Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patrick Hurley
I am more than happy to commend Baroness Jennie Lee, and I am more than happy to celebrate the success of my hon. Friend and of the countless thousands of others who have studied around the real lives we all lead.
One reason why the Open University works is precisely because it understands something that many higher education institutions still struggle with: life is not linear. People do not all move neatly from school to university to career to retirement in a straight line. Our lives are messier than that. People leave school without confidence, drift into jobs and later discover different ambitions. They become parents, care for relatives, lose jobs, or their health changes. Sometimes, at 35, 45 or 55, they simply decide that they want to try something new. The original White Paper understood that. It explicitly talked about flexibility, recognising that some learners would move quickly and others slowly, depending on the realities of their lives. The Open University says something very simple to people in those circumstances: “It is not too late. It is never too late.”
I should declare an interest, because I would not be standing here in Westminster Hall this afternoon without the Open University. I did not come through the conventional route into higher education. I left school without much expectation that university was really for people like me. For most of my life, I worked in fairly ordinary, fairly low-paid jobs. For instance, I sold “Magic Tree” air-fresheners to petrol stations. I spent a decade working in a call centre for an insurance company. I spent a few soul-destroying months working for a debt collector, before I could take no more and quit to go back on the dole.
Like many people, I found that without qualifications there were doors that simply remained shut, no matter how hard I tried. The Open University changed all that for me, although not in some dramatic overnight fashion like we might see in a television drama. It was hard work. It meant studying in the evenings, at weekends, on the bus to and from work—and, to be honest, probably sometimes during work if the boss was not looking. I was doing assignments when other members of the family were watching television or going out and getting on with their lives. But it made something possible for me that would otherwise not have been possible: it gave me the ability to learn around my life.
From speaking to other OU students over the years, I know that my story is far from unusual. There are hundreds of thousands of us out there who have rebuilt confidence, changed career, retrained or simply proved something to ourselves, because somebody, somewhere, 60 years ago had the foresight to build an institution flexible enough to meet people where they already are.
Something about all this is deeply embedded in the labour movement. The Open University sits in a much longer tradition of working-class people organising to educate ourselves and improve our circumstances. Long before most people had access to university, we had mechanics’ institutes, miners’ libraries, mutual improvement societies, trade union reading rooms and university extension programmes. We had the Workers’ Educational Association. Working-class people have always valued education, hard work and making something of ourselves. The nonsense about a lack of aspiration that we sometimes hear from the assembled ranks of the privileged has never been true. The problem was never aspiration; the problem was access.
In many ways, the “University of the Air” was the modern expression of that Victorian-era working-class tradition, and the belief that education should not stop, even when life gets complicated. That approach matters now more than ever. We live in a country where people are likely to work for longer. They change careers more often. They need to retrain repeatedly. We are also living through profound economic change, with automation, artificial intelligence, changing labour markets and an ageing population. We simply cannot operate on the assumption that education happens only once, in our late teens or early 20s, and then stops. Frankly, that never made sense, and it certainly does not make sense any more.
If we are serious about economic growth, improving productivity and helping people back into good work, lifelong learning has to move from being a worthy aspiration to being something much closer to the centre of how we think about our economy. Since being elected to Parliament, I have spent a lot of time working in the areas of employment, skills and economic inactivity, and I think we sometimes underestimate the role education plays in building people’s confidence as much as their competence. Often, people are not just missing qualifications; they are missing the confidence that they are capable of more. Adult education changes that. It changed it for me.
To be frank, I have forgotten quite a lot of the stuff that I was actually taught during my time at the Open University. I sometimes need a primer on the exact details of the theoretical framework underpinning the long-run Phillips curve. When I re-read my master’s thesis a few years ago, I surprised myself with how much I agreed with my conclusions on the intersection between liberty and unequal power relations. But I will never forget that moment back in December 2010, when I got my undergraduate result. It felt like validation. It was a confidence boost that has never left me.
In among the successes and the congratulations, we should be honest about the challenges—
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking powerfully about his story and his experience of higher education. Young people from more advantaged or affluent backgrounds are still much more likely to enter higher education than their less-advantaged peers. Socioeconomic background—what we more commonly call class—is still the strongest predictor of university attendance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the mission at the heart of the 1966 White Paper, to expand access to higher education and spread opportunity, is just as relevant today as it was then?
Patrick Hurley
Definitely. If anything, it is even more important in 2026, with all the challenges we see around us.
As I said, we should be honest about the challenges. Despite the success of institutions like the Open University, adult participation in higher education has fallen over the last decade. Too often, the system still feels like it is designed around the traditional undergraduate who left school at 18, rather than the parents in their 30s or 40s, the worker retraining after redundancy or the person managing long-term ill health while trying to rebuild their future. Yet mature students are not some small minority: more than a third of undergraduate entrants are mature learners. They are already a major part of our higher education system, whether we recognise it fully or not.
That is why I welcome the broad direction of travel on lifelong learning and the more flexible provision the Government are pursuing. The principle is right—people should be able to access education throughout their lives and in a way that fits around their work and family—but it remains true that implementation and delivery matter as well. If lifelong learning is genuinely to continue to work, people need a system they can understand and easily navigate. The funding regime needs to feel straightforward and fair. Flexible provision has to be properly supported. Employers need to be part of the conversation. And, frankly, we need many more people just to know that these opportunities exist, because too many adults still assume that higher education is simply not for people like them.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the role that institutions such as the Open University can play in regions like mine. One of its great strengths is that people do not have to leave their communities to access the opportunities available to them. That matters in places that have too often watched talent drain away, like the region I am from. Somebody in Southport or St Helens, in Birkenhead or Bootle, should not necessarily have to move away from their home town to improve their prospects. The Open University allows people to build skills while remaining rooted in the places that they love and that they want to contribute to. That strikes me as important, not just educationally but economically and socially.
I am proud that this Labour Government are acting in a way that is true to the founding vision of the Open University. The lifelong learning entitlement represents a major step forward. It is transforming the student finance system to support flexible, modular learning across people’s lives. For the first time, individuals will be able to access funding both for traditional degrees and for shorter courses, as well as retraining and skills development, when they need it throughout their careers. It is fitting that this reform builds directly on the principles pioneered by the Open University almost 60 years ago.
The OU’s expertise in modular, flexible provision will be vital in making the lifelong learning entitlement a success, but we must do more. We must ensure that part-time provision is properly funded and properly supported, we must raise awareness so that more people know these opportunities exist, and we must ensure that lifelong learning is embedded across Government—yes, in education policy, but also in economic, employment and regional growth strategies as well.
As we mark 60 years since the White Paper, we should all do two things. First, we should celebrate one of the most genuinely radical and successful achievements of not just Harold Wilson’s Government but every Labour Government: an institution built on the belief that intelligence is not confined to one class, one place or one stage of life. Secondly, we should remember that the argument Jennie Lee made in 1966 is not yet finished. The central question remains exactly the same as it ever was: what do we do with potential that has not yet had its chance?
For millions of people, the Open University has represented confidence, dignity and a second opportunity. I know that, because in my case it changed the direction of my life. For that reason, if no other, I believe that the vision behind the “University of the Air” deserves not simply our admiration but our continued support.
LGBT+ History Month
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who gave an incredibly powerful speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for her incredibly powerful opening remarks and for securing this debate. She is a proud, queer British south Asian who is a role model to so many, and that representation really does matter. I also want to say how proud I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) is at the Dispatch Box. We were friends long before we were elected to this place, and to see her here, responding to the debate, is quite a moment.
Happy LGBT+ History Month, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am here as a proud friend and ally. Stratford and Bow has a very proud history of queer resistance. It was home to the Tower Hamlets Lesbian and Gay Campaign Group when Thatcher’s Government introduced section 28. When they tried to silence and erase an entire community, the campaign group fought back with defiance, holding meetings at Bromley public hall to spread awareness and solidarity. While libraries across the country stopped stocking queer literature, Tower Hamlets defied this ban, even producing a gay and lesbian book list for their libraries. The campaign group also published Out East community magazine, spreading word far and wide. In Stratford, East London Gay Community was a thriving social group. It operated a telephone hotline every Tuesday night, taking up to 15,000 calls a year at its peak, offering help and support for gay people in east London and beyond for decades. Instead of shame, it offered solidarity, acceptance and care.
These stories are not just history; they are a legacy that has profoundly shaped our communities in east London and throughout London. We are still home to queer celebration and resistance, whether it is being the home of UK Black Pride at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park; Forest Gayte Pride, who defied hatred when people defaced our local flags; Out To Swim, who meet at the aquatics centre to support local LGBT+ people participating in sports; or amazing initiatives like Positive East and Newham LGBT Seniors, who meet at Stratford library. Everyone is welcome in Stratford and Bow, and we celebrate our history and heritage.
But as we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, we cannot risk forgetting the lessons of that history. Those lessons are rarely convenient, and the risks of backsliding are ever present, as we have heard today. As I mentioned briefly, we have had our own issues in Forest Gate. We sadly saw hatred come to our community when our rainbow crossing—our Pride flag—was shamefully defaced multiple times. It reminded us that we cannot assume or take for granted the progress that we have made. This awful act was a hate crime and an attack on our local queer community, and it was not just the LGBT+ community in Forest Gate but everyone—all our neighbours—who were affronted that it had happened. We now have rainbow wraps adorning our street lamps. When we unveiled them, the community stood together to share a defiant message: hate will not win here. LGBT identities will never be erased, and certainly not on my watch as their MP.
As I said, we cannot risk complacency. Progress is hard fought and hard won. In the months since the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, hundreds of my constituents have written to me to share their experiences, their fears and the deep impact that the interim guidance issued by the EHRC is having on their daily lives. The lack of clarity also has an impact on organisations across the country and on trans people, who increasingly find themselves excluded from this discussion. Just as we demand that women’s voices are heard and respected, so too must we listen to trans women’s voices, who find themselves subject to mockery and abuse as those on the far right stoke culture wars. These are real people and real lives.
Last year I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make the views of my constituents clear: we must ensure that the Supreme Court ruling does not leave anyone facing yet more barriers to living a full, happy and dignified life, free of discrimination and harassment. I shared stories from my constituents. One, who transitioned over 25 years ago, told me that the place where they have worked for 13 years now has segregated toilets. They are terrified that they will now have to disclose their trans identity to their colleagues, infringing their right to privacy and risking their safety and inclusion at work.
This is not an abstract discussion; it is about the real lives of real people living in every one of our communities. They deserve dignity and freedom to live as they have been living, in many cases for decades, without issue. That is why we must see the new EHRC guidance come forward as soon as possible. We cannot risk backsliding by allowing this judgment to license discrimination or undermine the norms of trans inclusion. It cannot signal a move away from LGBT liberation after decades of progress. We often hear that Pride is a protest, but Pride is also a movement rooted in resistance, in defying silence and in refusing shame. We have come so far, but it bears repeating that the lessons of history are clear: progress was hard won and it must be defended.
This LGBT+ History Month is not just about struggle; it is about joy and the celebration of queer identity, and I am here as a proud ally to celebrate this. It is what the Tower Hamlets Gay and Lesbian Campaign Group and the East London Gay Collective stood for, and it is a legacy that we must all carry forward—in particular at this moment for our trans friends and neighbours. As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, let us remember that progress is never inevitable. It demands resolve and allyship, including from each and every one of us in this place.
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Gardner
My hon. Friend is right that we hunt as a pack: when the three Stokie MPs get together with our Staffordshire colleagues, we make a formidable bunch, and I am very proud to be part of the team.
I am incredibly proud to work for a Labour Government who are breaking down the barriers to opportunity, tackling child poverty and improving early years development through our plan for change. This is certainly a nationwide issue, but I wish to stress the critical importance of this mission in Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent more widely. Our children were neglected time and again by the previous Government, and we now have some of the worst outcomes for childhood development, health and wellbeing in the country. Before I list the statistics, I want to point out that Stoke-on-Trent is also the best place in the country to live and that the people are fantastic. We have been let down and that is by no means the fault of the wonderful people of Stoke-on-Trent.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. My constituency of Stratford and Bow, in east London, was recently scored second best in the country on the Sutton Trust opportunity index, for opportunities for children to advance in life, and the neighbouring constituency, East Ham, scored top. London has severe inequalities in giving children the best start in life, but we also have opportunities. It is important that kids in Staffordshire get the same opportunities. That is why this Government are working to spread that opportunity far and wide, so that they all have the best possible start in life.
Dr Gardner
I commend my hon. Friend and her neighbour for those wonderful outcomes, although I am sure she still has issues in her constituency that we need to battle against.
As I have said in the Chamber before, child poverty in some parts of my constituency is as high as 76%. In 2022-23, 13 children in every classroom of 30 were living in poverty in Stoke. Stoke-on-Trent has the highest rate of infant mortality in the country, and between 2019 and 2021, babies born in Stoke were nearly twice as likely to die before their first birthday than the national average.
In addition, Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of children in care per head of population in England, and our children face successive delays in early years development. In 2023, Stoke-on-Trent was in the bottom 10 of all English local authorities for the number of children with the “expected” level of literacy, communication and language, and numeracy skills by early years foundation stage. I know that these figures will shock many, but Stoke-on-Trent must be a priority region for tackling child poverty and our related missions. There are children in my constituency who start school unable to speak, use the toilet or brush their teeth, and there are children in our high schools who are still learning phonics, which should have been taught in primary school, as they are struggling with such severe delays in their development.
Infant mortality, a topic that is very close to my heart, is explicitly linked to socioeconomic inequalities and persistent inequalities in health. As has been mentioned, the first thousand days of a child’s life are the most important. What happens during those days can, in many cases, predict a child’s entire life course. It is devastating that for so many children in our city their first few years are marked by deprivation, poor quality housing and incredibly low living standards.
Labour Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing excellent work to support our children. It has made major improvements to children’s social care services, focusing on early help and new front-door arrangements, and the family matters programme is a multi-agency programme delivering prevention and support services to give our children the very best start in life. Local organisations, like Thrive at Five and Stoke Speaks Out, have also run incredible programmes to facilitate a thriving early years network in Stoke-on-Trent to improve children’s early development.
However, our city council and our local services have had to work incredibly hard against a backdrop of successive cuts over the past 14 to 15 years that have decimated so many services and forced many to close altogether. Many of our holistic early intervention programmes, where families could get advice, health visitors supported families from pregnancy onwards, and staff could identify families in need and offer early support, have now closed their doors.