PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Fourth sitting) - 23 March 2023 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

“(4) When making regulations under paragraph 1B, 1C or 1F, the Secretary of State must have regard to the additional costs associated with the delivery of the course.”

This amendment would ensure that when exercising the powers granted in this Bill, the Secretary of State has regard to the additional costs associated with the delivery of modular study.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Cummins, and to welcome everyone back for this second sitting of the day. We had a constructive discussion on our various amendments under clause 1 this morning. We continue now with amendments 7 and 8, which have rightly been grouped together as they address a pretty thorny issue: financial sustainability. The amendments set out that in exercising their powers under clause 1, the Secretary of State should first have due regard to the additional costs associated with delivery and secondly look at financial sustainability in the round.

On the additional costs associated with the delivery of modular learning, we heard collectively a plethora of evidence from our witnesses during Tuesday’s sitting about how the impact of lifelong learning might affect providers. Indeed, when it comes to higher education providers, Professor Press from Manchester Metropolitan University made it clear that there were difficulties for institutions in the “mechanics” of the delivery of lifelong learning, partly due to the additional cost of delivery when moving from a full year or full three years of a course to a module. Quite understandably, that will introduce an additional cost burden, whether that be costs of onboarding or administrative processing. Worryingly, given the take-up for lifelong learning is so uncertain—the pilot programme did not attract high numbers at all—Professor Press found it difficult to predict what precisely the costs would be. That is concerning.

It is important that we have seen that uncertainty, seen what it might mean and seen the additional costs. There has been very low take-up of the apprenticeship levy, T-levels and accelerated learning. Accelerated learning and the apprenticeship levy certainly have real merits, but they can bring an additional cost burden, and a restructuring or reshaping of courses for institutions. That means more financial pressure on institutions when things are already difficult—as I am sure, Mrs Cummins, you will be aware, given that you have a university on your doorstep.

The effect may be far worse for colleges, as acknowledged by Liz Bromley of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group and David Hughes of the Association of Colleges. Colleges clearly have already been facing a dire financial settlement over the past 13 years—a point that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield will want to build on and explore thoroughly in his comments, given his expertise in and knowledge of the sector. Certainly, almost all the witnesses representing the further education sector whom we heard from on Tuesday called for an injection of cash—presumably, to combat a gradual decline in the real-terms funding settlement for further education colleges. Lecturer pay, workload, staff retention, the administrative burden and regulatory costs were all cited as reasons why modular provision in the form of lifelong learning may hit roadblocks in the years ahead. The recent decision to take the further education sector into the public sector, denying colleges the ability to borrow and limiting their access to risk capital, will also dampen the supply of new course provision.

In the impact assessment as published, there is an estimated cost of £211,000 for all providers to familiarise themselves with lifelong learning, although it is worth pointing out that the Russell Group thinks that that is a large underestimation. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the figure of £211,000 was arrived at. When we look at how many institutions we have, whether they be further education colleges or higher education institutions, that figure probably works out at about 300 quid each. I am sure the Minister can explain how the figure was arrived at and, indeed, what the approximate cost will be for those institutions, but even that rough calculation suggests that the cost is massively understated by the Government in their impact assessment. That is concerning, because we all want to start this scheme on solid ground and ensure that it is being approached correctly and has the best chance of delivery and success. That example suggests that it has not been accurately thought out, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Not only does the financial capacity of the sector affect the provision of courses; it also risks the financial sustainability of the whole sector. On Tuesday we heard from Dr Norton of Coventry University, who helpfully demonstrated that higher education providers work on a five-year forecasting model, which is made harder if students are opting for modular study over a several-years-long course. At a time when over one in three higher education providers are reporting a deficit, the real-terms value of tuition fees has crumbled to below £6,750—my understanding is that it is probably more like £6,400—and the Government’s own policy impact assessment for the Bill admits that the lifelong learning entitlement

“could result in providers having less financial certainty”,

the concern is that this mammoth reform may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. There is a real concern that it could bring down institutions in the sector. As of today, I am not entirely sure of the level of Government concern at that prospect. I hope the Minister will reassure us with his perspective of financial sustain-ability versus precarity of institutions in the sector—higher education and further education colleges alike.

This skeletal Bill introduces sweeping reforms to the way in which the student finance model works, and I would hope that the Minister would be totally assured that the reforms will pose as little risk as possible to institutional financial sustainability. That is why I was so concerned to read what I did in the impact assessment. What stress tests have the Department conducted ahead of implementation to ensure the sector can cope with the changes introduced in the Bill? What additional financial support, if any, does the Minister intend to provide to higher education providers and colleges seeking to implement modular study, given the limited financial capacity of the sector?

The amendments are important in establishing what risk there is to the wider tertiary education sector, and in ensuring sustainability. It cannot be logical that the costs per student unit will remain the same for modular learning provision. There will be a significant increase in the cost burden to institutions through the delivery of courses, but also in the administration and onboarding of students, and in managing departing students, and all the data needs around those changes. As we heard in our witness sessions, we have not even got to the wraparound support that students may require.

My hon. Friend is right to cite the evidence of Professor Rigby, and we heard from others on this point. There is a very real risk here, and none of us should underestimate that. We support the Government and the purpose of a lifelong learning entitlement—there is a need for it, in society, and also economically—so it is important that provisions are brought in, but they should succeed, and the delivery is really important in that regard.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, an interesting parallel is degree apprenticeships. We see real interest in them, but there are significant costs associated with their provision, including the regulatory burden, of which my hon. Friend will be more than aware. Involving employers in designing those courses and so on is intensive for an educational institution. The implementation—getting the course up and running—is a significant process.

The salaries of further education providers and lecturers is far less than school teachers and university providers. I asked one of the witnesses in the evidence session whether the lack of the injection of cash mentioned by a previous witness would make these measures unsustainable. There is a problem with recruitment and retention, and many people can get better money out there actually doing vocational jobs, but we need these people to teach others vocational skills such as construction and hospitality. We already know that there is a skills shortage. Why are we not looking to address those particular issues, so that we can get our economy up and running? We support this legislation, but we have to hope that the finances are appropriated in the right places.

My hon. Friend is totally right that one of the huge issues in the sector is the paucity of remuneration to further education college lecturers and staff. While going around the country, I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence about how difficult it is to recruit good staff. We clearly want the best, most inspiring people to deliver and impart information through their teaching. Whether it be in pure vocational education or in academic subjects, we want the best people, with expertise and talent, who can really inspire others to get into that subject and to succeed.

I hear, from talking to establishments around the country, that there is a huge remuneration or salary disadvantage—a difference between what people can earn vocationally in roles versus what they earn as lecturers in colleges. What I am hearing indicates that there is a 40% difference in pay between delivering a vocational role and teaching. That is really to the detriment of the next generation, and it is why we do not have the number of people coming into teaching as we should have across the board. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s points, which highlight another immense challenge for the sector in the financial burden; the remuneration would ideally be greater.

Amendments 7 and 8 identify a real pressure point for the sector, in terms of the burden from this Bill. As I evidenced through the degree apprenticeships, institutions have to bear additional costs to deliver good-quality courses, but the yield—the cost cover—is not there. It is actually to the cost of the institution to provide them; it is the right thing to do, but it is coming at great cost to them to do that. With that, I will end my remarks.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the difficult landscape that FE colleges find themselves in, but is he as surprised as I was to hear that Eton College was proposing to enter into the fray across the country—my own constituency included, notwithstanding that there was an oversupply in the sector already—thereby adding to the difficulties and undermining existing colleges? Is that not exactly the wrong way to go when the landscape is already so difficult?

It is an honour to serve under you, Mrs Cummins. I am supportive of the sentiment behind these amendments and recognise the importance of considering the impacts on providers. The Government have been fully mindful of the financial sustainability of providers during the development of the LLE, particularly of FE colleges. The Government are also mindful of the additional costs that providers may incur when offering shorter modular provision at large scale.

We engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to gather input, to inform policy development and to build awareness of the LLE. We are grateful to the stakeholders that have engaged with the Department on the LLE and, of course, we will continue to work closely with the sector on its design and delivery. It is important to note that the LLE and its ambitions have been strongly welcomed by the sector for the most part. Stakeholders responded positively to the flexibility and the keenness of a simpler finance system.

The Committee will be aware that the Government published an impact assessment for the Bill, which included a consideration of impact on the providers. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Chesterfield both asked how the cost was constructed. The basis of the calculation is set out on pages 36 and 37 of the impact assessment. That sets out the estimates of the potential implementation costs to providers, which is separate to the wider assessment of the benefits of the LLE.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington also mentioned FE reclassification. He will know that the decision was taken by the Office for National Statistics, but we are supporting colleges with a package that includes an additional allocation of £150 million over the 2023-24 period, and we have invested £300 million in the reprofiling of payments before the end of the financial year, to eliminate the current deficit.

As well as the figures I mentioned, the DFE is working closely with colleges to try to deal with the difficulties that have come about because of the reclassification of FE colleges. I hope to be able to set out more on that in the weeks ahead.

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to press on because I have a fair whack to get through.

On the cost to providers, 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. It is important to note that the Bill is simply three technical clauses to create the architecture to enable the LLE.

On funding, I will always champion more resources for FE and skills. There have been some steps forward: we are spending an extra £3.8 billion on skills over this Parliament; increasing 16-to-19 funding by £1.6 billion; spending £2.7 billion, I think, on apprenticeships by 2025; and spending up to £500 million on T-levels. I could go on—for example, we are spending nearly £300 million on the institute of technology colleges.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough raised the issue of FE recruitment, which does concern me. I accept absolutely accept that there is an issue; I do not deny that for one minute. We have an FE teacher training bursary programme to encourage recruitment in key areas of FE that is worth up to £26,000 and will over the coming year, 2023-24. We are investing in a further education workforce package to support the sector with the recruitment, retention and development of teachers, including through a national recruitment campaign.

The hon. Lady will know about our Taking Teaching Further campaign, which supports people business and industry to move into FE part time. I am concerned about recruitment and, although I cannot give any funding commitments other than those I have mentioned, it is very close to my heart, as it is to hers. We are going to make further increases in FE rates over the academic year 2023-24, which will mean that in the relevant financial year we will invest into 16-to-19 education a further £125 million of the £1.6 billion from the spending review. We are also increasing the national funding rate by 2.2%, from £4,500 to £4,642 per student.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington knows that I champion degree apprenticeships. We have spent £8 million to facilitate an increase in the number of degree apprenticeships, of which we have had 140,000 over the past few years. It is a completely new concept that we introduced. I am looking at the burden of regulation and other issues, but I am keen to champion degree apprenticeships—I have always described them as my two favourite words in the English language.

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have devolved 60% of the adult education budget. The mayoral combined authorities will be important players in the skills systems, which is why the skills for jobs White Paper makes it clear that they will be engaged in the development of the local skills improvement plans. MCAs will continue to play an important role in the development of provision that responds to a local skills gap, and they obviously have a significant say when it comes to the devolved 60% of the adult education budget. It is important to note what the impact assessment shows: that providers may see increased tuition fee revenue if the LLE encourages more people to engage with lifelong education.

These things will be decided in future spending statements, and I have highlighted the extra money going into further education over the Parliament and over the coming Budget period.

The pilot scheme was mentioned briefly. I strongly recommend an article about the pilot scheme—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has probably read it—by a witness to our Committee, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, who says that the whole purpose of the scheme was to show the system working. It was not about quantity, even though there are 100 available courses. He writes that

“the effective administration of those received shows that SLC systems and processes are ready to support modular study.”

In the rest of the article, which I will not detain the Committee by quoting at length, he mentions all the other courses and pilots on modular learning that there have been, stating:

“The In-Work Skills pilot was also a pathway policy for the LLE. Delivered by Institutes of Technology (IoTs)…10 IoTs delivered the In-Work Skills pilot, which was a 1-year pilot that delivered high quality, higher technical short courses…The IoTs delivered a total of 59 short courses to 3,060 learners”.

He also cites other figures to show the extent of the move towards flexible and modular learning.

Importantly, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know, the strategic priorities grant provides Government funding on an annual basis to support higher education providers’ ongoing teaching, and of course funding levels will be considered in the round at the next spending review, with the LLE in mind. Therefore, as the Government have been mindful of these concerns throughout the development of the LLE, and are confident that providers will be able to consider their own financial sustainability and costs when deciding which courses and modules to offer, we will not support the amendment.

We have had a pretty healthy debate on the amendments. I particularly appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who has expertise specifically across the further education sector, but also in the delivery of apprenticeships.

I hear what the Minister says about the Government being mindful of the costs and so on, but when I look at the provision of further education and the costs at FE colleges, I wonder whether the Government are really being mindful of the cost pressures for them, and I wonder whether they are being mindful of the cost pressures that face the higher education sector, in which 32% of providers are currently in deficit, or of the cost of delivering degree apprenticeships.

Indeed, which is why the amendments are important. We want to start this policy on solid foundations, because we buy into and support it, but currently it just does not have the financial structure to make it deliverable, because these institutions are already facing massive costs. As my hon. Friend said, there are pots of money, but they are small pots of money when the sectors—particularly the further education sector—are already at a significant disadvantage.

I admire the Minister’s ambition in wanting to increase the retention of staff across the further education sector, but we are also seeing in schools a massive haemorrhaging of the staff—expert teachers and lecturers and so on—and the technicians who support so many of these courses, because they just are not getting the remuneration that they deserve so are leaving. To retain people, we must give them the right reward, and they currently feel massively undervalued by the way the Government are doing things.

As the Minister said—he mentioned his two favourite words—he believes in the sector and its value. I urge him, in future Budget negotiations, to get the support that education needs, particularly in respect of the sectors we are discussing. Too often, they are described as the Cinderella sector, and it is just not good enough. We absolutely must believe in delivering proper education, whether it be technical or otherwise, across society, and presently that is just not happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield reminded us of the issue of risk capital, as described by David Hughes, and the situation we have with the reclassification of debt. I am sure the sector feels completely financially handcuffed by where it is, because it just does not have the funds to do what it needs to do.

On top of that, my hon. Friend reminded us of the statement from Professor Rigby. When we think of an institution delivering a course once or twice a year—with a September, October or January start date for the delivery of courses—and suddenly increasing that from two to 12, it has six times as many. How does an institution staff that? How does it make that happen, as opposed to having modules and courses delivered by a certain number of staff at those start dates? It must lead to a multiplication of the resource, which comes with a significant financial burden. I just do not believe that the impact assessment underlines the reality of what the sector will face. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the context is the 27% reduction in real-terms funding in the FE sector between 2010 and 2019, which has made it all the more difficult.

Let me go back to the Minister’s point, because I love the words “degree apprenticeships” as well. They are fantastic programmes, but as I understand it the problem is that we are seeing a tailing off, and institutions are already saying they will not expand the programmes because of the associated costs. That gives the lie to the ambition, because if that is already beginning to reduce, what chance does this policy have? We will face the same sorts of challenges with lifelong learning, as it is currently set out, that institutions face with the delivery of degree apprenticeships.

I do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(1IA) The fee limit as determined under paragraphs 1D, 1E and 1I is to be indexed to any future increase in tuition fees”.

This amendment is to ensure that should the Secretary of State or Parliament decide on any increase in the value of tuition fees, the fee limit is adjusted accordingly to ‘future-proof’ the value of the lifelong learning entitlement.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for his commitment to lifelong learning and for his acknowledgement of the position regarding FE lecturers and teachers. All of us who value our superb FE sector are aware of the pressures it is under, but I ask him to take up with me outside this discussion the unintended consequences of bringing other providers into a field where they can detract and take people away.

I welcome the commitment to lifelong learning but, as my amendment speaks to the issue of fees and therefore indebtedness, I also feel obliged to place on the record my thanks to Governments past for making the commitment to provide me and my generation with an entirely free education. Given that I started as an undergraduate in the 1970s, I recognise the wisdom of Harold Wilson in establishing the Open University. His good sense, and that of Jim Callaghan, ensured that working-class youngsters could fulfil their potential without the burden of long-term debt.

It is a different world now, and I very much regret the commodification and commercialisation of education in this neoliberal world. I hope that future Governments will abolish tuition fees for those embarking on their higher education journey. I am of the view that some of the changes we have seen since the 1970s have not been to the betterment of those wishing to further their training and education, or to the betterment of our economy and society. But we are where we are, and the Government’s intended commitment to lifelong learning warrants support—albeit, as ever, subject to the rigours of examination in the Bill Committee process.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough for tabling this amendment and arguing for it so well. He is quite right that, given what we have been through over the past decade or so, the effective freeze in tuition fees has led to a significant decline in the value of the unit of resource, and he is right about the need for some form of futureproof guarantee that, should there be a rise in tuition fees, that should be matched by a consequent rise in the value of the lifelong loan entitlement.

Over the last decade, we have seen tuition fees reach £9,250 but they have essentially been frozen for the last five years, having had, as my hon. Friend explained, a marginal reduction back in 2017. We have seen a real-terms decline in their value. Indeed, Universities UK calculated that by the end of the 2024 academic year inflation would reduce the value of the annual tuition fee to £6,600 based on prices in 2012, when the fees cap was trebled to £9,000. That is a reduction of almost £2,500 in the unit of resource to an institution, which is putting huge pressures on those institutions. That was the point we were making in the debate on amendments 7 and 8. Institutions are under real financial pressure as there has been such a massive decline in the value of that unit of resource. London Economics has estimated that over the past decade, the overall income for students per unit of resource would be back at 2006 levels, when fees were £3,000. That gives some context as to just how much the sums involved have been devalued over time.

As I mentioned earlier, that devaluation is having a tangible effect on institutional financial sustainability, with many institutions reporting deficits and having to cross-subsidise their courses, take on more international students or borrow from the private sector. The amendment would seek to tie the lifelong learning loan to any rise in the value of tuition fees, as I have said. The point is that if this really is to be a lifelong loan entitlement, it is important that learners who benefit from a module in, say, two years’ time and who wish to return to studying 20 years later, in 2045, have access to the same quantity of learning as they would have done 20 years before. Otherwise, we will see the risk of individuals using their entitlement very early on in their lives paying the price of that and not being able to access further training or tuition later in life because they have used up their entitlements.

Given that there is a real need to make this work and to make the system as attractive as possible, we urge the Government to consider some form of indexation. Sir Philip Augar described this system as having

“the potential to be a game changer”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 45, Q89.]

We have heard that description before. But that potential can be realised only if the system is protected against the real risk of inflation. We saw inflation peak yet again yesterday—to, I think, 10.6%.

My hon. Friend brings up a valid and pertinent point about the reality for so many people. The intent behind this legislation and policy is a good one, and it should be there to assist people in that particular predicament, but, as he says, it does not seem that that will necessarily be the case. However, I am sure that the Minister listened to his points and will address them in his response.

This amendment would ensure the long-term sustainability of the lifelong learning model and allow students who “bank” their credits to have the same chances later on in life to add to that bank. I will understand if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as drafted, but given that he is planning on introducing long-lasting reforms to be used by people in the course of their lives, I would like to press him on how he envisages the value of the LLE being maintained over the years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on his amendment and his kind words. I am absolutely with him on the Open University, which many of my constituents in Harlow have had incredible value from. It is one of the great education reforms of the last century, without a shadow of a doubt. As an anoraky child, I watched some of its content on television —now it is all on the internet—late at night, because I was at home a lot, growing up. I therefore have complete sympathy with his remarks.

It is worth mentioning that the lifelong loan entitlement is intended to replace, as we have discussed throughout today, the current student finance system. As a result, from 2025 onwards, the fee limit rate and the per-credit fee rate will be exactly the same thing. It may help if I provide further detail about paragraphs 1D, 1E and 1I, which set out the fee limit calculation for credit-bearing and non-credit-bearing course years, and introduce the per-credit method into existing clauses in schedule 2 that set out how the four different fee rates are applied. Essentially, they set out how the credit-based fee limit method will work.

I thank the Minister for his response. On the ancillary issue of universal credit, I have an uncanny feeling that the protections are not as universal as the Opposition hope. Nevertheless, we have been given some reassurances. On the substantive matter of my amendment, I am pleased that the system works, that the Minister has been persuaded of the veracity of our arguments and that it is already built into his thinking. With that, I will not press the amendment to a Division, and I thank the Minister for his clarifications.

I forgot to mention this but I think the hon. Gentleman asked to see me. I would, of course, be happy to meet him at any time.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

This has been a good debate on clause 1, which enables tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules to be calculated using a per-credit method under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The current tuition fee limits system, where fees are determined per academic year, cannot be applied appropriately to the short courses and modules that are integral to flexible lifelong learning and the wider LLE. If HERA is not amended, students who use the LLE to study shorter programmes could face tuition fees that are disproportionate to the size of their course. For example, a single parent studying one 30 credit module in social care could be charged £9,250 per year—the same as a student studying a full year of a degree programme.

The new per-credit method introduced by this clause will ensure that fee caps can be applied fairly to all types of learning under the LLE, whether the learner chooses to build up a qualification at their own pace or undertake the entire qualification in one go. Therefore, the single parent studying the 30 credit module will pay a proportionate amount compared to a larger programme, making it more affordable for them to space out their studies and learn at a pace that is right for them.

The principle of the credit-based method is set out in the Bill in new paragraph 1D, which is that fee limits will be set at the number of credits undertaken by the student, multiplied by the relevant per-credit limit. That is supplemented by the new powers in paragraph 1C, which ensure that the necessary numerical details can be set out in the regulations, as they are now, which Parliament will be able to scrutinise under the affirmative procedure.

To introduce the per-credit fee limit method, clause 1 includes three key measures. First, in new paragraph 1A, it introduces the concept of the credit as the basis of a new fee-limit calculation. Credits are defined in the Bill, in accordance with their current usage across further and higher education, and are already a popular measure of learner time.

Secondly, clause 1(2)(b) introduces the concept of a course year as the period to which fee limits are applied. The course year offers far more accuracy than the current academic year, as it can start on the first of any month in a year. That means fee limits for short courses and modules can be set with greater precision. Currently, if a course begins in November, its fee limits are applied from the 12 months beginning on 1 September. Under the course year system, courses will be capped from the start of whichever month they begin. That more precise approach will be needed to accurately fee cap the shorter periods of study that the LLE seeks to encourage.

Finally, as set out in new paragraph 1C, the clause enables the Secretary of State to limit the number of credits that can be charged for each type of course. Providers would not be able to charge for more than 360 credits for a three-year bachelor’s degree with honours. As in the current system, they may still offer more than 360 credits for the degree, but would not be able to charge the student extra fees, preventing students from being charged unfairly for their studies.

The clause is an integral part of the Government’s transformation of student finance, giving people a real choice in how and when they study, so that they can acquire new life-changing skills.

As I said at the outset and on Second Reading, we agree with the essence of this Bill. We certainly agree with the purpose behind introducing lifelong learning, but, for the reasons outlined in our amendments, we have real concerns about its delivery and whether it will be successful. I am sure that the take-up of recent initiatives such as the T-level programme and accelerated degrees is not as high as the Government wanted it to be. We fear that this measure will not be successful either, for all the reasons given today and on Second Reading.

Picking up on the points made in Tuesday’s witness sessions, we believe that there needs to be more consultation with all stakeholders—not just the education providers, but all those involved in the design and provision of training, particularly vocational and skills training. I am disappointed that those amendments were not agreed to.

We have made an important point about the definition of credits and the standardisation of transcripts relating to students moving between courses and providers. That should be reflected in the Bill. It is vital that the sector and the institutions have confidence in this programme and that they trust each other and the standard of the qualification with which individuals come to them. They already have those sorts of arrangements, but they are very much bespoke and ad hoc and have been built up over time. Suddenly, this is going to be opened up considerably. I am sure that the sector is very nervous about what that will mean for the onboarding of students into institutions.

We addressed financial sustainability at some length. The pressures faced by the sector—including FE colleges and higher education institution providers—cannot be exaggerated. The Minister said that there is no need to increase the unit of resource, but the fact that 32% of higher education providers are already in deficit really should be ringing alarm bells in the Department for Education regarding what our educational landscape will look like over the next few. That is why our amendments were important—they would have ensured that the Minister and the Department had due regard to the financial pressures faced by the sector.

I am disappointed that the amendment on minimum credits was not accepted, but I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on it, given that the purpose behind it is to reskill, retrain and help people back into the workplace. It would also have benefited the plethora of organisations of different shapes and sizes that the economy will support in the future, which will require a very different training model as they address social need. That is why I think that challenging the 30 credits was the right thing to do. I very much hope that the Government will remain open to thinking about how that might work, rather than just having a bundle of three 10-credit modules in future. We support the Bill, but we will abstain on the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Related amendments

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 6, line 18, after “courses” insert—

“which are defined as modules under subsection (6A)”.

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State is unable to treat modular courses and other modes of study or subjects differently from one another for the purposes of the fee limit.

Our amendment looks at the funding of modular study versus yearly study and seeks to incorporate into the Bill a greater assurance that the Minister cannot discriminate in granting funding to different types of courses or modes of study.

Numerous concerns have been expressed to me about proposed new subsection (7A), to which the amendment applies. In particular, providers are worried that it will give Government the ability to introduce variable fees by subject or mode of study. By extension, they are worried that the proposed new subsection could also pave the way for differential fees for undergraduate courses, depending on subject and institution.

We have already seen hints of that in recent years, with the Government deriding certain courses, labelling them with the names of all sorts of cartoon characters and reprioritising the strategic priorities grant away from arts-based courses towards STEM subjects. That has received widespread reaction and rejection, because of the importance of the arts and humanities not just to us socially but to the UK economy, whereby our soft power in the creative arts and commercial applications do so well.

The result of such changes has been uncertainty in the sector, with the closure of several renowned departments and increasing hostility from Government about the value of the arts. It would therefore be of great reassurance to the sector if the Minister could today provide a cast-iron guarantee that the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing variable fees based on course type or mode of study.

I am pleased to speak to the amendment. If the Committee will permit, I will provide some background information on what proposed new subsection (7A) is intended to achieve.

Section 10(7) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sets out that if fee limits are set on one type of course, they must also be set on other courses of a similar type at the same or comparable level. The Bill makes a technical change to section 10 to put beyond doubt that the Secretary of State will not be required to place fee limits on courses and modules that are not designated for student finance.

I want to make it clear that that original section does not restrict the Secretary of State from setting differential fee rates for different subjects. That ability is provided for elsewhere in the Higher Education and Research Act, specifically through the power in section 119(5)(a) and schedule 2, which allow the Secretary of State to make different provision for different purposes, cases or areas. That power means that the ability to set different fee limits for different courses is already in the primary legislation.

Section 10(7) is specifically in reference to which courses have fee limits, and which do not. The amendment therefore could result in an LLE non-funded course being subject to fee limits even if the course were not designated for loan funding at all. For example, a university summer course could be forced to comply with per-credit fee limits rules, even though students on the course are not LLE-funded and they self-finance. That scenario would not be fair on providers, which is why we cannot support the amendment.

I hear what the Minister says, and I will look again at that. I take what he says on face value, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 further supports clause 1 in ensuring that fee limits can be proportionate to the amount of study taken by students under the LLE. It makes further technical but necessary amendments to HERA 2017 as a result of the changes to legislation made in clause 1.

Clause 2 amends existing reporting duties on the Office for Students and providers so that the duties include the new credit-based fee limit amounts, in addition to any per-year fee limit amounts that apply. That is not intended to add any unnecessary burdens; it only adjusts the duty to reflect the new fee limit method. Subsections (2) and (4) provide explicit powers for the OFS to regulate fee limits at third-party providers, which will ensure that students cannot be charged thousands of pounds extra for choosing to study at a franchised provider.

Finally, clause 2 makes express provision in section 10 of HERA 2017 to allow the Secretary of State to set fee limits only on those courses and modules that are in scope for LLE funding. That will ensure that fee limits are not required for every single module of higher education, regardless of whether it attracts LLE funding.

The clause is an important part of the Government’s transformation of student finance. The LLE will give people a real choice in how and when they study so that they can acquire new life-changing skills. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Extent, commencement and short title

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 3, page 8, line 36, after “may” insert “until 31 January 2024”.

This amendment would ensure that the transitional or saving provisions available to the Secretary of State are only available until 31 January 2024.

Amendment 12 seeks to incorporate in the Bill a limitation on the Secretary of State exercising the saving and transitional provisions after 31 January 2024. It is a very simple amendment that aims at a compromise: to give the Secretary of State and the Minister just under a year to get this through and operationalised, and to give providers around 18 months to plan and anticipate how they might respond.

We have already seen delays to the lifelong learning policy, including in relation to the report by Sir Philip Augar in 2018, and not least the almost year-long wait between the consultation and the Government publishing their response. As I said earlier, that might suggest that the turmoil in the Department for Education has meant that this issue has very much fallen to the wayside and not been seen as a priority. Indeed, the Schools Bill was introduced, but also fell by the wayside. So much of the initiative and need to modernise education has been deprioritised by the Government over this last year in particular.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned on Tuesday, we have had a skills shortage in this country since time immemorial. If the reforms promised in this policy are to be revolutionary, we need to press on and advance this programme, because we suffer a significant skills shortage, certainly compared with our major European and global peers. One has only to look at Germany, France or Italy, which are significantly ahead of us.

It is also important that the provisions in this Bill are not implemented in a haphazard way, and that the reforms that they make to the student finance package are absolutely coherent. Therefore, if the Minister will not accept this amendment, I would ask him to explain where he envisages needing to delay the enactment of provisions in this Bill.

I am sure that the sector would welcome a clear timeline from the Minister on when he expects the framework within this Bill to be in place, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, not least because of the institutional financial planning restraints that we heard about, particularly from Dr Norton, from Coventry University and Professor Rigby from Bath Spa University. Given those financial challenges, the additional administrative burden, and the costs to the institutions, it is vital that this is laid out clearly to ensure a managed transition to 2025. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will set out what that framework will look like.

Amendment 12 would require any regulations on transitional arrangements in connection with the coming into force of the Bill to be laid before the end of January 2024.

Due to the complexity of the regulations required, and consistent with our plans to introduce the LLE from 2025, we are not intending to lay the broader suite of regulations to enable the LLE until after January 2024. Part of those regulations will include transitional and savings provisions that are needed in relation to the new powers in clauses 1 and 2.

The LLE is a long-lasting systemic reform, as we have discussed today, set to affect generations of future students. It is imperative that we get this right, and that utmost care is taken of both the nation’s finances and our future learners, giving them the consideration they deserve.

We have already published clear directions for the LLE in the consultation response and we will continue to engage closely with providers as the remaining aspects are developed. The consultation response sets out specific areas where we will engage with them in the future, such as the additional entitlement issue. That is why the Government cannot support the amendment, because we need to get this absolutely right and ensure that these regulations are done carefully.

I would like to take the Minister at face value. I am sure that that is the Government’s intention, but, as I say, given some of the programmes and initiatives that have been introduced recently and the chaos and turmoil that we have seen within the Department for Education over this past year, I am not assured by what the Minister has said. On that basis, we will be pushing the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Clause 3 provides for the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement and the short title. The clause outlines the territorial extent of the measures, with the Bill extending to England and Wales. However, as education is a devolved matter, the Bill applies only to England, and the amendments made by clauses 1 and 2 apply only to English higher education providers.

Commencement of clauses 1 and 2 will be confirmed by regulations made by statutory instrument. The overall reforms to the student support system, along with the changes to be made as a result of the Bill, will not start until the academic year 2025-26, and we currently anticipate making the necessary secondary legislation over the course of 2024. Once enacted, the Bill will be known as the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act.

I thank the Opposition for the way they have approached the Bill. We have had some serious and constructive debate, and I really appreciate the way they have taken it forward from their side. Of course, I also thank my own side for all their support for the Bill. We have been discussing credits and transfers, and my firm view is that the Bill will be transformative once it comes into play in 2025. It will potentially make a huge difference to many future learners.

I also thank officials at DFE, who have done an extraordinary job in preparing for everything; my Whip; and you, Mrs Cummins, for chairing today’s session. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

We do not wish to oppose clause 3, but I will add my remarks to those of the Minister. I thank you, Mrs Cummins, and Sir Robert for chairing us through the last couple of days. I thank the Clerks and Department for Education officials for the work that they have put into the Bill. Most importantly, I thank Members and the Minister for the spirit in which the Committee has been conducted. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance, and I particularly thank my Whip as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.