, and it is certainly to be hoped that his successor will not lose that focus. All schools which cater for five or more pupils full-time must be either maintained by a local authority or registered as an independent school. There is, however, a significant loophole in that schools which operate, for example, four days a week can claim not to be providing full-time education. The Labour Government’s Education and Skills Act 2008 provided a means of closing that loophole but this Government have refused to implement it and seem to be in denial about this as an issue. If that is not the case, can the Minister explain why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the Government’s response to the Wood review made no mention of any action on home education or unregistered school settings? When will the 2008 Act be fully implemented?

[Lord Nash]

We have just had a call for evidence on unregulated out-of-school settings and have had 18,000 responses. We are determined to regulate in this area but we need to tread carefully because many of these organisations are small, open for only a few hours a week and are staffed by volunteers. We do not want a cumbersome regime but one that works.

Private Colleges

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The main point to make, as we take these reforms through and provide a framework for new alternative providers to set up, is that we will look at the importance of quality and not just quantity. New providers and increased competition in the system should improve the capacity and agility of the higher education sector as well as encouraging innovation to transform its ability to respond to economic demands.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Higher Education and Research Bill to which the Minister has referred is currently before your Lordships’ House. It is causing concern because of the manner in which many new private higher education institutions could be allowed to enter the sector. There are already several well-established private higher education institutions that work to widen access to higher education. Even though they do not have degree-awarding powers, they are rigorously regulated by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Does the Minister not accept that the proposal to allow new private higher education institutions to have degree-awarding powers from day one represents an unwarranted risk which could see students being offered a standard of education that is at best problematic?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There is a balance to be struck here. We are very keen to encourage the setting up of new providers, examples of which include Ravensbourne College in east London and the Condé Nast College of Fashion and Design, but the key point that he is really alluding to is quality. If new providers are setting up and are given provision for degree-awarding powers from day one, it is critical that the quality conditions are met. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the bar for these conditions is set very high.

Social Mobility Committee Report

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Corston for chairing the committee that produced the report and introducing the debate so eloquently and effectively today. I also offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Corriegarth, for his maiden speech. There was some interesting Scottish historical perspective in it, which got my attention; I look forward to hearing more of that in his contributions as time goes on.

I hope that noble Lords will not be in any way offended if I say that I found the most enjoyable contribution this afternoon and evening was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who to some extent was slightly left field in saying that he wanted to deconstruct or perhaps even reject the concept of social mobility. He talked about social opportunity, which I think is very interesting in itself. I think that he may have been talking about inculcating confidence in young people—that seemed to me to be what he was saying. If independent schools do one thing for people who attend them, it is to give them a sense of confidence, and we need to ensure that that is spread more widely. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that he seeks a debate on the question of social opportunity in the not-too-distant future, because that would be useful and interesting.

Since the report that forms the basis of this debate was published eight months ago, we have seen much activity of direct relevance to it. We have had the government response; the Sainsbury review and the Government’s response to that; the Technical and Further Education Bill, which will arrive in your Lordships’ House next month; the latest State of the Nation report by the Social Mobility Commission; and, just yesterday, the revelation—that is what it was, because there was no announcement; it was slipped out as a Written Answer in another place—that the Government are to abolish their Child Poverty Unit, a point made forcefully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. He also mentioned, stealing my thunder a little bit, that the Social Mobility Commission has been rebranded from what was the Commission for Social Mobility and Child Poverty. So within weeks we have witnessed the Government effectively airbrush the term “child poverty” from the face of their Administration. Are they telling us that child poverty has been eradicated? If only. According to the DWP, in 2014-15 there were 3.9 million children living in poverty, which is 28% of children, or nine in a classroom of 30. The Government are in absolute denial about child poverty, which is shameful, and it says more than the Minister will be able to about the subject of this debate. The Government lack any credibility when it comes to promoting social mobility, a concept that they do not even give the impression of understanding. That is demonstrated by their lukewarm response to the report’s recommendations.

By my calculation, of the eight recommendations in the report, two were accepted, both involving administrative requirements, three were partially accepted, and three were rejected. Listening to my noble friend Lady Corston, I understand that I have been kind in interpreting the Government’s response, because she and other members of the committee clearly feel badly let down by what appeared in the response. For a report of some 140 pages to be treated in such a fashion is less than respectful to my noble friend Lady Corston and other noble Lords who worked hard to produce the report. The rejection of the committee’s recommendation that there should be a transition stage from 14 to 19, a point taken up and advanced forcefully by former Secretaries of State for Education, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and my noble friend Lady Morris, I find particularly regrettable. It is a point that we must revisit soon. I was taken by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the national curriculum finishing at 14, although we have to part company on what he then went on to say about grammar schools starting at 14. But the age of 14 is a hub that the Government need to look at, because it could be an important development for the sort of issues that we are discussing in the report.

It is noticeable that the Government responded more favourably to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the Report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education, which found that the current system was too complex and failed to provide the skills most needed for the 21st century. The panel said that there was an obvious need to simplify the system, which the Government accepted by announcing that in future 16 year-olds will have to choose between academic and technical options, according to the post- 16 skills plans. Streamlining young people into a limited number of high-quality routes makes sense, but there must be some flexibility to take account of technological advances, particularly in digital and technical skills. The 2019 target for implementation is optimistic to say the least, and forcing young people to choose the route to their future career at the age of 16 risks institutionalising the divide between vocational and academic learning. Ironically, the proposals are reminiscent of Labour’s 14-19 diplomas, which aimed to create parity between academic and vocational routes. Those qualifications were launched in 2008 in 14 subject areas, but they were scrapped within a few years by the coalition Government. Now the wheel has had to be reinvented.

The Explanatory Notes to the Technical and Further Education Bill claims that the Bill,

“takes forward policies relating to Technical and Further Education which support the government’s social mobility agenda”.

That remains to be seen, but it is not a view shared by the Social Mobility Commission, which stated in its recent report:

“Funding is being diverted from second chance education in further education … colleges to apprenticeships, which are often of low quality, in low-skill sectors and not linked to the country’s skill gaps”.

The commission went on to say:

“The Government should encourage sixth-form provision in areas where it is lacking and give schools a central role in supporting FE colleges to deliver the Skills Plan. It should aim to reduce the number of 16- to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training to zero by 2022”.

That is the Government’s own commission. Perhaps the Minister would comment on these recommendations and say whether they are likely to be met with a positive response within the DfE.

Although the Social Mobility Committee’s report concentrates on the bridge between school and employment as a means of promoting social mobility, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there are other stages in life when intervention can have a telling effect on social mobility if allowed to do so with the necessary funding. I think it is widely accepted that above all else the key factor in increasing social mobility is investment in the early years of a child’s life. That can have a lasting impact because there are stark social class differences in how ready children are when they arrive for their first day at school. For a Government genuinely concerned about promoting social mobility, that is where their priority would lie. That is why Sure Start centres were launched by the Labour Government in 1998, with a particular remit to provide early help to infants from disadvantaged backgrounds before they started school. But a succession of government cuts—direct as well as indirect—since 2010 has seen many closures, to the point where 156 centres in England closed in 2015, almost double the number which shut the previous year.

It seems that this Government still have not grasped that reality. They are not willing to commit the necessary resources to early years funding, so children continue to fall behind, often losing ground to their contemporaries from better-off families— ground which can never be recovered, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Unfortunately, one area where the Government have committed significant funding, just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is grammar schools, where miraculously they have found £250 million of new money.

The Prime Minister likes to refer to “just about managing” families, which is taken to mean those who, despite largely being in work, are squeezed by low pay and the high cost of housing and family bills. The focus on this group has also been linked with education, with grammar schools claimed to be of particular help for the children of low-income households. All the evidence shows that that is a fallacy. Indeed, the overall effect is the opposite, but I will not quote the figures on this occasion.

While the focus of research has traditionally been on the disadvantaged, there is little evidence for the effect of grammars on those slightly higher on the socioeconomic scale—a fact highlighted in the recent DfE consultation—that is, those just managing families. Recent research by the Sutton Trust shows how a lack of access to grammar schools is not merely restricted to those at the very bottom of the scale: there is a steep social gradient across wealth distribution, which may be one reason that the Social Mobility Commission stated in last month’s report that the Government should,

“rethink its plans for more grammar schools and more academies”.

How hypocritical it is that many in the Conservative Party who railed against supposed elitism during the EU referendum campaign are now willing the return of grammar schools, which can create only a more elitist society.

Many noble Lords—particularly my noble friends Lady Morris, Lady Prosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—have stressed the importance of career guidance in this whole question of the link between school and work. My noble friend Lady Corston referred to the need for a “gold standard” of careers guidance, referring to the Social Mobility Committee’s Recommendation 8. Unfortunately, the Government did not respond to the suggestion of a cost-benefit analysis on careers education in schools. They simply came out with a figure of £90 million that was being spent. However, I think that few people at the moment believe that careers guidance delivers value for money. I urge the Minister to look again at carrying out such a cost-benefit analysis.

Meanwhile, the Social Mobility Commission’s report stated that poor careers advice and lack of work experience mean that, even with the same GCSE results, one-third more poorer children drop out of post-16 education than their better-off classmates. It went on to recommend that independent schools and universities should be required to provide high-quality careers advice, support with university applications and to share their business networks with state schools. That seems to me a very sensible suggestion, and more sensible, incidentally, than the suggestion in the grammar school consultation paper that universities and independent schools should sponsor schools in the state sector. I invite the Minister to comment on those suggestions, although I am quite content for him to do so in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy all suggested that it was unfortunate that the committee whose report we are considering is no more, and that there was certainly more work for such a committee to undertake. I very much subscribe to that view. Perhaps your Lordships’ House should consider setting up a committee to look at social mobility in terms of educational opportunities for older students. It is widely accepted that part-time higher education is a catalyst for widening participation. Recent analysis by the Open University of official government data has reconfirmed the dramatic fall in the numbers of part-time higher education students in England aged 21 and over from 2007 to 2015. During this time, nearly 400,000 part-time students have been lost from higher education and the sharp increase in tuition fees over that period is without doubt a major contributory factor. Yet, in a move that almost defies belief, in the 2015 Autumn Statement the Government committed to cutting university funding for widening participation work by up to 50% by 2020. This funding is known as the student opportunity allocation and is vital for institutions with a strong commitment to social mobility. Again, I ask the Minister to revisit this issue and perhaps consider having a discussion with the Chancellor to see what support can be provided for widening participation of part-time learners in the period in which that cut is still due to take place.

I commend the Social Mobility Committee for its thorough, and thoroughly convincing, report, which demonstrates that commitment by government is necessary to make sure that all our young people have the best chances of success. It has to be said that, up to this point, no such commitment from the Government is in evidence.

Independent Schools: Free Places

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The noble Earl makes an extremely good point—one that is very close to my heart. I have initiated a campaign to try to encourage more local authorities to send young children who are on the edge of care to state boarding schools and independent boarding schools. It is an area where there is quite a shortage of information. We have a new project that is providing a website essentially to market to local authorities the opportunities of sending some of their children on the edge of care to state boarding schools and independent schools very cheaply because they may qualify for full bursarships.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, what this offer reveals is that the cost of educating a pupil in the state sector is around £5,500, while the average level of private school fees is three times that, which is very revealing in terms of the different offers to children in the different sectors. Does the Minister know whether this offer will be conditional on a selection test being operated to see who is able to take up these places? If that happens, does he not agree that what will then occur is not so much that poorer children per se are helped but that already bright children will be helped to achieve what they would very likely have achieved in the state sector anyway? Does he agree that, if selection is to be involved in this offer, the Government should not accept it?

[Lord Nash]

A range of proposals is being submitted under the consultation document, some of which will involve selection and some of which will not. We will look at them all before we design the final proposals more carefully.

National Funding Formulae for Schools and High Needs

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank him—or perhaps it should be his officials at the Department for Education—for assisting those of us who are unable to grasp the main arguments within the Statement by helpfully underlining the really important words in it, just as the red tops do for their readers. It is a quite extraordinary development in the issuing of Statements.

The outcome for schools across the country will undoubtedly be disappointing, even for the 10,000 or so—less than half of all schools—which are to gain, because no new money is promised by the Government. That is hardly a surprise, but what is a surprise is that the Government have chosen to release the Statement today, apparently oblivious to the fact that the National Audit Office was issuing its report on the financial sustainability of schools just hours earlier. This Statement has already been delayed for too long. Had it been produced in a more timely fashion, perhaps the Government could have enabled the NAO to take on board the plans outlined in it, but that has not happened.

I have no doubt that the Minister and the Secretary of State would rather that the National Audit Office had kept quiet, because Whitehall’s spending watchdog paints a markedly different picture to the upbeat scene sketched out in the Statement. The NAO says that the Government’s approach to managing the risks to schools’ financial sustainability cannot be judged to be “effective” or to be “providing value for money”. Schools have to make £3 billion in efficiency savings by 2019-20 against a background of growing pupil numbers and a real-terms reduction in funding per pupil. Indeed, Sir Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, does not pull his punches. He says:

“Schools could make the ‘desirable’ efficiencies that the Department judges feasible or could make spending choices that put educational outcomes at risk. The Department, therefore, needs effective oversight arrangements that give early warning of problems, and it needs to be ready to intervene quickly where problems do arise”.

Unfortunately, the department’s own Statement is not leading the news agenda because it has been overshadowed by the NAO report—which, unlike the Government’s, is not partisan because the NAO’s remit is to help the Government in their drive to improve public services, national and locally. However, I would forgive the Minister if, at this point, he does not quite view the latest intervention by the National Audit Office in that way.

Not only is there no new money, but less than half of schools, as I said, stand to gain from the new funding formula. There is scant information in the Statement about the losers, just a rather complacent comment that no school will lose out by more than 3% per pupil overall. In many cases, school budgets are already intolerably stretched, and there simply is no room to absorb any kind of cut, whether 3% or less. Can the Minister say precisely how many schools will lose, how much they will lose in total and over what timescale? Can he further say what estimate—if any—has been made of the resultant impact on them and their pupils? Will there be job losses? What will the effect be on class sizes? It really is unacceptable that the Statement does not even hint at such information. Perhaps it is in the more detailed papers that accompanied the Statement, which I regret I have not yet had time to scrutinise. But the Minister will have had sufficient time, so I hope he may be able to enlighten noble Lords.

The Statement repeats the palpably false claim that the core schools budget will be protected overall in real terms. The National Audit Office report debunks that myth, stating that although average funding per pupil will rise from £5,447 in the current year to £5,519 in 2019-20, once inflation is taken into account that amounts to a real-terms reduction. I suspect the Minister will be unwilling to accept that analysis. If so, I suggest that he hears it from the chalkface. He may, like other noble Lords, have been listening to Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning when Anne Lyons, head teacher at St John Fisher Catholic Primary School in London, was interviewed. Of course, it is likely that schools in London will be among the hardest hit by the new formula. She said that schools were at breaking point:

“We realise we have to do more with less money in reality … But we’re now at the stage—we’re at breaking point”.

She also said:

“Like many schools … facing these cuts, we are worried … It means that we’re struggling to maintain the services we’ve been able to offer. We’re cutting activities. We’re a school that is increasing in size … we can’t increase the staffing in line with the increase in pupil numbers … the only way some schools are going to manage this significant cut in real terms is through staff cuts—and that’s going to add to workload”.

I accept that the news is not all bad, as high-needs pupils, as the Minister said, are to receive additional funding, and no local authority will see this part of their funding reduced. It is also to be welcomed that the issue of mobility has been recognised. But the Statement is plain wrong when it claims:

“Once implemented, the formula will mean that wherever a family lives in England, their children will attract a similar level of funding—one that properly reflects their needs”.

That is not the case, and this cannot be fine-tuned in that manner. A new funding formula was certainly needed, but it should have protected any school from suffering a reduction in funding, no matter how small, because schools simply cannot afford to have already stretched budgets reduced.

The Secretary of State should have fought her corner much more robustly with the Chancellor prior to the Autumn Statement to secure additional funding to protect schools scheduled to lose as a result of this Statement. The suggestion that schools make £1.7 billion in savings by using staff more efficiently just does not connect with the real world. Is the Minister unaware of teaching shortages? He certainly should not be, because I bang on about it often enough. Perhaps he can explain how efficiencies can be wrung out of schools that are already understaffed. Can he also confirm that there is no plan to pay for this funding formula by raiding the further education budget to some extent? That is often seen as an easy choice, and within the Department for Education it could be done. I am not saying there has been such a suggestion, but I would like the Minister to confirm that there is no question of stretching an already overstretched sector yet further.

For six years the Government forged ahead with an education policy containing just one strand, academisation. It was not particularly successful but at least it was consistent. Cue a new Prime Minister and suddenly, that has been turned upside down, with grammar schools now the answer. Of course they are not—only a small clique within the Conservative Party, of which I know the Minister is not a member, believes that—but it serves to highlight the turmoil within current government education policy. This approach has resulted in no progress against international comparisons, a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, a majority of secondary schools with budget deficits and now schools across the country facing the most severe cuts to their budgets in a generation, while the only new money being offered to schools in England is to expand the few remaining grammar schools— 80% of them, unsurprisingly, in Tory-held seats—regardless of where the need for new places is. I suggest that that sums up the Government’s priorities. Despite their platitudes about education for all, their concern is really only for the few. That simply is not good enough. Our children deserve much better than this.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It says that our current system is “broken and unfair”. Yes it is; as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has rightly pointed out, we have real problems of teacher supply in schools throughout the country, and teacher shortages in major subjects such as mathematics. There is also the current funding crisis.

I slightly disagree with the Statement where it says the Government have,

“protected the core schools budget in real terms overall”.

However, those school budgets have not taken account of the increases of on-costs and national insurance. Many schools have faced real financial problems. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the pupil premium and rural schools, and the promise of further financial resources for the disadvantaged. The additional safeguards, including the redrafted formula, are very welcome, but schools are still currently facing reductions of more than 3% per pupil, and this does not resolve their concerns or ours. The proposal does not change the real financial situation that our schools are facing. We are seeing real-terms cuts to education funding and, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said, the National Audit Office has pointed out that by 2020 schools will have seen cuts of £3 billion and pupil funding fall by 8%. Those figures are just unimaginable.

We know—this is not illusory—that some head teachers are seriously considering cutting the school week to four days because their budgets are so tight that they just cannot operate a five-day week. Yet at the same time, against that backcloth, we have the Government committing £240 million-odd to the reintroduction of a grammar school system and, of course, the cost of enforced academisation.

I personally, along with my party, welcome the idea of fair funding. In my city of Liverpool, when my party took control, I felt it unfair that the previous party had funded pupils below the national average. We immediately increased the funding to above the national average, and the benefits were there for all to see: Liverpool pupils then outperformed the other core cities. Fair funding, as per its title, can be fair, but there are winners and losers. The only way that I think you can make it work is by ensuring that no school in a fair-funding system sees its pupil figure reduced; they have to be brought up to the top figure.

We are proposing a consistent base rate for every pupil at primary and secondary school that increases in value as they progress through the system. Does that mean that we will have differential rates of funding for an infant pupil as opposed to a junior, secondary or sixth form one? I thought the days had gone when we thought that an infant was not as worthy financially as a pupil at a sixth form college, when we know that in fact the equipment required for an infant costs far more. Perhaps the Minister could explain that point.

We welcome the consultation because it is important to get this right. How does the Minister see the consultation being fed back to your Lordships’ House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right and I am sure that she will be delighted to hear that, at the moment, additional-needs funding accounts for 13% for the overall schools budget and that it will be increasing, under these proposals, by an additional £1.7 billion, so it will be 18%. So in fact substantially more money will be made available for that group.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, perhaps I may follow up an answer that the Minister gave to my initial question. He mentioned a figure of £200 million of new money. Why is it not in the Statement, how is it proposed that it should be allocated and where has it come from? I also asked about further education; can he allay any fears that this sector might have as a result of this Statement?

[Lord Nash]

The way the funding formula has worked means that we have been able to find an extra £200 million. We did not put it in the Statement because we felt that it was more important to focus on the percentage variation overall. As I say, this afternoon we will publish details on a school-by-school basis so that all schools can see where they stand.