Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the University of the Air White Paper on lifelong learning opportunities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate marking the 60th anniversary of the White Paper that led to the founding of the Open University, originally called the “University of the Air”. It is worth pausing on that phrase for a moment, because 60 years later it still sounds faintly otherworldly, even with all our electronic gizmos and gadgets and the information whizzing around us constantly. A “University of the Air” meant higher education broadcast directly into people’s homes. It meant learning being made available not just to those who had always had privilege, not just to the young or the affluent, and not only to those who followed a conventional academic route, but, crucially, to ordinary working people fitting study around jobs, families and the realities of their lives.

Sixty years on, what once sounded ambitious, perhaps even eccentric to some, instead now looks visionary. That is because it was visionary. It did not begin as some sort of administrative reform dreamt up in Whitehall; first and foremost, it was a political project. Harold Wilson first floated the idea in 1963, after seeing the potential of television and broadcasting to widen access to education in ways that had not previously seemed possible. But the person who really drove the project forward was his Minister, Jennie Lee.

There are not many White Papers that leave behind institutions that still change lives six decades later, but this one did, because Jennie Lee understood something important: there has always been a mismatch in this country—potential is spread far more widely and far more equally than opportunity. In the mid-60s, the assumption was still that higher education belonged to a relatively narrow section of society.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the narrow cohort of people who normally benefit from higher education, does he agree that lifelong learning is an essential component for young people from working class communities in particular? Many of them do not take part in traditional higher education, and they can and should be targeted so that we benefit not just now but for generations to come.

I agree entirely, and will make similar points later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I are very much on the same page.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in recognising the Open University’s role in pioneering modules, credits and credit transfers, which turned lifelong learning into a reality for so many adults in my constituency? Does he agree that the funding changes in 2010 badly hit part time and mature learners, and that the promise of the White Paper still depends on the choices that Governments make on funding policies?

Funding is a huge issue here. The modular basis for the Open University has been a real boon to people who find themselves unable, for whatever reason, to study in a traditional format, but funding is still a key concern.

Back in the ’60s, university was for young people. It was thought to be for young people, usually at least middle class, studying full time and following a fairly prescribed path. The thinking went that if someone missed their opportunity at 18 or 21, that was that—they had had their chance. But Jennie Lee and the Wilson Government challenged that assumption. They believed that education ought not to be reserved for those lucky enough to travel a conventional route through life, and that people should have second chances—and third chances if they need them, and fourth chances too. Crucially, she insisted that there should be no lowering of standards and no second class offer for those who had missed out the first time round.

Perhaps the most radical thing of all was that the Open University would be genuinely open. The White Paper made it clear that people should be able to study irrespective of their previous educational qualifications. In other words, someone would not be shut out just because they had not done their A levels.

On all those points, the Government at the time were absolutely right, because the Open University has become one of the great success stories of modern Britain. Today, it is the largest university in the country, with around 125,000 students. Nearly a quarter of all part time higher education students in this country study at the OU. It reaches every constituency, including my own, Southport, where around 135 people are currently studying through it. This is not some sort of niche institution sitting at the margins of education policy but one of the central pillars of lifelong learning in this country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for celebrating such a great Labour achievement, led by a great Labour woman, Baroness Jennie Lee. Will he join me in congratulating the Open University and underlining its importance for people like me? I was looking after four children and was able to do a master’s at the Open University, spread out over three years, with some cutting edge modules that I still rely on now. The Open University opens up education for people from all backgrounds, offering home based and flexible learning, including for those with family responsibilities.

I am more than happy to commend Baroness Jennie Lee, and I am more than happy to celebrate the success of my hon. Friend and of the countless thousands of others who have studied around the real lives we all lead.

One reason why the Open University works is precisely because it understands something that many higher education institutions still struggle with: life is not linear. People do not all move neatly from school to university to career to retirement in a straight line. Our lives are messier than that. People leave school without confidence, drift into jobs and later discover different ambitions. They become parents, care for relatives, lose jobs, or their health changes. Sometimes, at 35, 45 or 55, they simply decide that they want to try something new. The original White Paper understood that. It explicitly talked about flexibility, recognising that some learners would move quickly and others slowly, depending on the realities of their lives. The Open University says something very simple to people in those circumstances: “It is not too late. It is never too late.”

I should declare an interest, because I would not be standing here in Westminster Hall this afternoon without the Open University. I did not come through the conventional route into higher education. I left school without much expectation that university was really for people like me. For most of my life, I worked in fairly ordinary, fairly low paid jobs. For instance, I sold “Magic Tree” air fresheners to petrol stations. I spent a decade working in a call centre for an insurance company. I spent a few soul destroying months working for a debt collector, before I could take no more and quit to go back on the dole.

Like many people, I found that without qualifications there were doors that simply remained shut, no matter how hard I tried. The Open University changed all that for me, although not in some dramatic overnight fashion like we might see in a television drama. It was hard work. It meant studying in the evenings, at weekends, on the bus to and from work—and, to be honest, probably sometimes during work if the boss was not looking. I was doing assignments when other members of the family were watching television or going out and getting on with their lives. But it made something possible for me that would otherwise not have been possible: it gave me the ability to learn around my life.

From speaking to other OU students over the years, I know that my story is far from unusual. There are hundreds of thousands of us out there who have rebuilt confidence, changed career, retrained or simply proved something to ourselves, because somebody, somewhere, 60 years ago had the foresight to build an institution flexible enough to meet people where they already are.

Something about all this is deeply embedded in the labour movement. The Open University sits in a much longer tradition of working class people organising to educate ourselves and improve our circumstances. Long before most people had access to university, we had mechanics’ institutes, miners’ libraries, mutual improvement societies, trade union reading rooms and university extension programmes. We had the Workers’ Educational Association. Working class people have always valued education, hard work and making something of ourselves. The nonsense about a lack of aspiration that we sometimes hear from the assembled ranks of the privileged has never been true. The problem was never aspiration; the problem was access.

In many ways, the “University of the Air” was the modern expression of that Victorian era working class tradition, and the belief that education should not stop, even when life gets complicated. That approach matters now more than ever. We live in a country where people are likely to work for longer. They change careers more often. They need to retrain repeatedly. We are also living through profound economic change, with automation, artificial intelligence, changing labour markets and an ageing population. We simply cannot operate on the assumption that education happens only once, in our late teens or early 20s, and then stops. Frankly, that never made sense, and it certainly does not make sense any more.

If we are serious about economic growth, improving productivity and helping people back into good work, lifelong learning has to move from being a worthy aspiration to being something much closer to the centre of how we think about our economy. Since being elected to Parliament, I have spent a lot of time working in the areas of employment, skills and economic inactivity, and I think we sometimes underestimate the role education plays in building people’s confidence as much as their competence. Often, people are not just missing qualifications; they are missing the confidence that they are capable of more. Adult education changes that. It changed it for me.

To be frank, I have forgotten quite a lot of the stuff that I was actually taught during my time at the Open University. I sometimes need a primer on the exact details of the theoretical framework underpinning the long run Phillips curve. When I re read my master’s thesis a few years ago, I surprised myself with how much I agreed with my conclusions on the intersection between liberty and unequal power relations. But I will never forget that moment back in December 2010, when I got my undergraduate result. It felt like validation. It was a confidence boost that has never left me.

In among the successes and the congratulations, we should be honest about the challenges—

My hon. Friend is speaking powerfully about his story and his experience of higher education. Young people from more advantaged or affluent backgrounds are still much more likely to enter higher education than their less advantaged peers. Socioeconomic background—what we more commonly call class—is still the strongest predictor of university attendance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the mission at the heart of the 1966 White Paper, to expand access to higher education and spread opportunity, is just as relevant today as it was then?

Definitely. If anything, it is even more important in 2026, with all the challenges we see around us.

As I said, we should be honest about the challenges. Despite the success of institutions like the Open University, adult participation in higher education has fallen over the last decade. Too often, the system still feels like it is designed around the traditional undergraduate who left school at 18, rather than the parents in their 30s or 40s, the worker retraining after redundancy or the person managing long term ill health while trying to rebuild their future. Yet mature students are not some small minority: more than a third of undergraduate entrants are mature learners. They are already a major part of our higher education system, whether we recognise it fully or not.

That is why I welcome the broad direction of travel on lifelong learning and the more flexible provision the Government are pursuing. The principle is right—people should be able to access education throughout their lives and in a way that fits around their work and family—but it remains true that implementation and delivery matter as well. If lifelong learning is genuinely to continue to work, people need a system they can understand and easily navigate. The funding regime needs to feel straightforward and fair. Flexible provision has to be properly supported. Employers need to be part of the conversation. And, frankly, we need many more people just to know that these opportunities exist, because too many adults still assume that higher education is simply not for people like them.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the role that institutions such as the Open University can play in regions like mine. One of its great strengths is that people do not have to leave their communities to access the opportunities available to them. That matters in places that have too often watched talent drain away, like the region I am from. Somebody in Southport or St Helens, in Birkenhead or Bootle, should not necessarily have to move away from their home town to improve their prospects. The Open University allows people to build skills while remaining rooted in the places that they love and that they want to contribute to. That strikes me as important, not just educationally but economically and socially.

I am proud that this Labour Government are acting in a way that is true to the founding vision of the Open University. The lifelong learning entitlement represents a major step forward. It is transforming the student finance system to support flexible, modular learning across people’s lives. For the first time, individuals will be able to access funding both for traditional degrees and for shorter courses, as well as retraining and skills development, when they need it throughout their careers. It is fitting that this reform builds directly on the principles pioneered by the Open University almost 60 years ago.

The OU’s expertise in modular, flexible provision will be vital in making the lifelong learning entitlement a success, but we must do more. We must ensure that part time provision is properly funded and properly supported, we must raise awareness so that more people know these opportunities exist, and we must ensure that lifelong learning is embedded across Government—yes, in education policy, but also in economic, employment and regional growth strategies as well.

As we mark 60 years since the White Paper, we should all do two things. First, we should celebrate one of the most genuinely radical and successful achievements of not just Harold Wilson’s Government but every Labour Government: an institution built on the belief that intelligence is not confined to one class, one place or one stage of life. Secondly, we should remember that the argument Jennie Lee made in 1966 is not yet finished. The central question remains exactly the same as it ever was: what do we do with potential that has not yet had its chance?

For millions of people, the Open University has represented confidence, dignity and a second opportunity. I know that, because in my case it changed the direction of my life. For that reason, if no other, I believe that the vision behind the “University of the Air” deserves not simply our admiration but our continued support.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this debate. I should also declare that I am a graduate and alumnus of the Open University, so I recognise many of those of its attributes that he mentioned. Unfortunately, I did not take the same speedy course that he did; in fact, it took me eight years to obtain my Bachelor of Science (Open), doing a 30-point level 1 to a 60-point level 3, with the odd 10-point thrown in in between—former graduates will know exactly what I am talking about.

The hon. Member talked about the changes we have seen in the Open University. I started when everything was tutor marked assessments, which meant you had to post them to my tutor, and I finished when everything had to be submitted over the internet. There was always that panic when you pushed the send button at five minutes to midnight, hoping that your internet stayed connected until the tutor had received your full assignment. However, I do not go back to the times when members were setting video cassette recorders to record lectures on BBC Two at 2 am, as was necessary then.

The hon. Member talked about the Open University giving students the ability to learn while they were working. It also instilled deep seated personal management skills, because students had to meet deadlines, while maintaining a work life balance and family interaction. It is right that we recognise that on this 60th anniversary of the “University of the Air”. But we should also recognise the other things the Open University has done with regard to learning and education, including the “Green Planet” TV series, an environmental series co produced with the BBC and narrated at that stage by Sir David Attenborough.

In terms of the opportunities offered by the Open University, I think everybody in the Chamber will recognise that there are four Northern Ireland MPs here today—that is four out of 11 or, as one of my maths courses taught me, 0.3636 recurring, as the decimalisation of the representation here from Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Southport talked about the value of the regions, and the Open University is greatly recognised and valued in Northern Ireland, because of its ability to deliver courses across the regions and across abilities as well.

In Scotland, we are very proud that Jennie Lee, the architect of the Open University, came from Lochgelly, which is in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman rightly touched on the importance of the devolved Administrations working with the Open University to create higher education opportunities for people who would not normally have them. In Scotland, 30% of students at the Open University have a disability support need. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is just one reason why it is important that the devolved Administrations, like the Westminster Government, work closely with the Open University to ensure that it can play its full role in lifelong learning?

I fully support the Member’s contribution. In fact, one in five Northern Ireland students is registered as having a disability. So the Open University opens up not just geographical and regional abilities but all abilities to lifelong learning.

Other Members have spoken about Jennie Lee, but I would like to diverge at this point and to take the opportunity to pay tribute to another individual, John D’Arcy, who was the director of the Open University in Ireland. John served 16 years in that post and just recently retired. I was working with him and through him, and his promotion of the Open University was testament to how we were able to produce it and forward it in Northern Ireland. It was very much his skill, his interaction and his time there that shaped the Open University as a public service. He did that with ambition and innovation and, above all, by always keeping people at the centre of it. We were grateful to John for all he brought to the university and that role.

One of John’s phrases was that the Open University in Northern Ireland was one of its best kept secrets, because the Open University was in fact the third university in Northern Ireland. It was during that time—I suppose from being a graduate of it—that I recognised that ability, and we were able, when I was Health Minister, to bring the Open University together with career progression and skill shortages and to marry the two up. At that point, we had 65 Open University undergraduate nursing places; currently, more than one third of Open University students in Northern Ireland are studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, and nearly 600 are training as nurses. One thing that was done was to allow people working as carers, but who did not have the opportunity to go to university to become nurses, to train in their workplace. What that did was bring a loyalty to many of the hospitals and wards, because people were being built up in the place they worked in and with the people they worked with. That was then able to be expanded into social work. The Open University was working with trusts and with our Department as well.

It is right and timely that we contribute to this debate, because now is the time to invest in high quality, flexible higher education. I also see a call there for the Northern Ireland Executive to introduce more flexible financial support for part time students and to progress a higher education funding review to reform the higher education funding model. In that way, they can properly support lifelong learning at a time when Northern Ireland needs to grow skills, improve productivity and widen opportunity, and we can realise the full potential of the Open University and those who have not had the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Southport indicated, to access third level education, which many employers are now looking for. It is with great pleasure that I support this motion.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for highlighting the wonderful work done by those institutions that are slightly off the beaten educational path, so to speak. Although the higher education sector has changed dramatically in the past 60 years, the Open University has continued to evolve, change and adapt while remaining true to its founding mission. From its inception, it has moved with the times. What began with television broadcasts, radio programmes and handwritten papers has now become a model of digital innovation and interactive online learning.

It is always a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. We look forward to his answers to the questions we will ask, and I will have some in my contribution. The Open University came to the fore, if we are looking back just to the last few years, during the pandemic lockdown, when it led the way. Remote teaching was suddenly introduced in schools and universities, but the OU had already been delivering distance learning effectively for decades; it was leading the way at that time. Although many institutions were forced to rush and to improvise a remote learning model, the Open University was drawing on years of experience to support its students.

The Open University has given countless opportunities to working class people who would otherwise never have had the chance to earn a degree. For many, the route to traditional universities had been out of reach, but the Open University offered a second, third or indeed fourth chance, producing graduates who have gone on to become nurses, teachers, engineers and community leaders, with many returning to the OU to complete their master’s degree and PhD. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) referred to the 65 who were on a course in his time as Health Minister and to the fact that it is now 600. That indicates just how many have been able to take advantage of this opportunity and to improve their life, improve their qualifications and improve life for others as a result.

The Open University’s commitment to inclusion was there from its inception. Long before diversity, equity and inclusion became a formal policy, the Open University had those values in place. Jennie Lee’s model has always welcomed students from every walk of life, judging them not on their past qualifications, age, sexual orientation, race or creed, but only encouraging them in their desire to learn—their motivation, their complete goal and purpose, and their desire to do more. It has been particularly transformative for women who put their ambitions on hold to raise families, meaning that they could return to education as mature students, often becoming the first in their family to graduate from university.

I can give one example. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is away, but I know from his discussions with me that his daughter was one of those women. She wanted to have a family, so then returned to the Open University at a later stage to learn education. That mature student with a family took an Open University degree and is now head of her department. My hon. Friend’s daughter is one example that is replicated dozens or perhaps hundreds of times across Northern Ireland and thousands of times across the United Kingdom.

The Open University in Northern Ireland has delivered particularly impactful outreach in prisons and working class communities. Those things are sometimes lost, but they should not be. I will share two examples of initiatives: the Shankill women’s centre in Belfast and the Kilcooley women’s centre, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). They do excellent work, not just in North Down but in Strangford, in partnership with the Open University. I have worked with them over the years as they have helped women to achieve goals they never thought they could.

The Open University has brought higher education directly into communities that have historically felt excluded from it. If we can do that—if women and men can see the opportunities, as I have witnessed over the years—that is good news. The OU’s scope is remarkable. Graduates include men and women from their 20s to their 90s; Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and fellow Members of this House, including the hon. Member for South Antrim. A member of my office staff, who took an Open University degree, achieved her goal with those qualifications and advanced what she is able to do. That demonstrates the depth of its impact.

In our prisons, the Open University has delivered life changing opportunities. For many inmates, Open University courses have provided purpose and a pathway to a better future after release. At justice questions in the Chamber, we often ask, as I have done, to keep people away from the unsavoury parts of prison life and give them an opportunity to do something different when they leave. It is a wonderful opportunity for inmates to have the Open University in prisons across the land. I hope the Minister will confirm that what we have done in Northern Ireland can be done on the UK mainland as well. What is being done to encourage and enable those in prison to take courses and see a different future, one that they perhaps would never have seen if they had not been in prison? It is a golden opportunity to shape life and do better.

Today, a higher number of young people than ever are opting to enrol with the Open University after A levels but, because it is not currently included in the UCAS system, the OU is a less visible choice than traditional brick universities. I ask the Minister to consider including the Open University in the UCAS system to ensure that it is a legitimate and visible post A level choice for young people, alongside mainstream institutions. It should be, it must be, and perhaps the Minister will confirm that it will be.

The things that improve a society more than anything else are access to good healthcare, access to opportunities and a choice in education. The Open University continues to impact and change the lives of hundreds of thousands of students every year, who balance work, family life and life’s challenges with their studies. The OU offers no barriers to learning to anyone of any age. It is the very definition of lifelong learning, just as Jennie Lee envisaged many years ago. With the hon. Member for Southport and the hon. Member for South Antrim—and the party spokespersons and the Minister, whose speeches will follow mine—I celebrate the OU for its extraordinary and continuing contribution to people’s lives. It is lovely to see something that we Brits have done well.

Reflecting on the contributions so far, it is also worth noting that the Open University supports the members of our British armed forces through its courses.

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us that many in the armed forces have taken that opportunity. The opportunity is there within their busy lives, and the opportunity is clear. We must ensure that this proud and uniquely British success story keeps opening doors for generations to come. That has to be the ambition and the goal, and that is what we are doing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing the debate. I know that he is a passionate advocate and champion of the OU. I welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject that, frankly, deserves far more attention.

Opening access to education, rewarding hard work and helping everyone to fulfil their potential are aims that sit at the heart of the Liberal Democrat vision for a free and fair society. Our predecessors were wholeheartedly supportive of the spirit behind the 1966 White Paper and we continue to be so. It is right that we mark its 60th anniversary by celebrating the work that it set in motion.

In my constituency there are currently 240 Open University students: 210 undergraduates and 30 postgraduates. Nearly half of those undergraduates started their studies under the age of 30 and over a quarter declare a disability. That tells us something about how OU study fits around life. It is not a story that is unique to my patch. Nationally, 19% of OU students live in the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country, nearly 70% are already in work when they begin studying, and three in four arrive with no previous higher education qualification at all. That is a testament to the access mission that the OU embodies.

In preparing for this debate, I enjoyed revisiting the 1966 White Paper, its proposals and the debates that led up to it. Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing but after reading one Member dismiss the idea as an “inflated concept” in a 1965 debate, I could not help but reflect, 60 years later, that the OU has comprehensively answered that objection, becoming a much loved national institution.

It has also been interesting to reflect on the world of adult education at the time. The White Paper was explicit that the university would sit alongside a wider ecosystem of provision, not replace it. The Government of the day promised to make full use of “existing agencies, such as the Extra Mural Departments of Universities, the Workers’ Educational Association…and local education authorities.”

In fact, the White Paper returns to that point twice. The vision was plural: a national broadcasting university—at the time—working hand in hand with local night classes, adult education centres and further education colleges, each reinforcing the other.

The Open University itself has remained admirably faithful to that founding outward facing instinct. It partners with institutions that lack their own degree awarding powers, validating their programmes, and a high proportion of its graduates stay in their local area, contributing to the local economy. Five years after graduating, more than nine in 10 OU graduates still live in the postcode area where they studied, which I believe is precisely the kind of locally rooted impact hoped for by the authors of the White Paper.

What has perhaps not survived so well is the other half of the 1966 vision—the local ecosystem that the OU was meant to complement. Public funding for adult skills and community learning has fallen sharply since its peak in the early 2000s. Spending on classroom based adult education specifically has fallen by about two thirds over that period, and the number of publicly funded classroom based further education courses taken by adults in England has dropped from 5.4 million in 2004-05 to just 1.7 million last year, which is a fall of about 70%. Of course, that is not the OU’s doing, and further education colleges still do excellent work within a narrower remit, but the wider tapestry of provision that the White Paper authors assumed would sit alongside a “University of the Air” has thinned out considerably since.

Even the OU is feeling the strain of operating in that emptier landscape. Its own accounts for the last financial year show an accounting deficit of £27 million, which was brought back into a small underlying operating surplus only through a sustained programme of costs reduction, including the loss, sadly, of over 300 full time equivalent roles last year. That should be seen less as a reflection on the OU, and more as a reflection on a much deeper structural problem. The part time higher education market in England has been shrinking for years, and the OU, even as the strongest player in that market, cannot grow the pool of adult learners on its own. That is a job for Government policy, not for one institution’s marketing budget.

That is exactly why the choice of funding mechanism matters so much for mature and returning learners. The lifelong learning entitlement that the Government are bringing forward is a welcome step in the right direction, but the evidence consistently shows that loans are not a strong enough incentive on their own to get more people from that group into education or training. Financial anxiety is already one of the biggest barriers preventing people from returning to study. Older learners are understandably more risk averse than 18-year olds, and asking someone to take on the very debt they are trying to avoid to access more flexible and modular learning is not necessarily the answer.

Instead, we Liberal Democrats have long called for grants of between £5,000 and £10,000 to be made available to people at key stages throughout their life to support retraining and reskilling. To ensure that that funding is well spent, we would pair it with good guidance on the options available and make sure that it is usable across a wide range of institutions, from local further education colleges to national universities and, of course, the OU.

I hope the Minister, hearing praise from across the Chamber for the OU’s success in reaching learners of all ages, will give serious thought to that proposal for the long term, because it will matter more, not less, as time goes on. The world of work is changing fast, and maintaining a highly skilled, productive economy will require us to continually invest in our most precious resource—people.

Learning cannot be a cost to be minimised once an initial education ends. The OU’s own record bears out the difference that can be made: it is ranked third nationally for graduate employability, and it has innovative schemes such as the virtual internships programme, which was built specifically for distance learners who could never have accessed an internship through conventional routes. That is what lifelong learning looks like when it works, but it cannot fall to one institution. Perhaps the most important insight from the White Paper is that no single institution, however innovative, can deliver lifelong learning alone. That responsibility sits with Government, who have their own opportunity to address that.

Last October’s “Post-16 education and skills” White Paper restated the Government’s ambitions for the lifelong learning entitlement, which is due to come into force in January 2027. However, the secondary legislation and implementation detail that will determine whether it actually reaches risk averse adult learners, rather than just the 18-year olds who the loan model already works for, remain outstanding. I therefore hope that the Minister can set out not just the date for that detail but whether the detail will include any role, or ambition, for grants alongside loans. It would be fitting for the anniversary that we are celebrating today to be marked by such a step forward in adult education.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this debate, and for sharing with us his personal journey to becoming an Open University graduate and the opportunities that higher education opened up for him. In his remarks, the passion of his political world view shone through, and though the very nature of my sitting on the Conservative Benches might mean we have some differences, I am a Lancashire man from working class stock, and I agree with him forcibly that education should be available to all and applied with hard work—that is the most powerful action for social mobility.

I pay tribute to my honourable Unionist friends from Ulster, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions. They eloquently made points about skills beyond education and the wider personal growth available to people who attend the Open University, and particularly how important the Open University is in Northern Ireland. The two examples of the women’s centres made it clear that the Open University’s accessibility has been transformational to some of those young ladies’ lives. The hon. Member for Strangford also made an interesting point about UCAS, which I was not aware of, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to that.

This year marks 60 years since Harold Wilson’s Government published the “University of the Air” White Paper, which, seeking to capitalise on the advances in television and radio programme learning, set out plans for an Open University to provide higher and further education for those unable to take advantage of courses in existing colleges and universities. Envisioned as a way to tackle pressure on university and college places following the post second world war baby boom by providing home study to university and higher technical standards, the plan for the “University of the Air” was to provide high quality education to more adults through television and radio lectures, correspondence courses, residential courses and tutorials, and study groups at community centres. Those ideas formed the basis of what we know today as the Open University.

Like the hon. Member for Southport, I pay tribute to the late Baroness Lee of Asheridge, Jennie Lee, who was instrumental in setting up the Open University, for all her work to promote lifelong learning. When it first opened to students in 1971, the Open University offered 25,000 places. Today, it has provided courses to more than 2.3 million people. It is clear that the Open University’s flexibility helps make adult education and lifelong learning a reality for thousands who might not otherwise be able to access traditional campus based study. Last academic year, 67% of Open University students worked full or part time during their studies. That speaks to a culture of ambition and opportunity that lifelong learning helps to cultivate.

More than just statistics, we can see the real impact of the Open University and lifelong learning in the individual stories of those whose lives it has transformed. I know how transformative lifelong learning can be from my own early childhood memories. My first memories were of my parents going to night school—in their instance, further education—on alternate evenings; my father got his electrical qualifications, and my mother got her accountancy qualifications. They set up a small business that was transformational for mine and my brother’s life. Many others accessing the Open University, whether they be working parents, people with caring responsibilities or simply adults looking to grasp the opportunities that, for whatever reason, were not available or accessible to them when they left school, have benefited from the empowerment that comes from being able to take their education and their future into their own hands.

I also want to recognise just how hard working and motivated many adult learners are, and the courage it must take to return to education later in life. As we heard during the debate, the ways in which learning can change lives, and the things that many people who have sought out training or upskilling go on to achieve, are truly extraordinary.

The previous Government were clear about the value of adult education. I am proud of the Conservatives’ record, which included introducing the apprenticeship levy, skills bootcamps and free courses for jobs. Together, those initiatives have helped to give adults opportunities to learn the skills that employers are looking for, which will lead them to better jobs, better wellbeing and better opportunities for the future.

The Conservatives also welcome the upcoming launch of the lifelong learning entitlement, which I understand will be available for courses from January 2027. Although the Minister may wish to take some credit for it, the LLE was put forward by the previous Government to give adults a loan entitlement of up to four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime. Crucially, the previous Government envisaged the LLE for a whole range of adult education, including full courses at higher technical and degree level, and new modular funding. I am glad that the first of the new modular courses will be launching next year.

Raising awareness of the new overhaul of post-18 education funding will be crucial if we are to ensure that it can help unlock learning for as many adults as possible. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is raising awareness of the new funding options that will soon be available for post-18 education. How does he plan to attract learners who might not have traditionally sought out lifelong learning and training opportunities?

The current Government say that they are committed to increasing funding for adult education. However, since entering office, they have instead cut the adult skills budget by 6%. Industry was rightly shocked, calling it a “shortsighted” move that will undermine economic growth, set back organisations and learners, and undermine trust in the Government’s vision for the country. Key sectors in our economy are calling for growth in adult education, not cutbacks.

I turn to lifelong learning in other forms, including apprenticeships. Although, as demonstrated today, we all know that a high quality university degree can set someone on the path to success and that higher education plays an important role in lifelong learning, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that it is not the case for every course. It is frankly a scandal that too many traditional university courses do not deliver jobs in the industry that they claim to serve. Some courses will draw people in with the promise of a stable and fulfilling career but deliver nothing but mounting debt and a dead end. That is why, if we really want to support lifelong learning, we must be honest about the real issue of funnelling young people and adults into courses that do not get them the jobs that they are seeking and do not allow them to repay their loans. It is also why we must ensure that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18 and beyond, and a viable, equally esteemed alternative to university.

We have a serious skills shortage. Nearly half of vacancies in the construction sector and skilled trades are the result of skills shortages. As has been discussed, the Opposition are concerned by the Government’s decision to withdraw public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, cutting support for the highest level apprenticeships that provide vital routes for adult learners into skilled careers such as nursing. It is a major blow to social mobility for adult learners, shutting out talent from disadvantaged backgrounds and taking opportunities away from adult learners. Not only will culling level 7 apprenticeships hurt employers, but it is destabilising for university providers. It will hit institutions that have tried to open up opportunities for those who traditionally do not go to university, including, of course, the Open University. Since the announcement last year, what engagement has the Minister had with institutions, including the Open University, about the impact of axing level 7 apprenticeships?

For much of the last 30 years, our approach to higher education has hinged on the underlying assumption that successfully completing a traditional university degree is one of the best ways to boost a person’s opportunities in life. Young people and adults who pay tens of thousands of pounds to complete their degree, whether up front or through repayments, rightly and reasonably expect that it will boost their job prospects and income. If we really want to encourage lifelong learning, we must ensure that issues with low quality and dead end traditional degrees are addressed. A more flexible option may be part of the solution.

Lifelong learning should be for everyone. Whether that is someone taking on a new qualification to advance their career or pursuing a high quality university degree as an adult, the empowerment and opportunity that comes from learning is truly life changing. The Open University has played an important role in opening up opportunities for millions of adults. The Government must be prepared to address the serious issues that exist with both the current welfare system and low value university courses to ensure that those who invest in education at whatever stage in their life are rewarded with the opportunities they deserve.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this very timely debate and on the characteristically thoughtful case he made. I also give credit to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), a graduate of the Open University himself, who reminded us of the analogue age of VCRs and the magic of Sir David Attenborough.

I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for highlighting the genuine inclusivity of the Open University from its inception. He was also right to highlight the importance of prisoner education. Although it is not within my area of responsibility, I am very passionate about it, and I believe that the Open University and other providers have a really important role to play, given the captive nature of the audience and the chance for prison to be a place where people can genuinely turn their lives around.

I want to answer the question about UCAS before I turn to the wider debate. The Open University chooses to manage applications directly, partly because of the need for flexibility beyond the normal academic cycle, but information about OU courses, including modular courses, is available on the UCAS website.

I am keen not to get drawn too far away from the topic of the Open University, but I will respond in short to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who raised issues regarding level 7 apprenticeships. This is an area simply of disagreement on policy and on where the resources that sit behind the apprenticeships levy—which is now the growth and skills levy—should rest. I am really keen, as is the Education Secretary, for those resources to be targeted very much at those who might not have taken the university path and for those entry level apprenticeship routes to be funded to the max. That is why that policy decision was made. I stand by it and believe it was the right decision on balance for the use of those resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport speaks in this debate not just as an advocate for lifelong learning but as living proof of its potential. As he spoke about movingly, his example is of someone who enrolled with the OU at the age of 30, and five years later emerged with both an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree to their name. That, for me, is the Open University’s mission in a nutshell—not a makeshift second chance, but a genuinely world class route to opportunity for people who were not on academic pathways at the age of 18. That is why his advocacy carries such weight. In Southport, he has carried that conviction into the community at the heart of his constituency, championing the learning festival that took place in the town last year and being a strong advocate for improving educational opportunities more broadly. I have been lobbied many times about school buildings by him, so I can attest to that.

As my hon. Friend explained, it will be 60 years ago next February since another Labour Minister, Jennie Lee, published the White Paper, “A University of the Air”. She did so in the face of immense scepticism. Whitehall was snooty, the press was cynical and much of the establishment argued that the money should be spent elsewhere, but Jennie Lee was, in Harold Wilson’s words, “a tigress”. At a famous Cabinet meeting at Chequers just before the 1966 election, she argued that while the national health service was the greatest creation of the post war Labour Government, the “University of the Air” would make “just as much difference to the country.”

The White Paper made a radical argument that higher education should be open to all, regardless of background or prior qualifications, that learning should be flexible, rigorous and lifelong, and that new technology would carry academic excellence far beyond the walls of traditional institutions. Jennie Lee won that argument, and 60 years on, every part of that vision—open access, flexibility and technology in service of excellence—reads less like history and more like a description of the task that sits in front of us today.

The Open University, the institution founded as a consequence of that White Paper, is today the largest academic institution in the UK, with students in all 650 parliamentary constituencies. Since 1969, it has taught more than 2.5 million students worldwide. Three quarters of its undergraduates arrive with no previous higher education qualifications. The open door that Jennie Lee promised is still open.

In the last five years alone, more than 15,000 people who began studying without any A levels have earned higher education qualifications through the Open University. Two thirds of its students are working while they study. It is learning that fits around life—not the other way around. The OU was never second best: at the last assessment, 82% of its research impact was rated world leading or internationally excellent, and last year it was awarded gold—the highest ranking—in the teaching excellence framework.

We all, including the Minister, recognise that the Open University reaches out to those who are perhaps isolated and lonely. It gives them an opportunity to focus their attention on a degree, thereby giving them hope for the future. That is sometimes underestimated, but it is critical.

I completely agree. I will turn now to the Government’s actions, which will take the Open University to its next chapter, so that those opportunities are spread even more across our great country.

Last October, we published the “Post-16 education and skills” White Paper. There is a powerful alignment between the Open University’s mission to widen access and our own vision, set out in that White Paper, for a world leading skills system that breaks down barriers to opportunity. The strategy in the White Paper is the blueprint for delivering our new target for two thirds of young people to be participating in higher level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships. We are determined to break the damaging link between background and success, and we want more people from all backgrounds to be able to access higher education as part of that.

As part of our reforms, the lifelong learning entitlement —a policy from the previous Government that I am very pleased we are continuing, with cross party support—represents one of the most significant student finance reforms in a generation. For the first time, it establishes a single, flexible funding system covering levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education, enabling people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives.

The rationale for the entitlement is clear. More than a third of vacancies go unfilled due to skills shortages, and around 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in employment. However, the current system was largely designed for younger, full time students and lacks the flexibility that adults in work need. The LLE will expand access to higher quality, flexible education and training, promote learner mobility and ensure that providers can respond to the needs of learners, employers and the wider economy.

Sixty years ago, a White Paper of just a few pages was dismissed as vague, insubstantial and impractical. Today, the institution it created has taught more than 2 million people, with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport among them. That is the test that Jennie Lee set us: not whether an idea is convenient, but whether it changes lives. She insisted that there could be no question of offering students a makeshift project, inferior in quality to other universities. Sixty years on, that standard still binds us.

From January next year funding will, for the first time, follow the learner, module by module, at any stage of life. Our ambition that two thirds of young people reach higher level learning is matched by an entitlement that lasts to 60, because opportunity should not have a closing date. Jennie Lee’s revolution was to say that the door to education should never close behind someone. The task of the next 60 years is to hold that door open wider still, in Southport and in every community like it. When our learners thrive, our country thrives.

Patrick Hurley, you have two minutes to wind up.

First, I pay tribute to you, Sir Desmond, for your exemplary chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I also thank Members from across the House for their valued contributions.

With your indulgence, Sir Desmond, I will touch on funding, a topic raised by several Members, through an anecdote about how I paid my Open University fees. When I studied at the OU, modules were around £700 each. Even that was too expensive for me. It was not until I realised that I could pay for my modules using Tesco Clubcard vouchers that I finally took the plunge and enrolled.

The choice was this: every few months, a booklet from Tesco would come through the post, and I would have the option of getting 50% off a Pizza Express bill, or free cinema tickets, or potentially transforming my life through higher education. Given the context, it was no choice at all—it was obvious what I should do.

Funding is never easy, but we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the principle the OU was founded on—that education should be affordable and accessible to all—holds true not just for the last 60 years, but for the next 60 years.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the University of the Air White Paper on lifelong learning opportunities.

Sitting suspended.