For me, it is a mastery of policy detail. Over the last few years we’ve seen many examples of ministers made to look foolish when intelligent questioning shows up the limits of their knowledge.

It’s not fair to expect a minister responsible for universities to memorise every HESA table, but it is reasonable to expect that every appearance (be that a set-piece speech or giving evidence to a committee) will be accompanied by a briefing document put together by a team of expert civil servants, and also by political advice. It is fair to assume that a diligent minster will have digested and understood their briefing before they face questions.

So on 16 May Robert Halfon participated in a hearing as part of the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee inquiring into the work of the Office for Students. At some point before 27 July, he wrote to the committee to “clarify several of the points [he] made”. This letter, but not the two documents referred to that were sent alongside it, has now been published.

Here’s some of the stuff he got wrong on the day:

• He claimed only 65 per cent of students who’d been on free school meals achieve good progression outcomes at Russell Group universities. This is true for all universities, but for Russell Group students where data is available the correct figure is 76 per cent.
• He stated that 75 per cent of universities are in good financial health – this was true for 2020-21, but for the most recent year of data available (2021-22) the correct data is 72 per cent. Given the active monitoring of provider finances performed by the Office for Students, it may be fair to expect him to have used a figure from a more recent year.
• He suggested DfE has given providers £15m to spend on continuous professional development related to mental health. In fact DfE asked OfS to allocated £15m for mental health support more generally (including support for student transitions into higher education, and for joint working with health providers)
• He suggested that 10 per cent of adults hold a level 4 or 5 qualification, he in fact meant to say that 9 per cent of under 25s hold a level 4 or level 5 qualification as their highest current qualifications.
• In reporting that 50 per cent of entrants to higher technical qualification courses hold a level 6 (equivalent to a first degree) qualification – in fact as HTQs are still being rolled out we don’t know. We do know that roughly between 17 and 18 per cent of English domiciled entrants to OfS-recognised provision at l4 and l5 in 2021-22 were aiming for an equivalent or lower qualification than already held (the quality of data however is not great).
• And the minister informed the committee that the London Design and Engineering Technical College (UTC) had registered with the OfS. It has not – though the “similarly named” Engineering and Design Institute (not a UTC, commonly abbreviated as TEDI-London) is a registered provider.

Impressive.

Elsewhere in committee evidence, an anonymous submission puts the name of the OfS representative (already widely rumoured) that threatened a review of the Student Panel following a refusal to toe the political line into the public domain.