Lifelong Learning Bill Lords second reading

The most telling thing to emerge from the Lords’ second reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill was the government’s decision to commit it to the grand committee for the next stage.

For those of you blissfully unaware, the grand committee is (alongside a bill committee and the committee of the whole house) one of the three main ways the Lords’ committee stage of a bill can play out. The practical difference is that – unlike in the other two scenarios – there are no votes in the grand committee: any change to the bill needs to be agreed anonymously by any and all peers who choose to take part.

It’s a route more usually used when a bill is deemed uncontentious or holds the broad agreement of the majority of the house. But in recent years it has been used to bypass a key area of scrutiny – who can forget the visceral excitement when the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act had to return during committee to the “committee of the whole house” so a much needed vote could take place on the statutory tort? So once again, a bill will sail through both houses largely unamended – only for the Lords to cause trouble during ping-pong. It is a parliamentary legislative strategy, I suppose.

It’s fair to say that the broad purpose of the bill – to support access to lifelong learning – has the support of just about everyone. But as Baroness Wilcox noted the primary issue with the bill is a lack of detail. Most of the debate saw peers listing questions to which they would like the answer to. Save for a peculiar interlude where Lord (Daniel) Hannan (him off of Brexit) took time to explain what a lovely chap Lord (Tony) Sewell (him off of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities) was. Lord Rees mentioned MOOCs, for some reason.

Hannan and Sewell probably got more satisfaction from the debate than anyone else, as the last portion of proceedings saw the mellifluously-voiced Baroness Barran fail to give detailed answers to most of the questions posed. We will get a “will write” letter on the fate of the short courses trial – which Baroness Twycross declared a failure while Lord Stevens gleefully quoted Wonkhe coverage of the astonishingly low take up of the loan offer.

There were some hints as to a quality bar on further expansion of the LLE offer beyond the initial higher technical qualifications and similar vocational provision at levels 4 and 5. And we got further confirmation that the Office for Students will consult on the new registration category (for prior advanced learner loan supported providers) and appropriate initial and ongoing conditions. And there will be an outcomes metrics (B3) consultation next year, preceded by a call for evidence at some time in 2023.

Given the expertise available on both sides of the House, it seems wilfully perverse to deny peers the opportunity to vote on aspects of the bill and to attempt to improve it. There seems little point in having an upper house focused on scrutiny if you are not going to use it.