Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper

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?