Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill

Too many businesses are struggling to find people with the right skills for their job vacancies, while school leavers and learners are often baffled by a skills system that is complex and bureaucratic. That means that companies cannot find the workers they need, people cannot progress and the country is stuck in a productivity quagmire. We have people who want to work and companies that want to hire them, but we need the LLE to ensure that the workers of today have the skills for tomorrow. We need learners to be able to upskill and retrain flexibly throughout their working lives as their circumstances and needs change. By offering funding for shorter periods of study, the LLE will help those who may have been put off studying because they thought the fees were too high or the living costs would be too expensive.

This legislation supports the Government’s pledge to introduce the LLE from 2025, building on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. It also furthers Sir Philip Augar’s independent review of post-18 education in 2019, which included the recommendation that the Government introduce a lifelong learning allowance. Through the LLE, we aim to introduce a more streamlined, efficient and flexible learning system that is fit for the future and brings further and higher education providers closer together. The LLE will transform access to post-18 education, presenting opportunities to retrain, progress and excel throughout an individual’s working life.

This Bill may seem small and technical, but its impact will be far-reaching. We need more coders, doctors, nurses, teachers, technicians and builders—more of most things—and I am certain the British people will answer the call, if only we give them the tools and training to do so. Establishing the LLE may be one small piece of legislation, but it is one great step for life chances and social justice. I am a Conservative because I believe in equality of opportunity—because I believe that what matters is where someone is going, not where they have come from. For that reason, I commend this Bill to the House.

We often talk about the lost decade of wage growth, and that is a fact, but it is pretty hard not to see it as a lost decade of skills growth as well. Indeed, the Learning and Work Institute quantifies that loss as up to 4 million learners, which is a pretty damning indictment of the Government’s skills agenda for these past 13 years. Indeed, part of the problem in recent years has been the lack of priority and focus in the Department, as deckchairs have been shuffled, reshuffled and shuffled again. The figures are well known. We have had five Education Secretaries in the past year, a succession of Ministers responsible for higher education and a seemingly constant shifting set of responsibilities between Ministers. There has been a fatal lack of consistency at the heart of the Department. It must be particularly challenging for the Secretary of State to be witnessing that at first hand. That may well explain why there is a widespread lack of awareness among employers of the Government’s skills reform programme. Four in five employers said that they were unaware of the Government’s plan to introduce lifelong learning entitlement.

Having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, however, I note her determination finally to kickstart the lifelong learning agenda, and I commend her for the work that she is doing. I commend, too, the work of the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, both from the Back Benches and as Chair of the Education Committee. It was my former colleague, Gordon Marsden who, as MP for Blackpool South, really started this agenda, recognising the need for lifelong learning in the form of Labour’s Lifelong Learning Commission report in November 2019. Labour is fully committed to supporting the Government in delivering lifelong learning, continuing the important work that Gordon Marsden put together.

None the less, there remain some significant questions over the Government’s stated policy. In a slightly unusual way, what we have before us is merely a frame with no content—an exoskeleton without a body, as it were. The Government launched a consultation 12 months ago on how the lifelong learning policy should be framed, which included who should be eligible; whether maintenance should be provided; what courses should be covered; what courses should be exempt; what changes to the regulatory framework are required; what incentives, support and guidance are needed to encourage prospective students; how students can stack up their credits or modules; and how course quality assurance is monitored. However, despite that, the Government have failed to publish their consultation response ahead of introducing this legislation, denying Parliament the full picture when scrutinising the Bill—and that consultation closed 10 months ago, in May last year.

The Cabinet Office regulation rules, published in 2018, state:

“Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion.”

Ideally, that is within 12 weeks—I guess that is three months—of the consultation. If not, they should

“provide an explanation why this is not possible.”

I ask the Minister this: why has the response to the lifelong learning consultation not yet been published? When does he expect to publish it, and what explanation can he give for the delay?

This is important, because this skeletal Bill’s skeletal impact assessment states:

“A full and detailed quantitative assessment of impacts on learners, providers, employers, the Exchequer and the wider economy and society is…not possible because of two key sources of uncertainty”—

namely, broader lifelong learning entitlement policy and behavioural uncertainty. The impact assessment goes on to say:

“As some aspects of the broader LLE policy are still in development, it is not yet possible to accurately estimate these familiarisation costs.”

As a cherry on top, we are promised that an enactment impact assessment will be published after the Bill receives Royal Assent. One would have thought that the two sources of uncertainty—broader LLE policy and behavioural uncertainty—would have been addressed by the consultative process and the learnings from the pilot programme. But no, for some reason those are being kept from this House. That may have something to do with the fact that only 33 applications for student finance were made for the Office for Students short course trial, which is widely considered to be a failure.

Call me old-fashioned—I have only been in this place for six years—but I prefer to debate the policy underpinning parliamentary Bills and their potential impact while we still have a chance to get it right. It is incumbent on all of us to try to deliver the best legislation. That is in all our interests, particularly given the unanimous support for the principle behind this Bill. Instead, we, the sector and prospective students are waiting on tenterhooks for the final publication of the consultation response before we can make any well-informed assessment of the Bill and how it will interact with the broader lifelong learning policy offer.

In anticipation of the Minister delivering the much-awaited consultation response in the coming days, I will move on to our concerns about the principles of the Bill as drafted and about lifelong learning policy. Given the importance of getting the lifelong learning policy right for boosting the UK’s economic growth, productivity and workforce potential, there remain significant questions related to the deliverability of this reform. The Minister is committed to delivering lifelong learning by the 2025 academic year. However, as he well knows, it takes a considerable amount of time to make changes to the student finance system, the admissions system and the design of new courses. As a fellow pragmatist, does he genuinely believe that it will be delivered by the start of the 2025 academic year, or will it be delivered in a limited form?

Delivering that could prove groundbreaking in changing the post-16 education landscape, and Labour would continue to tailor it if in government. To borrow a sporting metaphor, the pitch needs to be rolled. That includes the need for more clarity on who will be eligible. Universities UK, the representative group of 140 universities, has called for broad and consistent eligibility criteria to ensure that as many future learners as possible can upskill and retrain in the future. Given this Government’s previous form on proposals to limit access to higher education, whether directly or indirectly, what plans does the Minister have to extend this policy offer to as many people as possible, including those who are most hard to reach? Ultimately, as I have said, education is an investment in people. Therefore, the lifelong learning entitlement should be viewed through the lens of educational empowerment, rather than restrictively controlled and micromanaged. Many of us have concerns about how this is going to be managed and delivered, particularly through the OFS.

Given the scale of the challenge and the reforms to the student finance system, it is also important that the Student Loans Company is adequately prepared to deal with this new funding model. I, and indeed the sector, have noted that there is little to no information on the financial cost for the Government in the event that the Student Loans Company requires a redesign in any document attached to the Bill. That could be significant, surely. Given that the SLC funnels £10 billion-worth of public money into supporting students undertaking higher education courses, what assurances can the Minister give the House that adequate preparation has been carried out to ensure that the SLC is prepared for the coming change?

The Bill gives a surprising amount of power to the Secretary of State to decide what fee method applies, the type of courses and activities it applies to, and the maximum amount of funding available for each module or course. Understandably, that has raised eyebrows. With so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, depriving Parliament of the ability to hold the Government to account adequately, there are few brakes to prevent them from unilaterally deciding to redefine the nature of a credit or a module, and to make compliance with that change contingent on future funding. I am sure that the sector would therefore warmly welcome greater clarity in the Bill on key concepts such as credits and modules. That would go a long way to assuage such concerns, whether or not they are well founded.

It is also widely recognised among providers that running modular provision is more expensive, not least because of the need to provide additional wraparound support, including onboarding, mental health support and academic writing support. Clearly, it is important that a minimum fee level is set to prevent students from being unfairly charged more for modular study than for a traditional academic year of study. However, in the light of the financial pressures on institutions, what plans does the Minister have, if any, to address the cost burden for providers delivering those courses? Failure to understand how that will work on the ground runs the risk of providers shying away from running such courses because of their prohibitive expense. The Government’s own impact assessment stresses as much, stating:

“Some providers could receive less tuition fee income per student if some types of learners that are currently studying longer courses instead choose to study in a modular fashion”.

It would be deeply concerning if the policy behind the Bill further eroded the financial sustainability of the sector, and damaging to the UK’s economic outlook if providers ended up opting out of modular study. It is therefore vital that sustainable and adequate funding be available to providers, and that fees be proportionate to a full qualification with support to deliver wraparound support and high-cost modules. That is also why consultation and dialogue with the sector are so important during the setting of fee limits. In that vein, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that, when setting those limits, the Secretary of State has properly consulted those in the sector charged with delivering this model of teaching?

Finally, let me touch on how the policy underpinning the Bill will engage with the current regulatory landscape. Sector bodies and universities are clear about the need to minimise additional burden. As a result, it is important that the Bill builds on existing regulatory and quality-assurance mechanisms. That is important for employer and student confidence in the system. It is somewhat ironic therefore that the Government are currently validating the de-designation of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education from the Office for Students. That could leave a quality assurance black hole when we most need an experienced quality assurance body. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that regulatory burden is kept to a minimum during the implementation of LLE, and how modular-based courses will be assessed for quality harmoniously across the sector.

Although the Bill is the flimsiest piece of legislation, we will not oppose it. We will wait for the Government’s response to the consultation. I urge the Government to publish the consultation document way before Committee stage, so that we have access to it and can properly scrutinise the legislation in the context of the consultation and the Government’s response. On that basis, we will not oppose the legislation.