Higher Education

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on securing this debate. I declare an interest as an academic at the University of Hull, mention of which gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to one of our alumni, the late noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I knew him for almost 60 years and his is a great loss to this House, to which he was dedicated.

It is difficult to train graduates for future jobs when we do not know what those future jobs will be. In the time available, I want to focus on just two contributions made by higher education. The first is the contribution made beyond the economic. As we have heard, higher education makes a massive contribution to the UK economy. Indeed, we rely on our universities to generate the research that will ensure we remain competitive in a global market. That economic contribution is essential to the nation’s well-being, but so too is the social contribution. Our universities are turning out not just economic units but well-rounded members of society. Higher education is crucial to personal development, something that benefits not just the individual but society. That is especially important at a time of social and economic stress, not least as a consequence of the pandemic, economic uncertainty and international conflict. For our citizens, higher education is a good in itself as well as a fundamental contributor to economic development. The Government tend to focus almost exclusively on the latter. Educating young people who are the first in their family to go into higher education is part of levelling up, but my point goes more widely than that. Spending on higher education is an investment for the nation’s future, not just the economy but the social health of society.

My second point relates to the value to the United Kingdom of the export of higher education. As the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bilimoria, have said, we benefit enormously from recruiting overseas students. Overseas students are beneficial in terms of what they contribute to the local economy while they study here—many local businesses are dependent on student trade—as well as the research undertaken at universities, especially at postgraduate level. Crucially, overseas students come to study here and then they go home. Returning home is often beneficial to their home country, especially in the case of developing nations. Indeed, we would make a greater contribution to developing nations by investing in bringing students here to study than by giving money directly to the governing regime. Their returning home also benefits the United Kingdom, both economically and politically. Foreign nationals who have been educated in the United Kingdom are more likely to trade with the UK than those educated elsewhere. That is the economic benefit. The political benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, is in terms of soft power. We produce students who are well disposed towards the United Kingdom as a result of studying here. Many go on to hold major public positions in their home nations. At a time when our capacity to exercise hard power is decreasing, the capacity to exert soft power becomes even more crucial.

We therefore need to look at the benefits deriving from overseas students. Conveying the impression that they are not welcome is a massive exercise in self-harm, especially when we are in a highly competitive market. There are other nations, such as Australia, that invest heavily in recruiting overseas students. It will be a great help if my noble friend Lady Barran acknowledges this benefit and outlines what the Government are doing to maintain our share of the market. Without it, not only will our universities suffer but so too will the economy and the global clout of the United Kingdom.

The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century Follow-Up Report

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in commending my noble friend Lord Hodgson on introducing this important debate. I also commend the Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, which he chaired, for producing the report, and the Liaison Committee for its follow-up report. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the role of the Liaison Committee in producing such reports. They are an invaluable exercise.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, I will focus on the recommendations of the Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement on citizenship education. In chapter 3, it makes a compelling case for citizenship education and for greater resources to be devoted to ensuring its delivery. It produced several valuable recommendations, but nothing has happened. I quote from paragraph 162 of the report:

“The Government has allowed citizenship education in England to degrade to a parlous state. The decline of the subject must be addressed in its totality as a matter of urgency”.


Here we are, almost five years to the day since the report was published, and the situation, if anything, is more parlous. The Liaison Committee pursued recommendations made by the committee, but they have fallen on barren ground. The problem is not just one of government but, as has been reiterated this afternoon, of the inspection regime. As the committee made clear, Ofsted’s approach is inadequate and fails to understand the distinct significance of citizenship education. The committee argued the case for Ofsted to stop assessing citizenship education through personal development and for it instead to form part of the quality of education. This was taken up by the Liaison Committee which, at paragraph 72, addressed

“Ofsted’s disregard for citizenship as a statutory curriculum subject and its insistence on assessing it through personal development”.

It continued:

“Citizenship is an academic subject and when taught properly should involve the development of knowledge, skills and understanding that pupils need to become active and responsible citizens. Citizenship should not be treated solely as part of pupils’ personal development. To do so is to misunderstand the nature of the subject in its entirety”.


In the next paragraph, the committee goes on to state that, based on the evidence it had received,

“Ofsted is misinterpreting the Government’s policy and assessment criteria for Citizenship”.

Among its other recommendations, it says at paragraph 77 that:

“Ofsted should review the support and training given to their inspectors and should ensure that the inspectors are able to understand and effectively assess citizenship as a curriculum subject”.


Ofsted cannot do that effectively if it fails to understand the nature and significance of citizenship education.

The evidence that Ofsted gave to the Liaison Committee demonstrates the nature of the problem and Ofsted’s inability to grasp what is required. It is clear from Robert Jenrick’s response to the letter from the then chair of the Liaison Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, that this remains the case. I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Barran can tell us what action is actually being taken to ensure compliance with the recommendations of both committees.

Unless there are incentives for schools to take teaching citizenship seriously, it will be neglected. Until citizenship education feeds into league tables, schools will not take it seriously. Whenever there are budget cuts, the trained citizenship teacher is the first to go. This matters for the health of our political system. Core to a healthy democracy, as the report argues, is active citizenship, but that rests on citizens having an understanding—indeed, an appreciation—of the system of government, how it works, what it can do for them and how they can engage with it. The problem is compounded by a growing lack of trust in government; survey evidence is that this lack of trust in now severe.

Politicians are part of the problem, but they are also part of the solution. Recent surveys have shown a dramatic lack of trust, not so much in our political structures as in the people who occupy them. Remarkably, in an Ipsos survey in February, lack of faith in politics/politicians/government ranked fourth in the list of issues seen as the most important facing Britain today, after the economy, inflation and the NHS. A YouGov poll last year also found that the problem was more with politicians than political structures. As a response to lack of trust in the system of government, some politicians rush to advocate constitutional change. As with the recent report authored by Gordon Brown, the arguments for change are muddled and constitute a form of displacement activity. The problem is with those rushing to advocate change. This is something that I will develop in a debate next week; for the moment, my point is that politicians need to address not only their own behaviour—we need a major strengthening of standards of behaviour—but also the lack of knowledge about our system of government.

Ensuring that citizenship education is embedded in our schools is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for restoring trust. Parliament gets a bad press, one that it does not necessarily deserve. It suffers from what I would term the arrogance of ignorance. People pontificate about Parliament and parliamentarians with a self-assuredness that is not grounded in any serious knowledge of the subject. There is a tendency to generalise from an N of one or two. We need to address the behaviour of politicians to ensure that there is not one or two—or more—from which people can generalise, but there also needs to be wider public awareness of the structures, processes and behaviour and of what Parliament can do for them and how they can have some input into what it is doing. This is becoming more and more of an uphill task because of the unwillingness of politicians to acknowledge and address it. For the past few years, there has been a bunker mentality. Parliamentarians need to come out of the bunker and proactively take steps to address the problem, otherwise it is not going to go away.

The stance taken by the Government is self-defeating. It is in their own interest to take this seriously. I would like to hear from my noble friend not only a recognition of the seriousness of the problem, but a commitment to ensuring that citizenship education is embedded and that schools are incentivised to take it seriously. Some years ago, the House resolved that Select Committee reports should be debated in the House, ideally in prime time. Debating this report in Grand Committee does not do justice to the seriousness of the issue. We are debating a subject that is crucial to the health of our political system. It is a false economy on the part of Government not to recognise that and to act upon it. What the Prime Minister has said today about maths applies also to citizenship education. An anti-maths mindset may be damaging the economy. A failure to educate citizens about our system of government is damaging to the health of the British polity.

Young People

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this important issue. Despite the speed and ease of communication that we have heard about today, there is a danger that people may feel distant from those taking decisions that affect them. There is a problem especially for young people, who face challenges not faced by their parents. I wish to focus on the challenge that they face in making sense of who makes decisions affecting their lives and the means by which those decisions are made. A real danger is a sense of detachment from our political system.

The challenge faced by young people is making sense of the political community of which they are a part but to which they may not necessarily feel that they belong. The danger is that we shall have a population characterised by political apathy and distrust. That is to no one’s benefit. It is a threat to the health of the British political system. If young people have a sense that they can affect the decisions that shape their lives, the more likely we are to have an active and stable polity. We benefit from having an informed and engaged citizenry.

As Dr Avril Keating told the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement,

“research studies from other countries … have shown that civic participation during adolescence can have a wide range of benefits, both for individuals and for societies. In particular, these studies have found that participation in civic activities can have a positive effect on young people’s civic dispositions such as tolerance, trust, civic knowledge, political activism, political efficacy, sense of commitment to the community, and self-esteem”.

Society benefits from civic participation. It is thus a public good to ensure that young people have an awareness of our political system and how they can engage with it. I make no apology for returning to the theme that I developed in the recent debate on the report of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement. The report made a powerful case for enhancing citizenship education in our schools and it is particularly appropriate to return to that case today, not least given that it is my noble friend Lord Agnew who is to reply to the debate.

In the debate on the Select Committee report, I argued that for citizenship education to be taught effectively three conditions must be met: the subject must be taught by qualified teachers; it has to be distinctive and not combined with other subjects such as PSHE; and it needs to be taken seriously by schools. There is no real incentive for schools to invest resources in teaching citizenship. Given school budgets, the opportunity cost is too great.

On the first point, I remind my noble friend of his Answer to my Written Question in May when I asked him about the number of qualified teachers of citizenship in secondary schools. He revealed that in November 2016, of 4,800 teachers in state-funded secondary schools teaching citizenship, only 8.7% had a relevant post A-level qualification in the subject. A further 10.6% had a post A-level qualification in history. Even with those included, we are left with a situation where eight out of 10 teachers of citizenship lack a relevant post-A-level qualification. One could argue that it is better to be taught than not to be taught at all, but I would question that. Teaching citizenship badly can cause more harm than if it is not taught at all.

I therefore have three questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that the teaching of citizenship to young people is vital to the health of our democracy? Secondly, does he agree with the conditions that I have advanced as necessary for citizenship to be taught effectively? Thirdly, if he does, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that those conditions are met?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 251 in this grouping. In opening, I stress that I do not have a problem with alternative providers in HE. I chair the Higher Education Commission and we are presently undertaking an inquiry into alternative providers. They are numerous and the nature of their provision varies enormously. I heard from some of them earlier this afternoon. Some cater to thousands of students, others to a small number in what are essentially niche subjects.

What is important is that arrangements are in place to protect students. Last week we discussed the provision for student protection plans. At issue here is the giving of degree-awarding powers and the need to ensure that such powers are conferred on bodies that have the proven capacity to maintain the required standards of a UK degree, and to do so for as long as they have such powers.

There is considerable concern about provision for “probationary” degree-awarding powers. If a probationary period is to mean anything, it is that the continuation of degree-awarding powers is not guaranteed at the end of the period. What happens at the end of the three-year probationary period if such powers are not continued? What happens to students still at the institution? What worth attaches to the degrees of those who have already graduated? Furthermore, what is the risk to the UK HE brand if probationary degree-awarding powers are conferred on bodies with no established track record of delivering high-quality education? My amendment seeks to protect the position of students and of the HE brand, by ensuring that the OfS may not authorise a provider to grant degrees, unless the provider has validation arrangements in place.

I appreciate that confining the provision to validation by existing HE institutions runs the risk of imposing uniformity, with established institutions not being too keen on validating innovative teaching methods and possibly not fully appreciating the value of the alternative provision. The way round that is to ensure that there is an independent validating body. Clause 47 enables the Secretary of State to authorise the OfS to be the validator of last resort, but I recognise the problem of allowing the regulator to have such a power. It is not a power that should be vested in the regulator. I would rather see an independent body, akin to the old CNAA, created. That deserves serious consideration. I thus favour amending this clause along the lines of Amendment 251 and the other amendments in this group, along with the later removal of Clause 47 and its replacement by a provision that would create a body equivalent to the old CNAA. That, to my mind, would inject the necessary protections while not deterring new entrants to the field.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 251, 252, 259 and 260. In doing so, I very much echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. These amendments would remove the probationary powers provisions and put a higher test before universities could award degrees. I tabled these amendments because the Government have seriously underestimated the risk to the reputation of the university sector in what they are doing. Collectively, we need to safeguard this reputation and to require that the OfS or a separate body—as has just been proposed—has the necessary confidence that the organisation to which it is granting degree-awarding powers has the capability to do this on an enduring basis.

I ask noble Lords to put themselves in the position of a student, either in this country or abroad, who comes across the word “probation”. They might wonder what the word means and look at the dictionary here. What the dictionary says is that it relates,

“to a process of testing or observing the character or abilities of a person who is new to a role or job”,

or,

“relating to the release of an offender from detention subject to a period of good behaviour under supervision”.

I venture to suggest that not many students would be reassured by that definition and by the prospect of undertaking a degree at the end of which it would be possible for the whole institution to be found inadequate in its requirements, which must be a possibility under the very definition of these provisions. The term “probationary” is wrong and the concept of “probationary” is wrong. We should, instead, insist that anybody in a position to award degrees is able to do so with an enduring capability. This is a crucial point and it is unfortunate that we are coming to it so late in the evening, because I believe it to be fundamental.

The question your Lordships might ask is: what problem is trying to be solved? I am strongly in favour of new market entry and improving the validating process where it needs improving, but where is the body of evidence that justifies the introduction of probationary degrees? I cannot find it. I have looked carefully at the documents produced on Friday by the Minister, which were very helpful. Page 7 of the factsheet on the validation process refers to “anecdotal evidence”. I suggest that we as the House of Lords should not take our decisions on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There can indeed be quite a full debate on the causes of the changes and I hope that in previous debates I have acknowledged the changes in the marketplace. Our aim as a Government is to address these changes. I think that we are all on the same page on that. I am happy to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, further on that particular issue—in other words, concerning the issues that are leading up to our reforms.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My noble friend has dealt with the point about a body that is awarded a degree-awarding power on a probationary basis and then does not have that power granted at the end of the probationary period, where for current students a student protection plan would be in place. However, if it is a degree-awarding body it may have already awarded degrees. What value does he think would attach to those degrees?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Again, I can speak to my noble friend outside the Chamber, but surely there is no change to the current situation. In an extreme position where a provider fails, a student who has a degree from that failed provider would have to take that with him or her. There is surely no change and no reflection in terms of what we are trying to do here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Indeed, the noble Lord makes a good point. I am sure that will be taken into account in terms of any further improvements we might wish to make.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Before my noble friend sits down, could he just clarify on the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane? Under Clause 40(10), the OfS can make an order exercisable by statutory instrument and,

“is to apply to such an instrument as if the order had been made by a Minister of the Crown”.

Am I therefore right in believing that, under Clause 113(3), if it is a statutory instrument, it could be prayed against? If that is the case, does that not put the Minister in a difficult situation?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend is very adroit at raising some complicated issues. I should answer the question but also go into some detail as to the different scenarios that might occur. I respect the quality of advice that he gives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 282A and 347B, which stand in my name. I declare an interest as the pro-chancellor of Lancaster University.

I am learning a lot tonight about parliamentary procedure and affirmative resolutions, and about the relationships between independent regulators, Secretaries of State and Ministers, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on carrying out such a good exercise in educating me. The questions posed by these amendments are very important. My noble friend Lord Judd is right: if you are to have a much more liberalised system with free entry, you have to have regulation and procedures so that it operates in a fair way.

The purpose of my amendments is simple. I would like to see the OfS be under a statutory obligation to set out its reasons for all the decisions that it has taken. I would like Parliament, once a year, to be able to debate a report which looks at whether, having set out a common set of principles by which the rules should operate, the regulator sticks with it. I think that that is a necessary addition to the ad hoc business of affirmative statutory instruments, and that it would be a sensible addition to the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just said. On the lead amendment, Amendment 282, which seeks to make such an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, I revert to a point that I made a few moments ago. As I read it, the order-making power in subsection (5) would presumably be subject to being prayed against. I would have thought that if any authorisation was revoked, it would be likely to be highly controversial and therefore might well trigger the order being prayed against. However, that would create the same situation, because the revocation would be by the OfS but the defence would have to be by the Minister, who would be somewhat detached from the whole exercise. I am not sure how that is addressed, and I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the provisions on the revocation of degree-awarding powers and university title. I make it absolutely clear that these powers are not intended for frequent use, as I have mentioned before. We see them as a rarely used but necessary safeguard for quality in the system. We know that these powers are significant and that is why we have endeavoured to include strong safeguards, including a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. We have listened carefully and will continue to reflect on whether there are further improvements that we can make, and we will no doubt discuss this matter further on Report.

Our higher education system is world-class and university title and degree-awarding power are valuable assets. It is the responsibility of those that have obtained these prestigious titles to uphold their reputation. However, without powers to hold such providers accountable, we risk undermining the reputation of our universities. Let us consider the impact if a university’s quality and standards were to drop to a wholly unacceptable level, to the extent that it was widely known that its degrees were not comparable to others and the provider in question had done nothing to address this. Would we really want such an institution to continue to benefit from the prestige of a university title?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

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

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, as a long-term university teacher, often rated by my students, both in this country and overseas, I have a sense of some metrics that are less gameable than others. That is surely what any attempt to measure things must look like. Student satisfaction about the beer is, obviously, not the best place to look. There are some well-known ways of looking at teaching which, if one can get the measurements, are quite useful. One might be how much a student has actually attended the required instruction. Statistics have been collected on this by the Higher Education Policy Institute, but if it was known that they were a metric I fear that they would be gamed. It is remarkable—and I think that I mentioned this at Second Reading—that the average for UK students a few years ago, when I last looked, was 13 hours per week of non-required work, above lecture and lab hours. That is not huge, but it varied from a number that I dare not even state to 51 hours of private study a week. That was for medics at some of our leading universities. That is one metric that cannot be gamed, but there are a few others. The number of pages written in a term or semester is quite instructive, and the number of those pages that receive feedback or commentary is another instructive metric. All those things are unglamorous—but you have to take extreme care in using them. Simple online tests of mastery of first language, second language and relevant mathematics might be worth looking at, but I do not think that student satisfaction is going to give us an accurate view of what is really going on.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this grouping, and I declare my interest as a serving academic. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I gather is a fellow graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, on the NSS, and to some extent those of my noble friend Lord Willetts. The survey provides valuable feedback and is a useful form of intelligence, but I am not sure that it can bear the weight that it has been given in this proposal for the TEF.

I commend the Government for recognising the importance of teaching and their acknowledgement of the complementarity of teaching and research. I commend them also for seeking to enhance teaching excellence. Ensuring that more information, and comparable information, is made available to prospective students, and encouraging the dissemination of best practice within HE, are wholly commendable goals. My amendments would protect the provision of information. I have no problem with introducing incentives to HE institutions to enhance teaching quality, but where we need to stress test this part of the Bill is in creating a statutory link between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching.

There are three problems with the link stipulated in the Bill. The first is defining what is meant by teaching excellence. The proposed metrics for the TEF are too blunt to meet the assessment criteria and, in some respects, too narrow. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:

“The Teaching Excellence Framework is intended to provide clear, understandable information to students about where teaching quality is outstanding and to establish a robust”—


I always worry the moment I see the word “robust”—

“framework for gathering information to measure teaching in its broadest sense”.

I have no problem with the first part of the statement. It is the second part that is problematic. What is meant by teaching “in its broadest sense”? For me, it encompasses the capacity to develop not only intellectual but also personal skills that will enable students to fulfil their full potential as individuals in wider society. This may not be confined to career goals but may extend to being worthwhile members of society—in effect, good citizens. How does one measure that added value? It goes beyond the assessment criteria. I have serious concern with some of the metrics, because I fear that they may privilege status rather than teaching excellence.

The second concern is that, in so far as one can assess teaching excellence, quality is at department or course level, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and others have stressed. One has only to look at the National Student Survey to see variations between the aggregate at institutional level and the performance at subject and course levels. Yet the intention is to enable an institution to charge a higher fee level, which may apply to all courses, even those which deliver less quality than courses at other institutions which are not able to increase their fees.

The third concern, as we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is that there is no clear link between fees and teaching excellence. Higher fees will not necessarily serve to drive up teaching quality, but rather enable HE providers to spend more on marketing and ensuring brand recognition. More money may be spent on providing services to students, but not necessarily on their teaching.

In short, the proposal before us is based on a concept that is not clearly defined, cannot fairly be applied at institutional level and asserts a link that has not been proven. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister assuaging my concerns.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I declare an interest as former principal of St Anne’s, Oxford, and former independent adjudicator of higher education. I am speaking in support of Amendment 122. I have three very brief points to make.

First, it has been alleged that the whole purpose of the Bill is to enable universities to raise fees, and that all the contortions that we are going through in relation to the Bill is centred on this one element—that one will be able to raise fees if the teaching is good. That seems to me not a healthy way to approach it.

Secondly, there is profound disagreement about what is good teaching. One metric is likely to be the prevention of drop-outs and helping students from non-traditional or underprivileged backgrounds to get through the course without failing. This must tempt tutors and lecturers to spoon-feed and it is simply not clear in higher education whether the temptation for spoon-feeding—a brief term but I think all noble Lords understand what I mean—will be enhanced by some of the metrics, as I understand them.

My third point is related to the question of teaching students from less-privileged backgrounds. What will this link do to social mobility? The better universities, however they are judged, are quite likely to be Oxbridge and the Russell group, are they not? They will be able to charge higher fees. Some other universities, which will be taking more of those from underprivileged and less-traditional backgrounds, and may be doing more spoon-feeding, may well find that their teaching is not rated so highly, for reasons that all of us who have ever taught such students very well understand. They will charge lower fees. It will become a reinforcing division: the so-called “best” universities charging the higher fees will attract those students who can afford them and the not so good under this scale—the bronze—will likely get the not-so-good students who cannot afford the fees. This will really damage social mobility and parity of esteem, not to mention the fact that this is coupled with the abolition of maintenance grants, meaning that more students will be forced to go to their local university. So my question to the Minister is: what effect do the Government think the linking of fees to teaching quality will have on social mobility?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with this amendment we move to registration conditions, and a number of issues arise in this and subsequent groups in relation to these conditions. The conditions are very important and I do not think that we should skip too quickly over them, despite what I just said about trying to move forward quickly. As well as my amendments, to which other noble Lords have very kindly added their name, this group includes an interesting amendment from the right reverend Prelate. They affect some important issues and it is worth pausing slightly on each amendment as we go through.

Amendment 132 picks up the hopefully unlikely situation that if a provider was to close—or, as does happen, a course closes—there should not be any reasonable financial loss transferred to individual students. There are one or two scare stories about how difficult it is sometimes to extricate students who have commitments, particularly when a course has an overseas engagement. The amendment is valuable in that it picks up on an area that is not covered well in the Bill. However, it may not be necessary to press it if sufficient reassurances about the processes that would be applied can be given when the noble Baroness comes to respond.

Amendment 133 was an attempt to use the registration conditions contained in the Bill to, in this particular clause, try to sketch out a bit more what was meant by saying that there is a vision of what universities are in the United Kingdom. The amendment lists a range of issues that one would hope to see in these institutions, which may or may not be attractive to the Government in trying to help with their understanding of it. It is a probing amendment and deals with something that is of interest. We will read what they say in due course and think about bringing it back, if necessary.

Amendment 134 would enable the OfS to set stricter requirements for new providers to get on to the register by looking in more detail than is perhaps given in the Bill at the moment at previous history and the forecast of future sustainability. The problem we come up against is that, in considering challenger institutions, we are often talking about very small and relatively recently formed organisations, some of which may not even have proper corporate status or, indeed, the issues related to that, which I gather have been touched on in the Minister’s recent letter about what was required of an institution intending to register as a university—that was very helpful. This plays back against a little of that because there will be concerns about small institutions. They may be unwarranted but size is a factor in what may be required to sustain an institution. We need to think about track records and these entry requirements might be worth considering in that context.

With Amendment 138 we are again back to the question of what happens in the event of the failure of a course or institution. It is more about courses and focuses on simple protection plans which would make sure that there was no disruption to the studies of existing students if a particular course was pulled out, and more generally would make sure that institutions that fail have got plans in place to ensure that the students effected are not lost to the system, for example, and that there are other arrangements.

Our attention has been drawn to the phrasing of the Technical and Further Education Bill, which contains significant recommendations in this area. They do not appear in the Higher Education and Research Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why we do not have the same degree of reassurance in this area as we will have when the Technical and Further Education Bill becomes law. There is a gap—it may just be because the two Bills are proceeding at a different pace—and if it is possible to look at that and bring back something on Report, it would be a good thing.

Amendment 149 relates to a technical question about what happens to students in any suspension period. At the moment the regulations are clear in general terms but they are not specific about what would happen in terms of notifying students. The student protection plan agreement should be revisited to make sure that that is covered.

Amendment 224 would ensure that when higher education providers produce an access and participation plan there is a consultation process with the students—and it gives a definition of the students who would be consulted. I beg to move.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 138, to which I am a signatory.

I made the point at Second Reading that a shell provision for student protection plans is not sufficient to reassure students that, in the event of institutional failure, they will be able to continue their education. I chair the Higher Education Commission and in our report, Regulating Higher Education, we stressed the need to have a strategy in place that allowed for an institution to exit the market in an orderly manner with the right level of protection in place for students.

Institutional failure would create obvious problems for students, not least in terms of disrupting their education and potentially leaving them adrift, at significant financial cost. As we argued, good governance and proper scrutiny should reduce the chances of failure, but there needs to be greater attention given to what happens when an institution does fail.

On the recommendation of HEFCE, we looked at the travel insurance industry, which participates in a sector-wide scheme to protect air passengers. We argued that this model could be applied to the HE sector, with a requirement for institutions to sign up and pay a sum per student into a fund which would cover costs in the event of failure. Our recommendation was:

“Institutions need to be better prepared for the possibility of a failure in the sector. Given the potential damage this could inflict on students and the sector as a whole, a ‘protection’ or ‘insurance’ scheme coordinated by the lead regulator should be put in place”.


I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the need to have some student protection plan in place, but merely placing a duty on the OfS to ensure that such plans are in place is inadequate, in my view, for the purpose of providing the reassurance to students before they embark on a course of higher education that they will be able to complete it. The more new entrants come in to HE and the more a market exists, the greater the risk becomes. However, it is not the new entrants causing the potential problem; that already exists. It just exacerbates the potential.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

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

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group to which I have added my name and those that have come from the Cross Benches—Amendments 69 and 510—on which I think we will be hearing shortly. These amendments come out of the report from the Delegated Powers Committee, which claims that the wide range of functions that are now being conferred on the Office for Students will give it the ability to bring change to the whole of the higher education sector. We consider that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 2 will act as a significant control over how the Office for Students exercises its functions. However, we cannot guarantee that Secretaries of State will always be wise and non-interventionist, and I think that these amendments will provide much-needed safeguards in the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 65 and 510 in this group were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who is unable to be with us today. I wish to make a few comments in support of those amendments.

The concept of quasi-legislation—the generation of rules and guidance by public authorities—is not new. However, the use of such quasi-legislation appears to be growing: it is convenient to government, it provides some degree of flexibility and it may also put it beyond legislative scrutiny and approval unless provision is made for such scrutiny and approval.

This Bill is of extreme importance. It creates a body, the Office for Students, that is much more powerful than HEFCE. The functions that it draws together are quite substantial and extensive. They enable the OfS, essentially, to shape the nature of higher education. That in itself raises issues which we will be discussing further. However, here, under Clause 2(2), we have the power to give guidance but without any transparency and with no parliamentary involvement. That matters, especially in the context of this Bill. Through the power to give guidance, the Minister may, effectively, usurp the power of the OfS. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will say that guidance will be rare and benign, but there is nothing to stop a future Secretary of State with less than benign intent using the power on a scale that is significant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

As the noble Baroness has just said, this provision has been commented on by the Delegated Powers Committee. It stressed that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance and no requirement for it to be published. In response to the Government’s defence of the provision, the committee goes on to say:

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


That includes, as I have already stressed, the fact that the remit of the OfS goes far broader than HEFCE, and the guidance that the Minister can give to HEFCE has no statutory basis.

The committee also makes the point, of course, that the requirement for the OfS to “have regard to” guidance rather limits it. The Office for Students could, if it had cogent reasons, discard the guidance. However, there would have to be compelling reasons for that, and, as the Delegated Powers Committee points out, under Clause 71(1), the Secretary of State has the power to give the OfS “general directions” about the performance of its functions.

There is a powerful case for ensuring there is parliamentary scrutiny and engagement in respect of the power to give guidance—that is the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. Other provisions in the Bill are clearly Henry VIII provisions. The measure is extensive in terms of the concept of quasi-legislation. I am sure we will be coming back to this on several occasions during the passage of the Bill. However, I look forward to my noble friend’s response acknowledging the significance of the powers that are being confirmed and I look forward to hearing what the Government plan to do about it.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and draw attention to my own interests in the register. We have a perfectly clear piece of legislation in Clause 2(1), in which Parliament tells the OfS what it must do and what it must have regard to. We then have the creation in Clause 2(2) to Clause 2(6) of guidance which has absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny, whether before or after the Secretary of State chooses to issue that guidance. It looks like legislation, because it is contained in Clause 2, but it is not legislation and it should be.

There is a remarkably strange feature if we turn 44 pages onwards to Clause 71, where we have the power granted to the Secretary of State to give directions. Of course, that is going to be a necessary ingredient of the Bill. The strange thing about it is that in the directions, Clause 71(2) is in identical terms to the guidance authorisation in Clause 2(3); Clause 71(3) replicates Clause 2(4); and Clause 71(4) replicates Clause 2(5). In other words, there are identical provisions in these two clauses: one creates the power in the Secretary of State to give guidance, the other gives the Secretary of State, after Parliament has agreed, the power to issue directions.

As far as I can see, there is no indication about the criteria which should be applied as to whether a particular directive by the Secretary of State should be treated as guidance or legislation. The fact of the matter is that there is now going to be power to give guidance with no statutory scrutiny and power or authority to give directions which will be subject to statutory scrutiny. There is no logical reason why we should have such an absurd situation. The amendment proposes simply that the guidance should be brought before the House at some stage in the process so that the House can have a look at it. We should have a chance to consider guidance issued by the department in this influential new arrangement.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as professor of government at the University of Hull and as chair of the Higher Education Commission, which draws together figures from business, Parliament and academia. I am also one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary University Group, which held a valuable meeting this morning on the relationship between social media and student mental health.

My starting point is that a higher education Bill has been needed for some time, especially to reform the regulatory framework of higher education. The Higher Education Commission published a well-received report three years ago arguing that the existing regulatory structures were, as we put it, outmoded and unfit for purpose. Failure to address the problem, we argued, put students at risk, especially in the increasingly diversified HE sector. We favoured a new regulatory architecture, not for the sake of regulation per se but in order to protect students, maintain HE’s global reputation and encourage investment. There are features of the Bill that chime with the recommendations of the HE Commission and I therefore welcome the provisions that provide a more secure and sustainable regulatory framework.

However, I have concerns with the framework, especially what may be termed the gold-plating. Too much power, as we have heard, is concentrated in the centre. I have problems with other parts of the Bill, not least, but not exclusively, those covering the proposed teaching excellence framework. I can summarise my principal concerns under three heads.

First, I welcome the recognition of the importance of teaching and that it is given some parity of esteem with research. However, my concern is that research and teaching remain treated as discrete aspects of higher education. I endorse strongly the comments of my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes and of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury. Incentives need to be created to cultivate the relationship between teaching and research, both at the institutional and sector levels.

Secondly, the provisions of the Bill are not sufficiently robust in terms of student protection. Requiring HE institutions to provide student protection plans is a starting point but should not be an end-point. There need to be more robust provisions in the Bill to ensure that students are able to continue their education in the event of institutional failure. The HE Commission recommended an ABTA-like levy on HE providers to create a fund to cover for any eventuality of institutional failure. There are other ways of providing cover, but that at least would provide reassurance to students. Leaving student protection plans as no more than empty shells in the Bill is insufficient.

Thirdly, the provision for a teaching excellence framework is flawed. The proposed TEF operates at the institutional level, whereas, as my noble friend has already mentioned, teaching excellence needs to be measured at the degree or course level. One only has to look at the figures in the National Student Survey of satisfaction to see the variation within institutions. Furthermore, as we have heard, the metrics to be employed do not really get at the quality of teaching. What is proposed in the Bill is far too blunt. The likelihood is that, as with the REF, universities will engage in gaming the system and devote considerable resources to the task. The REF exercise, after many years, remains flawed, and the danger is that the TEF will be even more problematic. It may well serve to drive up costs rather than teaching quality.

I end on a point of general principle: the Bill should be based on the principle of subsidiarity. There are certain things that need to be done nationally, but everything else should be left to the institutions of higher education to determine individually or, in some cases, collectively. There is a need for as much transparency as possible, so that prospective students can make informed choices. The more choice available, the better. We need to encourage innovation and diversity. We need to protect institutional autonomy and, as has already been stressed, to distinguish between quality and standards. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us what plans there are to amend the Bill further to ensure that it complies with the principle of subsidiarity. I appreciate that there was a Green Paper and a White Paper, but perhaps my noble friend can also tell us why this Bill was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Employment: Young People

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Shephard on initiating this debate. I very much commend her for the way in which the Motion is drawn—the emphasis on aspiration is crucial. I declare an interest as professor of government at the University of Hull. That interest is relevant to what I want to say.

The focus on preparing young people for work tends to be on those in the 16 to 19 age range or younger, and especially those not in education or employment. I will look at a different body of young people, those in higher education, but the points I wish to make have a wider application.

As we have already heard, employers variously complain that students are not well prepared for the world of work and that they lack requisite skills and understanding. When students are in higher education, they may expect to gain jobs but, especially for those who may be the first generation in higher education, they may not always appreciate the range of career opportunities available to them.

One key means of addressing both these dimensions is through ensuring that students have some opportunity for experience-based learning. Enabling students to gain some experience in the workplace, as an intrinsic part of their studies and not simply an add-on, can enhance their skills and widen their opportunities. It has been recognised for some time that experience-based learning enhances opportunities for students. Increasingly, universities and other bodies are arranging placements for their students with firms, public bodies and other institutions.

I have been arranging placements at Westminster for a quarter of century. I run a four-year degree at Hull where the third year is spent on placement in Parliament, and we also now provide opportunities for one-semester placements for our students taking three-year single honours degrees in the department. The experience of being in Westminster has enormous value for students. In the time available, I want to draw out the benefits of such experience-based learning and at the same time identify what needs to be done to maximise the benefit of such experience for the student. The principal but not only benefits of such experience-based learning are threefold.

First, and this is very relevant to what we have already heard, students acquire practical and transferable skills. Research shows that not all employers seek the same attributes but what students acquire through placements are highly transferable skills. I know this not only from observation but from a funded study undertaken of our students in the 2004-05 academic year. The vast majority of students identified a number of skills acquired or honed as a result of a placement, including time management and interpersonal skills. Having to deal with a range of people—irate constituents, senior officials or some people who may have a sense of their own importance—is great training for later in life. Indeed, the students acquire the very skills identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen.

The second value is pedagogic. Where students are placed not just to get some work experience but are placed in a work environment of interest to them, they get to learn about the institution and the process. They may begin to develop their analytic skills—understanding why things work as they do. As I shall explain, there are challenges in achieving this benefit.

The third benefit is that of personal development. Of the students surveyed, 87% felt that the principal thing they gained from the placement was self-confidence. Where students are given responsibility, it enhances their self-esteem and their capacity to look after themselves. They no longer feel dependent on others; they are able to act in a more independent manner. There is a particular consequence that flows from this. It widens their horizons. It makes them aware not only of career opportunities that they may not have considered but it gives them the confidence to apply for jobs that otherwise they may not have contemplated. That is why I welcomed the wording in my noble friend’s Motion. The reference to aspiration is so important.

The generalisations I have made are not confined to work experience placements of the sort for which I am responsible. The benefits can be achieved from a wide range of work-based opportunities. They can be life-transforming, especially for those from backgrounds where the perception of career opportunities may be narrow. The more we can do to ensure that such opportunities are made available to young people, the better. However, experience-based learning does not fulfil its full potential unless it is taken seriously by those arranging the placements. It is not a quick fix or a cheap option. To be effective it must be taken seriously, not only by those offering the placements but also by the home body arranging them. As one study of work experience in higher education observed:

“The quality of work experience is greatly enhanced by prior induction and briefing”.

One should not simply send a student off to a placement, in effect waving them goodbye and welcoming them back when it is completed. One has to prepare them for the placement and provide them with support during it. On my degree I emphasise what I characterise as the three Is: induction, integration and investment. I am responsible for an induction process leading up to and including the placement, ensuring that students are prepared and know what to expect from the experience. The degree is integrated: students spend a year studying the institution before taking up a placement, and continue to study while on placement. They also draw on their experience when they return and apply their knowledge of Westminster in a global context, and in completing a dissertation. The students receive support from the university while on placement. It is an investment, not only by the university but more especially by the students. The more they put into the experience, the more they get out of it.

The result is that students not only get good degrees, but they also tend to get the jobs to which they aspire. In the case of my students, that often means taking up posts in Westminster and Whitehall. However, as I emphasised, these points are not confined to this particular placement opportunity. I believe that much if not all of what I said applies generally to experience-based learning. It is a means of changing, and indeed transforming, the opportunities and aspirations of young people, whether through a short placement with a local employer or a particular institution or something of a much more long-term nature.

The more we can do to ensure that schools, colleges, universities and other bodies that serve the needs of young people develop and offer such opportunities, the better for young people and for generating a more effective and contented workforce. The benefits are clearly enormous, but achieving them requires a commitment of resources and planning. However, that commitment can be enormously rewarding.

Education: Citizenship

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Cormack on initiating this debate. The fact that it comes at the end of proceedings on a Thursday should not mask the fact that it is of enormous importance to the future well-being of the British polity. We face a serious problem in terms of political knowledge and engagement. At the beginning of the 1950s, those who failed to vote in a general election were a tiny minority. Political parties played an important role, not just in electoral and parliamentary politics but in serving as conduits for civic engagement. We are now heading for a situation where those who take part in general elections may be the exception and not the norm.

The latest Hansard Society report, Audit of Political Engagement, shows that only 41% of those questioned say that in the event of an immediate general election they would be certain to vote. Among young people, only 12% are certain to vote, down from 30% two years ago. As the audit also notes, of significant concern are the low levels of understanding of how our political system works. Political parties have witnessed declines—sometimes precipitant declines—in their membership, and, as we know, raising money to sustain parties is a major challenge.

As has already been stressed, getting people to engage in civic society is crucial to the health of democracy. If we are to get people engaged, we need to ensure that they know the value to them of being engaged. Telling people that it is a civic duty to participate will influence primarily those who already participate. We have to make others aware of how they will benefit from engagement.

As a number of noble Lords have already stressed, citizenship education is essential. That means, first, enhancing it as a core part of the national curriculum, and, secondly, ensuring that in content and delivery it demonstrates the benefits to those being taught. Citizenship was introduced in 2002 as a statutory national curriculum subject for all pupils in key stages 3 and 4, as we have already heard, and must be taught at all maintained schools. I welcomed its introduction and, like others, I welcome the Government’s decision to retain it as a statutory national curriculum subject. However, the commitment to having it has not been matched by the resources to make it a success, and three years of uncertainty about its future have not helped in ensuring that schools devote sufficient resources to it.

Citizenship education is seen too much as a duty and not as something that will enrich students’ understanding and the reputation of the school. There is no incentive for schools to take it seriously. It is not a subject that contributes to a school’s standing in the league tables. Until there are incentives to take it seriously, it will remain a low priority for head teachers. Ofsted’s 2010 inspection report found that about half of schools provide good or better provision for citizenship. Students’ achievement was good or outstanding in citizenship in just over half of the secondary schools visited. Given the lack of incentive to put it on a par with other subjects, that may be seen as quite creditable but it still leaves about half of all our secondary schools falling short in the provision of good citizenship education.

Too often, as my noble friend Lord Storey noted, citizenship teaching is left to those who are not trained in its delivery. There are too few trained citizenship teachers. They are also vulnerable. If school budgets are under pressure, they are likely to be the first ones to be let go. Since 2010, the Department for Education has withdrawn funding for citizenship continuing professional development, and citizenship is the only subject where trainee teachers do not receive a bursary to help pay their fees.

My starting point is that we not only need citizenship education, but must also take it seriously. That entails ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to it and that schools have some incentive to take it seriously. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that citizenship is enhanced and that head teachers have a reason to take it seriously?

My second point is that not only must head teachers have some incentive to take citizenship education seriously, but so must the pupils taking the subject. The citizenship programmes of study cover important topics. As my former colleague the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has mentioned, at key stage 4 it is expected that pupils are taught about the role of Parliament in holding government to account and the different electoral systems used in and beyond the United Kingdom, as well as about other parts of the political system. That is all well and good—and in the light of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh’s comments, I declare an interest as someone who writes textbooks on those subjects—but it entails teaching students what we think is important.

Structures and processes by themselves do not always hold students’ attention, particularly when they have not chosen to study the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, the programmes need to be constructed in such a way as to engage the interests of the student. That may entail ensuring that the teaching is issue-driven, looking at issues that engage students. There is a case for surveying young people to find out what are salient issues, then explaining how policies in those areas are developed and agreed and, fundamentally, how the students can make their views on the subject known to Parliament and to policymakers. When I speak in schools I raise issues and get students to vote on them to demonstrate that Parliament discusses issues that are of concern to them and on which they have views.

As we have heard, citizenship education is crucial and we must ensure that government remains committed to it. However, if it is to be taught, it needs to be taught well. That entails devoting resources to it, ensuring that schools have incentives to deliver it effectively, and that it is delivered in such a way that it engages the interest of students. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister tell us how the Government intend to deliver on these goals. This is a serious matter and we need to ensure that we give it the attention it deserves.