Relationships Education: LGBT Content

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 630932 and 631529 relating to LGBT content in relationships education.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Let me begin as usual by reading out the prayers in the petitions. The prayer in e-petition 630932 reads:

“We believe kids shouldn’t learn about this at an early age. I am sure there are many parents who do not want their or other children taught about LGBT in primary school.”

The petition closed on 12 July 2023 with 249,594 signatures, including 490 from Carshalton and Wallington. It did receive some attention because of the person who started it, so I want to clarify that they were a UK resident and that the Petitions Committee therefore felt it was appropriate to schedule this debate on the petition.

The prayer in e-petition 631529 reads:

“We believe kids should learn about this at an early age. I am sure there are many parents who want their and other children taught about LGBT issues…There is a petition to remove this content, which we believe is discriminatory. LGBT people exist, they have the same rights as the rest of us and kids should know them…without judgement or issue. Despite what their parents might believe.”

The petition closed on 20 July 2023 with 104,920 signatures, including 151 from my constituency.

In their replies to the two petitions, the Government stated that they had no intention of revising their guidelines, but they have since commissioned a review of relationships and sex education, or RSE, as I will refer to it throughout the rest of the debate. Today I want to make the case for why we should not go backwards and allow a return to the days of section 28, and to make the positive case for an inclusive, age-appropriate RSE curriculum. This is a policy the Government should be proud of rather than backing away from.

First, I want to share a little of my own story. I was at school before mandatory RSE and certainly before LGBT+ inclusive RSE. I came out very early in my secondary school career at Carshalton Boys Sports College to a few select peers and staff who I trusted. If that had happened in the days of section 28, I would of course have had to be turned away by my teachers and told to shut up about it. Instead, I was part of a school that was well ahead of its time and that not only taught us about healthy relationships and safe sex, but made sure that that teaching was inclusive of all identities, including LGBT+ people like me. I want to be clear: it was not some graphic exposure of how to have sex or the various things that people might want to do with each other behind closed doors; it was simply about the fact that LGBT+ people exist and can form loving relationships with each other just like any other person and about the precautions they should take, but it was also about how to access specific advice and support if we needed it. That was it.

I now want to set out the current framework for RSE in England, and I want to thank the House of Commons Library, Brook, the Sex Education Forum and others for their helpful briefings in advance of today’s debate. The Government’s RSE guidance of 2019 advises schools to plan a developmental and age-appropriate curriculum. Relationships education is therefore approached in ways that are relevant to the age and maturity of the pupils. For example, teaching about “Families and people who care for me” in primary school can be an opportunity to talk about the fact that some people have two dads and some have two mums.

Key messages taught throughout relationships education include that people do not have to conform to narrow stereotypes and that discrimination, bullying and prejudice are harmful and wrong. Indeed, that principle is woven throughout the British values element of school teaching, the aim of which is to encourage and foster respect, kindness, equality and inclusion. Those are British values: they are intrinsic to the ethos of most schools, and families are supportive of them.

Primary schools are not required to teach sex education or explicitly teach about LGBT+ issues; it is more about families and relationships. Parents also have the right to withdraw their child from the sex education part of RSE up to the age of 16.

The Government ask for a whole-school approach from our schools as a vehicle to deliver strategies to tackle violence against women and girls, sexual harassment —which, as we know from Ofsted reports, is rife—peer-on-peer abuse, bullying, forms of hatred such as racism and religious abuse, and much more. My concern is that removing LGBT+ content from relationships education would conflict with the existing obligation on schools under the public sector equality duty and the community cohesion duty and undermine the Government’s strategies to deliver on both.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for the way in which he has introduced the debate, which was made more powerful by his sharing his own experience. Some 512 of my constituents signed the second petition, and I am sorry I cannot stay for the whole debate, but I want to pick up on the point the hon. Member just made. Does he recognise the significant academic research demonstrating that, where we have LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula, there are higher levels of safety for individuals, lower levels of bullying in school and lower levels of adverse mental health reporting?

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with him; in fact, that is the part of my speech I am moving on to, so I am grateful to him for giving me an opening. It is true that research has found that LGBT+ inclusive curricula are associated with reports of greater safety for individuals, lower levels of bullying at school and fewer reports of adverse mental health among all young people, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual orientation. That was set out in a report by Goldfarb and Lieberman in 2021.

High-quality, inclusive RSE is vital for children and young people to live safe, healthy and happy lives, and that can be demonstrated by young people themselves. Young people who took part in the Sex Education Forum’s research told us that their relationships education is not sufficiently inclusive of LGBT+ people, with 38% reporting that their RSE failed to provide any or adequate information about sexual orientation, and 44% reporting that it failed to provide any or adequate coverage of gender identity and information relevant to trans people.

I will share a couple of quotes from some of those young people. One of them said:

“We need to be told more about LGBT…I am a lesbian and growing up I never knew you could have sexual diseases”

from same-sex activities

“until the age of 15 when I started myself”.

Another said:

“Educate children on the LGBTQ community and same sex relationships. There will be someone in each class that it’ll be relevant to and children”

should learn

“to be more accepting. Queer people have and always will exist and children”

should be taught.

In addition to learning at school, children learn about relationships from their families, communities and wider media. The Sex Education Forum surveyed more than 1,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 17 and found that they were more likely to have learned about LGBT+ identities from social media, at around 30%, than in school, at just 25%. Parents were identified as the main source of learning for just 4% of respondents.

That leads me on to a key point that I want to make. Rather than going after LGBT+ identities as part of their review into RSE, I urge the Government to focus on the quality of the content, the resources available to schools and the training available to teachers to provide RSE in a safe and age-appropriate way. Again, research back in 2018 demonstrated that only 20% of teachers said they felt extremely confident in delivering inclusive RSE, with 10% reporting that they were not confident at all. A later survey, conducted in 2019 by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Education Union, found that almost half of teachers said they did not feel confident delivering statutory RSE.

Since RSE became statutory, the Government have invested about £3.2 million of their planned £6 million in implementing the statutory RSE curriculum. However, that is only a fraction of what schools say they need to be able to do so safely, which sits at a best estimate at around £29 million. The voices of those children and teachers are clear: they need the tools to be able to deliver this effectively and appropriately, and I hope that that is what the Government’s review will focus on.

I want to address some of the criticisms surrounding an inclusive RSE policy, especially in the area of parental oversight and engagement and the appropriateness of materials used in the classroom. A number of the statements the Government have made recently about parents’ right to see RSE materials suggest that the issue is somehow new, but that is not the case. Schools have always been encouraged to share RSE resources with parents and carers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right. After Holocaust Memorial Day, we are acutely conscious of the continuing need to act against antisemitism. One of the things we are doing is launching a new fund for both schools and higher education, to try to address antisemitism effectively at its root.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T5. Each year, students have to apply for the Turing international mobility scheme before the Easter deadline, but those from widening participation backgrounds need to know that they have the money before they apply, and universities are getting confirmation of funding some months later, in June and July. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that Turing should be open to all, so will she press Treasury colleagues for a multi-year funding settlement?

[Robert Halfon]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I listen carefully to what he says. We are working to smooth out any issues with the Turing scheme. However, it is worth noting that we have increased the proportion of disadvantaged students taking part in it from 50% to 60%. I am proud that we are embedding social justice in the scheme.

Children Not in School: National Register and Support

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

I warmly welcome the Opposition’s focus on the vital subject of school attendance. It is a big issue that we want everyone to talk about. Being in school matters for children—for their education, for their development, for being with their friends and for all else that school brings. As our campaign says “moments matter, attendance counts.”

Everyone will be off school at some point through illness, and sadly some have to be off for extended—sometimes very extended—periods, but we absolutely want children to be in school as much as possible and to cut out avoidable absence. I am sure that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) joins me in celebrating the success in cutting absence since 2010 and prior to the pandemic. Attendance levels improved significantly, with absence falling from 6% in 2010 to 4.8%, representing 15 million more days in school. Persistent absence, which was at 16% in 2010, came down by almost a third by 2015, and stayed around that level until the pandemic.

Many education systems are dealing with increases in absence since the pandemic. That is true of jurisdictions far beyond these shores. It is also true in all of England and Scotland, and in Labour-run Wales—where, by the way, the increase is from a considerably higher starting point to a considerably higher current point than in England. As such, I welcome the hon. Lady raising this subject. The actual motion, however, suggests that it is perhaps not a subject that the Opposition are taking properly seriously.

The motion starts by saying that the Government are not tackling persistent absence. Let us set aside for a moment that that is plainly nonsense, as I will come to shortly.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Not at the moment. There then follows the most colossal conflation—a massive non sequitur—about a register of children not in school because they are home educated. Obviously, absence and “not in school” sound pretty similar, but if the hon. Lady really thinks that the issue around absence is all about children being home educated en masse, she has failed to grasp the issue. [Interruption.] I simply point the hon. Lady who speaks for the Opposition to the motion as it is printed on the Order Paper, which clearly connects the two statements with nothing more than a semicolon between them. We do think that local authority registers are important: they would help improve oversight of those children who are not on school rolls, but they would not directly address the larger group of children who are on a school roll but have been persistently absent from that school.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

No; I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for a moment.

Before we go on, I would like to say a short word about children in home education. This is often done very well by parents, who make huge sacrifices for their children, often in particularly difficult circumstances, and I pay tribute to those parents. Let us be clear: parents also have a right to home school their children, and that is a right I defend. However, we do think it is important for local authorities to have a register, because we know that not all children who are not enrolled at school are in receipt of a suitable education at home. We also think it is important that parents who are home schooling should be able to source support from their local authority.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South should know that that is Government policy because, as she said, it appeared in the Schools Bill. She may or may not have spotted that in the past few days the Department has completed a consultation on elective home education to inform new guidance. I know she has spotted that a private Member’s Bill has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), which will come before this House on 15 March. Both the Secretary of State and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as she seeks to progress her Bill through this House. In the meantime, the Government continue to work with local authorities to improve their existing non-statutory registers.

[Damian Hinds]

I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), just because he has had a go three times.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way. According to the 2021 census, there are over 197,000 young carers under the age of 18. That is recognised to be an underestimate, so when 85% of headteachers told the school census that they had no young carers in their school, that only illustrated how those carers are unrecognised within the system. Evidence submitted to the inquiry held by the all-party parliamentary group on young carers and young adult carers said that young carers have double the persistent absence rate of their peers—41.6%—but they are not recognised in the Department for Education’s guidance on working together to improve school attendance. When this debate has finished, will the Minister go away and review that guidance, and would he consider requiring all schools to have a lead for young carers in the way that they do for SEN, to make sure they are no longer unrecognised within our system?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the number of young carers growing up in our country and going through our school system and the particular needs they have, issues that are directly relevant in the case of absence. We are working to improve understanding of where there are young carers, including through the school census that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and also through the guidance that we issue. As he will know, “Keeping children safe in education” is the main guidance on that subject that is issued to schools: it requires designated safeguarding leads to be aware of the needs of young carers, but trying to understand those needs is something that goes broader within school communities. Of course, dedicated professionals working in our school system seek to do exactly that.

Further and Higher Education Students: Cost of Living

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of increases in the cost of living on further and higher education students.

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir George. This is a timely debate coming as the new academic year starts. It is based on the two-stage inquiry undertaken during the first half of the year by the all-party parliamentary group for students, which I chair and officers of which are also present. We looked at the impact of the cost of living crisis on higher education students, on which we reported in March, and, in partnership with the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—whose chair, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I welcome —on FE students, on which we reported in July.

Although many others have been impacted hard by the cost of living crisis, we were concerned that students should not be overlooked. We were not alone in that concern. Petitions Committee staff wrote to me last week to tell me that there have been six petitions to Parliament seeking support for students. It is important that students are not seen as a homogeneous group. In FE and HE, there is enormous diversity of students, including part-time and full-time; distance learners and commuter students; many with families and caring responsibilities, juggling work with study; classroom-based and apprentices; undergraduates and postgraduates; and home and international. Of course, there is the difference in the arrangements and responses across the four nations of the UK.

The current student cohort, though, have one thing in common: the double misfortune of educational disruption from covid and now the cost of living crisis. Our inquiry collated evidence from universities and student unions, and directly from hundreds of students who engaged with us. We drew on the work of others, including the Office for National Statistics, the Sutton Trust, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Save the Student. I would like to thank Parliament’s Chamber Engagement Team for its work in gathering feedback since the debate was announced. Just over the past couple of days, we have had upwards of 160 students, parents and others contact us.

So what did we hear? First, we heard that the student support system has failed to keep up with rising costs and that it was already unfit for purpose when the cost of living crisis hit, particularly given the decreasing value of student loans. According to the Save the Student survey, the loan fell short of average costs that students face by £439 per month in 2021-22, and that had increased to a shortfall of £582 per month last year. Other factors include the freezing of the lower parental earnings threshold, which means that the proportion studying outside London who receive the maximum student loan fell from 57% in 2012-13 to 38% in 2021-22.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

My constituent Elliot is starting his final year at university, and his biggest worry is securing affordable housing. The maximum loan he gets is not keeping up with the prices, and he spends at least two thirds of his loan on rent alone. His family cannot afford to top up his rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with such financial hardships can be a barrier to excelling at university and that much more financial support is needed to give students the freedom to focus on their education?

[Paul Blomfield]

I echo the point my hon. Friend makes. Many of the comments that we received reflect the sorts of problems that his constituent faces, and I will come on to some of the wider points that he made.

Another contributory factor, according to the IFS, was the inflation forecast errors used to calculate loan increases, which mean that their real value is lower now than at any time in the past seven years. On top of that, we have had the scrapping of maintenance grants. The cumulative effect has pushed many students to a tipping point. More than a quarter of students were left with less than £50 a month, after paying rent and bills last year. As my hon. Friend points out, rent is accelerating at a significant rate. Our inquiry found 96% facing financial difficulty, with food, rent and energy the biggest pressures, but transport costs were also a key issue and particularly difficult for commuter students, many of whom chose to be home-based precisely to save money. Students have been struggling to get to their classes, access libraries and travel to placements.

The inquiry was a genuine learning exercise for us and we were particularly concerned to hear about the sharp increase in hours of paid employment taken by students. Of our respondents, 61% worked alongside their studies and 37% said that they are working more hours because of cost of living pressures. The Sutton Trust reported that about half of undergraduates missed classes last year due to paid employment. Around a quarter missed a deadline or asked for an extension on a piece of work.

They are often in precarious and insecure jobs. Joanna, one of the respondents to the Chamber Engagement Team survey, said,

“I have had to take several jobs, as the part time job sector is full of zero hours contracts with little stability and no promise of actual work. I am working more than I should have to and my grades are suffering.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Some of the figures he has given are truly shocking. Does he share my shock that a quarter of universities are now running food banks? The fact that universities are themselves having to provide food banks for students is an indictment of the fact that clearly our young people cannot afford to make ends meet at university. Does he agree we should consider bringing back things such as the maintenance grant so that our young people can focus on learning rather than spend all this time trying to make ends meet?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and her support as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group. She is right about the shocking fact she shared about food banks. I will come to that and reflect on some of the recommendations she talks about.

As well as affecting academic work, paid employment also affects involvement in extracurricular activities. People might ask why that matters so much, but it matters enormously because volunteering roles involve networking, team working, leadership skills and wider opportunities. Those experiences give graduates that extra edge in the job market.

Hitting grades, weakening skills development and limiting CVs—this all means that those from poorer backgrounds, who are the ones relying on ever increasing paid employment, are particularly disadvantaged, reversing the efforts of successive Governments to widen opportunities and ensure that those who take advantage of higher education go on to succeed. Since our inquiry, we are beginning to see the impact on retention, with rising drop-out rates. The sector group, MillionPlus, has estimated that as many as 90,000 to 108,000 students might find it too difficult financially to continue to study.

Responding to all of those challenges, most universities have put more money into hardship funds. Others have developed initiatives to offset the pressures faced by students, though not uniformly. The sector probably could do more. Just last week, the Higher Education Policy Institute published a report saying that those initiatives included supporting students with food costs, providing both means-tested and unconditional hardship funding, and subsidising student activities. And, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, a quarter now have food banks on campus.

University support services have substantially increased their workload, extending the criteria for hardship funds, drawing in more eligibility, and working with their student unions. Our survey found that many students have not always accessed the funds available, either because they were not aware of them, which is a challenge for the sector, or because they did not think they qualified for additional help.

Recently, we have seen some universities moving to a three-day week in their timetabling on some academic programmes, to allow students to fit in their part-time jobs alongside study and to limit the impact of commuting costs. That may offer immediate relief, but it is not a solution.

There are other ways in which financial pressures are affecting life chances. Many students aiming for master’s programmes, which have become important as an additional benefit in the job market, said they were reconsidering. For example, Alex, who also responded through the Chamber Engagement Team, said:

“as a working-class student in my penultimate year, I see my peers consider postgraduate study and I wonder how they can afford it. I’ll never be able to save enough”.

Postgraduate research students told us that they, too, were struggling—that stipend payments are insufficient to meet living costs and that PGRs are ineligible for childcare grants as they are in education: they often cannot access hardship funds because they fall into the gap between the definition of being a member of staff and that of being a student.

There are issues to address across the board. Our evidence confirmed a disproportionate impact on already marginalised and underrepresented groups, disabled students, black and minority ethnic students, care leavers and students who are estranged from their families. The Sutton Trust found that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more affected, with a third skipping meals to save costs. It also found that a fifth, mainly from disadvantaged backgrounds, plan to live at home as commuter students during term time to reduce costs. That might be okay for some. It might work in London, where there is a wide range of higher educational choices. However, it limits university choice and limits course choice for many students across the rest of the country.

Our inquiry made four key recommendations to Government for higher education. First, to provide further hardship funding to universities to enable them to support those most in need. Secondly, to increase student maintenance loans to restore their real value and to maintain that value by taking a similar approach to uprating benefits. Thirdly, to consider reintroducing maintenance grants, as was recommended by the review the Government commissioned from Sir Philip Augar. Fourthly, to increase the household income threshold for the maximum student loan, which has been frozen since 2008. At that point, the threshold was in line with average earnings of £25,000, but those average earnings are now £33,000.

I move on to our further education inquiry. I am sure the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning, the hon. Member for Waveney, who is present, will cover many of the specific points, so I will skim over them a little more lightly. Our evidence found that, although FE students face similar financial pressures, many face additional ones, supporting not just themselves but in many cases having to support their families. FE students who responded to our survey reported difficulties with transport in particular and 72% said they face costs that put them in financial difficulty. Like HE students, they were working more paid hours to make ends meet, struggling to prioritise their coursework and classes and facing negative impacts on mental health.

Retention was also a key issue for colleges, with a decline in student attendance taking up resources to ensure students do not drop out of their studies. That is not just a problem for the colleges. Many students in FE are on technical and vocational courses—I know that is an issue close to the Minister’s heart—providing essential skills for the UK workforce. The Association of Colleges reported to us that bursaries and hardship funds are becoming an essential item for family budgets. It is a bit like the point about food banks. Some reported students walking several miles a day to college so they could use their transport bursary to support their family with food and energy costs.

FE does not have the funding of HE and colleges cannot provide the same support. Of serious concern to us were emerging reports that colleges have been dealing with a significant rise in family tensions and domestic abuse because of cost of living pressures and have been referring more students to supported housing. Shockingly, some colleges told us about increased safeguarding issues, with cash-strapped students vulnerable to criminal and sexual exploitation.

Concerns were also raised about apprentices, with an average wage of £5.28 an hour, not being eligible for the 16-to-19 bursary because of Government rules—apprentices often travel furthest to placements, attend more regularly and are left more exposed to travel costs. We subsequently heard about the particular issue facing young carers doing T-levels, who will lose their carer’s allowance if they study for more than 21 hours a week. So the cost of living crisis is affecting decisions not only about whether to remain in further education, but about the type of course, with many leaning towards shorter courses or those that lead more quickly to securing work, sacrificing ambition and limiting their potential.

Our key inquiry recommendations to the Government for FE included providing additional funding support so that providers can increase bursaries targeted at those most in need; reviewing the mandated eligibility criteria for bursary funds—this is an easy one as it does not cost anything—to provide colleges with more flexibility to determine eligibility; considering the case for extending free school meal eligibility so that colleges can provide more subsistence support; considering the introduction of free or subsidised travel for all 16 to 19-year-olds in FE or training; and increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage, including enabling providers to use bursary funds to support apprentices as well as other FE students.

My final point is that, in FE and in HE, the key takeaway from our inquiry has been the particular impact on students from poorer backgrounds. We are seeing the cost of living crisis damaging access and participation, limiting opportunities, affecting lives, levelling down not up, widening the skills gap and weakening our research capacity as a country. I hope that the Minister, and indeed the shadow Minister, will give full consideration to our recommendations.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I have to say that I was not sure whether securing the last debate before recess would do justice to our reports, but the number and quality of contributions from colleagues prove that my doubts were misplaced. I am grateful to everybody for their points, and I think there were a number of common themes from both sides of the House.

I know the Minister knows that his response does not go far enough and that we are in danger of reversing the achievements that have been made in widening participation in post-school education. I hope that our reports will be helpful to him, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) pointed out, in making the case to his colleagues in Government, because the issues will not go away until we see real change.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of increases in the cost of living on further and higher education students.

Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be called first and to contribute under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on his contribution in opening the debate. Like him, I thank everyone who signed the petition, which ensured that we had this discussion today. I particularly thank the bereaved parents who have driven the campaign. I cannot imagine anything worse than their loss—sending a child off to university, full of expectations and hope, as Lee Fryatt described at the pre-debate evidence session, and then finding that that journey and excitement ends in the tragedy of suicide.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for students, which was set up to provide a voice in this place for those studying in further and higher education, and I have followed the issue very carefully. I was pleased to join the recent LEARN Network event in Parliament and listen to all the powerful personal testimonies, particularly those from parents. I was also pleased to be invited to join the Petitions Committee’s pre-debate evidence session, and I have read the transcript of the part of the session that I missed. All that I have learned convinces me that today’s debate is necessary.

The number of suicides in this country is mercifully low, and it is much lower among students—across all age groups—than among the population as a whole, but even one suicide is clearly one too many. As Ged Flynn from PAPYRUS emphasised at the pre-debate session, suicide is very much a preventable death. That should focus us acutely. Everything must be done to save lives, and the action that we take makes the crucial difference. We should be asking what more our universities can do, and indeed what more the Government can do, recognising that we face a mental health crisis, particularly among young people.

At this stage, we need to recognise that not all of the 2.8 million students in this country fit the conventional model of young people going away from home to university. A quarter of them are commuter students travelling from home. Half a million are over 30, and half a million are part time. Many are postgraduates, international students and so on. However, the focus of much of this discussion has been on that younger cohort, and we need to recognise that last year, 25% of 17 to 19-year-olds in England were experiencing poor mental health. That figure is growing as a result of many factors, and it is up significantly from 10% six years ago.

One thing that shocked me on becoming an MP 13 years ago, was that when I went into schools, as I do every year, to talk to young people about what they think my priorities should be as their Member of Parliament, I was told that access to mental health support was their top issue. That has been repeated almost every year. Those young people emphasise the inadequacy of the support available to them. There is too little in schools, and where schools are acting to provide support, money is diverted from teaching budgets. It takes too long to get a first appointment with child and adolescent mental health services after referral, and even when they get into CAMHS, there is too little treatment because of the way the sessions are capped. It is therefore probably no surprise that so many students are entering university with mental health problems. UCAS estimates that over 70,000 students enter higher education every year with a mental health condition, but around half of them told UCAS in a survey that they had not shared that information prior to entry.

Universities have responded. I think they have been learning, but not consistently and perhaps not quickly enough. In 2017, the mentally healthy universities framework was launched. That formed the basis of the university mental health charter created by Student Minds, with whom the all-party parliamentary group has worked. The charter framework rightly provides an approach of improving the support available to students and addressing the determinants of student wellbeing, including aspects of the academic process that might have an impact on wellbeing, such as assessment, fitness to study and dismissal. The problem is that not every university has signed up, and clearly more should be done to ensure that they do.

The responsibility does not just fall on universities. In the pre-debate evidence session, National Union of Students vice-president Chloe Field said that

“universities have become almost the only port of call for students if they are suffering from mental health, because of the failures of the NHS and the long waiting lists that the NHS has. Students struggle to get through to that NHS service. There is a huge number of students who try to access that support.”

She also pointed out the many factors that were exacerbating poor mental health, including academic and financial pressures. Because of the financial pressures, people face difficulties in juggling so many jobs just to see themselves through university, as well as meeting their academic commitments.

I highlight all of that not to diminish the responsibility of universities, but to illustrate—as we were told several times in the pre-debate session—that there is no silver bullet. What more could universities do? Mark Shanahan made a really useful contribution. His son took his life in Sheffield, in one of the two universities that I am pleased to represent. He drew a comparison between the teaching excellence framework and the research excellence framework, which provide a disciplined approach of expectations on universities, and he asked why we do not have a student support excellence framework. Professor Steve West, who gave evidence on behalf of Universities UK, took up that point, acknowledging that there was not sufficient and consistent best practice, but we should not talk about this as best practice; we should be talking about it as basic practice across universities.

I am not convinced that a duty of care will do the job that those advocating it want, and it may indeed have unintended consequences, but there need to be clear expectations—not encouragement, not a willingness to do well, but clear expectations—on universities to up their game consistently across the sector. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will set out how he thinks that might be delivered; I am conscious that he has already done that to a significant degree in the letter he circulated to us today. Clearly, it should not be a one-size-fits-all solution, but there should be consistent expectations.

I also hope that in winding up, the Minister will recognise—even if it is not his responsibility—the other factors contributing to the mental health crisis. Will he share with us what he will do with colleagues across Government, particularly Health Ministers and, in this context, probably the Chancellor, to make available the sort of support working alongside universities that is really necessary to tackle this crisis? As I said, I do not think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution, given the diversity of our student population, but there must be a real commitment from Government, from the sector and from all of us in this place to reducing student suicide.

Office for Students

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Office for Students.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Higher education is unanimous in recognising the need for effective regulation. The UK has an international reputation for the quality and strength of our higher education sector. Everyone involved in the sector I have spoken to or corresponded with understands the role that effective and proportionate regulation has to play in improving standards and maintaining that reputation. I thank everyone who has been in contact since they saw this debate timetabled.

The Office for Students was created in 2018 with the aim of ensuring that higher education in England delivers positive outcomes for students. Its mission statement is:

“to ensure that every student, whatever their background, has a fulfilling experience of higher education that enriches their lives and careers.”

However, there are increasingly concerns that it has become overly bureaucratic, imposes increasingly high costs on providers, takes an inconsistent view on what does and does not affect the quality of student education, and has become more concerned with extending its areas of oversight to meet the desires of the Government of the day than the needs, experiences and views of the students for whom it is supposed to exist.

Regulation is vital for any sector, but it comes with financial and resource costs that must be proportional to the risk, and must represent value for money. The cost of regulation for providers should be an important concern for the OfS, as ultimately that cost is felt by the students. The HE sector has to contend with regulatory overlap; there are multiple regulators in the HE, further education and technical education sectors, as well as multiple subject-level, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.

The Government’s own regulatory code outlines the principle that regulators

“should collectively follow the principle of ‘collect once, use many times’ when requesting information from those they regulate.”

It also says that regulators should

“share information with each other…to help target resources and activities and minimise duplication.”

It says:

“Regulators should avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens through their regulatory activities”,

and

“should choose proportionate approaches to those they regulate, based on relevant factors including, for example, business size and capacity.”

Is the OfS adopting that approach? In the past few years, it has spent a great deal of time continually revising its regulatory frameworks and processes, including the B conditions of registration on quality and standards, the access and participation regime and the Teaching Excellence Framework.

In 2022, there were a number of significant consultations running simultaneously, and major consultations were run with very short response periods. For example, the consultations on quality and standards, B3, TEF and underpinning data all ran at the same time. The supporting documents for those consultations ran to a total of more than 700 pages, and the sector had just eight weeks to respond to all of them. That approach results in a very high cost to institutions, and risks undermining the quality of data submitted due to the compressed timetable. For example, one Universities UK member had 10 full-time equivalent staff supporting regulatory compliance at an approximate staff cost of £444,000. Another institution estimated the cost of regulatory activities to be £1.1 million in 2022-23.

Such demands place a higher relative cost on smaller providers, which not only lack the resource of the larger providers but tend to offer a wider range of education, including higher education, degree apprenticeships—the Minister’s favourite—further education and other industry-specific continuous professional development. That means that they must deal with a large number of regulators in addition to the OfS, including the Institute for Apprentices and Technical Education, the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Ofsted. Unfortunately, that does not just mean reporting for some students to one regulator and for others to another. Degree apprenticeship students have to be reported to both the OfS and IFATE in significantly different ways. GuildHE reported that one provider needed separate data teams for the two bodies.

On average, the cost of regulation for a student studying HE in a FE college that has only a small HE provision is £289, compared with £14 for a student studying at a large HE institute. That cost is even more pronounced in the light of the lower tuition fees charged by many colleges—£6,165, in contrast with the higher education fees of £9,250.

In the same report on regulation in smaller universities and specialist colleges, GuildHE said:

“Overly-legalistic language in communications, delays in meeting their own deadlines, short consultation periods, consultations’ outcomes that rarely listen to the views of those consulted and political capture”

were regular complaints from their members. Those complaints are repeated in the results of the OfS’s own survey, “Report for the Office of Students: Provider engagement”. Its executive summary said:

“Providers are confused by the complexity of some OfS processes, communications and consultations, and related tasks require high levels of resource by providers.”

It went on:

“Providers would like a more transparent, collaborative, and consultative relationship with the OfS with a shared focus on student outcomes, including opportunities to contribute and share good practice.”

Specifically on smaller providers, it concluded:

“Small providers felt that the OfS was geared towards large established universities and didn’t acknowledge their different levels of resourcing and experience.”

Furthermore, the report read:

“Smaller and further education providers feel that their different circumstances and student audiences are not recognised by the OfS and that the regulator failed to adapt their approach accordingly.”

Those complaints go to the heart of the student experience. HE students are not a homogeneous group and a diverse HE ecosystem is required to meet their needs, but the OfS seems to be operating an overbearing, one-size-fits-all approach. It appears that that approach suits no one, as the report also said:

“Established providers felt they should be treated differently from newer providers and that communications they received didn’t reflect their low-risk track record.”

In the guidance for condition B4, all registered providers are now expected to retain—this is ridiculous—five years of all student assessment. Conservative estimates from Universities UK of what digitalising and storing work on such a scale might cost an institution resulted in figures of between £270,000 and more than £1 million a year. That does not include the environmental cost.

The requirement also poses difficulties for subjects such as art, design, performing arts, and medical and veterinary subjects. Such subjects use a range of approaches to assessment, including continuous assessment based on a series of exchanges. To digitally record all those exchanges would be inappropriate and would entail GDPR issues. The retention of students’ work in the arts presents difficulties over intellectual property rights, which return to students on graduation.

I am not alone in being particularly concerned about the recent announcement that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education will no longer be the Secretary of State for Education’s designated quality body. That means that it will no longer be responsible for assessing quality and standards in English higher education to inform the OfS’s regulatory decision making. The QAA has relinquished its role because the work it was being asked to undertake in England on behalf of the OfS was no longer compliant with recognised quality standards, namely the European standards and guidance that are monitored by the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.

As the Minister will be aware, the QAA has been in existence for over 25 years. The system it has established is regarded by many countries as the gold standard in quality enhancement and benchmarking and it is still in operation in Wales. Its withdrawal in England is entirely due to the conditions that the OfS has insisted on how their reviews are undertaken.

Among the issues that led to non-compliance were the OfS’s refusal to publish reports on providers, ending the cyclical review of all providers and the insistence that student representatives—remember that this is the OfS—should no longer be part of review teams. The sector is still waiting for clarification on how the OfS would replace the QAA’s role in terms of breadth and activity beyond investigations. Will the OfS now become the regulator, the enforcer and the assessor of quality? If that is the case, how can there not be a conflict of interest?

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. I apologise for missing the beginning, because the debate started surprisingly early. She made a really important point about the QAA. Does she not agree that it is rather extraordinary that the QAA is no longer providing that role on the basis that it wanted to provide student voice, significantly? The gold standard she described requires the presence of student voice within the regulatory framework. Does that not go to the heart of the problem with the OfS at the moment? I recall, in a Public Bill Committee, discussing with the Minister at the time the fact that the OfS was set up with too small a student voice. That voice has become consistently more marginalised through its life.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall speak in more detail about how the voice of students has been marginalised. It seems fairly ridiculous that the Office for Students wants to exclude students when its whole core purpose and mission statement is to represent and promote the needs of students. There is a serious disconnect. I think we should be slightly ashamed of the fact that the QAA is moving out of that role within English institutions.

Although only 6% to 7% of higher education is taught in English FE colleges, they make up around 37% of providers registered with the OfS, and there are more FE colleges on the OfS register than universities. The Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Education are the chief regulators for FE colleges, and several agencies have funding, regulatory and inspectorial roles in the FE. OfS requirements on quality and standard of teaching, student support and wellbeing and financial sustainability overlap with those in many instances.

Large institutions are not unaffected. Universities UK provided an example of one member reporting a total of 99 data returns being required for the 2022-23 academic year across not only the OfS, which represents only a small proportion of this number, but also professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, the Student Loans Company and the Office for National Statistics. That is being supported by a team of seven full-time staff members. Indeed, concerns about multiple and potentially duplicate data collections were recognised by the DfE in the creation of the higher education data reduction taskforce in 2022. I am hoping the Minister will be able to feed back with progress on that.

It has been argued by some that the focused remit for the OfS, as set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, was already quite wide-ranging and too broad, with 25 conditions of registration. Over the past five years, the OfS has expanded its responsibilities to include as priorities unexplained grade inflation, harassment and sexual misconduct, mental health and wellbeing, freedom of speech, diversity or provision, modular provision, transnational education, partnership and franchise provision and non-OfS-funded provision such as additional teacher training and degree apprenticeships. With the withdrawal of the QAA, we must now assume quality assurance is a priority. Where is the compelling evidence for this expansion of OfS priorities beyond its original remit in HERA?

In 2022, the Higher Education Policy Institute’s student academic experience survey showed that the majority of students were comfortable about freedom of speech and showed a recovery in several aspects of students’ wellbeing, with the life satisfaction, life feeling worthwhile and happiness categories all increasing. Tackling harassment and sexual misconduct is of course crucial, but is that really the role of the OfS regulator? It is already covered by legislation. The Government’s summary of HERA suggests that the OfS’s primary aim was to make it easier for new higher education providers to enter the market and raise teaching and quality standards. What has driven the OfS to move so quickly into these other areas, bringing increased financial and resource costs for both regulator and regulated?

It seems that the OfS is disproportionately influenced by ministerial pressure. We have just heard of how the increased OfS burden increased regulatory scope, but providers are paying for that twice—once through the extra costs of data collection and administration, and again through a 13% increase in OfS fees to cover its own costs of moving into these extra areas, as announced in December last year. It is worth noting that the OfS was due a review of its fee model two years after its establishment, but that is yet to happen.

However, this is not an increase the OfS wanted in September 2020 when it committed to a 10% real-terms reduction in registration fees over two years. Then came guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Further and Higher Education in March 2022 advising that the fee reduction was not necessary in view of the priorities the OfS was being asked to pursue. This is neither the first nor the last incident of the priorities of the OfS not being set by the sector or, crucially, by the students, who it was set up for, but by the Government.

In November 2021, the Secretary of State and the Universities Minister write to the OfS requesting that it start requiring universities to work with schools to drive up academic standards. Three months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying that it will work with universities to

“put their shoulder to the wheel”

to increase attainment in schools. In March 2022, the Universities Minister writes to the OfS asking it to conduct on-site inspections. Two months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying—guess what?—that it will conduct on-site inspections. In March 2022, the Secretary of State and Universities Minister write to the OfS asking it to set conditions of registrations in relation to sexual harassment as soon as possible—and it goes on to do just that.

The OfS does not appear to be an independent regulator, driven by the needs of the student; it appears to be a regulator driven by the desires of the Government of the day. But it is not even when the OfS is directly required to do something, which I can understand. If the Minister just happens to mention that something is important, the OfS jumps to. In April 2018, Universities Minister Sam Gyimah is in the news announcing that he will keep a “laser-like” focus on vice-chancellors’ salaries. Guess what the OfS does two months later, without even being asked to? Two months later, it publishes a new requirement forcing universities leaders to justify their salaries.

In April 2021, the then Universities Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), is in the news for announcing that she is “appalled” by inclusive assessment practices that do not mark down students with incorrect grammar. Again, there was no direct request of the OfS, but guess what? Two months later, the OfS launches a review of inclusive assessment practices. In February 2022, the same Universities Minister is in the news, calling for universities to end all online learning. The next month, the OfS launches a review of blended learning.

Where is the regulatory independence that holds students at its very core? The Government do not even need to write to the OfS to get it to do what they want. They just need to issue a press release, and now they have a member of the Conservative party, who chooses to retain the party Whip, sitting in the House of Lords who is the chair of the OfS. As the Minister is aware, Lord Wharton had no previous experience in higher education. He did, however, run the leadership campaign for the man who appointed him.

Last year, while chair of the OfS, Lord Wharton spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Budapest, Hungary. He endorsed the recent victory of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, a man who had been widely criticised for a host of restrictions on human rights and democratic practices—specifically, for attacks on academic freedom including, infamously, shutting down the independent Central European University. Lord Wharton said that CPAC was a

“great chance to pick up new ideas…reconnect with friends across the world”

and

“fight for the values that we all hold dear”.

I am not even going to quote the remarks of another speaker who attended the conference—Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary—because the language he used is not something I wish to repeat. Lord Wharton wrote an apology to staff, saying that he did not know who else was speaking and had never heard of Bayer, but that is hardly reassuring. The rest of the world can see and hear this. What conclusion does the Minister imagine it is drawing about our supposedly independent OfS?

So the OfS listens and responds to Government, but does it listen and respond to students? We have already heard that HEPI’s most recent student survey suggests a different set of priorities for students from those pursued on their behalf by OfS. The OfS will no doubt say that it has its own avenues to hear from students, but we only get answers to the questions we ask. In the most recent consultation on the national student survey, 90% of respondents told the OfS that they wanted to retain the summative question, “Overall, are you satisfied with your experience?” But out it went anyway. The majority told the OfS that they did not see the value of a question about freedom of expression, but in it went anyway.

With or without those alterations, the NSS only captures the views of final-year students—something that has contributed to both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office concluding that the OfS has an “incomplete picture” of student satisfaction. That dovetails with the evidence given in a hearing for the ongoing Lords Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry, when members of the OfS student panel said that the panel was threatened with a reassessment of its future if they continued to express views on inclusive curricula that did not conform to those of the OfS staff. Former panel member Francesco Masala said:

“we felt quite often that we were there potentially more as a tick-box exercise rather than genuinely providing active challenge”,

and that if

“you are…a representative of students, there will still be someone in a boardroom who is going to tell you what you really think and what you really want.”

Their opinion was that the OfS made decisions that were opposite to the advice and views gathered through student surveys and consultations and that it then buried the outcomes of those consultations by rolling student feedback in with feedback from all other stakeholders. That was particularly the case on freedom of speech, which they felt was a Government priority and not a student priority. Add to that the OfS’s insistence that the QAA removed students from advisory teams and we might be forgiven for asking, “What does the s in the OfS stand for?” It is unclear to many in the sector whether the OfS has sufficient expertise or capacity to meet its ever-expanding duties and operations. To make matters worse, while expanding its reach into areas where it is not needed, it appears to be falling at monitoring areas that are core to its mission.

Both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have found that the OfS lacks an integrated system for assessing financial risk. These risks come from a multitude of external pressures on universities’ financial sustainability, such as rising pension costs, inflation in the face of frozen tuition fees, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and the risk of Government policy or geopolitical events affecting international student recruitment. The OfS does not focus on assessing the level of risk that these systematic risks pose to the sector or our students, despite the fact that the proportion of providers with an in-year deficit, even after adjusting for the impact of pension deficits, increased from 5% in 2015 to 32% in 2019-20. Some 26% of universities forecasted at the end of 2020-21 that their cash balance would fall below 30 days’ net liquidity at some point in the next two years. Financial stress is not confined to one part of the sector: the 20 providers that have had an in-year deficit for at least three years range in size from 200 students to 30,000 students.

Universities UK has raised a number of issues with the way investigations are being undertaken, including a lack of clarity on the basis for the investigation, limited information on what a provider needs to do to comply with the investigation, the scope changing during the investigation, inconsistent methodologies when investigating similar issues within different providers, and the absence of an expected timescale with short deadlines for providers to supply large amounts of information, with delays in response to that information from the OfS. I was given one example where a single query requesting a range of data and information required 8,070 hours of staff time at a cost of £48,000, including external legal advice and a number of examples of requests for large volumes of information followed by changes in the focus of the OfS inquiry. This is undermining trust in the regulator when these requests have been felt to be fishing exercises and, of course, that adds to the time cost and burden of the work.

To conclude, we have heard from all areas of higher education, large and small, that the regulatory burden is too large and expensive. What steps will be taken to reduce it? For example, will the higher education data reduction taskforce be reconvened to assess and address data burdens across OfS and other relevant regulators, including the OfS counterparts in the rest of the UK? Fees are increasing by 13% with disproportionately higher costs for smaller institutions. Does the Minister believe the OfS provides value for money? Will the DFE consider working with the OfS to make specific provisions for smaller institutions by being less rigid in its data requirements, reforming its fee structure to reflect the number of students at an institution and improving two-way communication with the sector. As I know the Minister cares deeply about degree apprenticeships, will he look specifically at the amount of regulatory overlap required for that?

We have a political placeman as chair, constant ministerial direction of the OfS and an OfS no longer compliant with recognised international standards. How will the international standing of the UK HE sector, as one of the high academic standards of excellence free from political interference, be maintained? This country has a higher education sector that is internationally regarded as maintaining the highest academic standards and being free from politically motivated Government interference. It needs and deserves a regulator to match. I do not believe we have it yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate. It feels a bit like groundhog day, because we served together on the Education Committee. I have the highest regard for her work, not just on higher education but on special educational needs and disabilities, mental health and post-16 education. I am very happy to be debating the important matter of the OfS with her. I have had the privilege of visiting Ron Dearing University Technical College in her constituency, which is doing an incredible job in transforming the lives of thousands of students.

Before following through on the OfS issues, I want to begin by setting out how I see higher education, because it very much forms the architecture of what we are talking about today. Higher education of course plays many important roles in our society—developing people’s education and academic talents, academic knowledge, and world-class research and innovation, which are absolutely important—but for me the three key things are meeting the skills needs of the economy, providing high-quality qualifications leading to excellent, well-paid jobs, and advancing social justice. What I mean by that is ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can not only access high-quality education, but complete their studies and get good skills and knowledge, and jobs at the end. The OfS is essential to upholding the quality and ensuring the success of the higher education system and the aims that I have suggested.

Before I turn to the OfS specifically, it is important to briefly highlight the fact that we have an ambitious skills agenda, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle pointed out, with £3.8 billion of extra investment over the Parliament. We are using that to expand and strengthen both higher education and further education. We are investing an extra £750 million in the HE sector up to 2025, to support high-quality teaching and facilities, particularly in science and engineering subjects, and to support NHS and degree apprenticeships. The hon. Member’s university, the University of Hull, is receiving more than £10 million in the strategic priorities grant, so I hope that she is pleased about that.

There is also, of course, the money that goes to UK Research and Innovation, which is £25 billion over the spending review. That is £6.2 billion for Research England, which funds our higher education institutions. The latest estimate shows that the income of English higher education providers in 2021 from tuition fees in education was £21.6 billion, which was 55% of the total income of £39.77 billion.

I was going to talk about the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, as I thought it would come up, but we have plenty of time next week when we discuss the Bill on Report and Third Reading. The Bill will be very important, because the lifelong loan entitlement will provide everyone with a loan of up to £37,000 to do flexible and modular learning. There will be level 4, level 5 and level 6 provision, and it will start with level 4 and level 5. The OfS and the new register of FE colleges will provide the LLE, and those owners will have an important role.

Let me turn to the OfS and its vital work to support the Government’s priorities. I commend the activity of the OfS, for the most part, over the last five years to put in place the regulatory framework and to register providers. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about the cost, which boils down to just under £13 per student. She also talked about regulation, and I completely get that. I am not a believer in small or big Government; I believe in good Government. I am not a believer in loads of regulation or low regulation, but in good regulation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), he said that as well.

Of course, I recognise that regulation creates a burden for those being regulated, but it is important that the benefit of regulation outweighs the burden. Seeking to minimise the regulatory burden is a key focus. It is set out in the strategy to 2025. I wanted to go as far as possible in doing so. The OfS has already taken significant steps to reduce the data burden it places on providers. In 2022, it removed the need for all providers to send monitoring returns for access and participation plans. It significantly reduced its enhanced monitoring requirements, which are now less than a quarter of what they were in 2019. It has published its intention to become increasingly risk-based in the way it monitors compliance. It also plans to vary further the regulatory requirements placed on individual providers according to the risks they pose, which will affect the impact of its regulation on those that pose the highest risk.

In terms of the regulation of small providers, of course the OfS does apply the same requirements for all types of providers. Whatever provider they go to, students should expect the same quality of education outcomes, protection and support to complete their courses. I accept that the regulatory burden should be minimised, including for small providers, and the OfS has a plan to minimise it. When it does so, it must have regard to the regulation code principles on determining general policy. The regulation code is less relevant to the work of the OfS when carrying out individual investigations and taking enforcement action, but it does take compliance very seriously.

OfS fees are tiered by student numbers, so providers with fewer numbers, such as FE colleges, will pay less in fees. In response to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, we are reviewing the high cost per student for smaller providers when we consider the fees for 2024-25. We are considering those general fees at this time.

On the important point about the QAA, it chose to withdraw consent for designation. If the English system is not in line with the European standard, it is because we do not have cyclical reviews, which we consider disproportionate in terms of regulation. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted, the OfS will take on the quality assessment role in the interim, while consideration is given to a permanent arrangement. I have met university stakeholders to discuss those issues.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Halfon]

I will in a minute. I have a fair bit to add and want to make the following point, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is so kind and comes to a lot of these debates on education and skills, as well as many other debates. I will have dialogue with the regulatory bodies. I was planning to visit them when visiting for the anniversary of the Northern Irish agreement, but unfortunately my slip was withdrawn because I had to vote in the House of Commons. Otherwise, I would have been there and visited universities and colleges in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that I will be able to make that visit. I note that at Queen’s University Belfast, 99% of the research environment is world leading and internationally excellent. I think it is No. 108 in the world, so congratulations to Queen’s University.

[Robert Halfon]

I have a lot more to day, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central now.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the Minister is widely respected for his work on education and his appointment to this job was welcomed. But I want to return to my earlier point about the OfS’s regulatory approach. When I debated the establishment of the OfS in Bill Committee with the Minister’s predecessor, I argued that we had a reasonable regulatory framework—the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Minister at the time argued that it was important to put students at the heart of regulation. That is why it was called the Office for Students. Does the Minister agree that, if it is to live up to that name, it should do what it says and give a much stronger voice for students in the whole process of regulation? He does not agree with my concern that students have been marginalised, but will he set out how we could give students a stronger place in the OfS’s approach to regulating the sector?

[Robert Halfon]

That is an important question, and the hon. Gentleman is one of the key higher education spokesmen in the House of Commons. I am absolutely supportive of student representation. The student panel is incredibly important. I made a decision as a Minister to interview one of the members of the student panel. I did not have to do that—I could have just ticked the submission and said that Mr X or Ms X is fine—but I took proactive interest, because it is incredibly important to do so.

I met the student panel, and I want it to have a voice. I went to an OfS event in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago. I spent time chatting to the student panel, which is essential in this. As long as it is used properly and listened to, it is the best conduit for ensuring that student voices are heard. The student panel has teeth. I will keep a watch over it, even though the OfS is independent and I do not have operational control. It is a bit like the police: the Mayor of London might have a say over the chief constable, but he does not necessarily tell them what to do day by day. Nevertheless, the student panel is incredibly important, so I accept what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked me about the taskforce. It last met in full in June 2022, and there has been a subsequent meeting of arms-length bodies, separately, to discuss progress and to identify areas of work to take forward.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher education is preparing students for high-quality employment: three quarters of graduates from full-time first degree courses progressed into high-skilled employment or further study 15 months after graduating in 2020. But more must be done to tackle the pockets of poor quality that persist, and the OfS is committed to doing that. The OfS has revised its registration conditions in relation to quality and standards to ensure that they are robust, and it is rightly now taking action to investigate and enforce those conditions.

We want to ensure that students see returns on their investment in higher education. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the net lifetime return from an undergraduate degree is £100,000 for women and £130,000 for men, but it should be noted that the IFS has also found that 25% of male graduates and 15% of female ones will take home less money over their careers than peers who do not get an undergraduate degree. I think that graduates should be achieving outcomes that are consistent with the qualifications that they have completed and paid for.

To give an opposing example, it is a testament to the genuinely excellent teaching and leadership at the University of Hull that nursing and midwifery students experience the highest progression rate—98%—compared to all other OfS-registered HE providers with available progression data, and that the university has performed above the OfS threshold for continuation, completion and progression. I say those things to highlight not just the brilliant work of the University of Hull but the important work that the OfS is doing. Without the work of the OfS, we would not have that kind of information.

I talked about social justice, which is very important to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and to me. I want to ensure that no student is excluded from higher education because of their background. A wider point has been made about us putting extra burdens on the OfS, but it has recently launched the equality of opportunity risk register to highlight key risks that can impact negatively on disadvantaged and under-represented student groups across the whole of the student lifecycle. That is an extra thing for the OfS to do, but I want it to happen. I am delighted with that. I do not like the name “risk register”, but nevertheless the principle is really important. It will empower higher education providers to develop effective interventions and support at-risk students, helping them not only get in but get on. I have a lot more to day about Hull University. It really is doing some remarkable things, and I hope to be able to go there one day and see it.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle cares deeply about mental health. We have allocated £15 million from the strategic priorities grant to the OfS for mental health support. That is another OfS duty and its purpose is to support students’ wellbeing when they transition to university, and to create opportunities for partnerships between providers and the national health service. The OfS has a role to play in funding Student Space, an online platform for mental health and wellbeing resources. The OfS also runs a mental health challenge competition with Northumbria University. It has supported projects to ensure that mental health needs are identified by providers. That is another important role for the OFS. Yes, the OfS has increased its role, but it is doing really important things that will make a difference to many students’ lives.

I knew that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle would bring up degree apprenticeships. I have some sympathy with what she says; there is too much regulation, and all I can say to her is to please watch this space. I am looking at it very carefully to see what can be done. Of course, we also have to maintain quality, because if we do not have quality, I will have the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, get up in Education questions and ask why apprenticeship provision is so poor. The hon. Lady will be pleased that over the next two years we will increase from £8 million to £40 million—£16 million in the first year, and £24 million in the second—the funding to promote degree apprenticeships among providers. I know she will support that extra funding.

A House of Lords inquiry has criticised the OfS registration fees for being too high. As I have mentioned, however, in the light of the Government’s commitment to funding skills over the Parliament, the OfS registration fees offer value for money. It is currently around £26 million a year, which is less than £13 per student. I do not think that feels like a high price to pay to ensure that we have a high-quality system working in the interests of students.

In conclusion, the work of the Government, which I have outlined, and of the OfS regulator will continue to deliver on skills, jobs and social justice. I accept that there is over-regulation—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted some unnecessary regulation that I will look at with officials at the Department for Education. However, we have a world-class higher education sector. I am not complacent about it. I acknowledge that there is not enough in some areas, and that some graduates are not getting good, skilled jobs, but many—in fact, most—higher education providers deliver a top-class education and equip students with the skills they need to get excellent jobs. I am clear that a robust and fair regulator—a good regulator—is vital to ensuring that our higher education sector remains world leading and protects students and the taxpayer.

I think that the OfS has achieved a fair bit in the first five years of its existence. It has registered 400 providers. It has also registered the new Dyson Institute, which is—

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

We must return to ideas and policies based on evidence and reality, which means protecting free speech and academic freedom in our universities so that ideas can be properly tested before they make their way into society. This Bill, with the inclusion of clause 4, will bolster those freedoms and perhaps nudge us back in the direction of truth and reality.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 10.

There ought to be a basis for cross-party agreement, as there was in the Lords. I sense from many of the contributions so far that there will not be cross-party agreement, and that wiser heads are not prevailing on the Conservative Benches—those wiser heads are being kept below the parapet.

I read the letter that the Minister circulated yesterday, in which she acknowledged that creating a statutory tort

“has been a contentious measure throughout the passage of the Bill”.

That is something of an understatement. She went on to acknowledge that, in what she must recognise was a thoughtful and serious debate in the other place, many peers had

“raised concerns that the measure would subject higher education providers, colleges and students’ unions to costly, time consuming and unmeritorious or vexatious claims”.

But in her letter she just brushed that aside, on the basis that she had spoken to many academics who agreed with her, which is a rather interesting example of cancel culture at work, as she casually disregarded views that do not fit with her own.

We should be clear in this debate that, on both sides of the House, we all strongly believe in freedom of speech within the framework of the law. We should particularly cherish it in our universities, but we should also recognise the difficulties associated with legislating to that end. The right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), the former universities Minister and, as of today, the new Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, saw those difficulties for herself when she explained the Bill’s operation at the start of its long life.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who is no longer in his place, said he is concerned that we have reached the point at which this sort of legislation is necessary. How we manage the rights and obligations of free speech has been a live issue of concern for many years, and not simply in relation to universities. That is why Parliament has framed the limits of free speech.

In a previous life, I was responsible for co-drafting the University of Sheffield’s code of practice to ensure compliance with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and I oversaw its operation in providing a platform for speakers with whom I profoundly disagreed. There is an irony in that, because the Government soon came to regret the way the Act’s provisions were used to secure platforms for those with whom they profoundly disagreed, and they raised those concerns with universities and students’ unions.

Some of the invitations to speakers after the passage of the 1986 Act were made vexatiously by those who were more interested in testing the legislation, or in trying to create embarrassment for a university and its students’ union, than in the issue under discussion. The fact that 36 years on we are debating the same issue is a reflection of the difficulties of making laws in this area, and that is something we should think about carefully when there are good alternatives.

More recently, I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and I recall expressing my concerns over aspects of the Government’s proposals for the creation of the Office for Students. I argued with the then Conservative Universities Minister, now Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who made the case for the Office for Students as the way of regulating the sector. So I was interested to read his contribution to the debate in the House of Lords, where he argued that clause 4 was not only unnecessary but would “undermine the regulator”—the regulator that the Conservative Government have put at the centre of the higher education architecture in this country. He powerfully made the case that the OfS can deal with these issues more effectively than civil litigation by imposing

“conditions of registration on any provider that falls short of the enhanced duties created by this Bill.”

He went on to say that those conditions of registration provide a wide range of

regulatory tools…from simply seeking an action plan from a university…through to imposing fines on an institution if it does not deliver”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 716.]

I was also struck by the contribution of another Conservative former Universities Minister, Lord Willetts, who highlighted the role of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, in addition to the OfS, in providing a “clear process” to which any student can turn with a concern about any potential suppression of freedom of speech. But far more importantly—this point has been made and Ministers would do well to pay regard to it—Lord Willetts argued that the provisions of clause 4

“could have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.”

He set out two ways in which this might be the case. The first was that

“people who are thinking of…inviting speakers or organising events—

would be—

“inhibited from doing so for fear that they could potentially find themselves caught up in complicated and demanding legal action”.

I have to say that in a different way I saw that chill factor in operation as a result of the 1986 Act.

Secondly, Lord Willetts highlighted the costs of litigation and the uneven resources available to those taking and defending action, pointing out that there is a “real risk” for student unions that would not have the resources to defend themselves against litigation. As he said, student unions

“are an important place in which students with a wide range of political views have their first experience of organising debates, exchanging ideas and disputing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 713.]

He pointed out that the “threat” of potential litigation that could bankrupt a student union would not serve the interests of freedom of speech in our universities.

So two former Conservative Universities Ministers—the two who have arguably had the most impact on our higher education system over the last 13 years—are both saying that the tort provided by clause 4 is wrong and both back Lords amendment 10. It did not stop there. Lord Pannick argued that effective regulation from the OfS is quicker and cheaper than civil litigation. My good friend Lord Blunkett, who has talked about his experience of being no-platformed as a Secretary of State, made the case that the tort will cause “more confusion” and “difficulty”. Lord Grabiner has been mentioned and, as somebody who should know, he said that High Court judges are less well placed than the regulator to deal with these issues. Lord Macdonald, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, said that the clause, far from encouraging free speech, will have a “chilling effect”.

The case could not be clearer. Creating the tort would cause confusion, slow down redress, open the terrain to vexatious claims, waste resources, undermine the regulator that this Government have put in place and, above all, create a chill factor that would undermine free speech. We should come together tonight to reject clause 4 and support Lords amendment 10.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise in support of the Government and am pleased that they have decided to reinstate the clause that includes the tort. I was taken aback by the shadow Minister’s suggestion that such a provision was otiose. He suggested that there are much larger issues that the House should be debating. I think that this is where we see a real difference between our parties. The fact is that we think that few things are more important than the quality of cultural and academic debate in our country, and the context in which young people are educated and brought up. But a spirit of oppressive cultural conformity has taken root across the institutions of the United Kingdom and, worst of all, it has taken root in our universities, where freedom of speech should be protected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I understand and agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certainty over funding. The dedicated school grant allocations for 2023-24 were published in December 2022, including indicative allocations for the mainstream schools’ additional grant, which will distribute the additional £2 billion of funding that was announced in the autumn statement.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As we have heard, the additional £15 million hardship funding for students announced last week amounts to less than £10 per head—significantly less, according to my sums—while the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that students are £1,500 a year worse off. Today, the all-party parliamentary group for students is launching an inquiry into the impact of the cost of living crisis on students, inviting submissions from students, their unions and institutions across the UK. Will the Minister agree to meet us to consider the evidence we receive?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)]

Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the £276 million, along with other measures the Government have introduced, including the energy rebate and other support that we try to give students who are facing cost of living challenges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: careers advice is central to getting young people on the skills ladder of opportunity. We have strengthened careers advice with the Baker clause. Ofsted is carrying out a review of careers training in schools and colleges. We are investing £30 million to support schools and colleges in careers, and setting up careers hubs in secondary schools and colleges.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and her team to their roles. May I start by congratulating the Government on their international education strategy, which has already been mentioned? The Secretary of State knows that international students contribute £30 billion a year to the UK economy—much of it in areas identified by the Government for levelling up—and that they are vital to the viability of our universities, enrich learning for UK students and strengthen our role in the world. Does she therefore share the concern of Members on both sides of the House about reports that consideration is being given to returning to the failed policy of restricting numbers, and will she raise that concern with the Home Secretary?

[Robert Halfon]

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I could not have put it better myself. International students add enormous value. As I mentioned in my previous answer and in the Westminster Hall debate we had a couple of weeks ago, we have met our target of 600,000 students a year early—before 2030—and that remains our target. By 2030, that will mean £35 billion-plus in exports.

International Students: Contribution to the UK

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to welcome the Minister to his position; his is probably one of the better appointments made recently. I am pleased to contribute to the debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international students, a role that I share with Lord Bilimoria, the former president of the CBI. An important part of our role is celebrating the contribution of international students, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) for securing the debate and for many of the points and questions he raised.

My constituency of Sheffield Central—as you well know, Mr Stringer, as one of our graduates—has more students than any other constituency. We know the huge value of international students, but it is important that we do not stop the discussion at their contribution to the local economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, they also enrich the learning experience of UK students—what an extraordinary opportunity for UK students to study alongside students from so many other countries and continents, all providing their input to classroom discussions. In addition, they enhance the cultural vitality of our city, and they provide us with ambassadors for Sheffield when they move on and continue their lives in business, politics and other areas.

Recognising those benefits, our APPG makes the case for policies that encourage and support the recruitment of international students. It seems obvious that we would want to do that, but that has not been the case. Back in 2010, when David Cameron was elected with a pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), went for easy wins on immigration numbers—despite the damage to the UK—by cutting the number of international students, removing the graduate visa route and putting in place other barriers. That was celebrated by our competitors in Australia, Canada and the US. I remember hosting an event with the former Australian higher education Minister, who began by saying, “I would like to congratulate your Home Secretary. Without her efforts, we wouldn’t be doing so well in recruiting international students to Australia.”

With strong, genuine cross-party support, the APPG campaigned for seven years for change, and in 2018 we produced our inquiry report, “A Sustainable Future for International Students in the UK”. I am pleased that our two main recommendations—to set an ambitious target for growth of international student numbers and to offer a new post-study work route—were embraced by the Government in their 2019 international education strategy, which set

“an ambition to increase the value of our education exports to £35 billion per year, and to increase the number of international higher education students hosted in the UK to 600,000 per year, both by 2030.”

All of us on both sides of the House celebrated the Government’s ambition, and I thought that was the end of the argument—after seven long years, we had finally convinced people—but recent comments by the new Home Secretary provoked an awful feeling of déjà vu. Lessons learned have been forgotten; instead of tackling the real issues facing the Home Office—passport delays, visa delays, the asylum backlog, the failure to end dangerous channel crossings—the Home Secretary has turned to the distraction technique employed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead.

Recent rhetoric has included tired tropes about overstaying and suggested the illegitimate use of visas. That has caused enormous offence in India, one of our most crucial markets not just for growing international student numbers, but for reducing our dependence on China, which dominates the market at the moment. It will also impact the Government’s attempts to secure a trade deal with India. If the Home Secretary tells international students that they cannot bring their families to the UK, as she seems to be suggesting, they will simply turn to one of the many countries that will say, “You’re welcome here.”

The problem is not only the policies but the rhetoric, which is beginning to undo the work that many of us who support the cause of international students have done to repair the damage that the Government caused. After so many years of international students being told that they are not welcome here, we have all come together, as the hon. Member for Stirling said, singing one song: “You are very welcome here.” The Home Secretary’s recent rhetoric undermines those efforts.

Although this is not just an economic argument, research from the Higher Education Policy Institute last year shows that international students bring nearly £30 billion a year to the UK economy, supporting jobs and businesses across the country. They play an important role in our universities and in enriching our campuses, and they bolster Britain’s place in the world at a time when we need it.

Locally, an economic impact assessment commissioned by the University of Sheffield, based on 2018-19 data, found that overseas students at the university—it is just one of our two universities—support £184 million gross value added and just over 3,000 jobs in the Sheffield city region. That is more than we employ in the steel industry in Sheffield. Those jobs are across a swathe of industries, from transport to hospitality, food and retail.

More recently, “The costs and benefits of international higher education students to the UK economy,” published by the Higher Education Policy Institute and Universities UK International, analysed the 2018-19 international cohort. I should probably declare an interest, because it found that Sheffield Central remains the top parliamentary constituency for net economic benefit. Every person in Sheffield and its surrounding area is £2,520 better off on average because of international students. They are hugely important for the university’s financial stability and for the sub-regional economy. That is the critical point.

We should recognise that universities are a unique public asset. They are distributed around all the regions and nations of the United Kingdom; the economic benefit is not concentrated in London and the south-east. Obviously, there is a significant number of fine institutions down here, but the benefit is shared around the country. If the Government are serious about their levelling-up agenda—obviously, we doubt they are—universities are a critical driver of economic activity all over the country. At a time when the Government claim to be focused on growth, it is utterly incoherent to reduce the benefits from one of our strongest exports—higher education.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the wider benefits to local and regional economies. Part of the economic contribution comes from our universities’ capacity for research. Does he share my concern that if the number of international students declines, the contribution they make to subsidising the cost of research in universities will also decline, and that will make our regional economies and our national economy poorer?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is absolutely correct, and it complements what the hon. Member for Stirling said about the way our research base is threatened outside Horizon Europe.

Frankly, the UK needs all the help it can get on the international stage. Given that the Government cannot decide whether it is worth turning up to key global events such as COP and are trashing our reputation by claiming that the jury is out on whether our key partners and neighbours are friend or foe, we cannot afford further mishaps. The QS World University Rankings assess universities on six key indicators, one of which is the international student and international faculty ratio. A highly international university demonstrates the ability to attract quality students and staff from around the world, and implies a highly global outlook and diversity of culture, knowledge and thought. It makes us more competitive. It is therefore hugely important that we maintain those numbers.

As for soft power, when I was campaigning for change I met the ambassador from one of our important allies in the far east, an important economic partner. We were talking about these issues and he said, “Paul, do you realise that three quarters of our Cabinet were educated at UK universities?” That is soft power that the rest of the world would die for, and it is hugely important. The 2022 HEPI soft power index shows the benefit of international students, with 55 world leaders having taken advantage of UK higher education.

I hope the new Minister will take on board these arguments and, with his colleagues in the Department for Education, do all he can to make the case to colleagues in the Home Office that we do not want to go through this again. Let us not have that whole seven years of making the mistake, trawling back from it, and then setting an ambition to do what has been undone by such negative policies.

I hope the Minister will not only answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Stirling, but reflect on the implications for our universities, our regional economies and our international standing if we go back on the Government’s own ambition, set out in the international education strategy.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 5.10 pm at the latest. If Members wish to speak, whether or not they have written to Mr Speaker, will they stand to indicate that? That is a help to the Chair.