My Lords, in responding to this excellent debate I will also introduce my Amendments 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70—albeit, I apologise, too late for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, whom I thank for her support. Together, my amendments are designed to draw out from the Government the approach that is to be taken regarding regulating higher education providers, especially on quality and standards.
To start, despite lots of research, I still do not know whether this Bill will change the powers that the Office for Students has at the moment. We are told that this is a technical clause required
“To put beyond doubt the Office for Students’ ability to regulate in relation to minimum requirements for quality.”
But can the Minister tell us: is this Bill needed to ensure that the OfS can keep doing what it does now without risk of legal challenge? Or is it to enable it to do something different, for which it needs extra powers, and if so, what?
The OfS currently applies a series of conditions, in categories A to E, for an institution to be registered. The B conditions focus on quality and standards, and I am most interested in B3, which says that
“The provider must deliver successful outcomes for all of its students”,
measured against minimum standards for student continuation, completion and graduate careers. My Amendment 65 says that the OfS must consult the HE sector before determining those minimum standards. We had a general OfS consultation, which closed in January, but no response has yet been issued. Another is due any day now on most of the B criteria, but the key one—these B3 metrics—will not be consulted on until much later in the year. Given the concerns we have heard about the direction of travel, and since that consultation will take place after this Bill becomes law, it is really important that it is full and meaningful. It needs to be clear on what metrics are proposed, how they will be measured, where the data will come from and how they will be applied. It should provide the evidence for any metric being advanced as a proxy for quality, assess the impact of any proposed move away from benchmarking, and be transparent about how the baselines will be set. Are they objective standards which, in theory, all institutions could meet, or are they designed to cull the lowest performers, irrespective of absolute scores? Can the Minister give us some assurances on this? Can she tell the House how Parliament can express a view on these hugely important decisions which will be taken by the OfS?
Amendment 66 is designed to flush out the Government's intentions on contextualisation. I understand that Ministers do not want different outcome standards for different groups—this is a probing amendment; I am not proposing a new scheme—but there are clearly differences in student outcomes between
groups which reflect prior experience, advantage or the lack of it, or their current circumstances, rather than academic ability. I shall not repeat the excellent points made by my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the whole issue of contextualising data, but I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why we are legislating to enable the OfS to refuse to collect that data.
Amendment 68 would ensure that the OfS’s student outcome measures do not jeopardise the goal of widening participation for students from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups—a matter of concern to many in higher education. MillionPlus points out that
“if you remove the ability to contextualise, you also remove the ability to assess”
value-added—or distanced travelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said. MillionPlus also points out that setting minimum thresholds on student outcomes while removing any need for benchmarking
“sits incongruously in a Bill designed to diversify access to higher education and boost mature and part-time study.”
8 pm
The briefing we will all have received from the National Centre for Universities and Business picks up on that issue. It cites PISA figures showing that the dropout rate among mature students is twice as high as for the under-21s. Is the Minister concerned that some universities might be deterred from actively recruiting older students or, more broadly, is there a risk that an approach based on flat measures could penalise the institutions that are more inclusive?
Amendment 67 is probing the OfS powers of intervention at subject level. I spent a long time trying to get my head around what powers the OfS currently has here, and I can tell the House that there is a lot of confusion out there. I am very grateful for access to the Bill team and for various briefings from different corners. I now think I understand it, but I shall set it out for the record, and should be grateful if the Minister would confirm, or correct me if I am wrong.
I understand that the OfS can intervene and use its enforcement powers wherever it finds a breach of a registration condition. If the problem is in a subject, rather than the performance of the whole provider, it could use its power of suspension to switch off student loan funding just for that subject area. Also, as it can grant degree-awarding powers on a single subject basis, it therefore can vary or revoke them for a single subject. All of that is, of course, subject to it acting proportionately.
Can the Minister confirm that my understanding is correct? Has this power ever been used at subject level in a multidisciplinary institution? If the OfS can do that, does that mean that the OfS can already, in effect, shut down this study of mathematics at, say, Lindchester university, and could it make such interventions at a course level? Could it, say, allow the Lindchester maths department to carry on but to spend degree courses in maths and accountancy or maths and tourism? If a slew of complaints came in about maths at Lindchester, the OfS could clearly investigate, but I doubt there are enough data around now at subject level to make that the basic unit of assessment. However, that is changing.
Recent comments from Ministers raise the spectre of that being used at a larger scale—perhaps to close down degrees that lead to what they perceive as poor outcomes. Could it, in theory, be used to hollow out a whole discipline? After all, if a key requirement is a percentage of graduates entering professional jobs at a certain salary level, what happens to, say, music students? As my noble friend Lady Morris said, they are usually gig economy workers when they first graduate, mixing income from music teaching, concerts or recording sessions and doing other work to pay the bills in quiet times—or, indeed, Covid times. Could this direction of travel lead to music schools or other creative arts providers being classed as failing and, if so, what is the knock-on effect on our creative industries, one of the most vital and fast-growing parts of our economy?
Finally on this point, will the Bill enable the OfS to intervene at the level of a module? If we end up with more credit transfer and flexibility, who is accountable for student outcomes? Is it the last institution the student attends? What if the earlier modules were terrible, while later ones were great?
Amendment 70 is aimed to ensure that the OfS works with the devolved Administrations to minimise the divergence in quality assessments, with the aim of protecting the international reputation of UK higher education. I have heard concerns that HE in England is moving out of line with the UK quality code and that our systems will be increasingly divergent. The coherence of our education system is important, both domestically and internationally, where our reputation for quality in higher education was very hard won over a long time.
Additionally, at least one university—the OU—operates in all four nations, and so could presumably end up facing quite different reporting and compliance regimes. As well as regulatory burdens, could we end up with a provider passing the registration process in Wales and failing in England? Can the Minister tell us what thought has been given to these issues?
Finally, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting into our debate today the issue of student well-being and mental health and for the very important points made by so many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Whitaker. This merits a wider debate on how good pastoral care in higher education can be prioritised and resourced and also, perhaps, on how good practice can be spread. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this and to all the questions I have put to her. I look forward to her reply.