Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Following last year’s 2.8% increase, the Government have announced a paltry 2.5% increase in maintenance loans this September. With a compound inflation rate of 15%, that amounts to a massive real-terms cut. Meanwhile, the Welsh Government have announced a 3.7% increase. Even in Scotland, there will be a £2,500 special support loan for all students. Across the country, students are being forced into working multiple jobs to try to make ends meet. What have this Government got against students?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I listened to the Minister’s response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but in December I was also assured by the Minister that he was committed to the target of 600,000 international students. However, recent research from IDP has found 45% of its August and September applicants to study in the UK would consider changing their study destination if post-study work visa lengths are shortened. What is his assessment of the impact that any changes to the postgraduate work visa could have on the international education strategy and the sustainability of the sector?

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman, the Opposition spokesman, knows that visa matters are for the Home Office. The Migration Advisory Committee is looking at the postgraduate international student visa route and will come to its conclusions. However, as I keep saying to him, our target was for over 600,000 international students a year, and we have well surpassed that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Matt Western.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is great to see you, Mr Speaker.

As well as contributing to Britain’s world-leading research, the financial contribution of international students is vital to UK universities, particularly at a time of rising cost pressures and real-terms fee value erosion. Any sudden changes in the number of international students coming to the UK obviously puts the higher education sector at risk. The Minister speaks of his pride, but I would like to stress the point and ensure that he puts this on record. Can he absolutely give his assurance to the House that the Government remain robust in their ambition to continue to attract 600,000 international students a year, as laid out in the international education strategy?

[Robert Halfon]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with well over 680,000 students. As I say, they are of benefit to our universities and our economy, and they are a very important source of income for all our higher education institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

As we have heard, this is a very serious issue. Recent research from the National Union of Students shows that almost one in five full-time students work more than 20 hours per week alongside their studies—they are working even more than in previous years—and 40% of students say that work is having a negative impact on their studies. Students are clearly struggling with the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis. How does the Minister expect students to balance their studies and employment to pay their bills? Does he acknowledge that this is now forcing many students out of higher education?

[Robert Halfon]

Actually, the opposite is true. We have a record number of students going to university. Disadvantaged students are 71% more likely to go to university now than they were in 2010. We have a huge package of support. I have mentioned the £276 million for disadvantaged students. We are doing everything we can to help disadvantaged students. The hon. Gentleman criticises the money we are giving, but does not come up with a figure of his own. Warm words butter no parsnips.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement, which we all support, will inevitably require greater collaboration between higher education and further education providers, but under the current regulatory system, as the lines between HE and FE blur, we are seeing significant regulatory duplication and increased burden. This acts as a brake on partnership. Does the Minister not recognise the need to streamline the regulatory system to foster collaboration ahead of, rather than after, the introduction of the LLE?

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the lifelong loan entitlement of up to £37,000 will be transformative for millions of people across the country, enabling them to take short or modular courses at a time of their choosing. We are looking at regulation across the higher education and further education sector, and we are doing all we can to reduce it, but I recognise some of the issues he raises.

Draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 General Committees

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.

As Members will be aware, the engineering and construction industry is central to delivering our net zero ambitions and crucial to addressing the slow growth that has held back our economy these past 13 years. Companies within the engineering construction industry design, engineer, construct and decommission some of the biggest infrastructure projects both in this country and overseas. I was delighted to get the opportunity—I would certainly recommend it—to visit the interconnector site up in Blyth in Northumberland, where National Grid, which is headquartered in my constituency, has undersea cables come ashore, delivering up to 3% of UK electricity.

UK100 estimates that, by 2050, four of five jobs will be supporting the transition to net zero. It is estimated that there is the potential for 1.18 million new jobs by 2050 in low carbon and renewable energy industries. Apprenticeships will be central to ensuring that workers in the sector have the breadth of skills and knowledge required to take up those roles. The sector will need to attract talent from a variety of pools if it is to match the growth in demand. Therefore, it seems fitting that only last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set out how the next Labour Government, if elected, would reform the apprenticeship levy to ensure the next generation of workers in the sector.

Our proposal is to transform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, giving employers the flexibility that they need and, indeed, want. The Minister will no doubt have seen the article earlier this year by the chief executive of Balfour Beatty, who believes that the apprenticeship levy in its current form has “failed” and that a more flexible skills levy would respond better to employer needs. That is exactly what our growth and skills levy would do, alongside ensuring that every penny of the apprenticeship levy is spent on skills and training, which currently does not happen.

Employers will be able to use up to 50% of the growth and skills levy for flexible, high-quality courses for their workforce, together with the 50% they allocate to apprenticeships. In a speech last year replying to a similar SI, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) questioned whether unpaid traineeships in a sector that is already understaffed were the best way to attract new talent. One advantage of the growth and skills levy is that funds can be utilised to offer paid traineeships or similar initiatives as a pipeline into an apprenticeship, thereby diversifying and increasing the pool of skilled talent.

Looking more closely at this draft order, I understand the need for the changes to the ECITB levy being introduced today and we are supportive of them. This year, the ECITB launched its three-year strategy to ensure growth in the engineering construction industry, backed with £87 million to support workforce training alongside tackling labour shortages and skills gaps. The strategy has been designed to prepare for a boom in project activity for engineering construction employers.

Citing National Grid again, I am aware of the plans, as referenced by the Minister, for electrifying the UK economy and how that infrastructure has to be delivered at pace. But these projects span a range of sectors, including nuclear build and decommissioning, renewables, water treatment, and carbon capture projects linked to the UK’s net zero plans. Given that any future Labour Government have pledged to invest heavily in home insulation, double our onshore wind capacity, increase offshore wind capacity, triple solar power by 2030, and invest in tidal power, we welcome all such ambitions.

As the Minister will already know, there is some resentment among larger employers at having to pay both the ECITB and apprenticeship levies, and it is vital that the ECITB levy adds value to businesses and the sector more widely. The Minister will be aware that, under the Industrial Training Act 1982, the maximum levy is set at 1% of an employer’s total emoluments, unless the Minister thinks a higher levy would be appropriate in the circumstances.

I understand that the ECITB has recommended the 1.2%, broadly supported by its members, as the Minister was saying, and I listened to his response to the hon. Member for Lichfield about what the sector might feel when it is under pressure due to the potential cancellation of contracts and a contraction in the UK economy. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate a little bit more on his assessment of the affordability of the 1.2%, given the other cost pressures facing the sector.

My only other point is about the wider skills agenda, which I think is linked to this. The Government’s change in position over BTECs is welcome, and I wondered whether the Minister has analysed how scrapping well-respected BTECs will impact the engineering construction industry. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), admitted earlier this year that the take-up of the new T-level qualification for construction still falls way behind BTECs, surely this is a matter of utmost urgency.

In conclusion, Labour does not oppose the draft order in its current form, and we support the Government in the hope that this SI has the desired results.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Opposition more than recognise the huge value brought to the world-class higher education system by international students. That said, we were clear that we would not oppose the changes the Government have made to student visa rules. However, in responding to a written question earlier today, the Home Office stated that “any indirect impact” of its student visa policies should be “proportionate” to the aims. Will the Secretary of State explain how, given that the Government have failed to conduct an impact assessment, she knows this to be true?

[Gillian Keegan]

The problem we were trying to solve is that we saw the number of dependants rise more than eightfold from 16,000 in 2019 to 136,000 in 2022, which is an unprecedented increase. Therefore, I fully support the Home Secretary in taking action to reduce the number. From January 2024, students coming to the UK to take postgraduate taught courses will not be allowed to bring in dependants, but students coming for many other courses, such as PhDs or research masters, will still be able to bring in dependants. The international education world is very competitive, which is why we put together an international education strategy—this is the first time we have done it—and why we have somebody working with our universities to make sure that we can attract the best and brightest into our universities, and I am sure we will continue to do that.

Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I express my particular thanks to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his impassioned speech. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, all of whom I believe have spoken with a degree of respect and understanding that I can only hope members of the LEARN Network will feel does justice to their campaign. This debate is the culmination of the LEARN Network’s tireless work. The ability for members of the group to turn their grief into such a formidable and effective political campaign is remarkable and to be commended. I thank all those who signed the petition.

In terms of the LEARN Network, I have had the privilege of meeting many of the parents, most recently at the parliamentary reception. I must say that that event left a lasting mark on me, as well as all my colleagues who attended. The powerful testimonies were incredibly moving, and gave us all cause for reflection. I want to place on record my particular thanks to Gillian Green and Bob and Maggie Abrahart, all three of whom have been instrumental in pushing forward the campaign. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) for her role in sponsoring the parliamentary event and encouraging participation in the comprehensive debate we have had today.

I will turn to what have been very reflective and considered contributions from around the Chamber. As I said, the hon. Member for Don Valley gave a particularly impassioned speech, but I was really disturbed to hear the evidence given by certain colleagues of automated emails being issued by institutions, without any empathy or understanding, and being received cold by students. There is clearly something wrong with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the wider mental health crisis we have had for over a decade, and the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald talked about a lottery that is perhaps out there in the quality of provision among our higher education providers. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), among others, spoke about how these are all preventable deaths. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke about universities—institutions—becoming more transactional places. Not just the academic pressures, but the financial pressures faced by students—whether it be the fees, the maintenance costs or the cost of living—have driven so many to despair, so I agree with him on that particular point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made the point, which I think was a suggestion from his constituent and picked up by the vice-chancellor of UWE, that if we have TEF and REF, why should we not have a support excellence framework? There is real merit in pursuing that as a means of measuring. That is a point that I think has been made around the Chamber today; there is a need to measure and understand the quality of provision among our higher education providers.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

First, Sir Robert, there was a delay in my arrival; unfortunately, the trains were not behaving this afternoon. I wanted to make an intervention, particularly given the death of our nephew, Jack, while at the University of York. One of the things we put to the coroner and the university was that in addition to ensuring there was training for all university staff at all levels—not just departmental or front-facing, but all levels involved in the administration—it was important that there should be a named advocate, if not a parent, who can be notified if there are concerns about the mental health of any student. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a practical way forward?

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend. I totally agree, and my condolences to her on her particular experience. I believe that is something that should be introduced as well.

I will come to the powerful testimony and example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western). I was surprised to hear about his constituents’ experience. In many cases across the piece, we have heard of the wellbeing service failing to identity risk, but I was most disturbed by that particularly absurd and impossible situation. It was a totally insensitive situation to put a family in.

I have met many families from the network. Their diversity and number are a painful reminder that no family is immune from the consequences of the mental health crisis that affects many students on campuses today. Every suicide is a tragedy—a death that is preventable. Student suicides are no different from similar tragedies in wider society. They send shockwaves through families, loved ones and communities, and leave lasting impacts. They also represent a failure, whether partial or total, of structures intended to provide support to students in mental distress.

I appreciate the time and money that many universities give to providing mental health support for students and staff, and I am confident that student support services in universities are doing the best they can to support student welfare with the resources they have available. However, the gap between the expectations of students and parents and the reality of mental health provision in universities is far too great. A 2023 survey for The Tab, a student news site, revealed that only 12% of students think that their university handles the issue of student mental health well. Parents responded similarly, with 67% saying that their child had not felt that their university supported them with their mental health. Many have to wait a whole year for access to support; others are granted a maximum of only six sessions over the course of their degree.

As we have heard, demand for services and support is clearly rising, with one in four student respondents to one survey reporting a diagnosed mental health issue. Many of those issues are also starting earlier in students’ lives. The number of accepted home applicants who declared a disability related to their mental health on their UCAS application form increased from around 2,500 in 2011 to almost 22,500 in 2022. We should also not be blind to the effect of recent trends on student mental health, notably the cost of living crisis. Ninety per cent. of students surveyed by the National Union of Students in September 2022 said the rising cost of living had negatively impacted their mental health. It is almost impossible to argue there is not a serious mental health crisis on our campuses. The question, then, becomes what we can do to remedy it and prevent further unnecessary loss of life.

The UK higher education sector, by the unfortunate necessities I have described, needs to be at the forefront of tackling wider trends in mental health problems in society. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire made that point. It is therefore important for the sector to work in harmony. I welcome UUK’s “Stepchange: Mentally Healthy Universities” framework and welcome the fact that almost all universities have used it to feed into their student mental health policies. In my many visits to higher education providers, I always insist on meeting with students and their representatives, and mental health is a topic I always cover.

It is clear that approaches vary among institutions, but that some have designed comprehensive strategies to ensuring student welfare is central and integrated into the experience. These are centres of excellence whose work I want to see replicated across the piece. Where best practice is well-informed, widely applied, comprehensive and open to constant improvement, I believe the sector can create strong support structures for students. However, I was concerned to read in the transcript of the Petitions Committee evidence session that best practice guidelines were being adopted inconsistently with little accountability. If true, that needs addressing urgently and I implore UUK to investigate it as a matter of priority.

I note that the university mental health charter has been regularly cited. The principles behind it are certainly worthy, but it is somewhat disappointing that fewer than half of universities are signatories. I welcome the Minister’s announcement this morning requiring universities to become signatories by September 2024. While the charter is not a panacea, it sends an important signal to prospective and current students that a university takes its commitments to student welfare seriously. Absent a statutory duty of care, clear, unequivocal statements such as the charter would go a long way in assuaging the concerns that many people have regarding student mental health provision.

With demand for services clearly outstripping provision, however, surely the time has come for more investment in our young people’s mental health. That is why Labour has committed to guaranteeing mental health treatment within a month for all who need it, by recruiting 8,500 new mental health professionals to support 1 million additional people a year. With a particular focus on child mental health, such investment might begin to stem the rising tide of the mental health crisis on campus.

Labour would also prioritise ensuring that universities are far more integrated into local national health service trusts, so that students can readily access services via their campuses and communities. Too often, students feel isolated from those services. I note that the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), announced a similar policy over a year ago, alongside the Department of Health and Social Care, so I would welcome an update on that work all these months on.

In Wales, the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 requires the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research to ensure that it is satisfied with the effectiveness of the registered tertiary education providers’ arrangements for supporting and promoting the welfare of their students and staff. The point is that, although it is fine to have a charter, it has to be enforced; there has to be an audit of how that charter is being delivered by an institution—the institution cannot just have a charter mark on its wall. Wales is the first country in the UK to introduce such a requirement for higher and further education providers, and to provide for it in legislation. My question to the Minister is: has he considered, or will he consider, a similar approach for the English regulator, the Officer for Students?

It is regrettable that, rather than investigating a similar statutory requirement for England, the Government have spent two years attempting to exacerbate culture war divisions through the passage of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. I would argue that the matter we are discussing is a much higher priority. To that end, I would also be grateful if the Minister provided an update on the work of the student wellbeing champion in promoting good mental health support among higher education providers. In addition, in light of real-terms cuts for student premium and mental health funding for the academic year 2023-24, how confident is he that the Office for Students has adequate funds to promote and encourage good mental health support among providers?

Can the Minister provide an update on the UK mental health charter? What steps is he taking to encourage universities to sign by the recently announced new deadline of September 2024? How will that be audited and who will determine whether higher education providers continue to meet their duties under the charter? Finally, will the Minister provide an update on the roundtable convened by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham, in July 2021 on suicide prevention in the higher education sector? I also suggest to the Minister that, if he chose to reconvene that roundtable to include members of the LEARN Network, universities, myself on a cross-party basis, and sector stakeholders and student representatives, we might be well-placed to advance effective policies that enjoy a broad range of support.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Requirement to publish a revised impact assessment—

“(1) Before laying the first regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a revised impact assessment.

(2) The impact assessment must take account of, in particular—

(a) the Lifelong Loan Entitlement Consultation and the Government’s response,

(b) any spending review decisions announced after the date on which the Act received Royal Assent, and

(c) any announced changes to Government skills and education policy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a revised impact assessment of the Bill with regard to recently announced and future changes related to the Lifelong Loan Entitlement policy.

Amendment 2 to clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) One credit means 10 notional learning hours.”

This amendment puts the number of hours that constitute a credit on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 1 to clause 2, page 6, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—

“(7A) Nothing in subsection (7) requires the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (6) to set fee limits for courses which have not been designated by or under regulations made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.”

This amendment safeguards against charging variable fees based on course or subject.

Amendment 4, page 8, line 36, after “may” insert “until 30 September 2024”.

This amendment is a probing amendment that would limit the use of saving and transitional measures to 30 September 2024.

Amendment 3, page 8, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under this Act shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require that regulations made under this Act are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 5, page 8, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) Before laying the first regulations under the 2017 Act, the Secretary of State must make a written ministerial statement updating the House of Commons on the progress made in the Lifelong Loan Entitlement roll out and outlining how the regulations will support further policy development.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a written ministerial statement ahead of laying any regulations under this Act, updating the House on the progress of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement policy and how the regulations aim to support the policy.

[Matt Western]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 3 to 5, which appear in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is unfortunately unable to be here today. Our amendments at their core seek to do three important things and are designed to ensure that the Bill is successful: to introduce parliamentary oversight; to provide the sector with as much clarity as possible ahead of the implementation of the lifelong loan entitlement; and to allow for an assessment of the interaction between the Bill and the policy underpinning the lifelong loan entitlement. They seek to achieve those aims at various key points in the Minister’s decision-making process, covering the period prior to laying the regulations, the process of laying the regulations and the post-enactment effect of the regulations. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak to our amendments with that logical structure in mind.

New clause 2 would require the Minister to publish a revised impact assessment before laying any regulations under the Act. Such an impact assessment must consider the Government’s response to the lifelong loan entitlement, any subsequent spending reviews, and the Government’s broader education and skills policy. I note that the Minister has committed himself and the Government at various times to such an impact assessment. In the impact assessment attached to the Bill, a post-enactment impact assessment is promised. In Committee, the Minister also promised that

“the Government will publish a full and detailed impact assessment, including the qualification of expected costs and the benefits of LLE in its entirety, when we lay the necessary secondary legislation to fully implement the LLE.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 23 March 2023; c. 98.]

Therefore, the need for a revised impact assessment does not seem to be in dispute.

It is important, however, that the impact assessment is as thorough as possible. At the moment, we have impact assessments split across a variety of strands: attached to the Bill, the Government consultation response, and future announcements. There are some glaring gaps, noticeably on the impact on providers. The Bill’s current impact assessment stresses that the

“overall impact is likely to be ambiguous because of various opposing effects.”

It is important that those effects are considered in the round in any future impact assessment.

Even if the Minister does not accept the new clause, I would welcome his commitment to producing a post-enactment impact assessment, pulling together the variety of loose strands across different announcements. I would also welcome his commitment to publishing a revised impact assessment before he lays any regulations under the Bill, and a commitment on when he intends to do that.

Amendment 5 is linked to the aim of new clause 2. It would require the Minister to publish a written ministerial statement before tabling any regulations under the Bill. The amendment would require any written statement to take into account the interaction between the regulation and the policy proposal. On Second Reading, I described the Bill as an “exoskeleton without a body”—that is to say, a framework without much policy substance. After detailed debate in Committee, I understand some of the reasons why the Bill is technical in design and therefore somewhat policy-light. What amendment 5 seeks to do, however, is to link the policy objectives of lifelong learning to the secondary legislation tabled under the Bill. It would close the gap between the Bill’s skeletal framework and the policy announced by the Government.

Amendments 5 and 3, the second of which would subject all regulations made under the Bill to the affirmative procedure, are guided by one simple aim: parliamentary oversight. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that regulations determining the fee method, the number of credits attached to credit-differential activity, the number of learning hours attached to credit, the maximum number of credits and the uprating of the lifelong learning entitlement would all be subject to the affirmative process. I welcome that commitment and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s promise. However, given that we have had, I think, three Ministers in the last 10 months, there is uncertainty about the commitment —or lack of it—to that on the part of others. Given that the Minister supports the central thrust of amendment 3 and is a keen supporter of parliamentary oversight and a pragmatist, I hope that he will be prepared to assert Parliament’s right to scrutiny in the Bill.

Amendment 4 would limit the use of the saving and transitional provisions in the Bill to the end of September 2024. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee that would have limited their usage to the end of January 2024. The Minister confirmed that the Government

“are not intending to lay the broader suite of regulations to enable the LLE until after January 2024.”—[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 23 March 2023; c. 111.]

I understand the reasons behind the need for flexibility—after all, lifelong learning is a fundamental change in the structure of the student loans system—but the Minister will no doubt be aware of the need for providers, students and the Student Loans Company to have adequate time to prepare.

On the Minister’s own timeline, continuing to table saving and transitional provisions after September 2024 would leave less than one complete academic year before the expansion of LLE to level 4 courses in September 2025. What assurances can he give the sector that the vast majority—if not all—of the regulations will be laid by or before September 2024? Can he be a little more specific than any time after January 2024?

Finally, I turn to new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the Bill’s impact on a variety of factors after the launch of lifelong learning for level 4 in the 2025 academic year. It would need to be published before the expansion in the 2027-28 academic year to levels 4, 5 and 6. The Secretary of State would then have to conduct an annual review every subsequent year taking into account learner uptake, employer spending, the provision of courses on offer, the financial sustainability of the sector, the Student Loans Company and the Office for Students. I will touch on a few of those points to illustrate why such a review is so crucial.

On the Bill’s impact on learner uptake, we know that there is a huge job to be done. As Sir David Bell, vice-chancellor of the University of Sunderland, reminded us in Committee, accelerated courses were once poised to be the next big thing but never really materialised. The same can honestly be said of T-levels. The Education Committee’s report into post-16 education, which was published last week—the Minister will be more than familiar with it—revealed that 63% of young people had not even heard of T-levels. As Rachel Sandby-Thomas, the registrar at the University of Warwick, put it:

“The take-up has been disappointing”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 33, Q75.]

The National Careers Service—incidentally, this was introduced by my friend Gordon Marsden, the former Member of Parliament for Blackpool South—would be the most obvious choice for helping to deliver information, advice and guidance. I am reliably informed that the NCS is now poorly resourced and unable to meet the demand for face-to-face appointments, and has been described by the Local Government Association as in need of a “radical shake up”. How on earth, therefore, does the Minister expect adequate information, advice and guidance to be provided to prospective learners when the most obvious mechanism available to deliver it has been so stretched and under-resourced these past few years?

Of course, none of that is to say that LLE will not propel an enormous wave of adult learners and upskillers, but recent policy announcements suggest the need for an enormous communications campaign, a large investment of resources and a clear understanding of the barriers to uptake. A review, as proposed in new clause 1, would achieve that aim. Linked to that, the impact of the Bill on the courses on offer and the financial sustainability of the sector will be one of the main factors in determining whether the policy is a success.

Given the declining unit of resource, the urgent need for a review in post-16 education funding, as the Education Committee has called for, and the additional costs incurred by modular study, there is a risk, albeit small, that the policy might stretch providers too far and too thinly. I note the Minister indicated that the wider LLE impact assessment, which is being updated as the policy develops, expects increased uptake of technical provision, modular study and part-time study to expand opportunities for providers to generate revenue. That is good news. However, circumstances change, populations grow and shrink, and universities are under greater pressure to deliver. The assessment therefore needs to be continual.

On a final point—one that was raised in Committee—the reform will inevitably help those currently in the workforce to reskill and retrain. Given that the apprenticeship levy has been so poorly used, with just 31% of levy-paying employers in a recent Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development poll claiming that it had encouraged them to spend on training, down from 46% five years ago, there is clearly a pressing need for reskilling and workplace training. However, there is obviously a balance to be struck between meeting the needs of employers and those needs being imposed on workers, and meeting the expectations of citizens to have access to further educational experiences for their own fulfilment. There is a real risk that employers will use the system to burden their employees and potential hires with debt to fulfil their own internal skills gaps. I know that the Minister would not want the system to be used purely for that purpose and new clause 1 would keep an ongoing eye on that practice. I would be interested to hear any further thoughts the Minister has had since Committee on what steps he might be inclined to take to prevent the misapplication of the LLE by employers.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I reiterate my support, and the Labour party’s support, for the Bill and the policy it underpins. The amendments we have tabled reflect that support, while seeking to futureproof the policy to ensure it has a long-lasting impact over successive election cycles and decades. We want it to be successful. By far the most important of the amendments we have tabled today is on the need for review to guard against any unintended effects of the policy, engage parliamentary oversight and provide an avenue for all stakeholders to continue to feed into the policy outcome. It is for that reason that we will be pressing new clause 1 to a Division.

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

Ahead of speaking to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), I would like to thank Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and the spirit of the amendments tabled, as well as the spirit in which they invested in the Bill and its transformational programme.

I will start with new clause 1, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish an ongoing annual review on the impact of the Act from academic year 2025-26. I understand the new clause intends to require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review on the impact of the Act, in particular covering the phased introduction of modular provision from 2025. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government published an impact assessment for the Bill, which includes a consideration of the impact of modularisation, including on providers.

If I may, I will recount to Members how the Government intend to introduce the LLE. The LLE will provide individuals with loan entitlements to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use over their working lives, for example £37,000 in today’s fees. The LLE will be available from 2025 for full courses at levels 4 to 6, such as degrees and higher technical qualifications. In addition, the LLE will begin a phased introduction of modular funding, starting in 2025, with modules of high-value technical courses at level 4 and 5. The Government are particularly keen to ensure a wide range of high quality level 4 and 5 modules are in scope from 2025-26. That will pave the way for expanding out new modular funding to broader level 4, 5 and 6 provision in 2027, where we can be confident of positive student outcomes.

There will be an opportunity to contribute to the approach of the expansion of modular funding. As set out in the Government’s response, we intend to launch a technical consultation next year to specify how we will determine funding for wider modules. I agree with the sentiment behind new clause 1 on the importance of monitoring the function of the LLE in line with policy intention. However, introducing an ongoing review into primary legislation before the policy has been fully implemented or had sufficient time to bed in would not be appropriate. Additionally, the Government believe a yearly report without an end date could be an undue and disproportionate burden at this stage. For that reason, the Government believe it neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce an ongoing review requirement on the face of primary legislation and that is why we cannot support new clause 1.

New clause 2 introduces a requirement to publish a revised impact assessment. It would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State, before the laying of secondary legislation, to publish a revised impact assessment, taking into account any development of policy on the LLE. I am in full agreement with the intent behind new clause 2, which is to ensure there is adequate and ongoing analysis of the impacts of policy to inform decision making and scrutiny of legislation. As Members are aware, the Government published an impact assessment for the Bill on its introduction, on 1 February. The Government subsequently published an updated impact assessment for the LLE as a whole, alongside the publication of the consultation response, on 7 March. The impact assessment published in March contained the following commitment, on page 18:

“In accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, more detailed assessments of impacts, including quantification of expected costs and benefits of the different aspects of LLE policy, will be published in due course at the point when the government lays the necessary secondary legislation to fully implement LLE.”

I therefore reiterate and give assurance that the Government intend to publish an updated impact assessment for the LLE ahead of the laying of regulations. It is not necessary to codify that on the face of primary legislation and that is why the Government cannot support new clause 2.

On amendment 4 and the transitional measures referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the amendment requires any regulations on transitional arrangements to be made in connection with the coming into force of the Bill to be laid before the end of September 2024. Due to the complexity of the regulations required, and consistent with our plans to introduce the LLE from 2025, the Government intend to lay the broader suite of regulations to enable the LLE at the earliest in mid to late 2024. Those regulations are likely to include transitional and saving provisions needed in relation to the new powers in clauses 1 and 2. As hon. Members will be aware, the laying of regulations is subject to available parliamentary time. It would not be helpful at this point to prescribe a specific period. However, the Government agree that regulations need to be laid in a timely manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I extend my thanks to all those involved in the passage of this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and this afternoon. I join the Minister in thanking Conservative Members as much as those on the Labour Benches. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the shadow further education Minister, whose name appeared on the amendments we debated on Report. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for their work, constructive comments and contributions in Committee. Their thoughts provided the basis for subsequent amendments.

I also place on record my thanks to the Clerks, and particularly to Bethan Harding for all her work drafting the various amendments that allowed us to probe the Government’s rationale and that shaped the debate the ensuing debate.

Finally, I thank the Minister and his office for how they have guided the Bill through its Commons stages, offering numerous opportunities for Opposition engagement, following up with Members on specific points raised in Committee and generally respecting the right of Parliament to scrutinise the Bill. The seriousness and efficiency with which the Minister has approached the Bill encourages a certain trust both in him and in the purpose behind the Bill, both of which are essential if it is to form part of the cross-party commitment to lifelong learning.

This Bill is an important first legislative step on the road towards the full roll-out of lifelong learning provision in the UK, but the objective of lifelong learning has swirled around this place for far longer than I have been in this House. My friend and predecessor Mr Gordon Marsden, the former Member of Parliament for Blackpool South, was an assiduous campaigner for lifelong learning in this role, and I am pleased to see that work is now channelled through his Right2Learn campaign. It may be only a few short years since he stood in my shadow ministerial shoes, but the need for these reforms has never been so urgent. They simply cannot come quickly enough. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the severity of the problem from his time chairing the Education Committee.

With Government spending on adult education falling by 47% between 2009 and 2019 under the coalition and Conservative Governments, and with only one in three adults participating in some kind of learning, meeting the challenges thrown up by decarbonisation, growing a sustainable economy and the fourth industrial revolution will require a complete reversal of the last 13 years of decline, propelled by a much more expansive understanding of lifelong learning. So what concerns me is the uncertain direction of travel. The Minister published the consultation response before the Committee stage, and I thank him for that, but this Bill leaves an awful lot to be decided in due course by him.

The purpose of Third Reading is to give the Commons a final chance to debate the contents of a Bill; it is an opportunity to discuss what is actually in the Bill, rather than, as on Second Reading, what might have been included. The awkward predicament we are in here is that so much of this Bill is yet to be determined by the Minister, in regulations. Consequently, the Bill is somewhat divorced from the policy it seeks to implement. This is not a party political point; it is a call for certainty and predictability, and an expectation that transformational reforms in the tertiary education sector are clear, open to debate and transparent. I understand that most of the current student finance system is governed through regulations, but the point is, surely, that what we are trying to do with lifelong learning is break away from the current system. Does it not follow, therefore, that the limits of the old system—namely, government by regulation—should not necessarily impose a limit on the new system?

That was why we tabled our amendments on Report. They were all about ensuring parliamentary oversight, sector engagement and continuous monitoring of the impact of legislation on proposed policy. It is somewhat disappointing, therefore, there has been no movement from the Government on those issues, despite assurances. I strongly suspect, however, that the Minister will take a conscientious, diligent and measured approach to implementing lifelong learning. I urge him to engage frequently with the sector, with me, with employers and with non-governmental bodies, such as the Student Loans Company and the Office for Students, although the latter is perhaps increasingly less non-governmental and more governmental in practice. That being said, as the Bill progresses to the Lords, I look forward to listening to their considerations on the scope of delegated powers under this Bill, the feasibility of these reforms and the timescale suggested by the Minister.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has had his own experience of that in recent weeks. This Bill will not only strengthen the duty of our universities to ensure that they are protecting freedom of speech on campus, but create a new director of free speech, who will champion the cause, and strengthen the powers of the OfS to deal with those who breach that duty. I believe it will speak to my hon. Friend’s real concerns.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The last time I was here debating this Bill, I told the Minister that it had spent more time in Parliament than any other Bill sponsored by the Department for Education since 2010. Indeed, as defenders of free speech, Members would be forgiven for thinking the Government would be determined to see the Bill on the statute book. Yet 721 days—almost two years, as you, a maths connoisseur, will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker—have passed since the Bill had its First Reading, and it could have been further prolonged by the prospect of legislative ping-pong with the other place.

Here we are again. This time, we have the Minister, whose remit now includes university campus activity, rowing back on the compromise reached in the Lords. I am sure that this has been pushed by the Common Sense Group. I consider myself to be a member of whatever common-sense group this place may offer, but I am unsure whether we should be here again two years on. We need not be here, but heavy-handed legislative responses to largely exaggerated social problems—I am not saying there are no problems—appear to be this Government’s general modus operandi.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is a very serious step for anyone, particularly a student with limited means, to go to court and seek an injunction. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that no one will do this on a whim. They will do so only when their rights are being seriously infringed.

[Matt Western]

I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows. Of course I would be concerned about the case of an individual student, but I fear more generally about the tort being a channel for more vexatious claims by well-funded individuals or organisations, and where that may take us. I will expand on that point.

Where issues arise, Ministers have shown no interest in dealing with the underlying causes. I fear that this is yet another example of Ministers leaning in and exploiting cultural divides, opting for punitive, confrontational tools such as the tort before us. I have repeatedly stated the plethora of options open to the Government: the Chicago principles, the Robert French report, Universities UK’s guidance, internal processes and the Manchester and King’s guidelines—all of which would do a better job at resolving issues whenever they arise.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the cost of going to court and that that will be prohibitive for students and academics, but surely the opposite is true. At the moment, the only provision that students and academics have in the case of their free speech being cancelled is judicial review, which costs tens of thousands of pounds. The whole point of introducing a tort in a county court, for example, is that it is relatively cheap and relatively affordable for anyone.

[Matt Western]

As the hon. Member will know, the tort has been left in the legislation. A compromise was reached in the other place, so that is in the Bill, as far as we know. Our point is that we do not believe that an injunction is at all necessary. Indeed, it will complicate the process for all involved. The Minister will know that I was trying to reach her last week. I was keen to discuss this issue, because I wanted to seek some sort of understanding about what was going on, but for some reason we were not able to speak. I hope that we can do that in future, because I think that will circumvent problems.

To be fair to the Minister, she is clearly aware that colleagues have strong views on the issues linked to the tort—she said as much in her “Dear colleague” letter last week. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of some of those views. Lord Grabiner, an eminent jurist, said that the tort could be used by

“well-heeled trouble-makers for whom the costs issue would be of no concern at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 709.]

That is the point I was making to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Lord Molyan, a Conservative peer, stated:

“the Government do not know what they want to do about this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2023; Vol. 828, c. 1692.]

Universities UK, which represents 142 universities, stated:

“our position remains that the tort should not stand as part of the Bill.”

It feels that the original amendments amount to “sensible and acceptable compromise”. It was understood across the sector and in the other place that we had reached a point where the system was workable—they had reservations, but said they would accept the compromise. Given the Minister is clearly aware of those strong views, why has she not paid heed? In her letter, she encouraged us all to support the Government’s motion today, owing to

“limited legislative time to progress with further changes”.

It is pretty ironic for her to invoke the tight parliamentary timetable to push through her regressive motion, given the Bill has benefited from two parliamentary Sessions. We are here today, two years on, only because the Minister has reneged on the position accepted by Government Ministers in the Lords.

In her “Dear colleague” letter, the Minister claims that her motion provides the necessary reassurances on the issue, but she fails to mention that reassurances were already provided by Earl Howe. A satisfactory compromise —supported by Labour—was reached. Indeed, it might be deemed a model case in how to resolve competing interests, reminding us of the shared values we have in common:

“a commitment to freedom of speech and diversity of opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2023; Vol. 828, c. 1685.]

Those are the wise words of Lord Willetts. Yet with this motion, the Minister seems to be reopening Pandora’s box, prioritising tabloid headlines about a permanent crisis in freedom of speech on campus, over and above cross-party consensus and good legislation.

On the two planks of the Government amendment, the first specifies sustained loss as including non-pecuniary loss. The first concession the Minister has made to her Back-Bench rebels is to put in the Bill that “loss” extends to non-pecuniary loss, such as injury to feelings and reputational damage. I understand that was always assumed to be the case by the Government, but the Minister felt compelled to assuage the concerns of Back-Bench Members that such damage could be excluded by the courts.

If non-pecuniary damage is to be a loss recoverable under tort in freedom of speech claims, the question arises as to how the loss will be calculated. That has important consequences for the costs of litigation for universities and student unions. The Minister will no doubt say that that is a matter for the courts but, in the interest of clarity, I would welcome the Minister setting out her understanding of how damages might be awarded for non-pecuniary claims in freedom of speech cases.

For example, will the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom or the Government be setting cost guidelines for the courts to follow; or is it the Minister’s expectation that the courts will follow pre-existing costs guidelines, such as those used in discrimination cases? It is worth flagging that, if the courts were to follow such guidelines, the most egregious cases of non-pecuniary loss arising from a breach of a freedom of speech duty could cost a student union or university up to £56,200 per individual claim, in addition to any further litigation costs, which I am reliably informed range from £75,000 to £125,000.

Members of the House may want to consider, in the context of their local higher education providers, how such costs may detract from the student experience, given the financial pressures across the entire sector. Such monies would be better used to support hardship funding and welfare support, given the rocketing number of mental health cases they are seeing.

The second plank relates to the opt-out of the last resort mechanism for injunction-only claims. The amendment creates an exemption from the last resort mechanism put in place by the Lords for claims exclusively seeking an injunction. It is worth noting that the underlying purpose of the last resort mechanism was to prioritise university internal processes, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, the Office for Students Free Speech Complaints Scheme and the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom. The Government amendment potentially paves the way for that purpose to be inverted.

In effect, the amendment creates a perverse incentive for claimants to bypass the schemes created in the Bill in search of an injunction, including in anticipation of a breach. Was that unintended or intended? Regulatory investigations and internal processes rightly and understandably take time. When competing freedoms are at play, such care is to be expected. While the circumstances in which a court may grant an injunction could be narrow, for vexatious claimants with deep pockets, the amendment invites them to try their luck.

I note Lord Willetts sought to ensure the tort was “sensibly targeted” through his amendment, presumably to limit such vexatious claimants. Does the Minister believe her amendment opens the scope of the tort back up again? What justification does she have for doing that? Has the Minister met Lord Willets, a Conservative peer, to discuss this? I am sure he would welcome such a discussion. As for process, the Minister claims she is

“confident that this will not create a further burden on the courts”.

She plainly omits reference to the burden on institutions and student unions.

We all know that litigation is generally expensive and time consuming. It can soak up management bandwidth, detracting from the ability to focus on more important issues, most obviously the staff and student experience. Anything that risks an increase in the use of litigation in this context is therefore to be greatly cautioned against. In that vein, I urge the Minister to provide greater clarity on how her amendment will keep vexatious claimants at bay, will ensure the protection of institutional autonomy and regulatory processes, and will not expand the scope of the tort to the detriment of the student experience.