Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [ Lords ]

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, it might be helpful if I remind Members that the Second Reading of this Bill is being debated in Committee, rather than in the Chamber, because it is a Law Commission Bill. Under Standing Order No. 59, Law Commission Bills stand automatically referred to a Second Reading Committee. As this is a Second Reading debate, no Member may speak more than once without the leave of the Committee. Permission is conventionally granted, however, to the Minister moving the motion to do so, at the end of the debate.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee recommends that the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the law commissioners for bringing the Bill to the House in this state. It has had a consensual passage through the other place. I recently inherited the role of Minister with responsibility for intellectual property from Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who has gone to the Treasury, and I am pleased to be responsible for introducing the Bill to this House.

The intellectual property regime is crucial to the UK’s economic growth. IP-intensive industries are estimated to generate more than 25% of UK employment and 37% of UK GDP. IP is also vital to protecting and building our strong research base, creating economic growth from our fantastic universities and world-class scientific research. The importance of IP is reflected in our manifesto commitment to make the UK

“the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business.”

The Bill is just one of a number of ways in which the Government are taking action to improve the IP regime. We have brought the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court one step closer, giving businesses the option to protect their inventions in up to 25 countries with a single patent. Furthermore, the Digital Economy Bill, which left the House in December, contains important IP provisions, including reforms to the penalties for copyright infringement.

Of course, improving the IP regime is not limited to legislation. The Intellectual Property Office is continually improving its services and increasing the availability of digital IP tools. We also continue to make considerable progress through international harmonisation of IP laws and practice, as well as IP education, outreach and enforcement activities on a number of fronts.

The Bill is of narrow scope but fits perfectly with the Government’s wider work on the IP regime. It gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission following in-depth analysis and extensive consultation. The Law Commission is a statutory independent body, tasked with reviewing the law to ensure that it is modern, fair and fit for purpose. Like other Bills resulting from the Law Commission’s work, the Bill follows a special parliamentary procedure that facilitates uncontroversial but important law reform.

I am grateful to colleagues in the other place who have given the Bill their detailed attention. Their enhanced scrutiny, as required by the special procedure, is greatly appreciated. In particular, the Special Public Bill Committee considered detailed evidence from industry, the legal profession, the IP judiciary and others. I am also thankful to the Law Commission and stakeholders who have worked together and with Government to produce and refine these much-needed reforms. As a consequence of those efforts, the Bill comes before us in very good shape.

I will briefly explain the complex and specialist aspect of our IP framework with which the Bill is concerned, namely unjustified threats—that is, a threat to sue for infringement of an IP right where no infringement has taken place or where the IP right in question is invalid. The considerable financial burden of IP litigation means that many businesses seek to avoid it at all costs. Small businesses in particular are disproportionately affected by the drain that such litigation places on their limited time and resources. The mere threat of being sued for IP infringement can therefore drive customers or retailers away from an entirely legitimate business. As a result, unjustified threats can cause significant commercial damage. To combat that, the threats provisions have existed in some form for more than 100 years. They offer much-needed protection and provide appropriate remedies to those affected by an unjustified threat.

Unfortunately, the existing threats provisions are not as effective as they should be. They are overly complex and have developed in a piecemeal fashion across the different IP rights. The law is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result, which is why the Government asked the law commissioners to review this area of law in detail in 2012. The Law Commission made a number of detailed of recommendations, which are reflected in the Bill. It substituted new threats provisions for old within the relevant parent Act for the relevant IP rights: patents, trademarks and both registered and unregistered designs. The main clauses repeat the same substantive law across each of those rights.

There are five main parts to each clause. The first sets out a clear test for whether a particular communication contains a threat. The second sets out which types of threat trigger the threats provisions. The third gives guidance on what can be safely said. The fourth sets out remedies and defences. The fifth introduces an exemption so that threats claims cannot be brought against regulated professional advisers acting under instruction.

I hope that the Committee has found that brief explanation helpful. The provisions have been the subject of a great deal of detailed work, including at the Law Commission stage, with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Law Society, and during the Bill’s scrutiny thus far. The new provisions form just one small part of the wider IP regime that is so important for this country’s prosperity, but they are nevertheless worthy and important reforms that will make a real difference to UK innovators, inventors and designers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

This has been a good debate, during which we have been graced by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby on his 60th birthday. Inventors and manufacturers in Rugby will have followed our proceedings with interest, and I am glad that they will have heard members on both sides of the Committee express support for the Bill. I am grateful to them for acknowledging that the Government have taken up the Law Commission’s good work. Getting the threats provisions right is important in supporting our creators, innovators and businesses—large and small—and, as I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to our brief but useful debate.

Turning to some of the points raised, threats to manufacturers or importers and their equivalents rightly will not trigger threats actions. That will allow rights holders to approach the trade source of a potential infringement. Manufacturers and importers are likely to be able to assess whether a threat to sue is justified. Having invested in the product in question, they will also be more willing to challenge a threat, if required. The provisions therefore encourage rights holders to approach the most appropriate person or business while protecting others, such as retailers, from unfair approaches and unreasonable threats. Making threats to primary actors actionable would stifle the ability of rights holders to enforce their rights. We therefore believe that the Bill strikes the right balance, and there is no evidence that stakeholders want that aspect of it to change.

On remedies, the threats provisions are just one crucial part of the wider toolkit available to those seeking to resolve genuine issues, and can be used alongside a range of alternative dispute resolution measures, such as mediation, to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. For example, the IPO itself provides a flexible, quick and effective IP mediation service, which helps parties who are in dispute to reach agreement. There is simply no evidence that the sensible current remedies are deficient.

Reform of the threats provisions is long overdue, and this small but well-formed Bill will allow us to deliver valuable change now. It will help businesses to negotiate fairly in IP disputes, provide clarity and bring much-needed consistency to the complex area of IP law. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to discuss these issues, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the EU: Science and Research

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered exiting the EU and science and research.

I am pleased to introduce today’s debate about science and research, which is one of a number of debates about our exit from the European Union. It is important that we continue to give Members of this House the opportunity to discuss and debate Brexit and the impact it will have on our country.

I would like to say up front that the UK’s science base is not only one of this country’s most impressive national achievements, but one of the strongest in the world. Within the G7, we have the most productive science base in terms of papers and citations per unit of GDP. With our world-class universities, four of which are in the world’s top 10, and 18 in the world’s top 100, we have a long-established system that supports and attracts the brightest minds throughout their career and enables them to generate high-quality research. With less than 1% of the global population and just over 3% of global research and development spend, the UK produces almost one fifth of the most highly cited research articles.

The benefits for our economy are very real. The World Economic Forum ranks the UK among the top four nations in the world for university-industry collaboration in R and D, and we ranked third in the global innovation index in 2016.

If hon. Members want a specific example, they might look at the space sector—a high-growth, high-productivity industry that showcases UK research strengths in a global market. Earlier this month at the European Space Agency Council of Ministers, the Government showed their confidence by investing an extra £1.4 billion in ESA, so that we support the world-class science and innovation underpinning this high-growth sector of the economy. Our investment of €170 million in the exploration programme will bring tangible benefits, ensuring, for example, that the ExoMars rover, which is being built in Stevenage is completed and launched.

Thanks to our investments we now lead the research and innovation programmes in ESA for telecoms, Earth observation and navigation, thereby positioning the UK to seize opportunities in those growing markets. I also signed a new memorandum of understanding with ESA to ensure that its European centre for space applications and telecommunications at Harwell, which is a fast-growing space cluster in Oxfordshire, is the focus for the agency’s commercial exploitation of space data.

Those and earlier investments are delivering results. The space sector in this country is growing strongly. It is now worth £13.7 billion a year to the UK economy, employing just under 40,000 people, and we are ambitious for it. We want to increase our share in the global sector to 10% by 2030, creating 100,000 new jobs.

Space is one of a number of success stories that are in part due to Government investments in collaborative structures with international partners in Europe and around the world—a story that we plan to continue writing long after we have left the European Union.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Minister has mentioned collaboration with EU partners and others around the world. I represent a university that has given us Dolly the sheep and, indeed, Higgs boson, so we know that collaboration works, but the only reason that Dolly the sheep and Higgs boson are associated with the University of Edinburgh is that it was able to lead those collaborative projects. We are hearing already that the prospect of leading such collaborative projects is being jeopardised, because of the decision to leave the European Union. Will the Minister do all that he possibly can to ensure that universities such as Edinburgh in my constituency are protected in our exiting the European Union?

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why the Government have, in various announcements, given assurances to UK institutions and institutions across the European Union that we remain full members of the European Union and that we are eligible to lead European bids and to compete successfully in bids for funding streams. We continue to do so and we want institutions such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents in Edinburgh to continue to be as successful as they have been in the past.

This Government recognise that our world-leading science and research must be at the very heart of our industrial strategy, and we are matching rhetoric with resources. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion a year for R and D by 2021. That is the single biggest uplift in research and innovation spending in decades and it is an opportunity for us to make Britain, in the Prime Minister’s words, the

“global go-to place for scientists, innovators and tech investors”.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he agree that that investment and commitment also builds business confidence? This week, AstraZeneca opened a £120 million investment site, which demonstrates its commitment to the UK economy because of the support that he rightly highlights.

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It certainly boosts not only the confidence of our research communities, but that of the business community, which sees that we are putting innovation at the very heart of our industrial strategy. For every pound of public investment in research, we get back more than £7 of net economic benefit, both at local and national level. When we invest in research, we invest in our wider prosperity.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Although the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government will continue to fund EU projects such as Horizon 2020 was welcome, it is still important to make sure that our universities continue to collaborate. What further measures will the Minister take to ensure that that happens?

[Joseph Johnson]

Our universities are successful in winning European funding bids. In fact, we have the top four slots of all European institutions, in Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and University College London—[Interruption.]—in terms of the share of participations. That underscores the strengths of our university system and we want them to continue to be able to bid successfully for as long as we are members of the European Union.

We want that level of economic benefit to continue long after we leave the EU, which is why we are setting up the industrial strategy challenge fund. It will back priority technologies such as robotics and biotechnology where, just as in the space sector, the UK has the potential to turn research strengths into a global, industrial and commercial lead. Although our research and innovation system is world leading, we are working to ensure that it stays that way by being even more effective. That is why we are implementing Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendation that we should establish a single strategic research and innovation funding body—UK Research and Innovation —which will be a strong and unified voice, championing UK research and innovation nationally and internationally.

The EU is, of course, important for the UK’s research base, but it is not the only game in town. The UK was a place of learning before many of the EU’s member states even existed. Some of our universities have been centres of research excellence for nearly a millennium. The UK will, of course, continue to play a leading role in major, non-EU research collaborations that take place here—from CERN in Switzerland, to the European Space Agency. We are a major partner in the new Square Kilometre Array, the world’s largest radio telescope, whose global headquarters will be based at Jodrell Bank. In the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, it was UK researchers, working with their counterparts, who made the dramatic gravitational waves discovery possible.

All that said, it will, of course, not be lost on many hon. Members that there are many valuable interactions between UK and EU scientific institutions. We work closely with our European neighbours on issues that affect our planet as well as everyone on it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has promised to guarantee projects that win funds from Horizon 2020 before we leave the EU. He has set two further tests for those guarantees, namely that projects should be good value for money and in line with domestic strategic priorities. However, when researchers apply for Horizon 2020 funds, it is not clear how they will know whether their projects are “good value for money” and in line with the Government’s strategic priorities. Will the Minister please explain, for the benefit not just of the House but of academics, what they are supposed to do to meet the Chancellor’s criteria?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Chancellor’s statement of 13 August was an extremely important one, and it did a great deal to help to put aside the uncertainty of the science and research community about its ability to participate in competitively won funding streams. The Treasury has made it clear that it will be good for guaranteeing payments that fall due to UK institutions after the moment of Brexit. That has significantly helped to reassure our scientists and researchers that they can confidently bid for funding streams in the months ahead.

It is not in our interests to turn away from our long-standing partnerships. That message was reinforced by the Prime Minister when she stated that the Government are committed to a positive outcome for UK science as we exit the European Union. Our priorities in that respect can be broken down into two core issues: continuity in international research collaboration and maintenance of the factors that make the UK the location of choice for some of the best minds on the planet. With regard to a smooth departure from the EU, the two core inputs into those issues are funding and people.

On funding, as I have just said, the Chancellor announced in August that the Treasury will guarantee all successful, competitively bid-for EU research funding that is applied for before the UK leaves the EU. That means that UK participants and their international partners can be confident that they will have the funding necessary throughout the life of their Horizon 2020-funded project. The UK, as hon. Members know, has benefited strongly from Horizon 2020, with more than 5,200 participations and more than €2.6 billion of funding support since 2014. We are top of the table for participations and second only to Germany in funding won.

In addition to underwriting the competitively bid-for research funding, the Chancellor has confirmed that funding will be guaranteed for structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK departs from the EU. We have worked closely with the European Commission to provide swift reassurances. Commissioner Moedas stated immediately after the referendum that

“as long as the UK is a member of the European Union, EU law continues to apply and the UK retains all rights and obligations of a Member State.”

That helps us to reinforce the message that we still have the same terms of access to European research funding, including Horizon 2020, for as long as we are a member of the EU.

When it comes to people, we recognise the significant contribution to our research base made by non-UK EU nationals. The Prime Minister made it clear again earlier today that during negotiations she wants to protect the status of EU nationals who are already living here. As a global hub for research excellence, we will always welcome the best and the brightest. Others are concerned about EU national students and the rules regarding their student loans from the Student Loans Company, and I reassure the House that those rules are unchanged and remain in force.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Minister is giving an eloquent description of our current situation, but I am thinking post Brexit. The key question is this: do the Government intend to seek associate country status for Horizon 2020? That would give us some continuity.

[Joseph Johnson]

These are important questions, which, my hon. Friend will understand, will form a significant part of the overall discussions around our future relations with the EU. We recognise the benefits of collaboration with European partners, and we will seek to ensure that we can continue to derive strong collaboration arrangements all around the world.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for our university sector since he took up his post. One of the key concerns of my university, and of others across the country—he probably knows what I am about to say—is in relation to international student numbers. Given the opportunities available to us in a post-Brexit world, we have to be better at communicating what immigration looks like in our country. For me, and probably for most universities across the country, it is important that we split up our international student numbers from our overall immigration figures. That has the support of 70% of the public. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree on that point.

[Joseph Johnson]

Whenever I get the chance, I reiterate that we welcome international students and value the contribution that they make to our universities and our economy. I am pleased to be able to repeat that there is no cap on the number of international students who can come and study here, and there is no plan to introduce one.

It is important that we make it clear that EU students continue to be able to access our loan book and come here to study on home fee status, just as domestic UK students do. The Government have been very quick to make that clear to students applying in 2016-17 and to those who will be applying in 2017-18. We will decide the policy for the 2018-19 academic year in plenty of time for the start of that application process.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

May I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education? Non-EU nationals may be more reluctant than they were to come to this country for as long as our international relationships with the rest of the EU remain unclear.

[Joseph Johnson]

As I have said, we want to encourage international students to come to the UK. They bring enormous benefits to our universities and to our economy, and we have no plans to introduce a cap. We have a great higher education system, and the fact that we attract the second-largest group of international students of any country testifies to the quality of our institutions. That will continue after Brexit.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell us how much it costs to fund the loans to which EU students are entitled—unlike non-EU students, who pay the full fee and help to subsidise the rest of us—given that only 16% are repaying their loans at present? Should that cost not be taken into account when we talk about the costs and benefits of university education in this country?

[Joseph Johnson]

Of course, we weigh up the costs of enabling EU students to access our loan book—a right that they have for as long as we are a member state of the European Union—and additional costs after the moment of Brexit will be taken into account as we put in place arrangements for EU students for the longer term. For the time being, while we are still members of the European Union, they have a right to come here and access higher education, as home fee students do, and to access our student loan book.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has to say about students in the UK. Has he had any indication from his interlocutors in the rest of Europe about the status of the increasing number of British school leavers who wish to study in European countries, and the relatively favourable fees that they are expected to pay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

We wish that more UK students took the opportunities that are available to them to study overseas. International mobility is a great life enhancer. It improves employability, and it is something that we want to encourage. We are doing so through programmes promoted by the British Council, such as Generation UK-India and Generation UK-China. Those are valuable programmes that we want to promote.

In the first meeting of my stakeholder working group on EU exit for universities, research and innovation, I was impressed by the positive, outward-looking approach of key decision makers in the UK research and innovation community. As we prepare for the negotiations ahead, no stone can be left unturned in learning about the opportunities ahead for the UK. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent. Britain has always been one of the most welcoming places in the world for brilliant minds, and it will remain so.

Throughout our exit of the European Union, we will continue to build on our ambitious global partnerships, including with our friends in the EU. We will put the UK at the forefront of international research on emerging global challenges, and we will continue to make sure that UK researchers have access to, and leadership of, world-class research facilities. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that our proud history in science and research has a bright future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The debate about leaving the EU and science is not unique in having myths associated with it, and I wish to talk about two today. The first, which has been mentioned by a number of people, concerns problems with scientific collaboration and financing. As has been well documented and elucidated, this country benefits in its research budget: we are a net gainer in research. It has also been pointed out that we are a net donor when it comes to overall European funding. What is often not stated is that we are net contributor to the science budget as a whole—

[Joseph Johnson]

indicated assent.

[Graham Stringer]

I see the Minister is nodding. Science is funded through the European development funds and other funding, and when we look at that, we see that we are a net contributor. It should be possible, with human ingenuity, to sort out that funding issue.

Secondly, let me mention collaboration. There is not time to go into this fully, but one of my hon. Friends mentioned 17th century science. Isaac Newton put his theory of gravity together while a plague was going on. He used the work of Johannes Kepler, a German who put his work together by stealing work in Denmark and working on Italian and Polish work while the Thirty years war was going on. Science finds a way to collaborate across all sorts of boundaries.

I want to quote from the Science and Technology Committee’s report that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) referred to, “EU regulation of the life sciences”, which was published about a week before the referendum. It was passed unanimously by the various parties on the Committee, albeit after some debate, and it is worth reading. The myth is that somehow the EU is pro-science and is good for science, but the report states:

“Our predecessor Committee’s inquiries had showed some resistance from the European Commission to evidence-based policy making and science, including the hostility to GM Organisms (along with an arbitrary and unscientific use of the precautionary principle), the dilatory approach to revising the Clinical Trials Directive and the Electromagnetic Field Directive, as well as the sacking of Professor Anne Glover.”

The EU is hardly a body with a good record on science. The sacking of Anne Glover was a disgrace. She was sacked not because she was a poor scientist, but because she was a good scientist giving evidence about GM foods. Greenpeace, quite disgracefully, lobbied against her staying, and the Commission, spineless as ever, sacked her.

The clinical trials directive has already been referred to. Not only was it a bad directive that led to science leaving the EU because it was ineffective, it took too long and it was inconsistently applied—the EU is now proposing new regulations for 2018, which we hope will be more effective—but it has taken 20 years, while science and scientists have been leaving the EU, to put that directive right. The electromagnetic field directive was relatively quickly rectified, as it took the EU only 10 years to put that right. It was hindering work on machines for diagnosing cancers and other diseases using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and other instruments.

Then we come to the phthalates. One phthalate was banned, and the EU then banned a series of phthalates. Almost the first lesson that any pupil gets in chemistry is that sodium chloride is essential for life and potassium chloride is a poison. We cannot just say that because one phthalate might poison rats, which was the evidence base the EU was using, all phthalates will poison rats. An over-use of the precautionary principle has meant that the ban on GM foods has continued, and because of that this country does not have the benefit of a blight-free potato and many other beneficial agricultural products. During the referendum debates, we were told how good the EU was for industry. As I never tired of pointing out, our agro-chemical industry had almost disappeared because of the Commission’s and the EU’s attitude to science.

I will refer to two other non-EU agencies, mentioned in the debate, that show how anti-scientific the EU is. One is the European Space Agency, an excellent organisation that does some very good work indeed. When the Science and Technology Committee visited it in Rome just before the last general election, its senior scientists were desperate to keep the Commission out of their work because they were worried about its anti-scientific attitude. The Galileo project, which is funded primarily by the European Commission and is also used by the European Space Agency, is three times over budget and only halfway through—it will take about three times as long to complete as was expected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge said that it was better to get things right than not get them right; I think the EU had its chance to get things right, but there was never any reform. Now we are out, we can look after our own science.

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2016 Ministerial Corrections

The following is the response to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) during Business, Energy and Industry Strategy questions by the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation on Tuesday 13 December 2016.

[Joseph Johnson]

This Government are strongly committed to science and innovation. We protected the science budget at the spending review in 2015. In the last autumn statement, a few days ago, we committed to spending a further £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. The creation of UK Research and Innovation, through the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, will increase the value and impact of our investments in science and innovation in the years ahead.

[Official Report, 13 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 599.]

Letter of correction from Joseph Johnson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) during Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions.

The correct response should have been:

[Joseph Johnson]

This Government are strongly committed to science and innovation. We protected the science budget at the spending review in 2015. In the last autumn statement, a few days ago, we committed to spending a further £2 billion a year by 2020-21. The creation of UK Research and Innovation, through the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, will increase the value and impact of our investments in science and innovation in the years ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to promote science and innovation.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

This Government are strongly committed to science and innovation. We protected the science budget at the spending review in 2015. In the last autumn statement, a few days ago, we committed to spending a further £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. The creation of UK Research and Innovation, through the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, will increase the value and impact of our investments in science and innovation in the years ahead. [Official Report, 16 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 7-8MC.]

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the Minister for that answer. It has certainly been a good time for science and innovation in Britain. It has also been a good year for the UK space sector, with Major Tim Peake’s historic visit to the international space station and a new spaceport here in the UK. It certainly strikes me that the next big challenge will be the successful delivery of the ExoMars programme, particularly given some of the rumours that have been going around. Will the Minister update the House on any progress made at the European Space Agency summit recently?

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to provide a brief update. My hon. Friend is an aficionado of space policy and former chair of the parliamentary space committee, so he will be delighted to know that we had an excellent outcome at the European Space Agency’s Council of Ministers. We committed a further €1.44 billion, which has secured the future of the ExoMars programme, among many other things.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not want to ruin the Minister’s Christmas celebrations, which are imminent, but if he looks at the deplorable investment in research and development—the figures that came out only this week—does he not see that he needs to wake up and smell the coffee? The fact of the matter is that research and innovation will be deeply damaged by leaving the European Union. He should ask the universities what they think.

[Joseph Johnson]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government’s commitment to research and development, which was underscored in the autumn statement with a further £2 billion by the end of this Parliament—perhaps the biggest single increase in R and D expenditure by any Government in the memory of anyone in this Parliament.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Innovate UK plays a key role in promoting science and technology by giving grants to entrepreneurs. Will the Minister continue to support it as new fourth industrial revolution businesses come forward to seek new funding to develop the next generation of science and technology businesses?

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to provide that assurance. Innovate UK, our innovation agency, will be at the heart of our industrial strategy, and the autumn statement will provide it with the resources it needs to continue to do its job of supporting small businesses in innovation.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Tidal Lagoon Power’s report, “Ours to own”, anticipates that tidal lagoons could bring more than £70 billion to the UK industry. Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is key to unlocking that innovative potential, which has great opportunities for Cardiff and the north Wales coast, as well. I appreciate that the Minister will have concerns about costs to customers, but will he commit to weighing up all aspects of the energy trilemma in his response to the Hendry report?

[Joseph Johnson]

We are looking very carefully at the report and will be coming forward with our response in due course.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

Chemical and pharmaceutical businesses are an important feature of the northern powerhouse and emerging enterprises in the sector are often rooted in university research labs. What support and funding can the UK Government commit to encourage continued research collaboration across Europe—and indeed the rest of the world—to increase our innovative business base post-Brexit?

[Joseph Johnson]

We support international collaboration in science and research in Europe, and indeed around the world, and will continue to do so.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

20. The Government talk about promoting science and innovation, but this Government pulled the plug on funding for carbon capture and storage. How much of the additional £4.7 billion R and D money announced in the autumn statement will be allocated for carbon capture and storage?

[Joseph Johnson]

We will consult the sector and the science community very carefully as part of our development of the industrial strategy, in a discussion paper that we will launch in the weeks to come.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Catalyst science discovery centre in my constituency does an excellent job of promoting careers in science and engineering for young people. Will the Minister come and visit it? It struggles to keep going financially, but it does an absolutely unbelievably good job.

[Joseph Johnson]

I commend the good work going on in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and look forward to an opportunity to visit that centre as and when it arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

T7. A review by academics at the Leeds University Business School and the University of Exeter found that every pound invested in the Union Learning Fund results in a return of £12.70, leading to an estimated net contribution to the economy of £1.45 million and an estimated return to the Exchequer of £3.57 for each pound spent. With that in mind, what steps are being taken to ensure much better engagement with the unions?

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

We look forward to reading that research. It clearly contains some interesting findings, of which we will take full note.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T3. A construction business my constituency has alerted me to corporate mandate fraud, by which a fraudster pretends to be a company and asks its customers to change the bank account details for future payments. What steps can the Minister take to alert all businesses to such criminal behaviour? What discussions has she had with the Home Secretary about bringing the perpetrators to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T8. Skills have been removed from the Department’s portfolio, yet for many businesses in the Bradford district access to talent remains a key challenge. So how will the Secretary of State ensure that education policy dovetails with his Department’s priorities to ensure that businesses have access to the skills they need?

[Joseph Johnson]

With higher and further education policy, apprenticeships and skills in a single Department, the Government can now take a comprehensive, end-to-end view of skills and education. This Government will, of course, support people from their early years through to postgraduate study and work.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Is it not time for the Secretary of State to order an investigation into the Royal Bank of Scotland’s practices on lending to small businesses?

Post-competitiveness Council

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

The Competitiveness Council met recently in Brussels. Baroness Neville-Rolfe represented the UK at the Council on 28 November (internal market) and I represented the UK on 29 November (research).

Day One

The Council on day one had a full agenda with key decisions concluded on geo-blocking, the single market strategy and the unified patent court.

The internal market day of the Council began with the approval of legislative and non-legislative A items. On the approval of the EU annual budget the UK abstained.

The first agenda item was a discussion on geo-blocking introduced by Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip. Following a discussion, member states, including the UK, accepted the text of the proposed regulation and the Council agreed a general approach.

The next item was a debate on the single market strategy and start-up initiative introduced by the Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Elzbiet Bienkowska. The UK intervened to strongly support the single market strategy and welcomed, alongside a number of member states, an Irish-sponsored like-minded letter calling for greater ambition on services—which we had also signed. A number of member states welcomed the Commission’s work on start-up and scale-up, highlighting in particular problems around access to finance.

In a change to the order of proceedings the Council then took two further items before lunch. Firstly, Commissioner Bienkowska presented the annual report on the work of the SME envoy network. She reported the work had been particularly useful in preparing for the Commission’s start-up and scale-up initiative published the previous week. The Council took note of the report.

The presidency then highlighted the outcome of a conference on the collaborative economy following the debate on the collaborative economy at the previous Competitiveness Council in September. Commissioner Bienkowska said the Commission was now considering various issues where national law might conflict with its recent guidance and might issue a series of pilot letters in the near future.

Over lunch, Ministers were joined by the President of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), Dieter Zetsche. Commissioners Bienkowska and Oettinger led a wide-ranging discussion on the future of the automotive industry. The UK highlighted the work being undertaken in the UK by the centre for connected and autonomous vehicles, and outlined the planned investment of £100 million which was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement.

The next agenda item concerned a discussion of the significance of industrial policy in the Commission’s work programme in 2017. Several member states called on the Commission to demonstrate support for European industry by producing a communication on an EU industrial strategy in 2017. The UK highlighted the importance of delivering the actions in the single market and digital single market strategies, and set out the approach being taken to deliver the UK’s own industrial strategy.

The Commission then introduced CPST check-up on skills. Member states largely agreed with the Commission on the challenges, in particular on digital skills.

The next item was a discussion on the unitary patent and unified patent court (UPC). The UK confirmed its intent to proceed with ratification, and anticipated this being completed according to the existing preparatory timetable. The UK was clear that this decision did not pre-empt our objectives in the forthcoming negotiations and is without prejudice to the UKs future position on the jurisdiction of the CJEU once we have left the EU. This news was welcomed by Commissioner Bienkowska and several member states, who all emphasised the importance of having the UK in the UPC and bringing the court into force as soon as possible in the first half of 2017.

The presidency then presented the state of play of the proposal to improve the type approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles. Commissioner Bienkowska said that further progress had not been made, despite the political commitments following the controversies around Volkswagen last year. The UK intervened to support the Commission and to push for a greater level of ambition from the Council.

The next item was a discussion on proposed regulation of consumer protection laws. The presidency highlighted the substantial work that had been undertaken on this file, and reiterated its aim to reach a negotiating mandate as soon as possible. The Commissioner for Justice Consumers and Gender equality Vera Jourová supported the presidency in seeking to reach a mandate. The UK intervened to stress that this was an important and complex file which needed to return to Competitiveness Council under the Maltese presidency for a political discussion.

The next item was a presentation of the Commission’s notice on the biotechnological directive introduced by Commissioner Bienkowska. The notice aimed to clarify the relationship between patents and plant breeders’ rights. The UK did not intervene.

Commissioner Oettinger opened a discussion of the Commission’s proposals for reforming EU copyright laws. The Commissioner explained the need to provide a modernised copyright framework for the digital age, reflecting the changes to storage, distribution and consumption of content in recent years. The UK welcomes efforts to modernise the EU copyright framework and is consulting with interested stakeholders.

The Hungarian delegation then presented information on the competitiveness aspects of the European pillar of social rights. The Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility Marianne Thyssen noted that balanced economic growth was necessary for social progress. Some member states intervened to emphasise that the pillar should not be legally binding on member states.

The Council concluded with a presentation by the Maltese on priorities for their upcoming presidency. In relation to the Competitiveness Council, these priorities primarily concern the deepening of the single market and making progress on the digital single market.

Day Two

Day two began with a debate on the Commission’s recently published space strategy for Europe. The Commission is aiming for this to be broad and inclusive, reaffirming Europe’s place as a global space power. All member states welcomed the EU’s strategy. It is a good fit to UK priorities for growing the space sector.

A number of space issues where raised in the discussion. The Arianne 6 programme was highlighted as important, with some member states reminding the Commission of the need for cost-effectiveness to avoid unreasonable cost increases. It was felt important that the EU-ESA relationship takes advantage of their respective competences. There was also a call to assist those member states who currently have limited engagement with the sector.

The UK intervened to welcome the space strategy, recognising that EU systems could be used for defence and security objectives, but they had to remain civil systems under civilian control. The UK also highlighted the opportunities to our commercial sectors, and that space weather and the security of space systems were risk areas that needed to be properly understood.

Council conclusions on early-stage researchers were adopted without amendment.

The last substantive agenda item was the Commission’s report on the implementation of the strategy for international co-operation in research and innovation. The discussion highlighted examples of the benefits of international co-operation. The UK stressed three key points—the need for EU research funding to remain focused on excellence and open to the world; that the UK would continue to collaborate with the Commission on science diplomacy in countries where relations were strained; and third, called for the Commission to ensure that the rules were updated to address problems which had led to a reduction in third country participation—eg liability clauses. This message was echoed by several member states.

A number of member states were supportive of PRIMA, a €400 million programme that seeks to promote food security and water supply in the Mediterranean and is a priority for the incoming Maltese presidency. Bonus 2, a programme on marine research, was also raised as a positive example of potential multilateral collaboration over shared challenges.

For AOB items, the Commission discussed the launch of an open science policy platform, which will look at best practice, develop EU-wide guidelines for open science delivery and promote open science. This work may inform how the “open science” agenda is implemented in the FP9 programme—The successor to Horizon 2020. Many member states were supportive.

Next, the Commission gave an overview of their proposed €1 billion funding programme for quantum technologies. This was followed by an announcement that the “Accelerating Clean Energy” communication will be published on 1 December.

The presidency then gave a read out from a conference focused on the European bio-economy that took place in October in Bratislava.

Finally, the Commission welcomed the Portuguese delegation’s presentation on developing an infrastructure to promote north-south Atlantic research collaboration.

The meeting concluded with a presentation from the upcoming Maltese presidency on its priorities in research—including the PRIMA initiative.

[HCWS321]

Competitiveness Council

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

The Competitiveness Council is taking place in Brussels on 28-29 November. Baroness Neville-Rolfe will be representing the UK on 28 November (internal market and industry). I am expecting to represent the UK on 29 November (research and innovation).

Britain will in due course be leaving the EU. While we remain a member of the EU we will continue to participate in Competitiveness Council discussions and vote on legislative proposals, in line with our rights and obligations as a member state.

The Slovak presidency has yet to finalise the agenda for the Council. However we expect the following items to be discussed:

Day One

The Commission will be seeking a general approach on a proposed regulation to address geo-blocking and other forms of nationality-based discrimination. The UK will support the Commission’s initiative to end unjustified discrimination against consumers. There will also be a first reading of legislation on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and trailers, enforcement of consumer protection laws, and three legislative proposals on copyright in the digital single market.

There will be a discussion on skills as part of the regular competitiveness ‘check-up’ which will be followed by an exchange of views; a stock-take on the single market strategy; and an exchange of views on the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC).

We expect a number of items to be presented to the Council for information including a notice from the Commission on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; the SME Envoy’s report; and a report from the Slovak presidency on the outcome of the conference ‘Collaborative Economy’ held in Brussels on 15 November.

The Hungarian delegation will present information on the competitiveness aspects of the European pillar of social rights. The German delegation has asked to present information on the significance of industrial policy in the Commission’s 2017 work programme.

Finally, the Maltese presidency will present information on its work programme.

Day Two

The Commission will present the space strategy for Europe. The strategy is a good fit to UK priorities for growing the space sector and the UK will be supportive.

The UK will support the draft Council conclusions on early stage researchers, which recognise the importance to Europe’s future global competitiveness of nurturing the next generation of researchers and scientists.

The final substantive agenda item is the Commission’s report on the implementation of the strategy for international co-operation in research and innovation. The UK has been actively engaged in promoting the important role of scientific diplomacy in this context and is encouraged to see this agenda progressing.

AOB items will include: presentations on open science; the quantum technologies flagship; information from the presidency on the high level conference on European bio-economy held in Bratislava on 17 October; and information from the Portuguese delegation on the development of a European infrastructure to promote north-south co-operation.

The day will conclude with information from the Maltese delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.

[HCWS280]

Exiting the EU: Higher Education

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Happily, it falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate. I am glad that it falls to me rather than a colleague in another Department, because this is an important issue on which I am happy to represent the entire Government’s position.

The debate is timely, because the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and its possible effects on higher education affect all Members in the Chamber and institutions across the country. This matter is of great importance, and the Government are giving considerable thought to its management, as hon. Members would expect. Higher education is clearly one of our great national assets. Hon. Members who served on the Higher Education and Research Bill Committee will be aware of how keenly the Government feel about this question and how strongly we want to help the sector through these times so we can move to calmer waters and continue to strengthen what is undoubtedly a world-class system.

In global league tables, four UK universities are in the world’s top 10 and 18 are in the world’s top 100. Those universities are home to world-class teaching and research, and we want that to continue in the years ahead. I am sure that hon. Members will have welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement at the CBI conference on Monday that the Government plan to commit an extra £2 billion a year by 2020 to support research activities across the country in our university system. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that that underscores this Government’s determination to put science and innovation at the forefront of the new industrial strategy. We promised that we would do that, and we are delivering on that. I hope that in his speech this afternoon, the Chancellor will provide further details that will give hon. Members even greater confidence that the Government are clearly putting their money where their mouth is—behind our universities.

Research and innovation are key drivers of this country’s global competitiveness and key sources of economic advantage for us. Our HE sector can be proud not only of UK science: the universities across our nations are also leaders in social sciences and the arts and humanities. But we are not complacent about our success. We recognise that the EU referendum has brought uncertainty for our universities and their students and staff, particularly the non-UK EU nationals among them. We have taken steps to mitigate that uncertainty where we can, be it in relation to the terms on which EU students can access finance or the terms on which we can underwrite research funding.

I will come back to those points shortly, but I want first to reflect on the UK’s knowledge landscape. As I said, our science system is one of the very best in the world. It is highly efficient, competitive and internationally successful. Among the G7 countries, we have stand-out impact rates; ours is perhaps the most productive science base when measured by papers or citations per unit of GDP. We punch well above our weight, and we want that to continue. We recognise that our universities’ world-class academic staff are central to that outperformance and our extraordinary bang per buck.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Is the Minister in a position to confirm reports that the Home Secretary is reviewing and revising her previously proposed limits on universities’ visa powers in relation to students who want to stay to work?

[Joseph Johnson]

In her party conference speech, the Home Secretary announced that she was conducting a review and would be consulting on arrangements for non-European economic area migration, including the study route. The process leading up to that consultation is still under way.

[Ian Murray]

What representations has the Minister made to the Home Office and the Prime Minister to try to win the argument that we should be taking students out of the immigration numbers to resolve all these issues?

[Joseph Johnson]

It is important for hon. Members to recognise that we already have a strong offer. We are second in the world after only the US in terms of the number of international students who come to study in this country—according to Home Office figures, the number of students coming here has risen by 14% since 2010—and we continue to be successful in attracting international students. We should not create an impression that we have closed off as a country, because that is clearly not borne out by the facts. It is not borne out by the successful recruitment of many institutions in this country. I would not want to create an impression that we were closed, because we are not; we welcome international students and we want to continue to do so.

As I said, the quality of the staff at our institutions is central to the UK’s outperformance, and we want them to feel welcome and that the Government appreciate their contributions to our institutions. We want to give them the assurances that they need to feel confident that they can continue to embed the richness that they bring to our institutions.

We also derive benefits from EU students. Hon. Members have referred several times to the contribution that EU students make to our institutions’ health. We want those students to continue to study here. We are extraordinarily successful in that respect. In 2013, 20% of EU students who chose to study overseas chose the UK—the greatest proportion of any country. We also welcome those who choose to study for a short time under the Erasmus programme. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked what the Government’s plans were for future involvement with Erasmus. Post-exit access to Erasmus will be a matter for the negotiations that he knows will follow the triggering of article 50. We will work through the implications for future years as part of those wider negotiations.

I completely share the determination of the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—and I underscore the Government’s absolute determination—to show that we are welcoming and will not tolerate hate crimes of any sort in our universities or our country. Since the referendum, the Government have worked closely with the police to monitor hate crime and ensure that local forces have the necessary assistance and guidance to respond, and police forces are responding robustly to incidents. Ministers and officials have also met ambassadors and high commissioners from EU states and offered them reassurance and a single point of contact to raise concerns on behalf of their citizens.

In the remaining minute or so, I will skip forward to deal with the points that were raised about research, which is clearly of great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked what relationship we will have with future Horizon 2020 programmes. The short answer is that it is too early to speculate about the UK’s future relationship with those programmes. There are already several models for co-operation by non-EU countries on research with the EU and EU member states, and there may be areas where the benefits of collaboration to both sides provide a case for ongoing co-operation. Again, that will be a matter for the negotiations about our future relationship. We are keenly aware that the matter is of great importance to the university sector, and it is fully represented in the thinking of the Cabinet Committee on Brexit, on which the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sits.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title—

“(1) The OfS must establish a committee called the “Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title”.

(2) The function of the Committee is to provide advice to the OfS on—

(a) the general exercise of its functions under sections 40, 42, 43 and 53 of this Act, and section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(b) particular uses of its powers under section 40(1) of this Act; and

(c) particular uses of its powers under section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

(3) The OfS must seek the advice of the Committee before—

(a) authorising a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees under section 40(1) of this Act;

(b) varying any authorisation made under section 40(1) of this Act so as to authorise a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant a category of award or degree that, prior to the variation of the authorisation, it was not authorised to grant; and

(c) providing consent under section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 for an education institution or body corporate to change its names so as to include the word “university” in the name of the institution or body corporate.

(4) The OfS must also seek the advice of UKRI before authorising a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant research awards under section 40(1) of this Act.

(5) The OfS does not need to seek the advice of the Committee before—

(a) revoking an authorisation to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees; or

(b) varying any authorisation to grant taught awards, research awards, or foundation degrees so as to revoke the authorisation of a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant a category of award that, prior to the variation of the authorisation, it was authorised to grant.

(6) Subsection (4) applies whether the authorisation being revoked or varied was given—

(a) by an order made under section 40(1) of this Act;

(b) by or under any Act of Parliament, other than under section 40(1) of this Act; or

(c) by Royal Charter.

(7) In providing its advice to the OfS, the Committee must in particular consider the need for students, employers and the public to have confidence in the higher education system and the awards which are granted by it.

(8) The OfS must have regard to the advice given to it by the Committee on both the general exercise of its functions referred to in subsection (2) and any particular uses of its powers referred to in subsection (3).

(9) The majority of the members of the Committee must be individuals who appear to the OfS to have experience of providing higher education on behalf of an English higher education provider or being responsible for the provision of higher education by such a provider.

(10) In appointing members of the Committee who meet these criteria, the OfS must have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged at the time of their appointment in the provision of higher education or in being responsible for such provision.

(11) The majority of the members of the Committee must be individuals who are not members of the OfS.

(12) Schedule 1 applies to the Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title as it applies to committees established under paragraph 8 of that Schedule.”

This new clause would create a committee of the OfS which fulfils much the same functions as the current Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers.

New clause 7—Automatic review of authorisation—

“(1) The OfS must consider whether to vary or revoke an authorisation given under section 40(1) if—

(a) the ownership of the registered provider is transferred,

(b) the owner of the registered provider has restrictions placed on its degree-awarding powers in relation to another registered provider under its control or ownership, or

(c) for any other reason considered to be in the interest of students enrolled at the institution or the public.

(2) A decision taken under sub-section (1) to vary or revoke an authorisation shall be carried out in accordance with section 43.”

This new clause would ensure that a review of a provider’s degree awarding power would be triggered if the ownership of a provider changes, if the owner of the registered provider faces restrictions to its degree awarding powers in another jurisdiction or if the OfS deems a review necessary to protect students or the wider public interest.

New clause 9—OfS report: international students—

“(1) The OfS shall, in accordance with information received under paragraph 8(1)(ba), produce an annual report for the Secretary of State on—

(a) EU (excluding from the UK), and

(b) non- EU

students enrolled with English higher education providers.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) the number of international students, and

(b) the financial contribution of international students to English Higher Education providers.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay the report produced under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

New clause 12—Prohibition: use of quality of higher education when determining a visa application—

“An assessment made of the quality rating of a higher education provider in the United Kingdom under section 25 of this Act may not be used when assessing a person’s eligibility for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under Part 1 of the Immigration Act 1971.”

New clause 14—Post Study Work Visa: evaluation—

“(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, UKRI must commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (1B) and shall lay the report before the House of Commons.

(1B) The evaluation under subsection (1A) must assess—

(a) the effect of the absence of post study work visas for persons graduating from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom on—

(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and

(ii) the UK economy, and

(b) how post study work visa arrangements might operate in the UK, including an estimate of their effect on—

(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and

(ii) the UK economy.”

This new clause would require UKRI to commission research on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post study work visas and assess how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.

New clause 15—Standing Commission on the integration of higher education and lifelong learning—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a Standing Commission on the integration of Higher Education and Lifelong Learning.

(2) The terms of reference of the Commission shall include the following purposes—

(a) to report on progress being made in respect of the opportunities available to individuals, employers and communities to integrate higher education with lifelong learning in England;

(b) to consider the potential to update and review the range of higher education qualifications available for mature students at all registered higher education providers;

(c) to evaluate current funding systems for registered higher education providers with respect to the opportunities available to individuals, employers and communities to integrate higher education with life-long learning, in England;

(d) to examine and report on the introduction of personal learning accounts to be used for higher education—

(i) funded on the contributory principle from employers, individuals and structures of devolved local and national government; and

(ii) on the arrangements that will operate to facilitate input from corporate or trade union bodies, which can be used to support lifelong learning and adult education;

(e) to examine and report on the potential to develop education and skills accounts (ESAs), including the possibility of a single lifetime higher education entitlement; and

(f) to examine and report on the establishment of a national credit rating, accumulation and transfer system as a mechanism to improve flexible learning in further and higher education, including for mature students, and on the feasibility of a digital credit system, which could also facilitate where appropriate the integration of work-based learning and higher education.

(3) The Commission will make the following reports on the matters set out at subsection (2) to be laid before Parliament—

(a) within 12 months of its establishment; and

(b) thereafter annually.

(4) When the report in respect of ESAs required at subsection (2)(e) has been made, the Secretary of State may authorise the OfS to work with higher education providers, employers and financial institutions to develop a framework for ESAs.”

New clause 16—Migration Statistics: students—

“When the Secretary of State publishes statistics on the immigration of people to the United Kingdom, the relevant publication must provide—

(a) the figures net and gross of those people who are students studying in the UK, or

(b) a note indicating how many students included in the total immigration figures are students studying in the UK.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 51, in clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Subject to subsection (1C), initial registration conditions of all providers under paragraph (1)(a) must include a requirement that every provider—

(a) provides all eligible students with the opportunity to opt in to be added to the electoral register through the process of enrolling with that provider, and

(b) enter into a data sharing agreement with the local electoral registration officer to add those students to the electoral register.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—

(a) a “data sharing agreement” is an agreement between the higher education provider and their local authority whereby the provider shares—

(i) the name,

(ii) address,

(iii) nationality,

(iv) date of birth, and

(v) national insurance data of all eligible students enrolling and/or enrolled with the provider who opt in within the meaning of subsection (2A)(a);

(b) “eligible” means those persons who are—

(i) entitled to vote in accordance with section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and

(ii) a resident in the same local authority as the higher education provider.

(1C) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the Open University and other distance learning institutions.”

This amendment would ensure that the OfS includes as a registration condition for higher education providers the integration of electoral registration into the student enrolment process. Distance-learning providers are exempt.

Amendment 37, page 4, line 17, after “providers” insert “, staff and students”.

This amendment would ensure consultation with bodies representing higher education staff and students.

Amendment 52, in clause 8, page 5, line 35, at end insert—

“(ba) a condition that requires the governing body of the provider to provide the OfS with information on the number of international students enrolled on a higher education course at that institution and the fees charged to those students,”

Amendment 38, page 5, line 39, at end insert—

“and

(d) an access and participation plan condition, as defined in section 12.”

This amendment would make access and participation plans mandatory for all higher education providers.

Government amendment 2.

Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 6, line 13, at end insert—

“(iv) age band,

(ii) people with disabilities, and

(iii) care leavers.”

This amendment would include the number of people with disabilities and care leavers, as well as the age of applicants, in the published number of applications.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 46, in clause 25, page 15, line 25, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (7),”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 47.

Amendment 49, page 15, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) The scheme established under subsection (1) shall have two ratings—

(a) meets expectations, and

(b) fails to meet expectations.

(1B) Each year, after the scheme established under subsection (1) comes into force the OfS must lay a report before Parliament on the number of international students—

(a) applying to, and

(b) enrolled

at the Higher Education Providers that have applied for a rating within the meaning of subsection (1).”

This amendment provides for a pass/fail only Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) rating, and requires the OfS to report on the number of international students applying to and attending Higher Education providers each year from the coming into force of the TEF.

Amendment 47, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(7) No arrangements for a scheme shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the scheme has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment and amendment 46 would ensure TEF measures were subject to scrutiny by, and approval of, both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 50, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(7) In making arrangements under sub-section (1), the OfS must make an assessment of—

(a) the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is correlated to teaching quality, and

(b) the potential unintended consequences that could arise from implementing the scheme including proposals on how such risks can be mitigated.

(8) Prior to making an assessment under subsection (7) the OfS must consult—

(a) bodies representing the interests of academic staff employed at English higher education providers,

(b) bodies representing the interests of students enrolled on higher education courses, and

(c) such other persons as the OfS considers appropriate.

(9) The assessments made under subsection (7) must be published.”

This amendment would require an assessment of the evidence of the reliability of the TEF metrics to be made and for the assessment to be published.

Government amendments 5 to 11.

Amendment 40, in clause 40, page 23, line 22, at end insert—

“(c) the OfS is assured that the provider is able to maintain the required standards of a UK degree for the duration of the authorisation; and

(d) the OfS is assured that the provider operates in students’ and the public interests.”

This amendment requires the OfS to be assured about the maintenance of standards and about students’ and the public interest before issuing authorisation to grant degrees.

Amendment 41, page 23, line 47, at end insert—

“(9A) In making any orders under this section, and sections 41, 42 and 43, the OfS must have due regard to the need to maintain confidence in the higher education sector, and in the awards which they collectively grant, among students, employers, and the wider public.”

This amendment would ensure that the granting and removal of degree awarding powers would be linked to a need to maintain confidence in the sector, and with a view to preserving its excellent reputation.

Amendment 58, in clause 51, page 31, line 41, at end insert—

“(A2) The power described in subsection (A1) may be exercised so as to include the word “university” in the name of the institution only if the institution can demonstrate that—

(a) it offers access to a range of cultural activities, including, but not restricted to—

(i) the opportunity to undertake sport and recreation, and

(ii) the opportunity to access a range of student societies and organisations,

(b) it provides students support and wellbeing services including specialist learning support,

(c) it provides opportunities for volunteering,

(d) it provides the opportunity to join a students’ union, and

(e) it plays a positive civic role.”

Government amendments 12, 13, 18 and 19.

Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 69, line 37, at end insert—

“(h) being an employee of a higher education provider, particularly in the capacity of teaching or researching.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State had regard for the experience of higher education employees, teaching or research staff.

Amendment 48, page 69, line 37, at end insert—

“(h) representing or promoting the interests of employees in higher education establishments.”

This amendment requires that at least one of the ordinary members of the OfS has experience of representing or promoting the interests of employees in higher education.

Government amendments 21 to 34.

[Joseph Johnson]

New clause 1 relates to the Office for Students, which is central to the Bill and has quality, student choice, equality of opportunity and value for money at its core. Through the creation of the independent OFS, the Bill will join up the currently fragmented regulation of the sector—essential to ensure that students are protected, and that students and the taxpayer receive good value for money from the system. The Bill will boost social mobility and promote opportunity for all. It will drive up innovation, diversity, quality and capacity in our world-class higher education sector, while protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The Bill will also create UK Research and Innovation, a new body with strategic vision for research and innovation in the UK.

I am pleased that the Bill received such thorough scrutiny in Committee. I have reflected on the points made by Opposition Members and I am pleased to present some important amendments today. We made it clear in our White Paper that the OFS will have responsibility for oversight of the financial health of the sector, and will monitor the sustainability of individual institutions. It is absolutely essential that all providers who are eligible to receive some form of public funding have sustainable finances to ensure value for students and taxpayers.

We have listened to stakeholder evidence and to the Committee debates. Stakeholders including Universities UK consider the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s holistic oversight of the health of the sector to be an essential part of the regulator’s role. I understand the importance of this oversight in maintaining confidence in the sector and preserving its world-class reputation. The stakeholders share the desire to make our policy intention in the White Paper explicit in legislation. This role will include financial oversight of all the institutions’ activities, spanning teaching and research.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I understand the need for monitoring the financial sustainability of organisations, but the new clause does not say what actions will result if some of them are found to be financially unsustainable. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Joseph Johnson]

The duty of the Office for Students will be to ensure that it is monitoring effectively the overall financial health of the sector in such a way that it is able to inform the Secretary of State, so that the Government can take appropriate actions. It will not be the role of the Office for Students to bail out struggling institutions—if there are any such institutions. These are private and autonomous bodies, and it is important that the discipline of the marketplace acts on them. It will be the role of the OFS to assist them in transitioning towards viable business plans so that they can continue to provide high-quality education to their students in the medium and long term.

New clause 1 introduces a statutory duty for the OFS to monitor and report on the financial sustainability of all registered HE providers in England which are in receipt of or eligible for OFS funding or tuition fee loans.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the regulator have the power to ensure that there are good industrial relations within our universities? There is certainly a problem with industrial relations at Coventry University, particularly as regards subcontractors.

[Joseph Johnson]

Higher education institutions are private and autonomous bodies that are self-organising. It is of course important that they provide a framework of governance that enables students to learn well in their institutions, and I am sure that that will include a healthy dialogue with their staff and employees. It is not for the Government to mandate particular forms of relations, given that these institutions are private and autonomous.

In performing its role, the OFS will have a clear picture of the number of international students and the income they bring—just as HEFCE currently does. I therefore do not agree that there is a need for an additional duty for the OFS to report on international students, as amendment 52 and new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), would require.

Similarly, I do not believe that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for a requirement for the commissioning of research on post-work study, as proposed by the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin). The Bill focuses on the creation of the necessary structures that will oversee higher education and research funding for many years to come, and a short-term piece of research on an element of migration policy is not consistent with the scope and functions of UK Research and Innovation.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Minister clearly does not believe that the Bill is the right vehicle for the issues under consideration, but does he understand why Members would pick this vehicle? His Department understands the importance of international students to UK higher education, and the Treasury understands their role, so why do the Home Office and the Prime Minister not understand it? Does the Minister not realise that, like him, we will be banging our heads against a brick wall at the Home Office?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Home Secretary has said that in the coming weeks we will consult on a non-European economic area migration route that will benefit international students who want to come and study at our world-class institutions, and I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait until we see the details of that consultation before jumping to any conclusions.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

The Minister referred to “an element”. The post-study work visa is not just the subject of “an element” of concern to universities in Scotland; it is of major concern, especially given that what the Home Office has proposed is a tiny and completely unrepresentative pilot. This is a matter of great importance to the university sector.

[Joseph Johnson]

Indeed. The Government fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that international students bring a lot to our higher education system. They bring income, valued diversity, and many other benefits to our universities. We welcome them, and we have a warm and welcoming regime to accommodate them.

Let me now deal with Government amendments 1, 12 and 13. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are keystones of our higher education system, and the Bill introduces additional protections in that area. In his evidence to the Bill Committee, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, said that he particularly liked the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy in the Bill. However, I wanted to make absolutely clear how important it is for the Government to protect institutional autonomy, which is why I proposed a further group of amendments to strengthen the protections even more.

I recognise the concerns expressed in Committee and in stakeholder evidence that allowing the Secretary of State to give guidance relating to particular courses might be perceived as leaving the door open to guidance calling specifically for the opening or closing of particular courses. One of the real strengths of our higher education system is diversity and the ability of institutions to determine their own missions, either as multidisciplinary institutions or as institutions specialising in particular areas such as the performing arts or theology. To avoid any confusion, I proposed the amendments to add an additional layer of reassurance regarding the protections given to institutional autonomy. They make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot give guidance to, or impose terms and conditions or directions on, the OFS which would require it to make providers offer, or stop offering, particular courses.

Our reforms place students at the heart of higher education regulation. I agree with Labour Members that it is important to build the student perspective into the OFS. Government amendment 21 clarifies beyond doubt that at least one member of the OFS board must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students or students generally.

Labour Members tabled amendments 36 and 48, which relate to higher education staff representation. We share the view that the OFS board should benefit from the experience of HE staff. However, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to appointing board members with experience of the broad range of different types of English providers in the sector. We are therefore confident that a number of OFS board members will be, or will have been, employed by HE providers, and we do not believe that we need to make an additional requirement in legislation.

Students make significant investments in their higher education choices, and it is right for them to be aware of what would happen if their course, campus or institution were to close. That is what Government amendment 4 will achieve. We expect all providers to make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot be delivered as agreed. The requirement for providers to produce student protection plans would be a condition of regulation. I listened to points made in Committee, and have reflected on the need to strengthen the power of the OFS to ensure that there is transparency in student protection measures, and that is exactly what the amendment does. It enables the OFS to require providers not only to develop student protection plans but to publish them, and we would expect providers to bring them to students’ attention.

The Government believe in opportunity for all and through the Bill we are delivering on that. We believe that transparency is one of the best tools we have when it comes to widening participation. Universities have made progress but the transparency duty will shine a spotlight on those institutions that need to go further. That is why I am pleased to propose amendments 2 and 3, which change the language in the Bill to make it clearer that the OFS can ask HE providers to publish and share with the OFS the number of applications, offers, acceptances and completion rates for students, each broken down by ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic background.

The Bill will also give the OFS the power to operate the teaching excellence framework. Thirty years of the research excellence framework and its predecessors have made the UK’s research the envy of the world but, without an equivalent focus on excellence in teaching, the incentives on universities have become distorted.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the TEF and the REF. Does he agree that the REF took several years to bed down and to become a measure of research, and that a lot of institutions feel that the TEF is being rushed through, particularly the link between teaching excellence and fees? I have been emailed by the University of West London, which has asked me strongly to oppose that. The TEF will be done on an institution-by-institution basis, not, like the REF, by department. Courses can vary widely in quality. Will he think again in relation to those points?

[Joseph Johnson]

The TEF is not being rushed; it is being piloted for the first two years. Awards will not be differentiated until 2019-20, with effect from the 2019-20 academic year. That is a significant period for the reforms to bed in. The university sector has welcomed the link to fees. Universities UK has recognised that there is a need for such a link and that we need to fund on the basis of quality as well as quantity. There is no attempt by the sector to separate the link.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I applaud the Minister’s view that we should focus on quality in the sector, rather than just volume, which is one of the problems that has beset the higher education sector in the past 20 or so years. Is there any international parallel for the OFS? Does such a body exist in Canada, Australia or other big global higher education sectors? Are we taking a lead, or following elements of what has happened elsewhere?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. We have studied regulatory systems around the world in drawing up our proposals for the OFS. Our system is in line with several in the Anglophone countries that have moved towards a market-based system in which the student is the primary funder of his or her higher education experience. It is therefore incumbent on us to put in place a system of regulation that recognises that we are moving away from the classic funder model of regulation that was put in place by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which created the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

New clause 12 and amendment 47 seem to misunderstand the aim of the TEF. Changing the ratings, as proposed by amendment 49, would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students from being able to determine which providers are offering the best teaching and achieving the best outcomes. Amendments 46 and 47 would stifle the healthy development of the TEF, and amendment 50 ignores the reasoned and consultative approach that we have taken and will continue to take in developing the metrics.

Let me set out the reasons why amendments tabled by Opposition Members on our plans for degree-awarding powers are unnecessary—namely, new clauses 4 and 7, and amendments 40 and 41. Our reforms will ensure that students can choose from a wider range of high-quality institutions. If the higher education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier for it to start awarding its own degrees, rather than needing to have degrees for its courses awarded by a competing incumbent. We intend to keep the processes on scrutiny of applications for degree-awarding powers, which have worked well so far, broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element of independent peer review for degree-awarding powers applications. Setting this out in legislation, as new clause 4 suggests, would tie this to a static process which would be inflexible. We intend to consult on detailed circumstances where degree-awarding powers and university title might be revoked, including changes of ownership, so there is no need for new clause 7. As for amendments 40 and 41, I can reassure Members that we will, as now, ensure that the very high standards providers must meet to make such awards will be retained. We are streamlining processes, not lowering standards, and these amendments are therefore unnecessary.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has proposed amendment 58 on the criteria an institution should demonstrate in order to be granted university title. None of these are current criteria. Like now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title in guidance, not in legislation.

This group also includes some technical amendments to ensure that the legislation delivers the policy intent set out in our White Paper. I know Opposition Members will be keen to talk about the amendments they have tabled, and I look forward to responding to any further points raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman should remind himself that international student applications have gone up 14%.

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, I would be interested to hear the Minister intervene again and say over what period, because he will know that, over last Parliament, the numbers flatlined and we lost market share.

[Joseph Johnson]

The answer is since 2010.

[Paul Blomfield]

We will probably disagree on those figures. I think I have heard the Minister say previously—if it was not him then it was his predecessors and previous Immigration Ministers—that there was no damage from the measures that were taken in the last Parliament, because numbers flatlined. From my point of view, flatlining in a growing market is a defeat. We would not say that the world is buying 20% or 30% more cars, but the great news is that our exports are flatlining. It does not make sense. However, I am sure the Minister will agree that international students are an extremely good thing for our economy. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Home Secretary put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration.

--- Later in debate ---

We had to use some ingenuity to get even a discussion of the TEF in respect of the Bill, so cleverly had the Government gone about trying to keep it off the face of the Bill, but I am sure those issues around the TEF will be returned to, and with some significance and in no short order, when it goes to the other place. I therefore want to again place it on record that we will be pressing our amendment 47 on the need for these measures to be continually subject to scrutiny by, and approval of, both Houses of Parliament to a vote.

[Joseph Johnson]

This has been a good debate and I am glad to have the chance to respond to some of the points made. Many points were made this afternoon, and I will not be able to address all of them, but I will do my best.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke passionately about amendment 51. We debated it in Committee, as he mentioned. He met my colleague, the Minister for the constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), after the Bill Committee, and we also met my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), who is not in the Chamber at present, to discuss this issue. That is because we share the hon. Gentleman’s aim of increasing the number of younger people registered to vote. We demonstrated our commitment to that cause by supporting, and contributing financially to, the pilot project at the University of Sheffield, in the city he represents. That is why when we met him we undertook to encourage take-up of the initiative by other institutions by writing to describe the outcome of the pilot to vice-chancellors. We also agreed that he should attend a formal roundtable meeting on student registration, and the Minister for the constitution promised to consider other ways registration could be increased. I regret that owing to a scheduling issue with one of the external stakeholders—not the Minister—we were unable to hold the meeting as planned, and we are actively looking to rearrange it, to fulfil the commitment we made to the hon. Gentleman at that meeting following the Bill Committee.

Amendment 37 seeks to widen the base of those the Office for Students should consult before it determines or changes the initial and ongoing registration conditions, to include staff and students as well as those representing the interests of English higher education providers. The Office for Students will take the views of students into account in all of its activities. It will consult on the initial and ongoing registration conditions as part of its wider consultation on the regulatory framework. Clause 68 makes it clear that bodies representing the interests of students, and other such persons it considers appropriate, as well as bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers, should be involved in that consultation. It is my clear expectation that the Office for Students will strongly encourage providers to engage with and consult their key stakeholders, including staff and students, as a matter of good practice. The Office for Students itself will always listen to representations from students and staff if it thinks that that would add value. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Hon. Members made a number of points on new clause 9 and amendment 52 relating to international students. I recognise that the number of international students our higher education system attracts and the income they provide are key issues for the sector, so I understand the motivation behind this amendment. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for commissioning annual reports on the number of international students in UK higher education institutions and their economic impact. As I have set out, Government new clause 1 requires the Office for Students to monitor and report on the financial health of the English higher education sector in the round. To do that, the Office for Students will have a very clear picture of the number of international students and the income they bring, as the recent Higher Education Funding Council for England report did. In addition, clause 8(1)(b) requires all registered providers to give the Office for Students the information it needs to perform its functions. That will allow the Office for Students to gather information on international student numbers and income in the context of its duty to monitor financial health. In effect, new clause 1 and clause 8(1)(b) already achieve the policy intent of the amendments.

A wide range of information is also already in the public domain. The Higher Education Statistics Agency, for instance, already collects and publishes data on international students. Further to that, the Department for Education will shortly be publishing statistics on the value of education exports. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, the Home Office also publishes data, and its data show there has been a 14% increase in the number of international students coming to study in the UK since 2010.

Regarding new clause 14, I thank hon. Members for bringing this issue back to the House after it was raised in Committee, but I still do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for commissioning research into post-study work. The Bill is focused on creating the structures needed to oversee higher education and research funding for many years to come. The scope of what this amendment proposes—a short-term piece of research on an element of migration policy—is not consistent with the scope and functions of UK Research and Innovation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I entirely accept the Minister’s bona fides and commitments on this issue, but is it true that Home Office officials accompanying the Prime Minister on her visit to India were openly talking to people about using the bronze element of the TEF as a way of reducing the migration numbers for students?

[Joseph Johnson]

The visit to India, which I was honoured to be part of, was a big success in that it gave us numerous opportunities to reiterate our strong message that we welcome genuine students. There is no limit on the number of genuine students who can come and study at our world-class institutions, and there is no better place than the UK to receive a higher education. We want to see more such students coming to study here.

[Paul Blomfield]

I assure the Minister that we are very calm about this issue, but he could calm us further by explaining what the Home Secretary meant when she talked about the use of quality in relation to the visa system, and in particular when she said that she would be

“looking at tougher rules for students on lower quality courses.”

What does that mean?

[Joseph Johnson]

High-quality institutions are compliant institutions. We want compliance to be a strong feature of our system. It is important that the sector should do all it can to be compliant with Home Office regulations. The ability to bring students in on tier 4 visas is a privilege, not a right, and it comes with an obligation to ensure that students who come to this country to study follow the terms of their visas. The sector should welcome that because it wants a high-quality system of international study. The Government will be bringing forward a consultation paper in the coming weeks that will enable everyone across the sector, including the hon. Gentleman, to contribute their views on how best this can be achieved.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister talks about compliance. Why did the Home Secretary not talk about compliance? She talked about

“tougher rules for students on lower quality courses”,

but there was nothing about compliance. What did she mean by that?

[Joseph Johnson]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Home Secretary’s speech carefully, he will see that she did mention compliance. She mentioned compliance and quality. High-quality institutions are compliant institutions; they are one and the same.

[Carol Monaghan]

High-quality institutions could offer poor-quality courses, just as institutions with a bronze rating could offer extremely high-quality courses. How is the distinction going to be made?

[Joseph Johnson]

I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the consultation document. She will be able to assess the Government’s proposals in due course when the Home Office is ready to publish them.

Amendments 46 and 47 would require greater parliamentary scrutiny of the TEF, but I do not believe that the content of the amendments is either necessary or proportionate. As I have said, the development of the TEF has been, and will continue to be, an iterative process—as the research excellence framework was before it. Requiring Parliament to agree each and every change to the framework would stifle its healthy development. The REF scheme is not subject to that level of oversight by Parliament, and nor should it be.

Hon. Members have talked about the “gold”, “silver” and “bronze” descriptors as though they were new inventions from this Government. They are in fact familiar to the sector through their use in other areas. Such terminology is already used, for example, in the Athena SWAN awards and by Investors in People in many universities. In every case, bronze is still recognised as a high-quality award, while gold is reserved for the highest quality.

Amendment 49 would not add any value to the TEF framework that we have developed. Changing the TEF ratings would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students from being able to determine which providers were offering the best teaching and achieving the best outcomes. It would simply allow for a pass/fail assessment. The teaching excellence framework assesses excellence over and above a baseline assessment of quality, and our proposed descriptors will allow students, parents, schools and employers to distinguish clearly between providers. We have consulted on the proposed metrics and considered the evidence, and we still feel that these metrics represent the best measurements for assessing teaching. They are widely used across the sector.

Turning to amendment 50, we have consulted extensively on the metrics, as I have said, and made significant improvements. Setting out the requirement to consult in legislation would be unnecessarily burdensome. We have taken, and will continue to take, a reasoned approach to the metrics. Given the co-regulatory approach I have described, we would expect the OFS to take a similar approach.

I shall now address the points made on degree-awarding powers and university title. Let me be clear that only those providers that can prove they can meet the high standards associated with the values and reputation of the English HE system can obtain degree awarding powers. If a higher education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier for them to start awarding their own degrees, rather than needing to have the degrees for their courses awarded by a competing incumbent. Maddalaine Ansell, the chief executive of the University Alliance, has said:

“These plans strike a healthy balance between protecting the quality and global reputation of our country’s universities, whilst also encouraging innovation.”

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister might wish to comment specifically on new clause 4, but will he tell us why the Government are so reluctant to allow a process that has served the HE sector well since 1992 to be read across into the new arrangements for the OFS? I refer to the degree-awarding powers committee proposed in the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

In relation to new clause 4, we intend to keep the processes relating to the scrutiny of applications for degree-awarding powers—which have worked well to date—broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element of independent peer review for degree-awarding powers applications. I said as much in Committee. The processes are not currently set out in legislation to avoid being tied to a static process, and we intend to keep it that way. We have published a technical note on market entry and quality assurance that sets out more detail on the operation of the quality threshold.

Turning to new clause 7, our policy is that degree-awarding powers cannot be transferred or sold for commercial purposes, and we do not see that changing. If the holder of degree-awarding powers were involved in a change of ownership, or if complex group ownerships change, the provider would be expected to inform the OFS and to demonstrate that it remained the same cohesive academic community that was awarded degree-awarding powers and that it continued to meet the criteria for university title. We intend to consult on the detailed circumstances for when degree-awarding powers and university title might be revoked, including instances of changes of ownership, so there is no need for this new clause.

Turning to amendments 40 and 41, the OFS is already required under clause 2 to have regard to the need to promote quality when carrying out its functions. The OFS will therefore have regard to the need to promote quality when authorising providers to grant degrees. I reassure Members that we will, as now, ensure that the high standards that providers must meet in order to be able to make such awards are retained. One of the key criteria for obtaining degree-awarding powers is the ability to set and maintain academic standards, and we expect that to continue. As now, we want all criteria to set a high bar, and we plan to set them out in departmental guidance to which the OFS must have regard. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give the House some idea of when that guidance might be available?

[Joseph Johnson]

We plan to put out guidance in the coming months. The hon. Lady will be the first to receive it when it is ready.

Turning to amendment 58, we are absolutely committed to protecting the quality and reputation of our universities. We are not changing the core concept of what a university is and are not planning any wide-ranging changes to the criteria for university title. As now, we want only those providers with full degree-awarding powers to be eligible. Students make the choice where to study based on many factors—not only the qualification they will receive, but the cultural and social opportunities—and one size does not fit all. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education providers are best placed to decide what experiences they want to offer to students and the local community. Like now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title in guidance, not in legislation. We plan to consult on the detail prior to publication.

Several interesting points have been made in the debate on this group of amendments. Let me conclude by thanking hon. Members for their responses to the amendments that we have brought forward to enshrine the OFS’s duty to monitor and report on financial sustainability, to ensure there is always an OFS board member to represent or promote the student interest, to promote institutional autonomy further, and to compel providers to publish student protection plans.

[Gordon Marsden]

I think the Minister is coming to his peroration, so I just wondered whether he will be able to make any comment on new clause 15 and lifelong learning.

[Joseph Johnson]

I touched on that at the start of my remarks. The Opposition proposed a commission for lifelong learning in new clause 15. The Government are obviously strongly committed to lifelong education, in which the Secretary of State and I have taken a close interest. Studying part-time and later in life brings enormous benefits for individuals, employers and the general economy. Alongside our higher education reforms, we are reforming further education, including implementing the skills plan that was published earlier this year and through the recent introduction of the Technical and Further Education Bill, which had its Second Reading last week.

As the hon. Member for Blackpool South is well aware, the Government committed in the last Budget to review the gaps and support for lifetime learning, including part-time flexible study. That review is ongoing. Higher education already offers flexible options for the thousands of mature students who want to study each year. In addition, much work is under way to expand access to lifelong learning through a variety of routes to suit learners. I am confident that those reforms, like others in the Bill, will continue to have a positive impact on learning—lifelong or otherwise.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Student support: restricted modification of repayment terms

“(1) Section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (power to give financial support to students) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) In subsection (2)(g) at the beginning insert ‘Subject to subsections (3)(A) and (3)(B),’.

(3) In subsection (2)(g) leave out from ‘section’ to the end of subsection (2)(g).

(4) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Other than in accordance with subsection (3B), no provision may be made under subsection (2)(g) relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section once the parties to that loan (including the borrower) have agreed the terms and conditions of repayment, including during—

(a) the period of enrolment on a course specified under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), and

(b) the period of repayment.

(3B) Any modification to any requirement or other provision relating to the repayment of a loan made available under this section and during the periods specified in subsection (3A) shall only be made if approved by an independent panel.

(3C) The independent panel shall approve modifications under subsection (3B) if such modifications meet conditions to be determined by the panel.

(3D) The approval conditions under subsection (3C) must include that—

(a) the modification is subject to consultation with representatives of the borrowers,

(b) the majority of the representative group consider the modification to be favourable to the majority of students and graduates who have entered loans, and

(c) there is evidence that those on low incomes will be protected.

(3E) The independent panel shall consist of three people appointed by the Secretary of State, who (between them) must have experience of—

(a) consumer protection,

(b) loan modification and mediation,

(c) the higher education sector, and

(d) student finance.’”—(Wes Streeting.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Wes Streeting]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the student loans system should be brought within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority. Had a high street bank or a payday lender behaved in such a way, there would be outrage everywhere, including in this House. The Financial Conduct Authority would mount an investigation. The Treasury Committee, of which I am a member, would ask questions. It seems that a Chancellor can just decide to save a few quid in the autumn statement and make retrospective changes that would penalise existing students and graduates.

This is an issue not just of fairness and equity for existing borrowers, but fundamentally of trust. What is to stop future Governments making changes further down the line about all manner of things, including interest rates, repayment periods, tapers and thresholds? On that basis, how can current or prospective students have confidence that promises being made today will be kept tomorrow? To be honest, this is a very personal issue for me. Some years ago, Martin Lewis, from Money Saving Expert, and I agreed to work with the coalition Government on an independent taskforce on student finance information. Martin was invited to take part because of his widespread reputation as one of the most trusted people in the country when it comes to financial advice and saving consumers money. It was felt, quite rightly by Lord Willetts— then the higher education Minister—that Martin would be an independent voice on those matters and someone whom people could trust. Martin then asked me to work with him as his deputy, with Lord Willetts’ agreement, on the basis that I had recently completed my term as president of the National Union of Students.

Although I opposed the decisions that had been taken by successive Governments around higher education funding and student finance, I believed that it was critical to take part. I thought it would be appalling if a single student was deterred from applying to university on the basis of misunderstanding the information. If students look at the information and the student finance system and decide to make a different choice, that is for them, but I thought that it would be a travesty if a single student was deterred on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation.

We went round the country visiting schools, colleges and universities and we appeared in the media, promoting the Government system—not on its merit, but on the facts of the system. We served what I thought was an important public duty and purpose, but we were misled—inadvertently—which means that we therefore misled students and graduates up and down the country. We told them that the repayment threshold would go up in line with earnings from April 2017; that is what we were told by Ministers at the time. That is what students, teachers, parents, family members and advisers were also led to believe.

The Government need to reflect very carefully on what message it would send to each of those groups if future Governments can come along and retrospectively change the system to suit the Treasury. It is a terrible, terrible precedent that undermines trust not just in the student finance system, but in politics as a whole. We are not so far from a general election, or indeed from a referendum campaign, to know that trust in politics in this country is at rock bottom. People do not trust politics and they do not trust politicians. From my experience of this place in the past 18 months, I can say that, for all our disagreements, I have great pride in our political system and in the way in which it works. However, when it comes to decisions such as these, I completely understand why politicians are held in such low regard. On too many occasions, politicians have said one thing and done another. On higher education and student finance, politicians have said one thing and done another. Since the coalition Government put their reforms through, with cross-party agreement and with—to be fair to them —concessions to the Liberal Democrats in government, every single concession has been undone. Student grants have been scrapped. The emphasis on widening participation in a number of respects is now weaker. Now we find that many of the actual repayment conditions, which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) would argue were some of the more progressive elements of the system, are also being undone. This is an issue about trust not just in the student finance system, but fundamentally in politics as a whole. Martin Lewis says:

“If you sign a contract, both sides should keep to it. If you advertise a loan, the lender should be held to the terms it was sold under.”

It is a total disgrace that, although the UK is well regarded around the world for its excellent laws and regulatory environment, there seems to be one exception, which is student loan contracts. That is why I hope that, this week before this change kicks in, the new Chancellor will take the opportunity to reverse the decision in his autumn statement. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister could go some way to rebuilding trust in politics. I also urge the Government to support new clauses 2, 3 and 6, which would ensure that no Government could be tempted to behave in this way again. It is scandalous and unjustifiable and it sets a very dangerous precedent. That is why I hope that we will see some progress on this today.

[Joseph Johnson]

When we reformed student finance in 2011, we put in place a system designed to make higher education accessible to all. It is working well: total funding for the sector has increased and it is forecast to reach £31 billion by 2017-18. It is vital to our future economic success that higher education remains sustainably funded.

Last year, the current Leader of the Opposition announced that he was keen to scrap tuition fees. Senior Labour party figures have criticised that, saying that it was not a credible promise to make, with Lord Mandelson, among others, noting that Labour had

“to be honest about the cost of providing higher education.”

Of course, it was not just Lord Mandelson. The former shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, went further when he noted that his party’s failure to identify a sustainable funding mechanism was a “blot on Labour’s copybook”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Short interventions, please.

[Joseph Johnson]

The estimation of the RAB charge is still broadly in that ballpark, with the current estimate being between 20% and 25%, so it is not substantially different.

On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) suggested that an independent panel should approve any changes to terms and conditions for student loans. However, the key terms and conditions governing repayment of the loan are set out in regulations made under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. The repayment regulations are subject to scrutiny under the negative procedure, which allows Parliament to call a debate on any amendments. It is right that Parliament, rather than an unelected panel, should continue to have the final say on the loan terms and conditions.

[Wes Streeting]

I anticipated that the Minister would point out how permissive the terms and conditions were, which is why I suggested that student loans should be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The sad truth is that I agree with him. As new clause 6 suggests, Members of both Houses should have a role in shaping the terms and conditions, but Ministers, whether in the Treasury or the Department for Education, have shown that they cannot be trusted to keep to their word. That is the indictment and that is why the amendment was tabled.

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Financial Conduct Authority. I remind him that it was under the Labour Government that Parliament was invited to confirm, as it did, that student loans were exempt from regulation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 when the then Labour Government passed the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008. The hon. Gentleman should look back at his own party’s record on the issue.

New clause 3 proposes that student loans should be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that students are protected, but student loans are not like the commercial loans of the sort regulated by the FCA. They are not run for profit and are available to all, irrespective of their financial history. Repayments depend on income and the interest rate charged on them is limited by legislation. The loans are written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower. By contrast, lenders regulated by the FCA are obliged to assess the credit-worthiness of all their borrowers, and the affordability and suitability of the loan product for each borrower. Were the FCA to regulate student loans, that could affect the ability of some students to obtain them.

[Wes Streeting]

It would be perfectly possible for the FCA to regulate within the scope of the student finance system. The Minister talks about the suitability of borrowers; I am talking about the suitability of lenders to keep their word. I am not asking for the FCA to regulate students. I am asking for the FCA to regulate Ministers, who cannot be trusted.

[Joseph Johnson]

The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation—it is the law that binds us—and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. FCA regulation is therefore unnecessary, as students are already protected. Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills base of our country. I should have thought that Labour Members would welcome that.

New clause 5 would revoke the 2015 student support regulations. These regulations replaced maintenance grants with loans, which increased support for students on the lowest incomes by over 10%. Revoking these regulations would reduce the support available for students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, while costing the taxpayer over £2.5 billion per year. Opposition scaremongering about this policy risks deterring students from attending university. The sustainable system that we have put in place has enabled us to remove the cap on student numbers and offer more support for living costs than ever before.

New clauses 6 and 10 would require the repayment threshold for all income-contingent student loans to increase in line with either earnings or prices. Loan repayments continue to be based on the ability to pay, and graduates earning less than £21,000 were not affected by the threshold freeze. Those who benefit from a university education are likely to go on to earn more than taxpayers who do not go to university, so it is only fair that graduates should contribute to the cost of their education. Uprating the repayment threshold for all income-contingent student loans, as new clause 6 proposes, would cost about £5 billion in the first year due to a reduction in the value of the loan book. Thereafter, it would increase the resource account and budgeting charge by about 7%.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Is that £5 billion a capital estimate of the value of the loan book or is it the annual running cost?

[Joseph Johnson]

That represents a decrease in the capital value of the loan book.

The cost of uprating by the consumer prices index, as new clause 10 proposes, would be less, but still significant. These costs would need to be paid for by taxpayers, many of whom will be earning less than the graduates who would benefit from the threshold increase.

New clause 10 relates to access to support for students recognised as needing protection. This is an important issue which was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in Committee, and is already addressed, as we have discussed, within the student support regulations. I am pleased to say that those who come to this country and obtain international protection are already able to access student support. Our regulations have for some time included provision for those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, and their family members.

Those persons entering the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and granted humanitarian protection, will be eligible, like UK nationals, to obtain student support and home-fee status after only three years’ residence in the UK. Persons on the programme are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they consider that they meet the criteria. Those with refugee status are uniquely allowed to access student support immediately, a privilege not afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. There is a distinction in international law between such status and that of those in need of humanitarian protection.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens, to be ordinarily lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student support. The amendment would allow people who may subsequently be required to leave the country to access taxpayer funding for their study.

The last group of amendments includes some technical Government amendments relating to alternative student finance. Unless hon. Members show an interest in them, I will move on to my conclusion.

This Government are committed to a sustainable and fair student funding system. We are seeing more people going to university than ever before, and record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and, with it, the cap on aspiration that it represented. I hope the Opposition can see that if their amendments were not pressed, the student funding regime would remain sustainable, working in the best interests of students and taxpayers.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister briefly addressed new clause 8, although in anticipating it, he understated and, to some degree, misrepresented the actual position. Let me therefore explain the new clause, for which I think there is support on both sides of the House—I think there was some discomfort on the Government Benches in Committee when it was voted down.

New clause 8 would allow all refugees resettled to the UK, as well as those young people who, having made an application for asylum, are granted a form of leave other than refugee status, to access student finance and home fees. It would be of particular benefit to Syrian refugees resettled to the UK under the Government’s own policy, so it is perhaps not surprising that there is support for it on both sides of the House. Only small numbers of people would be affected, but as those of us who have dealt with such cases know, it would have a huge impact for the individuals.

Let me explain the context. Currently, individuals with refugee status can access student finance and qualify for home-fee status from the moment they are awarded their protection. That is where the Minister was economical with the truth in his comments about the new clause, because those with a slightly different status—that of humanitarian protection—are treated differently: they have to be able to show that they have been ordinarily resident for at least three years at the start of the academic year to be able to receive financial support.

The group most affected by that different definition are those Syrian refugees currently being resettled to the UK under the vulnerable persons resettlement programme, as they are granted not refugee status but humanitarian protection. The result is that a young Syrian refugee who arrives in the UK today would not qualify for student finance until the start of the academic year in 2020. The only exception is if they are resettled to Scotland, where the Scottish Government—I commend them for this—have introduced a special fee status for resettled Syrians, allowing them immediate access to student finance.

Subsection 2(a) would ensure that all resettled refugees, no matter what status they are given, and no matter where they live in the UK, could access student support immediately. Subsection 2(b) would make student finance available for those who are granted humanitarian protection after making an application for asylum. As set out in the immigration rules, humanitarian protection is granted to people who face a real risk of suffering harm if they return to their home country. That includes the risk of facing the death penalty, torture or inhumane treatment, or their lives being at risk owing to armed conflict. Now, the future of those who are granted humanitarian protection after applying for asylum is clearly in the UK. If their future is here, they should be enabled to build their lives here. They should be allowed to access university education not simply to build their lives but to contribute fully to our society.

Subsection 2(b) would also provide access to student finance and home-fee status for people who have applied for asylum and then been granted another form of immigration leave. Again, in these cases, the Government have accepted that the immediate future of these individuals is in the UK, so they should be given every opportunity to contribute and develop, yet they face significant hurdles in doing so. The reason is that, in 2012, the last Government changed the rules so potential university students in this situation could no longer access student finance. They would also have been reclassified as international students, meaning they would face higher fees.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court found that the Government’s rules were discriminatory. I realise the Government have not been doing very well in the courts recently, but this is a slightly earlier case—the Tigere case. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling against the Government, the Government changed the rules and introduced the new criterion of long residence. What that means is that young people who have gone through the asylum process—including children who arrived as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—and who are unlikely to meet the long residence criterion, will have to watch their school peers go off to university, leaving them behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Scotland does very well out of the research councils, because there is a large research body in Scotland and the research environment is vibrant across our 19 higher education institutes.

We want the Secretary of State and the UK Government to consult Scottish Ministers and their equivalents in the other devolved Administrations before approving UKRI’s research and innovation strategy. How else can we be certain that the new body set up in the Bill will be used in the best interests of the whole of the UK and is not simply focused on English-only priorities?

The Scottish National party is proud of our HE sector and acknowledges that it is valuable to ensure Scotland’s cultural, social and economic sectors prosper. It is worth over £6 billion to our economy, and we must ensure that this continues. The Bill has the potential to harm Scotland’s world-renowned research. The Minister and this Government need to ensure that devolved Administrations have an equal say and that their voice is heard within UKRI to ensure that the Bill will be of no detriment to any part of the UK.

Amendment 55 deals with funding. The integrity of the dual support financial system must be protected, and the Bill does not go far enough to do that. We need to be sure that the balanced funding principle is clearly defined in the Bill to ensure that the integrity of the financial system set up within cross-border higher education sectors continues. Any flow of funds between reserved and devolved budgets needs to be clearly defined, and the Bill does not address how the balance of funding allocated through competitive funding streams will be supported. There is a serious worry that Research England funding could be taken from the UK-wide pot, of which Scotland’s and other devolved Administrations’ HE institutes rightly receive a share. If that pot were to diminish, it would be to the detriment of the Scottish HE sector and, indeed, those of Wales and Northern Ireland.

We are already seeing uncertainty about funding for our HE sector, thanks to the reckless gamble over Brexit. Is it right now that we should deprive our HE institutes by taking UK funding away from them, too? Many stakeholders in Scotland are concerned about the potential hazard that will be placed in their way because of the funding structure. Amendment 55 would ensure separate funding allocations for the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England.

Although Scotland performs well, as I have already mentioned, in attracting funding from Research Councils UK for grants, studentships and fellowships, Scotland does less well in infrastructure spending for research and currently only attracts 5% of UK spending. As with many things, a lot of this spending is concentrated on the south-east of England, and we want UKRI to have a full overview of research infrastructure across the UK.

We are very concerned that that clause 94 will allow the Secretary of State to alter the balance of funding between the research councils. Any grant to UKRI is ultimately research project funding, which should be competitively available throughout the UK. It is therefore necessary to have transparency about what goes to UKRI and what goes to Research England, given that that body will distribute funds for research infrastructure that is available only to English institutions.

We are extremely concerned that no provision in the Bill will ensure that the Secretary of State cannot give directions to UKRI to move funds in-year on its own initiative between constituent parts. If, for whatever reason, funds had to be moved by the Secretary of State between research councils and Research England or Innovate UK, this must happen only if the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations give consent.

This SNP amendment would ensure that fairness and transparency are at the forefront of reserved funding allocation to UKRI and the allocation to Research England, while ensuring that the balanced funding principle is measured in relation to the proportion of funding allocated by the Secretary of State for reserved and for devolved England-only funding and providing clarity about when that might not be achieved.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank honourable colleagues for their enthusiastic support for our world-class research and innovation system. UKRI will be a strong and unified voice, championing research and innovation nationally and internationally. It will support fundamental and strategic research, drive forward multi and inter-disciplinary research, support business-led innovation and help to promote business links with publicly funded research.

UKRI will build on the great work already being undertaken by our research and innovation bodies and maximise the benefit to the UK of a Government investment of over £6 billion a year. That is why the Prime Minister this morning announced that, by the end of this Parliament, we will invest an additional £2 billion in research and development, including through a new industrial strategy challenge fund, led by Innovate UK, by our world-class research councils and, once established, by UKRI. This is clear testament to how UKRI can help to deliver greater outcomes for the research and innovation communities and for the whole UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I am sure that the record will show whether the Minister said earlier, in respect of Government amendment 35, that membership would include at least one person or more with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is it “one person” with relevant experience or “one person or more”?

[Joseph Johnson]

It will be at least one person with experience of one or more of the devolved Administrations. To be absolutely explicit, the Government have tabled an amendment that places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of having at least once such member. For the individual councils, we think it right that UKRI be free to appoint the very best people for these roles, and we expect it to appoint candidates with the highest levels of relevant skills and experience from a diverse range of backgrounds, both nationally and internationally.

On new clause 11, I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) that there must be proper monitoring of the international diversity of the research sector workforce. We already take this very seriously and collect and discuss such data, but let me reiterate the Government’s position on the importance of international researchers. As I have said, we remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU, and we hugely value the contribution of EU and international staff. There has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or of UK citizens in the EU, as a result of the referendum. As the Prime Minister said in her letter copied to Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, only five days after she came into office:

“Our research base is enriched by the best minds from Europe and around the world – providing reassurance to these individuals and to UK researchers working in Europe will be a priority for the Government.”

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has articulated exactly the sentiments shared by Opposition Members—for us, too, this issue is a priority—but does he not recognise that in reality the Government are failing in that objective? Around the country, we are receiving reports of EU academics saying, “Our future isn’t here, because we haven’t had the reassurances we need.”

[Joseph Johnson]

There is no higher authority in the Government than the Prime Minister, and we have heard from her that it is absolutely our intention to provide the reassurance that EU scientists and researchers working in this country want and need. The Brexit Secretary has given similar assurances and reminded EU nationals living and working in the UK that those who have been here for five years are already entitled to indefinite leave to remain—I understand from his figures that that relates to about 80% of the group concerned—and that those who have been here for six years are entitled to apply for dual nationality. We want brilliant researchers from other European countries to continue to enrich our universities and student experience, and we have every expectation that they will be able to do so, as long as UK nationals in other EU countries receive reciprocal rights in those countries.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Does the Minister appreciate that such statements are cold comfort to people in that position and that we need far greater certainty to make sure that our higher education institutions can flourish as they should?

[Joseph Johnson]

We as a Government can only reiterate that we fully appreciate and value their presence in our institutions. We welcome them and think their work crucial, and we want them to stay and to continue doing that work. We cannot be more categorical than that.

On amendments 43, 44, 45, 57 and 59, I absolutely agree that co-operation between the OFS and UKRI is critical. Clauses 105 and 106 provide for this. It is counterproductive, however, either to restrict the areas or to be too prescriptive about how and where UKRI and the OFS should work together through legislation as required by these amendments. We have recently set out in a factsheet published on 15 November further details of where we expect both bodies to work together. One key area explained in the factsheet where we believe that the OFS and UKRI should work in close co-operation is in the assessment of applications for research degree awarding powers. The provisions in the Bill will facilitate this.

Another important area of joint working between UKRI and the OFS is postgraduate training. In turning, therefore, to amendment 17, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for raising this important issue in Committee. While the functions of UKRI, as drafted in the Bill, do enable this, the Government have tabled the amendment to provide absolute clarity that UKRI will continue to support postgraduate training. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has proposed an amendment to our amendment to ensure that it includes “social sciences”. I can assure her that this is already the case, because clause 104 ensures that all references to science or the humanities include social science and the arts. Our support for postgraduate training will be across the spectrum of disciplines. The OFS will be responsible for protecting the interests of all students, including all postgraduate students. The two bodies will work together and share understanding to support their respective functions, and the Bill makes clear provision for this.

I hope that hon. Members recognise the considerable progress made in ensuring that the Bill meets the needs of the research and innovation communities. I believe that UKRI will catalyse a more strategic, agile and interdisciplinary approach to addressing global challenges and developing the UK’s research and innovation capability. This is fundamental to strengthening UK competitiveness as part of the new industrial strategy. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Gordon Marsden]

Our amendments 43 to 45 are on collaboration between the OFS and UKRI. I will come to those and the Minister’s comments on them in a moment, but shall start with amendment 42.

Amendment 42 would allow Research England to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. Labour considers this an important principle to establish in the Bill. The Committee did not include members from Wales or, obviously, from Northern Ireland, yet, in both Wales and Northern Ireland, universities and higher education institutions will be significantly affected by the process. They will also be affected if the process with the new bodies is not universally seen, at this important time for our university system, to be fair in sharing out its attentions. Not to consider including such provisions in the Bill is a great mistake. Surely we should consider those interests when setting up a new research body.

This is highly relevant to the future of those research bodies. The Minister will be well aware that research bodies are generally still not entirely mollified by the various blandishments and reassurances given, particularly on the role of research councils. I am sure he will hear more about that when the Bill goes to the other place. While we have not pressed further any of the amendments that were proposed in Committee, because of time pressures, I assure him that our noble Friends in another place will want to scrutinise in detail what he has said and what he is planning to do.

These are not arcane arguments about technical details. One of the problems the Government face is that they have overlooked a vital factor. There is little sense of what the knock-on effects of all this will be on the importance of what I describe as the brand UK plc in HE—particularly so, in view of the further uncertainties that have arisen since the advent of Brexit. I am not the only person to make that observation; other commentators and academics have also done so.

--- Later in debate ---

Why should not the organisations be required to co-operate at the outset, rather than the Government’s saying that they can work together, waiting until they do not work together, and then seeking to intervene?

[Joseph Johnson]

UKRI and the OFS are under an obligation to act efficiently and effectively, and to deliver value for money. That will inevitably mean that when collaboration would deliver those objectives, they will also be under an obligation to work together.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That seems a bit convoluted.

A number of universities are still raising issues. We have just heard from the University of Cambridge, which says that

“the Bill itself does not contain any specific duty on the OfS to consult with UKRI towards the award of research DAPs. We believe that this should be specifically provided for in the Bill.”

I agree. I think that we would all like the Minister to include a specific requirement for the OFS to consult the UKRI and other bodies before granting degree-awarding powers. That, we think, would be a major step towards ensuring that decisions are effective and appropriate.

Amendment 59 suggests that one way of ensuring that the OFS and UKRI work together would be to establish a joint committee consisting of representatives of both organisations and requiring them to produce an annual report on the health of the higher education sector. They would have to report on, for instance, post-graduate training, research funding, shared facilities, skills development, and the strength of the sector. The amendment is intended to obtain—even at this late stage—a bit more information from the Minister about how he envisages the two organisations working together, and, in particular, how he will ensure that there is holistic oversight. That issue arose again and again in Committee. There was widespread concern, expressed in our amendments, that the split into two organisations would lose some of what HEFCE had provided for the sector. This amendment suggests just one way in which the two could be made to work together more effectively; there are others.

The Minister has provided us—rather late in the day—with framework documents that help to establish how the Government envisage collaboration between the organisations, and I thank him for that. I found it interesting reading. I hope that the Minister appreciates that I read the document immediately. It sets out a number of things that the OFS and UKRI may do. It says, for example, that the OFS and UKRI may co-operate with one another in exercising any of their functions and that the OFS may provide information to the UKRI. I just reiterate the point—why not just say “must” or “shall” where appropriate, and then we are all absolutely clear that those two organisations have to work together in a particular way?

I want to emphasise one thing about the amendment. At the end of it, it says that the UKRI and the OFS should have to publish a report on

“measures taken to act in the public interest.”

I am not going to go through again all the things we would expect to see from two organisations working in the public interest, but it would be helpful to have some understanding from the Minister about how the UKRI and the OFS are going to comment and report on the public interest as expressed by institutions and the work that they are carrying out.

On amendment (a) to Government amendment 17, the Minister is right that clause 104 says that the social sciences should be covered by the term “sciences” and arts by the term “humanities”. I tabled amendment (a) so that I could ask why, as only a few additional words would have to be added, “social sciences” cannot be added to the provision. We will all remember that arts is covered by humanities and social sciences by sciences because we are considering the Bill, but once the list is out there will be a danger of both the arts and social sciences falling out of everyone’s memory. I make a plea to the Minister: may we have the words “arts” and “social sciences” added to the provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified clause 81 of the Higher Education and Research Bill as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence; and clause 56 and schedule 5 as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Under paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 83L, I have also certified the following amendments as relating exclusively to England: amendments 109, and 243 to 245 made in Public Bill Committee to clause 80 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 4), now clause 81 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee (Bill 78). Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?

[Joseph Johnson]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Natasha Engel in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83E),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clause of the Higher Education and Research Bill:

Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved competence

Clause 81 of the Bill (Bill 78)—(Joseph Johnson.)

Question agreed to.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Higher Education and Research Bill and certified amendments made by the House to the Bill:

Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clause 56 of and Schedule 5 to the Bill (Bill 78);

Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England

Amendments 109, 243, 244 and 245 made in the Public Bill Committee to clause 80 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 4), which is Clause 81 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee (Bill 78)—(Joseph Johnson.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first convey my thanks to those from all parts of the House and those outside who have given their time and expertise to help to strengthen and improve this important and much needed Bill. We have been listening carefully to all the points made during the debates on the Bill, and I am pleased that the Bill has received such thorough scrutiny in this House.

We are reforming the complicated and outdated regulatory landscape. We are giving students more choice, driving up quality and ensuring our world-class research and innovation sector can maintain its standing in these ever more challenging times.

As we have heard from those in the sector, our reforms will make a real difference. I remind the House why the Bill is so important and so firmly in the national interest. The current regulation of the system reflects a bygone era of grant funding, elite access and student number controls. Things have moved on and we must catch up. We are therefore putting in place the robust regulatory framework that is needed. It joins up the regulation of the market and will give us a “best in class” regulatory system. This is essential to ensure that students are protected and that students and the taxpayer receive good value for money from the system.

The Bill will also create a level playing field, making it easier for new providers to enter, but only if they can demonstrate the potential to deliver high-quality provision. New universities will drive more diversity and innovation and more choice for students; elicit competitive pressure to drive up quality; and provide employers with more of the skills our economy needs. Nowhere has this been better demonstrated than by the announcement last month that Sir James Dyson, one of this country’s greatest inventors, is creating a new Dyson Institute of Technology. Dyson intends to take advantage of our planned reforms to give high-quality institutions a direct route to degree-awarding powers and university status in their own right. It will equip students and future employees with the skills that will be vital to the growth and productivity of our economy.

We have seen recently that new providers, such as the Dyson Institute, can be recognised as some of the most respected within the sector. The University of Buckingham was ranked first for teaching quality in The Times Good University Guide for 2015-16, while the University of Law, which became a university only in 2012, was joint first for overall student satisfaction in this year’s national student survey.

Our reforms to our research system, which draw on the Nurse review, have also been widely welcomed. As Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, recently commented in Nature:

“UK Research and Innovation…will boost cooperation among the research councils; allow a more flexible, interdisciplinary approach to global challenges; and position research at the heart of a new industrial strategy”,

just as Sir Paul Nurse envisaged in the review we are now implementing.

Those are just a few of the important aspects of our reforms, but as we arrive at the final stage of the Bill’s passage through this House, before its transfer to the other place, I want to take this opportunity to explain how the Government have listened and how the Bill has changed since it was first introduced. Our reforms place students at the heart of higher education regulation. I have always been clear that experience of representing or promoting the interests of students is a key criterion in appointing the board of the new market regulator, the Office for Students, but we heard concerns that that was not sufficient, so we have strengthened our proposals. Through amendments agreed today, we will ensure that the OFS always has a board member with experience of representing or promoting the interests of students.

We have also listened carefully to university representative bodies. Institutional autonomy has been the foundation of the success of our higher education system. Through the Bill we are fully committed to recognising the fundamental and ongoing importance of academic freedom. To that end, the Bill creates numerous and robust safeguards ensuring protection of academic freedom and institutional autonomy at all times. Today, I have clarified in the Bill our clear intention that the Government, when giving guidance or directions to the OFS, or setting conditions of grant framed by reference to particular courses of study, will not have the ability to compel the OFS to perform any of its functions in a way that prohibits or requires the provision of particular courses. Many people told me that they wanted the OFS to take more of a role in monitoring the financial sustainability of the sector, working closely with UKRI as needed, to protect and enhance its reputation. We are enshrining that duty in law through the amendment agreed today.

The Bill is not just about reforming how we will regulate higher education institutions; we are also creating a body to strengthen the UK’s world-class capabilities in research and innovation. UKRI has a UK-wide remit. As I explained in Committee, to deliver that and our overall integrated and strategic ambitions for the new body, UKRI must have a proper understanding of the systems operating in all parts of the UK, and I am pleased we have agreed an amendment that will ensure that. We have also responded to the community’s feedback in recognising the important role that UKRI will play in supporting postgraduate training working together with the OFS.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that our higher education sector retains its international standing. The reforms in the Bill are crucial in enabling us to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Members for taking the time to scrutinise and contribute to this important Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Higher Education and Research Bill: EVEL

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of analysis of English votes for English laws in relation to Government amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill at Commons Report.

The English votes for English laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English votes for English laws.

The memorandum provides an assessment of tabled Government amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill, for the purposes of English votes for English laws, ahead of Commons Report. The Department’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill.

This analysis reflects the position should all the Government amendments be accepted.

I have deposited a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-11-15/HCWS254/

[HCWS254]

Industrial Strategy

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

Universities Minister.

[Peter Kyle]

I beg the Minister’s pardon. I apologise. I am grateful that the Minister is here. He is split between Departments and can perhaps answer on this cross-cutting part of his brief. Skills are the issue that one comes across from every business. Unfortunately, responsibility has moved from the Business Department to Education. Is it conceivable that that could mean that business will have a louder voice in the House as the skills agenda unfolds over time? I think it is inconceivable.

What can Government do that businesses cannot do? There are—and I hope this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe—some things Government can do that others cannot. How can the Government inspire, encourage or enable businesses of the future? First, through infrastructure. Secondly, let us look back to 2000, when Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, via video link, together announced the mapping of the human genome. That was achieved by two Governments working together on a scale that no individual business could match, and certainly never without a patent. All the innovation that has spread from that single gesture by two Governments has spawned many industries since in academia and the private sector—for instance, in pharmaceuticals—and medical advances.

Those are the types of things that businesses need to be looking to. Government can do those things as part of a strategy, and I look forward to the Minister responding accordingly.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

By speaking relatively early in the debate rather than at the end, I want to signal that the Government do not intend at this stage to have the last word on the country’s industrial strategy. Such plans, which must command the support of successive Administrations, must be built on strong foundations of engagement, discussion and careful consultation across the Government and, indeed, across the country. As has been said, they should not be imposed from 1 Victoria Street or, indeed, anywhere else in Whitehall.

The industrial strategy is under development, as hon. Members have observed, so now is not the time to set out detailed plans for our approach. We expect to publish a discussion paper around the time of the autumn statement and then a response from the Government in the new year, 2017.

[Mr Iain Wright]

When?

[Joseph Johnson]

In the new year.

[Mr Wright]

And the paper?

[Joseph Johnson]

At the autumn statement this year.

Let me give Members a broad overview of the context in which we are developing the industrial strategy and a flavour for some of the principles guiding us as we do so. First, however, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the hon. Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson)—who is no longer in her place—and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for securing the debate and making such powerful contributions.

The UK economy has delivered a huge amount of growth and employment over recent years. Unemployment has been reduced from 8% in 2010 to 5% now, while full-time employment has climbed from 70% to 74% over the same period—a faster rate of employment growth than France, Germany or the USA. But, as the Prime Minster has made clear, our economy is not working perfectly. Gains are not always shared across the country and too many people are losing out. We want to deliver an economy that works for everyone.

[George Kerevan]

Will the Minister add to that catalogue of statistics that exports have flatlined for the past five years?

[Joseph Johnson]

Our export performance is one of the features of our economy that we are seeking to improve through our industrial strategy, and I am looking forward to explaining a bit more about how we will do that.

The UK has the second lowest productivity in the G7, a fifth below the G7 average, and closing just half that gap would add £250 billion to the economy by 2025. A proper industrial strategy can play a key role in that, by delivering real benefits to the work and lives of businesses, consumers and employees.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I, too, am concerned about our low productivity. Does the Minister not accept that a factor in that is cheap labour? If wages are low, that does not encourage companies to invest and become more efficient. We have a history of driving down wages or keeping them too low.

[Joseph Johnson]

Wages by and large correspond to the value added per hour worked that a company is willing to pay for. What is important is that we increase the average skills level in our workforce, so that we have a skills base that is globally competitive and able to command the wages in a market economy that we want people to have.

When Governments fail to look ahead and make the right long-term decisions on fundamentals such as tax, infrastructure, research, education and skills, they are abdicating responsibility. Such plans require us to take not a partisan approach but one that seeks to establish common ground. I am delighted that so many Members from all parts of the House have participated in the debate today, and I thank them for doing so.

I want to say a bit more about the principles guiding our approach to industrial strategy. The first thing to say is that developing a proper strategy takes time. It is not something that we can drop out overnight. We need to engage with a wide range of organisations and people to design and deliver a strategy that can have a real and lasting impact. That means engaging with Members, including through the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s welcome inquiry on industrial strategy. It also means spending time over the coming months engaging with businesses of all sizes and sectors, investors, local leaders and consumers, so that we can reflect their views and build on their knowledge and experience.

Our industrial strategy will necessarily be wide ranging, but that should not be at the expense of clear focus, so I would like to say a few words about where we will be concentrating our efforts. First, building on proven strengths is a cornerstone of good strategy, and as many Members have observed, this country has no shortage of them. For a start, let us acknowledge our powerful record on science and innovation. Only America, with a population nearly five times our own, has more of the world’s top universities, Nobel prizes and registered patents. The UK has the most productive science base in the G7 and has overtaken the US to rank first among comparable major research nations for field-weighted citation impact, a key measure of research quality. This is hugely important. Science, research and innovation are essential to our future and must be at the core of any effective strategy for the long term.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The Minister is talking about the science and technology research sector. Will he acknowledge that leaving the EU will create huge risks for that sector? Will he tell us how his Government will respond to those risks?

[Joseph Johnson]

Our research base is globally competitive, and organisations and scientists from around the world are keen to collaborate with institutions in this country. Collaborations between institutions in the UK and others around the world have some of the highest impacts of any science undertaken anywhere. We are desirable partners for collaboration, and I have every expectation that, with the support of the Government, we will continue to be a globally competitive science power in the years to come.

We are competitive in science, but we are also at the cutting edge of industry—for example, in advanced manufacturing. In the UK, almost 1.6 million cars were produced in 2015, up 4% on 2014 and up by nearly 60% since 2009. The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked why the Government did not procure cars for its fleet solely from Nissan in Sunderland. I must point out to him that we make fantastic cars all over the country. I believe that the Prime Minister drives a Jaguar XJ that was built in Castle Bromwich in the west midlands. So there is no need to buy cars from only one place in the United Kingdom. Globally competitive cars are made in a vast number of locations in the UK.

[George Kerevan]

Surely, the Minister is aware that we have a net deficit in trade in automotive products. We assemble car parts that are brought in from the rest of the world.

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman might recall that there was a point during the last Parliament—I think, in 2013—when this country became a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1975, when the then Labour Government nationalised British Leyland. It is the automotive policies of this Government and our predecessor coalition Government that have taken the car industry to the heights that it currently enjoys and that have not been seen since the early 1970s.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Like the Minister, I think that the British motor industry has a brilliant future—provided that our currency remains relatively competitive. Does he accept that we do well in export markets outside the EU but poorly inside in the EU because of the uncompetitive exchange rate? I think that we still import four times as many cars from Germany as we export to Germany. It is our trade outside that makes the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I will take a look at the statistics that he mentions. The car industry is just one example of advanced manufacturing in which we excel at the moment.

[Mr Baker]

rose—

[Joseph Johnson]

I am going to make a tiny bit of progress and then I will give way.

[Mr Baker]

Can I help the Minister out?

[Joseph Johnson]

Okay.

[Mr Baker]

I hope that the Minister will join me in celebrating this country’s excellence in not only manufacturing, but research in Formula 1. We have a number of teams in the UK. We are also the world’s second biggest aerospace manufacturer after the mighty United States. We do tremendously well, and Opposition Members are far too downbeat.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I welcome interventions, but when Members see the speaking time drop down to five minutes, they will understand, won’t they?

[Joseph Johnson]

Another globally competitive sector is satellite technology, with a quarter of all satellites launched into space currently being made in Stevenage.

Science and advanced manufacturing are, of course, not the only examples of excellence. We can point to other parts of our economy such as financial services, accountancy, law, consulting and creative industries that also set the global standard. We have worked hard over the years to make Britain one of the best places in the world to start and grow a business. We are creating a business environment that supports growth, by encouraging long-term investment and a dynamic economy with open and competitive markets. That has included backing business by cutting corporation tax to 17% by 2020, slashing red tape by a further £10 billion and making major investment in the UK’s research infrastructure.

We have a strong base to build from. The question is how we can make the most of it, but we are not starting from scratch. Previous industrial strategies have seen success in particular sectors. Our challenge now is both to build on our competitive advantage and to identify and support the sectors that can drive future growth. This is not about picking winners, which hon. Members have urged against, nor about propping up failing industry or bringing old companies back from the dead. We must be open and ready for new competitors and open to welcome new disruptive industries that may not exist anywhere today but that will shape our future lives. It is about identifying industries that are of strategic value to our economy and supporting and promoting them through policies for trade, tax, infrastructure, skills, training and R and D.

It is hugely important that we take a local approach to strategy. Governments are fond of quoting national figures—I have already quoted some myself—on economic growth, productivity and employment, but the truth is that economic growth does not exist in the abstract; it happens in particular places when a business is set up, takes on more people or expands its production. The places in which businesses operate are a big part of determining how well they can do. We must recognise the strengths of areas across the country, including the midlands engine and the northern powerhouse. We have a strong framework in place to do that, such as through local enterprise partnerships or, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), our network of universities and our enterprise zones.

Through our science and innovation audits across the UK, led by local areas, we are mapping research and innovation strengths and infrastructure to identify and build on areas of greatest potential in every region. Such strengths are too often overlooked outside the golden triangle of London, Cambridge and Oxford. Through our catapults, the sectoral centres of excellence based across the country, we are supporting innovation where UK businesses have the potential to be world leading and to address local disparities in productivity.

Helping all parts of the country contribute to national success is key to our planning and a cornerstone of our approach. What is needed in each place is different and our strategy must reflect that. That is why many of the policies and decisions that form our industrial strategy will be not about particular industries or sectors, but cross-cutting. For us to succeed in the future, we need to have the right infrastructure—roads, rail, broadband and mobile—to connect businesses to their workforce. New infrastructure such as Crossrail is about to open, but we still have bottlenecked roads, overcrowded trains, and broadband and mobile coverage that needs upgrading.

We also need to upgrade our skills base. We need a rising generation of young people who are not only better educated than those of our competitors and their predecessors, but also better trained.

On schools, we have announced £67 million for the next five years to recruit and train an extra 2,500 maths and physics teachers, and to upskill 15,000 existing maths and physics teachers. We need to make sure that vocational education, especially in engineering and technology, plays a much more prominent role in our country than it has for many years now. We also need a modern system of corporate governance, too. The Prime Minister has also already made it clear that we will look at that area, including further reforms on executive pay, as part of the Government’s work to build an economy that works fairly for everyone, not just the privileged few.

[Several hon. Members rose—]