Higher Education and Research Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 83, page 51, line 23, after “Innovation” insert
“or, in Welsh, Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig,”
This amendment sets out the Welsh name for UKRI.
Joseph Johnson
It is good to have you in the Chair for the last day of our Committee’s proceedings, Sir Edward, to see us safely through to the end.
Amendment 246 is a minor amendment that places the Welsh language name for UK Research and Innovation on the face of the Bill. Amendments 274 to 276 are consequential and update the English and Welsh language versions of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 to acknowledge the establishment of UKRI.
Amendment 246 agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
United Kingdom Research and Innovation
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 330, in schedule 9, page 92, line 11 after “members” insert—
“(e) at least one member of the OfS Board with at least observer status”.
This amendment would ensure an interface between research and teaching.
Gordon Marsden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this last day, Sir Edward.
Because of the mysteries of grouping, these amendments are fairly far apart on the Order Paper, but fortunately they hang together. The amendments focus on co-operation and collaboration between research and teaching, specifically the relationship between the office for students and UKRI, which we have touched on previously. They spell out what the interface should be between teaching and research.
This question is probably as old as the hills. Ever since universities have been established, no doubt, people have been saying, “What on earth is he or she doing, doing all this teaching and no research?” and vice versa. The issue comes into particular focus after our lengthy discussions about the teaching excellence framework. In that process, reference is made to assessment of the research process. We are moving forward in general terms as well as in this Committee, and I think there is consensus across the Committee not only that research and teaching are of equal value, but that it is a mistake to put either into a silo. We would not previously have said that, even five or 10 years ago, but in general that is the position in the sector now.
The amendments draw on a wide series of comments that have been made about part 3 of the Bill by learned societies and the research and higher education communities. To be pedantic, we are considering the splitting not of the Higher Education Funding Council for England but of its responsibilities. As the Minister pointed out when we discussed this previously, HEFCE will be dissolved under the Bill. However, there is concern that the process of separating teaching and research—in this context, the Research England body—will mean that issues and activities at the interface of teaching and research, such as the health of disciplines, the awarding of research degrees, postgraduate training, the sharing of facilities, knowledge exchange and skills development, might not be effectively identified and supported.
There is no sense of a secret agenda; it is just a case of what can sometimes fall out if there are unintended consequences from perfectly reasonable regulation. I go back to what I and others have said about the weakness of the Bill, which was conceived entirely before the referendum and does not reflect changes since it took place. That is especially true in terms of the issues thrown up by Brexit. Of course one consequence of the referendum, as we all know very well, was a change of Government, a change of Prime Minister and, indeed, a change of Departments—the machinery of Government —that is almost but not quite as significant as the machinery of Government changes introduced in 2007 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, when he split, largely on an age basis, responsibilities for apprenticeships and other elements between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That produced a situation, which continues after the latest changes, in which Ministers and shadow Ministers sit in two separate departmental and Opposition teams. The Minister sits in two teams. I sit more in one team than the other, but have to have a strong connection with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy because of the research issue.
The concerns about the lack of effective identification and support for the list of things that I have mentioned have been intensified by the machinery of Government changes, in particular the division of teaching and research responsibilities between the Department for Education and the new or expanded Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We cannot have an industrial strategy without skills or without higher education, or further education for that matter, so there will have to be that element of co-operation between the two Departments. Our concern, which is reflected in the amendments, is how that will translate and transfer into a strong interface between research and teaching, although what we are talking about will primarily be the responsibility of the Department for Education. I imagine that the Minister will comment on that. In amendment 333, we make specific suggestions about how the process might be accomplished. We do not claim copyright; the Royal Society and many other learned bodies and institutions made suggestions, but they are ones that we are happy to share with the Committee today as they probably cover the most important functions.
We have talked about the OFS and UKRI co-operating with each other on the health of disciplines, the awarding of research degrees and postgraduate training. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central agrees with me that postgraduate training and indeed, the whole position of postgraduates and their future in detailed terms, have received relatively short shrift in the Bill. I hope that that will not be the case in the advice and guidance that will come. Postgraduates too, of course, will be keenly affected by the inter- connectedness of teaching and research, not least because many of them, in order to do research, end up having to do some teaching, although that is probably less prevalent here than in the United States. As someone who was doing postgraduate research and teaching at the same time, I do not think that is a bad thing. The ability to do both activities at the same time, provided they do not impinge on the postgraduate study, is very useful, not least in preserving some clarity of English when writing one’s thesis—but that is another matter.
The amendment proposes a mechanism by which this collaboration could be achieved. The Royal Society, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, has suggested that a committee on teaching and research should be established. I am sure the Minister will say it is not for us to dictate to UKRI, but it would be helpful to probe whether the Government are minded to say to the new body, its new chairman, chief executive and board members that this is something that ought to be high up in their in-tray. We also seek assurance that the requirement for the OFS and UKRI to co-operate will be included in governance documents for both organisations. Again, I am not expecting the Minister to give chapter and verse on that today, but we have in mind things such as operating frameworks, strategic plans and other relevant documents. No doubt that all sounds a little dry for breakfast on a Tuesday morning, but heavy fibre is good for us and that is why I am including it at this point in the proceedings.
The Wellcome Institute, which I am sure hon. Members are familiar with, has also offered thoughts in this area. Teaching and research are intrinsically linked, but that intrinsic link would be lost from higher education if the bond between them were broken. Clause 103 sets out the interactions between OFS and UKRI. Amendment 335 would ensure co-operation and information sharing between OFS and UKRI, strengthening the clause by replacing “may” with “must”—we are back to the old “may” and “must” scenario.
We see positive interactions between teaching and research responsibilities in many institutions, often most clearly in research-led undergraduate projects and modules, not least in the sciences. The Royal Society of Chemistry says:
“Bringing cutting edge research ideas into teaching helps ensure a dynamic and relevant curriculum. Close interactions with researchers can motivate students when considering their future in the chemical sciences. There is a risk that the separation of teaching and research in the new HE architecture will mean that the benefits of research informing teaching and learning practices could be lost. The current draft of the Bill allows for information sharing between the OfS and UKRI. It does not, however, require their cooperation unless directed by the Secretary of State”.
Other learned bodies and societies have contacted me and probably other members of the Committee to make similar points.
This issue is made more pressing because of the new machinery of Government structure and the shared responsibilities across the two Departments. That is why we suggest that the Bill be amended to provide that the OFS and UKRI must co-operate without being required to do so by the Secretary of State. Apart from anything else, the Secretary of State is going to have a hell of a lot in her in-tray—I am thinking of some of the other ground-breaking Government initiatives such as grammar schools and other measures that, by depute, would then fall to the Minister. I am sure the Minister would like to feel that this sort of thing can go ahead freely without him having to sign things off every other week. That is the principle, in a nutshell—a rather large nutshell—of our amendments to schedule 9.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain further how the OFS and UKRI will work together on a range of issues relating to their respective remits. I appreciate the considered tone of his comments and observations. We understand that these matters are important and we have taken considerable care to try to address them when crafting the reforms and the Bill. I am happy to try to give some further clarification now as to how we see those two bodies working.
I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to the continued integration of teaching and research within the HE system. We believe the Bill reflects that and proposes safeguards to ensure joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information between the OFS and UKRI. Both organisations also have a statutory duty to use their resources in an efficient and effective way, meaning they will look for all opportunities to collaborate and share information.
On the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman, I will start with those relating to changes to the machinery of Government in July. We understand his concern about the potential impact of those changes, with the Department for Education now having responsibility for higher education but research policy remaining the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. For my part, I am committed to my role across the two Departments and will be working closely with the two Secretaries of State and the heads of the two new organisations coming into existence through the Bill, UKRI and the OFS, to ensure a coherent approach and to maintain the continuity of day-to-day business.
As the Committee has seen, the Bill is supported by me, a shared Minister across the two Departments, and as the hon. Gentleman will see on the back page of the Bill, it also has important support from senior members of the Government. That provides significant continuity across the two Administrations we have seen since the general election, including the current Prime Minister, who supported the Bill in her former capacity as Home Secretary, and the current Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and so on and so forth. There is significant continuity.
Gordon Marsden
We entirely welcome not only that instrumental move across, but the move across of the individual concerned. I have always found the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) to be very forward thinking, and I think he will bring strength and hopefully some strategic vision to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Joseph Johnson
I will not comment on any absence of strategic vision prior to my right hon. Friend’s arrival, which I would not deem to be a fair comment, but he will take the Department to further great heights.
The hon. Gentleman asked about postgraduates and postgraduate study and why there is not more on that in the Bill. The OFS and UKRI will work closely together to ensure there are no gaps between their respective roles. In a way, that is no different to the current situation in which an institution receives funding from a research council but is still subject to HEFCE’s regulatory oversight of the sector. Individual students will have little if any exposure to either body, as interactions primarily take place at an institutional level.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s questions around teaching and research and the so-called split, we see the research excellence framework, administered by Research England within UKRI, and the teaching excellence framework, overseen by the office for students, as mutually reinforcing quality processes. We will ask institutions to consider how they promote research-led teaching in their TEF submissions. Lord Stern’s recent review of the REF recommended that academics be rewarded for the impact of excellent research on teaching. We will ensure that deadlines and timescales have the flexibility to enable institutions to plan and schedule the demands of the two systems.
Gordon Marsden
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because this is a complex issue for both him and me. Obviously, I will want to reflect on this when I see the Hansard report. The hon. Gentleman has been positive in thinking about having an observer on the two boards, but I wonder why even at this stage the Government appear to be relatively timid about the joint committee. A whole range of organisations have said similar things. MillionPlus stated in its evidence to the Committee that a committee and an annual report which referenced the areas and activities outlined in the amendment would help to achieve that symbiosis and provide greater public oversight and parliamentary scrutiny. I am a little surprised that at this stage the Minister is not considering a mechanism which might make some of these things easier and more automatic.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pressing this point, because it gives me a further opportunity to say that I am reflecting carefully on his amendments and thinking of ways in which we can address the points he has raised. I reiterate our willingness to think very carefully about what he has said. In the event that the OFS and UKRI were not working together, the Bill provides an important safeguard. It gives a power to the Secretary of State to require the two bodies to work together. Of course, that does not mean that they cannot work together without his explicitly asking them to do so. They can do so, and that is what clause 103 makes clear.
Amendment 333 proposes a specific list of activities on which both organisations would be required to work together. I believe that it is undesirable and unnecessary to be prescriptive in the Bill. I wholeheartedly agree that it will be important for the OFS and UKRI to work together on those areas, but we would not want to restrict the areas on which they should work together by providing a list of that sort. Although it details many important areas for joint working that have been raised by the community, the list is not comprehensive, and it is not likely to be so in future. An example would be ensuring efficient interaction between the teaching excellence and research excellence frameworks. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his positive and proactive response to the amendments which, as he knows, are probing amendments. I am encouraged by his recognition of the importance of getting such things right at the beginning. No list, in any Bill, whether drawn up by a university body or by Opposition Members, could possibly compete with the perfect list for ever and a day, for the next 20 years. However, if I may use a term that I often use, such lists are points of entry to provoke further discussion. I am encouraged by the Minister’s focus on the issues. There will be other opportunities in other places to discuss the matter further, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 304, page 92, line 16, after “chair” insert “and the House of Commons Select Committees”.
This amendment would ensure that the relevant House of Commons Select Committees are consulted before any appointments are made.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham took the initiative in drafting the amendment, but she cannot be here today because she is leading for the Front Bench in another Bill Committee. [Interruption.] We multitask.
The amendment goes with the flow of the Government’s intention in other areas. It is intended to ensure that before appointing the chief executive, chief finance officer and other members of UKRI the Secretary of State should consult not only its chair but the relevant House of Commons Select Committees. That would be consistent with the approach suggested by the Minister to OFS appointments.
In the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, Professor Borysiewicz, told us that
“the choice of members of that committee will be absolutely vital.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.]
It is therefore important that the Secretary of State should consult with others to make sure that the membership is the best possible.
Such broad consultation would enhance the scrutiny of the choices that were made, and therefore improve the likelihood of the best person being appointed, because it would require the Secretary of State to make a clear, strong case for choosing particular candidates. We saw the importance of that during the evidence sessions, because a number of witnesses made forceful points about who should be on the board of UKRI. Alastair Sim, director of Universities Scotland, suggested that membership should be
“expertise-based but it should also be based on geographic balance so as to have people with experience from across the UK sitting on UKRI and on the councils within it.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 68, Q106.]
Professor Borysiewicz suggested that UKRI should be made up of
“individuals who are broadly respected across the devolved Administrations, the different elements of research across industry and the different players”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.]
It is important to take into account those and other perspectives on appointments. We would all have confidence and agree across the House that consultation with Select Committees would make it more likely that a full and diverse range of opinions is taken into account before appointments are made.
In relation to appointments with the OFS, the Minister assured us that
“we fully intend to actively involve the Select Committee or Select Committees, as appropriate, in the appointment process”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 75.]
If that is good for the OFS, given the critical importance of UKRI, I assume it would be good in that case too and I am confident the Minister will be able to reassure me of that.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for the amendment and the chance to discuss the involvement of Select Committees in UKRI appointments. The establishment of UKRI involves a number of particularly important public appointments. For all of these, subject to parliamentary approval in the passage of this Bill, we will run an open and competitive process in line with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will apply to the permanent chair, CEO, CFO, other independent UKRI board members and the executive chairs of each council. I am happy to confirm that a pre-appointment hearing will be held in the House of Commons by the Select Committee on Science and Technology for the permanent chair of UKRI. That is in line with Cabinet Office guidance and, in keeping with this practice, the current interim chair, Sir John Kingman, has just appeared before the Committee.
Given the scale and importance of UKRI, I assure the Committee that I agree that it is appropriate to offer a pre-appointment hearing by the Science and Technology Committee with the chief executive officer. For other key positions, we intend to continue the current approach, which I believe works well.
Although it is not a statutory requirement for prospective research council chairs to appear before a Select Committee, it is common practice. I assure the Committee that we expect this practice to continue with any new executive chairs of the UKRI councils. This will ensure that the appropriate Select Committees are engaged in the appointment process for key leadership positions in UKRI. I hope that I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the assurances he is looking for and I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his assurances, which go some way towards meeting the points made in the amendment. I ask him to reflect on the opportunities to cast the net slightly wider to other Select Committees as appropriate in the way that it suggests. With the hope that he will reflect on that, and reassured by his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to make some observations on the amendments tabled by SNP Members. I have mentioned Hamlet without the prince once, so I will not do it again, but I entirely share the puzzlement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that the Bill, and indeed the White Paper, have been drafted with scant recognition of the knock-on effect and implications of what may be extremely valuable new structures on the devolved Administrations. At the risk of being tediously repetitive, I will simply remark that this is yet another example of why the Bill should have been looked at again after 23 June.
I add in passing, since we are talking about traditions in universities, that Scottish universities have historical traditions and strengths that could match many, if not all, of those in England. I am surprised that the Minister, being cut from that cloth, should not think that the legacy of the Scottish enlightenment—Adam Smith and other entrepreneurial characters who have flitted through Conservative party pamphlets—worth consideration in this process.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has done the Committee a service. Looking around, I can see no Members from Wales, and obviously none from Northern Ireland. Yet in both Wales and Northern Ireland, universities and higher education institutions will be significantly affected by this process. They will also be affected if the process with the new bodies is not universally seen to be fair in sharing out its attentions at an important time for our university system. I speak as a Unionist; the Labour party believes in the Union. Not to consider including such provisions in the Bill is a great mistake. The Minister and I will probably agree that one should not put people on committees and bodies simply on a symbolic basis, on which so many matters are often discussed and organised. Surely we should consider those interests in the context of a new research body.
What I have to say is highly relevant to the future of those research bodies. As I have said previously, the Government’s White Paper has overlooked a vital factor. There is little sense of the knock-on effects on what I describe as the brand of UK plc. I am not the only one to make that observation; other commentators and academics have also done so.
HE providers across England and the devolved nations are internationally competitive because of a trusted UK brand. If we are to have a trusted UK brand, it is important that all the integral parts of the UK feel that they have a say at the table. If they do not feel that and there is dissension and disgruntlement, then at a time that the UK Government need to be doing everything they can in the Brexit negotiations to safeguard that UK brand, there will be a weak link.
There needs to be a proper UK-wide strategy to safeguard the position of our researchers. We will talk about that in later clauses. For now, the amendments tabled by the SNP, whatever one’s views on the future of Scotland, are doing a valuable service to the Government by waking them up to some of the implications and pitfalls of having a body, though not what they wished, that might appear too Anglocentric. On that basis, we support the amendments.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for his amendments and the opportunity to discuss the important role that UKRI will play in representing science and research across all of the United Kingdom.
I agree with him that Scottish institutions are a vital part of our vibrant research base. I am sure he will be aware that they gain more than a proportionate share of competitive funding from the research councils due to the excellence of their research under the current arrangements. The research councils and Innovate UK serve, and will continue to serve, the research and innovation communities across the UK.
Our reforms have been deliberately developed with the needs of all the devolved Administrations in mind, going all the way back to the Green Paper in November. The White Paper is clear that it is our policy intent to ensure that Research England, as part of UKRI, can work jointly with devolved funders. We have tabled a Government amendment to the Bill that supports this policy intent, which the hon. Gentleman will have seen. This will mirror HEFCE’s current effective working relationship with the devolved Administrations’ funding bodies, for example, with respect to the research excellence framework.
Research councils and Innovate UK as part of UKRI will continue to operate throughout the UK. We will work closely with the devolved nations as UKRI is established to ensure the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we have tabled a series of amendments in recent days to ensure UKRI can work effectively across all four nations. We have been working closely with the Scottish Government in developing these clauses.
To deliver our integrated and strategic ambitions for UKRI, the body must have a proper understanding of the systems operating in all parts of the UK. It will need a detailed insight into not just the research environment but innovation strengths and business needs across the UK. That should include regional differences across England as well as the devolved Administrations.
In relation to the UKRI board and the composition of the councils, we have two primary objectives: first, that we attract and appoint the best people wherever they come from; and, secondly, that the board and councils are of a size that allows them to function effectively. As Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz said when he appeared before this Committee a few weeks ago,
“the choice of members of that committee will be absolutely vital. These will have to be individuals who are broadly respected across the devolved Administrations.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Bill Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26, Q40.].
I agree with him completely on both counts. We must seek the highest quality individuals with a broad range of experience, not necessarily limited to the UK research community or UK higher education institutions. We need to learn from and bring in the best individuals nationally and internationally. They will be recognised for their experience and expertise spanning research and business-led innovation and their ability to represent the full range of interests of the UK’s research and innovation system.
We are very fortunate in the UK in the quality and extent of our research base. It is common for members of the research community to move around the UK or, indeed, abroad over the course of their careers. It is also common for researchers to collaborate extensively within the UK and abroad. As it is likely the members appointed on merit will have worked and will have extensive links across the UK research community, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for his response, although I am slightly disappointed he has not gone further in saying that he would take the recommendation more seriously. We will have to return to this matter on Report.
I say to the Minister that the way in which he describes the role the devolved Administrations might be able to play in this regard sounds slightly complacent. If it were as precise and clear as he suggested, I wonder why he thinks Universities Scotland, the University of Wales, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and many others I have cited support the amendments and do not support the Bill as it stands. With the intent of bringing this matter back on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 247, in schedule 9, page 92, line 21, leave out “and new ideas” and insert
“, new ideas and advancements in humanities”.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, in appointing members of UKRI, have regard to the desirability of them having between them experience of the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities (including the arts), as well as the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas. A similar amendment is made to clause 85(1)(c) in amendment 256.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 315, in clause 85, page 52, line 8, after “out” insert “basic, applied and strategic”.
See amendment 316
Amendment 317, in clause 85, page 52, line 8, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 316, in clause 85, page 52, line 9, after “support” insert “basic, applied and strategic”.
This amendment and amendment 315 would ensure a commitment to supporting basic, strategic and applied research.
Amendment 318, in clause 85, page 52, line 10, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 319, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, after “technology” insert “humanities, social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 336, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, after “technology” insert
“arts, social sciences and humanities,”.
This amendment explicitly names the arts, social sciences and humanities as being part of the remit of the UKRI.
Government amendment 256.
Amendment 320, in clause 85, page 52, line 14, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 321, in clause 85, page 52, line 16, after “humanities” insert “social sciences, arts”.
This amendment would ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the full breadth of research.
Amendment 322, in clause 87, page 53, line 34, after “life” insert
“and social and cultural wellbeing”.
This amendment would ensure the Bill includes the full breadth of research and innovation and their benefits for humanity.
Joseph Johnson
Clause 85 sets out the functions of UKRI in broad terms. Among its key functions, UKRI will be responsible for facilitating, encouraging and supporting
“the development and exploitation of research and technology.”
It is intended that UKRI may also support the exploitation of advancements in the humanities, including the arts. However, this is not currently explicit in the provision made in clause 85(1)(c). Amendment 247 is a technical Government amendment that addresses that. For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify that for drafting purposes, references to humanities in this Bill are defined as including the arts and references to sciences include social sciences. These definitions are given in clause 102.
In addition, amendment 256 seeks to amend paragraph 2 of schedule 9 which sets out the areas of experience that the Secretary of State should have regard to in appointing the board of UKRI. The consideration of the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities should form part of this consideration; the amendment enables this. As Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, from whom we have already heard today, said:
“There is a lot of sense in having a body that will scrutinise and ensure that we can take a wider purview of the UK R and D effort.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22, Q30.]
Gordon Marsden
If I can find them in this bagatelle list which sends one diving across the paper, I rise to speak in support of our amendments, which are amendment 315, 317, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321 and 322.
Let me start by welcoming the technical amendments tabled by the Minister. As someone who has taught humanities, I was interested in his clarification that the arts were included in the humanities. I do not propose to have an etymological discussion about it, but I was also interested that social sciences— if I understand the Minister rightly—are included under the definition of sciences. I pause to think for a moment about the Minister’s first degree. Perhaps he might like to comment on whether he thought at the time that he was doing a science degree or a humanities degree. That is a little jeu d’esprit but nevertheless, it illustrates that this is a hazy area. Without being too pedantic, it is of merit to try to get some of the clarifications right so I welcome what the Minister has said.
Our amendments 317 and 318 would insert “social sciences” and “the arts” after “humanities”. I appreciate that there might be some overlap between what we have tabled and what the Government have tabled but obviously we did not necessarily consult them. The principle is straightforward: first, to ensure that UKRI’s functions extend across the whole breadth of research; and, secondly and not unimportantly given that this is a major change—this comes back to what I have said previously—to give reassurance to those in those areas that their interests are being properly and carefully catered for.
Amendment 319 is part and parcel of the same process although this time, after “technology”, we are inserting the words “humanities”, “social sciences” and “arts”. The amendments we tabled to clause 85, which include the words “basic”, “applied” and “strategic”, are intended also to reflect concerns expressed by both the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Society of Edinburgh and probably other bodies too that basic science is essential for a good research system—often laying the ground for future applications — and that its funding should be a core function for UKRI. The royal charters of the research councils protected such fundamental research by requiring that basic strategic and applied research were all funded, hence their use in our amendments, but there is no commitment as such in the Bill, hence the suggestion that these amendments should be moved to include a commitment to supporting those issues.
Amendments 320 to 322 follow the same argument, inserting the words “social sciences” and “arts” after “the humanities”. Likewise, amendments to clause 87 insert a reference to social and cultural wellbeing after the word “life”, ensuring that the Bill includes a focus on the full breadth of research and innovation and their benefits for humanity. Without starting a philosophical discussion, I wish to be clear that we understand that much research and innovation does not always have an immediate practical application. Indeed that is not required, and that should not be the case. That is one of the elements of tension in this Bill between the effects of various changes, which we will be discussing later in terms of their structure and architecture.
At a time when people are bombarded—not least in the popular media—by sometimes highly contentious claims for research, it is important that we place in the Bill a recognition that research and innovation significantly benefits the man and woman in the street, either by the words suggested here or by other appropriate mechanisms. At a time of continued austerity and continued arguments over funding, which no doubt will tighten up during the Brexit process, it is important that that is made clear in the corridors of Government, not just to the general public.
Paul Blomfield
I will speak to amendment 336, recognising and welcoming the fact that Government amendment 256 covers a significant part of what we were trying to achieve with this amendment. I wanted to probe a little further on going beyond reference to the humanities, and looking at arts and social sciences. That is covered in the footnote, but I would like further clarification on the Government’s view of their inclusion more generally. The Minister will recognise the value of the creative industries and social sciences to the economy and to our culture, and this amendment seeks to recognise arts and social sciences within the legislation.
A number of organisations submitting evidence to us, including MillionPlus and Goldsmiths College—part of the University of London—have raised concerns about the Bill’s lack of provision for the arts, emphasising that the legislation must work for all subjects. In their written evidence, Goldsmiths College made the point that,
“we also believe excluding the words ‘arts’ from the description of the UKRI remit could jeopardise future funding for arts research. We believe this also to be the case for the social sciences, which could be overlooked in favour of more traditional science subjects. As well as signalling a commitment to these important disciplines, this would also fully reflect the objectives of the research council’s reporting into the UKRI.”
The point on which I am seeking reassurance is that the Government do regard the arts and social sciences as being of important academic worth.
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the amendments supported by the hon. Members for Blackpool South and for Ashton-under-Lyne, who are sitting in the absence of the hon. Member for City of Durham, which seek the same ends as the Government’s amendments. As hon. Members have said, it is absolutely right that UKRI should be able to take full advantage of the advancements that the UK research sector makes in the humanities, including the arts. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I repeat that clause 102 makes it clear that “‘humanities’ includes the arts” and “‘science’ includes social science.”
I turn to the other tabled amendments to clause 85, which seek to spell out explicitly that the research UKRI may carry out should include “basic, applied and strategic” research. I welcome the opportunity to assure hon. Members that it is absolutely the Government’s intention that UKRI will support all forms of research, including “basic, applied and strategic” research, as hon. Members have put it. However, it is not necessary to be prescriptive in that way. The reference to research in clause 85(1) is drafted to be broad enough to include those types of research, and it is right that research experts, not politicians, decide what specific projects are supported.
I welcome the intention behind amendment 322 to clause 87(4). It seeks to require the councils to have regard to improving “social and cultural wellbeing”, in addition to the currently drafted “improving quality of life”, when exercising their functions. While I agree that the potential human benefits of research are wide-ranging, I am certain the current duty on councils to consider the desirability of improving quality of life is sufficient to cover those. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Amendment 247 agreed to.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 248, in schedule 9, page 92, line 37, leave out “A Council may include” and insert
“A majority of the ordinary Council members of a Council must be”.
This amendment replaces the provision which made it clear that a Council of UKRI could include persons who were neither a member of UKRI nor one of its employees and provides instead that a majority of the ordinary members of a Council must fall into that category.
The Nurse review highlighted the importance of maintaining the distinct identities and integrity of councils within UKRI. Sir Paul Nurse recommended that the councils should comprise an independent membership drawn from their respective research communities. Professor Sir John Bell recognised the sense of that, saying:
“This would appear to be a sensible implementation of the Nurse Review, and will provide opportunities for better collaborations between scientific disciplines in the context of the new Board. It will hopefully provide the leaders of research councils to be able to devote more time to strategy and less time to administrative functions.”
In addition, the Government said in our White Paper:
“In addition to the Executive Chair, each Council will be made up of…experienced independent members drawn from the relevant community.”
The amendment means that membership of each council must comprise a majority of ordinary members who are neither members nor employees of UKRI. It replaces the current provision in paragraph 3, which only allowed for the possibility of councils’ including members who fell into that category. The amendment will ensure that the integrity and autonomy of the individual councils will be maintained through their having an independent membership.
Amendment 248 agreed to.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 249, in schedule 9, page 93, line 34, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
This amendment and amendments 251 and 252 provide that it is UKRI rather than the Secretary of State who pays members of UKRI and Council members their remuneration, allowances, expenses, pension and compensation. The amounts paid are, however, still to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 250 to 255 and 312.
Joseph Johnson
This group of amendments relates to provisions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 9, which provide for powers for UKRI to make payments to UKRI members and its employees. Turning to amendments 249 to 252, paragraph 7 of schedule 9 is intended to place a duty on UKRI to pay salaries, pensions and allowances, compensation and expenses to the UKRI members as determined by the Secretary of State. The amendments make it clear that it is UKRI, rather than the Secretary of State, that pays members and council members of UKRI.
Amendments 253, 254 and 255 provide further powers for UKRI to pay expenses and allowances to existing and former members of UKRI staff and to provide pensions to these people.
Amendment 249 agreed to.
Amendments made: 250, in schedule 9, page 93, line 35, leave out “, allowances and expenses”.
This amendment removes an unnecessary reference in paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 9 to allowances and expenses for members of UKRI or Council members as they are covered in paragraph 7(2).
Amendment 251, in schedule 9, page 93, line 37 leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 249.
Amendment 252, in schedule 9, page 93, line 43 leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “UKRI”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 249.
Amendment 253, in schedule 9, page 94, line 8, leave out “, allowances and expenses”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 254.
Amendment 254, in schedule 9, page 94, line 9, at end insert—
‘( ) UKRI must pay, or make provision for paying, to or in respect of a person who is an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of allowances or expenses.”
This amendment makes the duty to pay allowances and expenses to UKRI employees consistent with the power to pay such allowances or expenses to former employees inserted by amendment 255.
Amendment 255, in schedule 9, page 94, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) UKRI may pay, or make provision for paying—
(a) to or in respect of a person who is or has been an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of pensions or gratuities, and
(b) to or in respect of a person who has been an employee of UKRI, such sums as UKRI may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State in respect of allowances or expenses.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment makes clear that UKRI has power, subject to approval by the Secretary of State, to make pension provision for its employees and former employees other than under the Superannuation Act 1972 (as provided for in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 9), to pay them gratuities and to pay former employees allowances or expenses.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 331, in schedule 9, page 95, line 26, leave out “any” and insert “some”.
This amendment seeks to clarify which functions UKRI intends to delegate to its Councils.
This amendment relates to paragraph 12 of the schedule, “The delegation of functions by UKRI”. This probing amendment raised a metaphorical eyebrow when we— and, I think, others—were looking through the Bill. Paragraph 12(1) of the schedule states:
“UKRI may delegate any of its functions to—
(a) a member of UKRI,
(b) an employee authorised for that purpose,
(c) a Council or a Council sub-committee, or
(d) a general committee.”
I am fairly confident that this is not designed to confer—to borrow a phrase from another context—Henry VIII-type powers—on UKRI to delegate. And I am fairly confident that when the Minister responds he will probably say that it replicates—I do not want to be so unkind as to use the word “boilerplate”—things that normally appear in Bills at this point in the proceedings. However, I think it is worth probing because in this instance it is not simply that the Government are setting up a new body in UKRI, but that the relationship between that body and its research councils, for example, is one that has inevitably provoked a lot of comment and some concern as to how that process will be taken forward.
This probing amendment seeks to clarify the division of responsibilities between UKRI and its councils and, at least, to elicit from the Minister some sense—I appreciate this is an evolving conversation—of whether that particular subparagraph of the schedule is intended to be a passe-partout, if I may put it that way, for this process.
I also say that because we had the interim chairman, Sir John Kingdom, before us in our somewhat attenuated evidence session. He has also very recently appeared before the Science and Technology Committee. I confess that I have only scanned the minutes of that meeting; I presume the Minister has read them from cover to cover. It seemed to me that in the best traditions of the civil service, from which he emanates, Sir John had skipped rather lightly on some of those questions to the Committee thus far; but that is for members of the Science and Technology Committee to judge.
It is important that we try to get some greater clarification before the Bill goes to the other place, not least because the Government will undoubtedly be peppered with questions and observations by Members of the House of Lords. I am actually trying to give the Minister a little assistance.
To be fair, the factsheet published by the Government, “Higher Education and Research Bill: UKRI Vision, Principles & Governance”, makes the point that there is much detail still to come. It states:
“The government is working with Sir John, our existing Partner Organisations and key stakeholders to explore detailed organisation design options…This will inform the final design which will be refined and agreed in partnership with the UKRI Chief Executive and Board once appointed.”
I appreciate that that will not necessarily happen anytime soon. The factsheet then says:
“Further detail will be set out in guidance including the framework document between BEIS and UKRI, which will be published once agreed.”
I have already referred to, and the Minister has commented on, the evolving implications of the machinery-of-Government division of research in that fashion. Therefore, as well as moving the amendment, which, as I have said, is a probing amendment designed to reflect the concerns, may I ask the Minister—I will do so in a constructive way—how he sees that framework document developing and at what stage he thinks it might be available to be considered? Does he think that it will be available before the Bill leaves this House, or when it goes to the other place?
Joseph Johnson
I thank hon. Members for the opportunity to explain in more detail what functions UKRI intends to delegate to the councils within it. As we have set out in the White Paper and the factsheet that we published on 12 October, our intention is that UKRI will delegate decisions on scientific, research and innovation matters to the nine councils. That will include, but is not limited to, the leadership of their area of expertise, including prioritisation of budgets and the development of delivery plans; ensuring the future of skilled researchers and other specialists essential to the sustainability of the UK’s research and innovation capacity; engaging with their community to develop ideas, raise awareness and disseminate strategic outputs; and appointing and setting terms and conditions of academic, specialist and research staff in the relevant council and any associated institutes.
As Sir Alan Langlands, vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, told the Bill Committee, in his view the new overarching research funding body, UKRI,
“has the potential to retain the best of the current individual research councils, while bringing greater strategic oversight and direction.”
Of course, some functions will be retained at the centre of UKRI. Those include a lean but highly effective strategic brain, which will facilitate development of the overall direction, ensuring that we invest every pound wisely; the management of funds with cross-disciplinary impact; and responsibility for administrative and back-office functions across the organisation, such as procurement, human resources and grant administration. The Bill does not seek to set out the detail of all that, as that would be—
Gordon Marsden
I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s flow unduly. I am still slightly struggling to digest, at this time of the morning, the concept of a “lean” brain, as opposed to possibly a fatty one or another type of one. The serious point that I want to make is this. How lean is this brain—to continue the analogy—likely to be? I ask that because throughout the Bill, not the elephant in the room but certainly the discussion in the antechamber is about what resources Government can bring to the administration of this area. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister, even if not today, gave some indication of that. Are we talking about dozens of people, hundreds of people or what?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and draw his attention back to the impact assessment that we made at the start of the Bill Committee process, which gives a feel for the resources to be allocated to UKRI and the savings likely to be generated from the back-office efficiencies that will be enabled through its creation. It will be no bigger than is necessary to undertake its core functions, which, as I have described, are to provide a strategic vision for the sector, to ensure it can operate a cross-disciplinary fund in a way that the current research councils cannot and so on. The Bill does not seek to set out the details of all this, because we will put out a framework document in due course. The hon. Gentleman asked when that will be published. I assure him that it will be published before the formal launch of UKRI.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I am not trying to tie the Minister down unduly, but can he give any indication of whether the document will be available when discussion of this matter goes to the House of Lords?
Joseph Johnson
We have provided, as I said a few minutes ago, quite a detailed factsheet that outlines our policy thinking with respect to the creation of UKRI and the general principles that will guide its approach to its functions. That goes into some detail about the broad approach that UKRI will take—for example, its recognition of the fundamental importance of Haldane with respect to how it will operate funding for science and its fundamental support for the dual support system and balanced funding.
The factsheet also goes into considerable detail about the governance arrangements that will apply to the work of the chair, executive chair and councils within UKRI, as well as the way the board and senior management team will relate to each other and the leadership and autonomy of the nine councils. I believe that hon. Members in the other place have a considerable body of material to consider as they deliberate on our proposals to create UKRI.
This approach allows UKRI or another council to carry out certain functions normally exercised by a particular council. That will enable existing collaborative working across councils to continue and for UKRI to deliver one of its key aims: improving the UK’s support for inter and multidisciplinary research. Details of which UKRI functions will be delegated to the councils will be captured in guidance included in the framework document between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and UKRI. That will be published in due course, once agreed with UKRI’s future leadership.
I agree with hon. Members that it is important to have clarity on the functions of UKRI that will be delegated to the councils. However, it is not necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister’s observations and the detailed examples he has given are a helpful move along this road. There will be further discussion in other forums, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the opportunity to set out how we expect UKRI to work with the private sector. Paragraph 16 of schedule 9 provides flexibility in how UKRI performs its functions, balanced by controls that safeguard public funding and guard against large, high-risk commitments being made against future public spending. The research councils currently possess significant flexibilities, and it is our intention that UKRI should retain those freedoms. We have, however, balanced that with the need to safeguard public funding.
To ensure appropriate use of public money, a number of activities have been made conditional on approval from the Secretary of State. Those include entering into joint ventures and borrowing money—namely, areas that could build up commitments and risks against future public spending. This mirrors current practice, where research councils are already required to seek approvals for such activities. That is in line with the principles of managing public money, by which all public bodies need to abide.
The amendment would inadvertently make it impossible for UKRI to do any of those things. We are saying that it can do these activities, subject to approval by the Secretary of State, in the same way as before. In practice, the details of those approvals will be set out in guidance from the Department to UKRI. That may, for example, include a de minimis level for an activity below which the Secretary of State grants approval without further process. That is in line with current arrangements for the research councils.
The amendment would unduly restrict the scope of UKRI and limit its flexibilities, putting at risk its capacity to fulfil the ambitious remit we have set for it and make best use of its resources. Specific details of how UKRI will work with the private sector will be developed by UKRI and the councils themselves, in consultation with the Government. However, we expect UKRI to build on the relationships that the legacy bodies currently enjoy with the private sector, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for that additional information and helpful explanation. As I said at the start, the amendment was a probing one, simply designed to facilitate further discussion. We have had that discussion and the Minister has given us more useful information, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84
The Councils of UKRI
Gordon Marsden
We now move on to some of the meat of an area which has developed quite a head of steam: the relationship between UKRI and the councils. We have previously talked today about some of the ways in which UKRI might devolve its powers, and the Minister has been helpful regarding the councils, but the devil is always in the detail of parliamentary scrutiny.
There is considerable disquiet about some of the blanket powers that the new body UKRI may have and, indeed, that the Secretary of State may give him or herself. This is not a comment on any particular Secretary of State, or any particular universities Minister. If we are to make good legislation, we need to work to the potential scenarios that are most difficult rather than to the simplest ones. If everything went simply in government we probably would not need to think about this, but of course things do not always go simply.
I come back to the reputational issue, which I touched upon earlier when commenting on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. We are at a critical period in our higher education history because of the big question marks over Brexit, and the lesser—although still significant—question marks over the machinery of Government changes. We should be doing everything we can to reassure the academic community and indeed the broader business community. We should not propose changes, potential changes or potential shutdowns that will cause problems. It is all very well for Ministers to say, “Well, this would never happen,” or, “It would be dealt with in guidance,” or whatever, but I am sure that we can all think of examples over the years where changes in legislation have set off great concern and scepticism, and in some cases had very bad financial and economic consequences involving overseas investors and overseas academic institutions.
We are debating this Bill at a time when our researchers, our research institutions and research bodies in our universities are being put under severe pressure and are concerned about their future relationship with organisations within the EU. It is highly relevant to changes that might be made to the councils of UKRI that changes in the EU or changes in our relationship with our EU partners do not necessarily have an adverse effect only on relationships with the EU, of course. They have, or can have, an adverse effect on relationships with other international institutions. At a Royal Society fringe meeting at our party conference last month at which I was present, comments were made by Professor Hemingway to the effect that when we think about these sorts of things, we also need to think about the implications for research in francophone Africa or lusophone Latin America, for instance, in terms of what we need to do to maintain our relationships there.
All these things are connected and related. That is why apparently arcane issues around the Secretary of State being allowed to change the name or responsibility of the council by issuing a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure are important. Behind that dry statement lie some of the issues that I have described. As far as I can see, the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to undertake any public consultation before changing the name or responsibilities of a council. We have already had some discussion about the merits or otherwise of automatically deleting references to the Privy Council from the structures and architecture of the Bill, and the OFS in particular. The Government declined to think creatively about ways in which the Privy Council might be a backstop.
The Royal Society is particularly concerned about this, as are most of the major research-intensive university groups. It is worth the Committee reflecting on the Royal Society’s position statement.
“The landscape of Research Councils has changed over time. The Bill giving the Secretary of State the authority to change their number, name, and fields of activity through a statutory instrument is a pragmatic reflection of this. While this change is reasonable, both Parliament and the research community should be able to inform and scrutinise properly any major proposed changes to Research Councils’ form and function. The Society believes the Bill should include a duty for the Secretary of State to consult with the research community on any proposal for major Research Council reform.”
It says it should include a duty, not a possibility. I emphasise those words because I do not want the Minister to come back with the boilerplate response that if the Secretary of State had to consult on all these matters, he or she would not get anything done. We are not suggesting that and nor is the Royal Society. It is saying there should be a duty to consult on a proposal for any major research council reform.
The issue has also been taken up by MillionPlus and the Russell Group. The Russell Group specifically sought clarification that the affirmative procedure must be used to change the councils. That is not a point we have included in any amendments but it is certainly a concern that the Minister should strongly focus on.
We have tabled these amendments to emphasise the vital role of consultation, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but because if it is not done there will be negative effects on our economy, the wider world’s perception of us, the status of our research councils and the flourishing of UKRI, which we all want to develop strongly in its formative years.
Joseph Johnson
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reassure the Committee and to explain in more detail how the powers would be exercised. They would allow the Government to react to the evolving needs of the research landscape and to keep the UK at the forefront of global research and innovation, while ensuring that the science and humanities councils cannot be altered without legislative scrutiny and the agreement of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 23 June referendum. That is an event and process that has encouraged the science and research community to understand that UKRI can add value to the community in bringing coherence and strength to the voice of science and research in this country in the months and years ahead. I would like to highlight the evidence that Dame Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, gave to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in September. She said:
“So the creation of UKRI is a real opportunity at this moment when we are thinking about where we are going on Brexit.”
Her views reflect an emerging, indeed strengthening, consensus across the learned societies and science community in general that UKRI is something that they want to get behind.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on how I believe we are putting in place provisions to deal with his concerns. I welcome his support for UKRI and his recognition of the contribution it can make once it is up and running.
The powers reflect similar existing powers that have been used several times in the past to merge or create new discipline councils as priorities change and evolve, as happened with the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2005. I assure hon. Members that future changes of that sort would not be undertaken lightly. The Government would seek the views of the research community through proper consultation before putting forward any proposals. I am sure that hon. Members would not hesitate to challenge any change of that kind that did not have prior consultation, but it is not necessary to place a formal duty on the Secretary of State to do that. Under clause 107, a statutory instrument must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament via the affirmative procedure. That follows the current process to change the structure and remit of the research councils under the Science and Technology Act 1965.
In any future use of the powers I am sure that hon. Members would not hesitate to challenge changes on which there had not been proper consultation with the sector. I agree with hon. Members that consultation would be essential before the exercise of the powers in question, but it is not necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response and for the opportunity to have a broader discussion of the circumstances in which UKRI would develop. I think I made it clear that on looking at the drafting of the provision we thought there was already a requirement for an affirmative resolution, but I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that, with reference to clause 107. At the end of the day, the list of people whom the Minister must satisfy includes not just the Opposition but the whole academic and scientific community. I am glad that he recognises that, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
UK research and innovation functions
Amendment made: 256, in clause 85, page 52, line 12, leave out “and new ideas” and insert
“, new ideas and advancements in humanities”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides that UKRI may facilitate, encourage and support the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities (including the arts), as well as the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas.
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move amendment 289, in clause 85, page 52, line 18, at end insert—
“(h) provide postgraduate training and skills development, working together with the OfS.”
This amendment would ensure UKRI reflects the current activities of the Research Councils as set out in their Royal Charters in respect of the learning experience of postgraduate research students, and would require joint working on this with the OfS.
I welcome the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South in his opening comments and I am pleased to be able to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify an area that our discussions have not so far touched on much, but which I think we will all agree is of some importance. The proposal for the office for students is at the heart of the Bill, and it deals primarily with the learning experience of undergraduates. It goes on to talk about the learning experience for postgraduate taught students, but fails to address a third, important category: postgraduate research students. Clearly they have a very different learning experience; nevertheless it is crucial for them because they are not only learners but teachers.
I am sure the Minister will agree that there is a number of issues relating to postgraduate research students, and although there is good practice across the sector, there are also areas where such students are occasionally let down. A crucial relationship for them is with their supervisor. Although there is much excellent supervision, there are also areas, such as feedback, where supervisors can get things wrong. Feedback and assessment are crucial to every student’s learning experience, but get them wrong and, given the particular intimacy of the relationship between a supervisor and a postgraduate research student, that can be quite destructive.
I recently saw comments that an early academic had written in The Guardian based on their own experience, making the point that feedback
“can take the form of constructive feedback for improvement, or demoralising sarcasm. I have experienced the full range, and it has had a direct impact on my research.”
Unfortunately there are examples of supervision being interrupted by:
“Unannounced departures for conferences, holidays and research projects.”
Those of us with experience of the sector will know about problems with the sudden retirement of supervisors. That could be halfway through a programme of work for a postgraduate research student, but I have known cases where people accepted a place based on a particular supervisor’s expertise, but found on arriving at university that that person was no longer in place. There is a whole range of issues there.
There is also the relationship between research and teaching. Two or three years ago the National Union of Students published a very useful report highlighting the challenges for postgraduate research students in taking on teaching responsibilities, the difficulty that there often is in getting the balance right between the two, and the pressure that is sometimes put on them to undertake teaching work, which can be to the detriment of their research and own learning experience.
The third area, which will be close to the Minister’s heart—I know the other two will be as well—is the issue of access and widening participation, because we need to be clear that those opportunities exist at every level of our higher education system. The initial focus was on undergraduate access and the Government have taken some welcome steps to address issues relating to postgraduate taught programmes, but we also need to have a focus on postgraduate research opportunities.
The amendment gives UKRI a clear responsibility for postgraduate training and skills development—it is phrased in a way entirely consistent with the royal charters of the current research councils—in conjunction with the office for students. As the Minister will remember, I raised this point with some of the expert witnesses at our oral evidence session. Professor Philip Nelson, the chair of Research Councils UK, agreed that this was an “important issue”. He went on to say that
“we in the research councils have three main ways of supporting PhD students across the sector. We do interact with HEFCE on that currently. I think it will be very important—the point has already been made in evidence to this Committee—that the OFS and the UKRI connection is carefully made.”
Professor Ottoline Leyser from the University of Cambridge agreed that that was an important point and went on to say that
“one of the opportunities generated by UKRI would be the possibility to have more integrated research into teaching and research training…we could develop better understanding of the most effective ways to do research training and teaching. That is one opportunity that is more difficult within a single research council.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 87, Q137.]
There are issues with how to address the learning experience of postgraduate research students. We are supported in the sector; there are problems that we are all aware of. Can the Minister reassure me on how he sees the roles of the two bodies? Will the OFS’s role in relation to postgraduate students include the regulation and assurance of quality, information needs for PGR students and their access to and participation in student protections? How does he see UKRI exercising its responsibility for the learning experience of PGR students, in conjunction with the OFS?
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the opportunity to set out the importance of postgraduate training and skills development to the future of our economy, and in particular to the strength of our research and innovation sectors. That is reflected in the provisions of the Bill that ensure that UKRI is able to support postgraduate training and work with the OFS on postgraduate and wider skills issues. The OFS and UKRI have been designed to work closely together, but let me offer some thoughts on the division of responsibilities between them and on how they might work together.
The OFS will be the regulator for all students, including postgraduate students, and will monitor the management and governance of HE providers, as well as their overall financial sustainability. The research councils within UKRI will continue to provide research grants for projects. Research England will deliver HEFCE’s current research funding powers, such as the quality-related research funding block grant. The Bill proposes safeguards to protect joint working and
“cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI”,
which reflects the integration of teaching and research that we discussed earlier.
Research England, within UKRI, will lead on quality-related funding, the allocation for which currently includes an element that recognises research degree supervision. UKRI will fund postgraduate research, as research councils do now. HEFCE currently provides some funding from the teaching grant to support masters-level PGT; all teaching grant responsibilities and associated responsibilities will transfer to the office for students.
UKRI and the OFS will work together on monitoring and evidence gathering on the pipeline of talent from undergraduate study to postgraduate study, early career research and beyond. That underscores our intention for the OFS and UKRI to work closely together to ensure that there are no gaps between their respective roles. We want there to be no difference from the current situation in which an institution may receive funding from a research council but is still subject to HEFCE’s oversight of the sector. In practice, individual students will have little, if any, exposure to either body, since their interactions normally take place at an institutional level.
The Bill is a legal framework for these reforms, with the functions of UKRI broadly defined, as are the current functions of the existing bodies. They are drafted to be inclusive and permissive, and to ensure that the functions currently performed by the existing nine funding bodies can continue.
Paul Blomfield
A number of the Minister’s comments are reassuring. In describing the architecture and exercise of functions, he is talking largely in the context of continuity. The Bill has, at its heart, a drive to improve teaching excellence. Does he also see it as an opportunity to improve the learning experience of postgraduate research students? Should that be as much at the heart of what we are trying to do with the bodies we are creating as it is for the TEF?
Joseph Johnson
We see the research quality assurance process, through the REF, and the teaching excellence framework—the teaching quality assurance process that we are introducing—as being mutually reinforcing, as I have previously indicated. We want institutions to consider how they promote research-led teaching in their submissions, and Lord Stern’s review of the REF recommended that academics be rewarded for the impact on teaching of the excellence of their research. We will ensure that the two processes are co-ordinated and that timescales and deadlines have flexibility so that institutions can plan for the demands of the two systems.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I listened to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, and I contend that it is purely by having a flexible, open system that the things he asks for are actually possible. The problems within the system that he articulated are often due to the inadequacies of the departments involved. I know that because I have been closely affected by it. Allowing institutions to work with these overarching bodies but driving quality from the institutions themselves is what is wanted. Furthermore, an individual benefits from being asked to teach. It is not always detrimental for a researcher to expand their skills in that way.
Joseph Johnson
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on the teaching excellence framework and postgrad research, in the first instance, no, it will not deal with the postgrad experience; it focuses on undergrad and part-time. The Bill sets out clear responsibilities for UKRI and the OFS, with the OFS being the regulator for all students, including at postgraduate level.
There are a number of areas that will require close co-operation between UKRI and the OFS, including on postgraduates, and it is vital that they are empowered to work together. The Bill does that through clause 103, which enables and ensures joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information. An emphasis on working together will run through the leadership and management of both organisations, supported by a legal framework that will be sufficiently flexible to deal effectively with areas of shared interest.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for taking an intervention before he concludes, because I want to push a little further on the point I made earlier. The Bill seeks to improve the learning experience of taught students. Does he see that this is also an opportunity to improve the learning experience of postgraduate research students? Does he hope that the OFS and UKRI will work together to do that?
Joseph Johnson
Yes. We obviously recognise that our intention to drive up opportunities for informed choice and for students to receive a higher-quality experience in HE applies to all levels of study and all modes of provision. We certainly want to see postgraduate research included in that.
In the initial phase of the teaching excellence framework, as it develops and as it is trialled, we are focusing on undergraduate provision in the first instance, but we hope that in time it will be able to capture aspects of postgraduate provision, including postgraduate teaching. That is not something that we anticipate happening in the first three years of the new teaching excellence framework, but it could be something that we put into practice in the years that follow.
I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that I recognise the importance of postgraduate training and skills development in ensuring the continued strength of research and innovation in the UK, which is reflected in the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his reassurance. I say in passing to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds that I was not suggesting that teaching is to the detriment of research. Teaching is vital to the learning experience of many PGR students, but it is sometimes a question of getting the balance right, as it is when dealing with some of the other issues and challenges that postgraduate research students face.
On the basis of the reassurance the Minister has given that he sees the OFS and UKRI as having a role in ensuring we enhance the learning experience of PGR students, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 18th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2016 - (18 Oct 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I will not join the auction of flattery, Mr Hanson; I feel that it is unnecessary, and I am sure you do not appreciate it. I am, however, glad to have the opportunity to assure Members, in particular those from Scotland, that I share their desire to ensure that the UK operates for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Scottish and other devolved institutions are a vital part of our vibrant research base and have not been overlooked carelessly or by any other kind of omission in our preparations for these reforms or for the Committee. I know that it feels like a lifetime ago that we were sitting in Portcullis House listening to oral evidence, but I point out to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that representatives of UK-wide bodies were invited to give evidence to the Committee, including Research Councils UK, Innovate UK and Universities UK. Those bodies all represent the totality of the United Kingdom, including institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
I understand that all parties were invited to make submissions about who should give evidence before the Committee. We put forward a number of suggestions, as did the official Opposition. Relatively late in the day, Members from the Scottish nationalist party asked for additional people to be invited to give evidence, and we were delighted to accommodate Universities Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Funding Council to round out the evidence that we had already requested from those other representative bodies of the entirety of the United Kingdom. There was no omission. We were delighted to make time in the Committee’s proceedings to accommodate further Scottish voices, and we welcomed them, as we welcome them now.
Roger Mullin
I never suggested that there was any malice, but there was scope to have Scotland properly represented. The Scottish National party—I see there is still scope for education there, since the Minister does not know the name of the party that I represent—was not invited by the Government to give any suggestions about who should be invited, so I think it is fair to characterise it as an afterthought.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further clarification. I am always happy to be educated by him in lots of ways, but on this matter we will have to disagree. We gave opportunities to the Committee to submit names to give evidence before it. As I said, we had already invited significant representations from UK-wide bodies and were delighted to accommodate the further suggestions his party made. I think we have to move on.
Turning to amendments 180 and 181, the research councils and Innovate UK, within UKRI, will continue to fund excellence wherever it is found in the UK. UKRI has the ability to work with the devolved bodies and a statutory duty to use its resources in an efficient and effective way, meaning it will look for all opportunities to collaborate. It is also important than Innovate UK can operate independently to spot opportunities and to provide the right access to finance conditions for economic growth. To improve its understanding and response to economic policies in the devolved Administrations, Innovate UK will be appointing full-time regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast. That means that UKRI and its councils will have to consider the whole of the UK, ensuring that the current co-operation will continue.
Turning to amendment 326, on Research England consulting relevant bodies in the devolved Administrations on grant conditions, block funding of universities for research—so-called quality-related funding—is a devolved matter. It is therefore not appropriate to require Research England to consult its devolved equivalents, just as the devolved funding bodies are not required to consult HEFCE now. Our approach mirrors that taken in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Of course, that does not mean HEFCE has operated in isolation—in fact, HEFCE works closely with its devolved equivalents, such as the Scottish Funding Council, on areas like the research excellence framework. A Government amendment ensures that Research England can continue that joint working in the future.
Turning to amendments 182 to 185, on the Secretary of State consulting the devolved Administrations before taking key decisions that will have an impact on UKRI, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations now and UKRI will continue to work with them. However, we would not seek to bind UKRI into a restrictive process of consultation. Legislation must remain sufficiently flexible for the Government and for UKRI to react quickly to emerging issues, as the research councils acted earlier this year to promptly commission research into the Zika virus.
The amendments also require the Secretary of State to act in the best interest of all parts of the UK. As a UK Government Minister, I assure the Committee that that is already the case. That was recognised by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Sir Alan Langlands, in the evidence he gave last month:
“Even given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26-27, Q40.]
I agree with Sir Alan. The research community functions remarkably well across the UK political landscape, not least because the UK Government and the devolved Administrations work together to make it do so. Therefore, recognising that the Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concern in ensuring that UKRI effectively serves the whole of the UK, I ask that he withdraws amendment 180.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister genuinely for his responses. I will not put the amendment to a vote, but I make two observations. I do not think establishing mere regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast, if I recall his statement correctly, are in any way sufficient to guarantee the type of high-level involvement that is being sought. There are examples—I gave one related to the post-study work visa pilot—of where decisions have already been taken by the UK Government without proper consultation of the devolved Administrations. I therefore beg to differ with the Minister on those two points, but I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield
It goes without saying what an enormous pleasure it is contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. We are all aware of the significant amount of research done in the UK that is co-funded through partnerships with other organisations, and particularly those in the charitable sector. For example, the British Heart Foundation spends £9.1 million on projects with the local research council, and the Association of Medical Research Charities provides £1.4 billion of research funding overall.
As one of the primary roles of UKRI is to “facilitate, encourage and support research” within the sciences and many other fields, amendment 310 seeks to ensure that research funded by other funding bodies, and particularly charities, can continue unaffected by the creation of UKRI. At the moment, the Bill does not fully explain how collaborations and partnerships will occur when UKRI is established. It is unclear whether contracts will be formed directly with UKRI or whether that function will be delegated to research councils, in which case partnerships may become more complicated and time-consuming to establish.
It was surprising that in the Government’s document outlining the case for the existence of UKRI and their recently issued document on UKRI’s visions, principles and governance, there is no mention of charities, let alone any description of how charities are supposed to work with Government once UKRI is formed. I appreciate —I am sure the Minister does as well—that a whole range of charitable organisations are concerned about the lack of clarity and the potential impact on research. The Royal Society, the Association of Medical Research Charities and the British Heart Foundation raised significant worries in their written evidence to the Committee. When charities with such strong contributions to make to research say they are concerned in this way, we need to stop and listen.
Ensuring a simple and clear process for charities to jointly fund research with Government is, I am sure we all agree, important. The vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, Sir Alan Langlands, whom the Minister has regularly quoted, explained in his oral evidence to the Committee why this clarity is necessary:
“At the moment in HEFCE, there is funding related to charity support, support for research degrees, and businesses research and innovation. All those things need to be resolved. It needs to be very clear between UKRI and the Government who is doing what in those areas.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 28, Q42.]
Professor Borysiewicz of the University of Cambridge also raised concerns about how charitable bodies will continue to fund research, saying:
“one has to remember that of the research funders in the UK, UKRI merely looks after the Government component side of the funding. For instance, 30% of funding sits with the charitable sector. What is important with UKRI, which is fine as is currently laid out, is that the support and the safeguards proposed in relationship to Research England are also very good. It has to be a body that takes into account the whole of the United Kingdom in its purview. It also has to work closely with other funders and other organisations that have a say in this important area”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 37, Q25.]
That demonstrates the concerns within the charity sector, and I hope the Minister will respond to the issues raised through the amendment by giving some reassurance.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for raising these concerns on behalf of the hon. Member for City of Durham. The Government are keen, like the hon. Gentleman, that UKRI should be able to collaborate with any organisation if doing so would result in better outcomes. As I will make clear shortly, there are specific instances where it is necessary to put powers on the face of the Bill to allow joint working with the devolved Administrations and with the office for students. However, in all other instances I can reassure the Committee that UKRI will not need specific provision to be able to work jointly with other bodies.
Through clause 96, UKRI must look to be as efficient and effective as possible. In many instances, collaboration with other funding bodies will further its ability to achieve this aim. That will be supported by UKRI’s supplementary powers under paragraph 16 of schedule 9. The UK research base is internationally renowned for being highly collaborative and has a strong track record in successful partnerships with other funding bodies. I am therefore confident that not only are such opportunities possible, but that they will be actively sought as part of UKRI’s normal practice.
Government amendments 111, 114 and 115, new clause 3 and new clause 17 relate to joint working. Higher education and block funding of universities for research—so-called quality-related funding—are both devolved matters, but this has not meant that HEFCE has operated in isolation. In fact, HEFCE works closely with its devolved equivalents, such as the Scottish Funding Council, on areas such as the research excellence framework. The office for students and UKRI will take over HEFCE’s responsibilities for funding teaching and research and it is very important that such effective joint working can continue. That is why we, in consultation with the devolved Administrations, have prepared new clause 3, which enables the office for students, UKRI, the devolved funding bodies and Ministers, to work together where it enables them to exercise their functions more effectively or efficiently.
In addition to the new joint working clause, I have also tabled new clause 17, which gives the OFS and UKRI powers equivalent to the existing power for HEFCE to provide advice to the Northern Ireland Executive, as set out in section 69(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. This is an important power to preserve, as there is no funding council in Northern Ireland, where they have instead found it more effective to rely on advice and support from the English and Welsh funding councils, such as on quality reviews, on terms that all parties agree.
Amendments 272 and 273 are minor and consequential amendments that ensure that any references to UKRI predecessor bodies within the Government of Wales Act 2006 are corrected. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 310.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his assurances on the issue and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Exercise of functions by science and humanities Councils
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 87, page 53, line 11, leave out “Economic and other”.
This is a drafting amendment to simplify the way the field of activity of the Economic and Social Research Council is expressed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 258 to 260, 268 and 269.
Joseph Johnson
These amendments are all directed at updating the way in which the fields of activity of specific councils are reflected in clause 87(1). They ensure that the descriptions of the fields of activities for the research councils are as clear and accurate as we can make them. These are technical amendments that we have agreed with the research councils to ensure that clause 87 properly reflects their respective fields of activities.
Amendment 268 replaces the term “in relation to” with the term “into”, which is the more conventional terminology used in other provisions in part 3. The change in wording does not affect the meaning of the provisions. The policy intent—that UKRI may provide research services—remains unchanged. Amendment 269 replaces “social science” with “social sciences” in clause 102 to make it consistent with the wording in clause 87, and to better reflect the diversity of disciplines within the social sciences.
These two minor drafting amendments seek to ensure that the language used throughout the Bill is consistent.
Amendment 257 agreed to.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 324, in clause 88, page 54, line 8, after “relate” insert
“to maintain its focus on assisting businesses and”.
This amendment seeks clarification that Innovate UK is intended to maintain its business facing focus as a Council of UKRI.
The clause is relatively brief on the exercise of functions by Innovate UK. Brevity is not always a bad thing, but we have tabled the amendment because we seek strong clarification of whether Innovate UK is intended to maintain its business-facing focus as a council of UKRI. I remind the Committee that the White Paper stated that its
“business facing focus would be enshrined in future legislation, which would replicate the functions in Innovate UK’s current charter.”
I am not a betting man, but if I were I would put money on the likelihood that, when I sit down and the Minister rises, he will look at me more in sorrow than in anger and refer me to the note published this month, “Higher Education and Research Bill: Innovate UK”, with its sub-heading, “What do the reforms mean for Innovate UK?” I shall not deprive him of the pleasure of reading substantial chunks of it to us, but I will just quote it. I do not know whether the Minister wrote it himself.
The end of the first paragraph states:
“We are very clear that Innovate UK will retain its current business-facing focus. Innovate UK will not become just the commercialisation arm of the Research Councils.”
Those are fine words, but you will know, Mr Hanson, that, in the words of the old proverb, fine words butter no parsnips. If I were to continue that metaphor I should say that, if I were a cynical person, which I am not, the mere emphasis given in the note would remind me of another old saying, that “the louder they protested their honour, the faster we counted the spoons”. On this occasion we should like to examine some of the cutlery, if I may pursue the analogy.
I refer the Minister back to the evidence session with the chief executive of Innovate UK. I thought that what she said was revealing. Her evidence was measured and confident and she was overall in favour of what was going ahead, but she put down some substantial caveats. I will remind the Minister of what she said. I asked her whether there were things with Bill that concerned her about the the financial tools. She said:
“There are three areas in particular on which we need to be absolutely sure that the intent and what was in the White Paper is still there in the Bill. The first of those is the business experience of the board and the Innovate UK champion, which is very clear in the White Paper. As I understand it, that is possible and enabled through the Bill, but I think that the balance of business and research experience is very broad and could be tightened up a bit.”
She then said, about the financial tools:
“We are keen to be able to use things such as seed loans and equity, and other councils within UKRI have dipped a toe into that.”
She went on:
“We need to be absolutely clear, in how the Bill is finalised”—
whether this is the finalised version remains to be seen—
“that we ensure we have as much flexibility as the research councils have had and some of our enterprise partners have. We work very closely with Scottish Enterprise, which uses more financial tools than we currently have, and Enterprise Northern Ireland. We want to move at speed and to empower companies to grow in scale and be really competitive, but we must ensure we have the flexibility to do that and not slow down our clock speed. I think there is a bit of work to do looking at that in more detail.”
Then when talking about institutes and research, she again said:
The Bill gives us the great opportunity to look across the whole spectrum…At the moment, as I understand it, if Innovate UK wanted to create an institute and employ researchers to do the work that businesses need, we absolutely could. I am not sure, within the letter of the Bill, that we are still going to be able to do that. I think that probably needs to be looked at.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2016; c. 80-81, Q125.]
When I looked again at the transcript of that session and at what Ruth McKernan, the chief executive, said on that occasion, it reminded me of a little exchange between the Minister and I in the following session when we had the opportunity to put him in the box. In fact, he volunteered himself to the box for some cross-examination by the Committee. On that occasion, I pressed him rather strongly—he was not best pleased to be pressed and certainly gave a spirited response—on the subject of the reports of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. At the risk of inflaming the Minister further and perhaps getting him removed him from Lord Selborne’s Christmas card list, I will repeat a summary of the findings, but not the lot because I do not want the Minister to blow a gasket:
“We have serious concerns about the integration of Innovate UK into UK Research and Innovation. With the exception of the Government itself, none of our witnesses gave an unqualified welcome to the proposals. We do not believe that the Government has consulted effectively with Innovate UK’s stakeholders to achieve buy in for this proposal. The Government’s case for integration appears to be based on a flawed linear model of innovation where Innovate UK functions as the commercialisation arm of the Research Councils.”
The Minister has, of course, been keen to address and refute that.
There was a long letter from Lord Selborne and a reply from the Minister that was not as long but was substantial, and I think they probably agreed to disagree. The fact remains, however, that those concerns also remain. The Minister must do a slightly better and specifically more focused job if he is to reassure not just members of this Committee but the range of people he has prayed in aid during other sittings of this Committee—new providers, funds coming in, private equity and all the rest of it.
These other names will not easily go away and I want to quote three or four from the evidence session to which Lord Selborne referred. He quoted Dr Virginia Acha of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, who said:
“I would be concerned if Innovate UK were brought under the same decision-making approach that a research council would be brought under, because they are making very different decisions.”
Professor Luke Georghiou said:
“There is real concern about the huge disparity between the size of the budget between the existing research councils and Innovate UK, summed up by concern that Innovate UK’s influence would be dwarfed and its impact distorted. That was how members summed up the risks to us.”
Mr David Eyton, who spoke to the Lords Committee, said:
“Effectively”—
Innovate UK
“is the start-up in the context of”
the research councils.
“It is 10% of it; the other 90% is very stable. It is comparatively new and needs to really motor. Will it get the management attention and focus, which requires the quite different skills for governing innovation ecosystems from governing science? That is also the question for that body: the balance of skills on the governing body.”
Finally, but obviously not least, we have what Dr McKernan said to the House of Lords Committee on that occasion. She might have used slightly different terminology—not least because the Minister was there and in courtesy to him—but she said:
“There are also risks that I have not gone into.”
She was talking about the possibility of funding from other Departments being diminished. She continued:
“There are some other areas of mitigation where I still have concerns…We manage about £300 million of funds in partnership with other government departments, for example the Aerospace Technology Institute through BIS”—
with which I am familiar, because there is a BAE Systems site at Warton near my constituency in Blackpool. I am familiar with the work that BAE Systems has done previously with Innovate UK and the Aerospace Technology Institute. Dr McKernan went on to say that Innovate UK does a lot of work with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. She continued:
“It is really important to safeguard those relationships and not feel the need to create something else because we have created”—
these are her words, not mine—
“a fracture in putting Innovate UK within UKRI.”
The Minister may feel that that is slightly overstating it and overegging the pudding, but I hope that I have done enough to show him that that succession of concerns, considerations, worries and so on will not easily be assuaged simply with a paragraph saying that the Government will allow Innovate UK to retain its current business focus. I think that people out there in the groups that I have described want something a little more substantial.
The Royal Society’s position statement on this subject sums up the issue. It says:
“There has been considerable debate about whether or not Innovate UK should be part of UKRI. On balance, the Society believes the potential benefits of creating an organisation with an integrated overview of UK research and innovation infrastructure, assets and expertise outweigh the risks of a more fragmented structure, and that Innovate UK should be part of UKRI. It is essential that in creating UKRI, however, that Innovate UK’s unique business-facing focus and links to its customer base are not put at risk.”
That is where we stand today. The jury is still out on that and on the assertions with which the Minister hoped to placate Lord Selborne, and we would be interested to hear a little more chapter and verse to assuage our concerns.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to comment on Innovate UK. We need to ensure that research and innovation come together at the heart of our industrial strategy. I set that out in my letter to Lord Selborne, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, about Innovate UK’s future inside UKRI, and again in the factsheet that we published for the benefit of the Committee on 12 October.
To fully realise our potential, we need to respond to a changing world, anticipate future requirements and ensure that we have the structures in place to exploit for the benefit of the whole country the knowledge and expertise that we have. I believe that we can do that most effectively by bringing Innovate UK into UKRI. That view is now shared by bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, which have recognised, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that the benefits of integrating Innovate UK into UKRI outweigh the risks.
Those two bodies are not alone. In other parts of her testimony, Ruth McKernan herself said:
“The establishment of UK Research and Innovation, including the research councils and Innovate UK, recognises the vital role innovation plays and further strengthens the UK’s ability to turn scientific excellence into economic impact.”
Alternatively, I can again point hon. Members towards the evidence given by Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz of Cambridge University, who said:
“The addition of Innovate UK is welcome, because it means that industry and the translation to industry has skin in the game at the very basic level.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22, Q30.]
I recognise that the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised additional concerns in his remarks and with his amendment, which I will come to now.
Gordon Marsden
I wanted to pick up the point that Dr McKernan made, which is highly relevant in the context of the debate we have just had about devolved areas. She made the point—her view was challenged by others, I think—that Scottish Enterprise and Enterprise Northern Ireland had “more financial tools” than Innovate UK had. Does the Minister share her concerns about that? If he does, what capacity is there in this new structure for Innovate UK to be able to match the flexibility she referred to?
Joseph Johnson
We want Innovate UK to have significant flexibility in the range of financial mechanisms and financial tools it has at its disposal. That is one of the reasons why we are developing the new non-grant innovation finance products at the moment, to complement the important and popular grant finance products that it has at its disposal. The Bill sets out the activities that UKRI as a whole can pursue, and activities where it needs advance permission from the Secretary of State, such as establishing a joint venture. All these restrictions and activities will apply equally to all councils in UKRI, not just to Innovate UK. The restrictions replicate the current situation that applies to Innovate UK and to the research councils. We are not looking at placing undue restrictions on the councils once UKRI is created, but the Secretary of State will need to be assured that certain activities are in line with HM Treasury rules and delegations, as I am sure he will understand, such as the “Managing public money” guidance issued by the Treasury. Once it comes into being, UKRI will be managing a budget of more than £6 billion, so we need to ensure that those kinds of control are in place.
The Bill already makes clear Innovate UK’s business-facing role, not only through directing its focus on increasing economic growth, as set out in clause 88, but through specifically ensuring that it has regard to benefiting persons carrying on business in the UK. Although I agree with the sentiment behind amendment 324, I believe that its aims are already addressed in the Bill and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 325, in clause 89, page 54, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1) Research England may—
(a) provide non-hypothecated funding to eligible higher education providers for the purpose of supporting basic, strategic and applied research; and
(b) support knowledge exchange and skills provision.”
This amendment would allow Research England to fund eligible higher education providers to support basic, strategic and applied research and to support knowledge exchange and skills provision.
This, too, is a probing amendment. We have spoken slightly in brackets, in the context of its implications for the devolved Administrations, about Research England, but this is an important clause because it starts to spell out—obviously, in the Bill there is a limit to the amount that Ministers might wish or be able to spell out—some of the issues and concerns about how funding will be separated, assessed and actioned. We tabled the amendment in an attempt to tease out just what some of the things in clause 89 might mean.
The particular set of emphases in the amendment is one that the representations that I have had from members of the scientific community and various societies show they are keen on and anxious about. The Minister referred earlier to the various types of research assessment, and of course that will include taking on quality-related research assessment for the UK and funding for England. QR funding is generally highly valued because it can provide stable levels of funding over the period between research assessment exercises in a way that means the university can deploy it at its discretion. Of course, there is always a balance to be achieved in this respect. In the original debates about the research assessment exercises in the late 2000s, the issues of QR, how micromanaged it should be and how flexible it should be were hotly debated, and no doubt they will continue to be hotly debated in the future. However, I think that there is a general acceptance and general view that QR funding provides a valuable baseline of support for facilities and research operations.
Without wishing to sound like a Jeremiah, I might say that the mixture of factors that HE institutions in this country will have to face over the next three to four years—highly variable factors to do with the implications of Brexit and what does or does not come out of that —and the general financial climate in Government make it important that there should be an element of funding to provide a baseline of support for facilities and research operations. QR gives universities the opportunity to support emerging research areas and new appointees.
I remember debating these issues in Select Committee in respect of the REF, and this was always the discussion. Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The point was made that, certainly under the old research assessment exercise, it was difficult for new, cutting-edge disciplines that had genuine merit and genuine academic reference, and all the rest of it, to break into the structure. QR still plays a valuable role in that respect. Supporting emerging research areas and new appointees is important as well, because there was a time not that long ago—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years ago—when it was extremely difficult for young academics in their 30s or 40s to come through in new research areas and to develop institutes and things of that nature, particularly but not exclusively on the science side, in universities.
For all those reasons, most people out there in the HE environment believe, like I do, that QR is an important element of funding, and it would help to enshrine that purpose in law. We have suggested a mechanism. Again, this is a probing amendment. If the Minister is minded to consider it and does not like the terminology, we would be happy for him to take it away. It is important to give reassurance to the academic community about the role of QR, on which there is relatively little in the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to explain further the key role that Research England will play within UKRI. Research England’s function of providing funding for research within higher education institutions will form one part of the dual support system in England. It will take on HEFCE’s responsibility for issuing block grants to universities for the purposes of research, based on the research quality of those institutions.
The integration of HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange function within UKRI is also critical to achieving greater strategic co-ordination across the research funding landscape. Professor Quintin McKellar, vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire, said:
“I am very comfortable with the creation of UKRI. It seems that bringing together the major funders for what you might call blue-sky research with those that have responsibility for innovation and knowledge transfer is a good thing.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 24-25, Q36.]
UKRI will ensure a more joined-up approach in areas such as skills and UK-wide capital investment, where both HEFCE and the research councils have pioneered innovative funding approaches. For example, HEFCE’s UK research partnership investment fund has allocated more than £500 million to 34 projects running between 2014 and 2017, attracting £1.4 billion of investment from businesses and charities.
An amendment is not needed to assure the unhypothecated nature of the funding that will be provided by Research England, as clause 93(2) already provides such protections. In addition I would be cautious about placing any conditions on the funding beyond the conditions currently in place, such as the amendment suggests by referring to basic, strategic and applied research, which may inadvertently restrict what universities can do with this block grant funding. The Government believe in institutional autonomy, as the Bill demonstrates, and we do not want to place conditions on our universities that limit their freedom to undertake their missions as they see fit.
Research England will retain HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange functions, including the higher education innovation fund. Research England and the new office for students will act together to deliver HEIF, as an example of the joint working between the two bodies and their shared remit to support business-university collaboration.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is moving on to paragraph (b) of the amendment, which prods me to return to a subject I touched on the other day. As this process goes along and HEFCE is, in the words of the White Paper, dissolved, there is the difficult question of the transition period. I think we agree that this is likely to be a two to three-year process. Will the Minister give any indication of the point at which Research England will become the active player in this new architecture?
Joseph Johnson
As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question on a similar theme, we expect the office for students and UKRI to become operational in 2018-19. They will take on functions including HEIF during that period and from that day onwards. HEFCE’s knowledge exchange functions will transfer with its research functions to Research England. That includes support for the research elements of HEIF. The reforms offer significant potential to build coherence with the knowledge exchange programmes currently operated by the research councils and Innovate UK.
Knowledge exchange is an essential mechanism to support universities in effectively contributing to UK growth, as evidenced by the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £120 million of additional funding for university collaboration on technology transfer and knowledge exchange. However, as the provisions of the Bill are sufficient to allow Research England to undertake these activities, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 325.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response and the further detail. It is particularly helpful that he has said a little more about the situation with HEIF and the timescale, which is similar to what we discussed the other day. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Exercise of functions by the Councils: supplementary
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 261, in clause 90, page 54, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) Arrangements under subsection (1) may result in a function of UKRI being exercisable by more than one Council.”
This amendment and amendment 262 make it clear that arrangements under clause 90(1) may result in a function of UKRI being exercisable by more than one Council and that functions of UKRI which are exercisable by a Council on UKRI’s behalf under arrangements under clauses 87 to 89 or 90(1) may also be exercised by UKRI. This enables Councils and UKRI to engage in cross-cutting activities.
Joseph Johnson
Multidisciplinary research is of increasing importance in tackling complex challenges such as the impact of climate change. Currently, councils may hold and spend funds only for activity within their own remit. That means it is not within the remit of any of the research councils to manage and distribute inter and multidisciplinary funds such as the new £1.5 billion global challenges research fund.
Amendments 261 and 262 clarify clause 90 to enable UKRI and the councils to engage in multidisciplinary work more effectively. Amendment 261 makes it clear in the Bill that UKRI will enable councils to collaborate on funding multidisciplinary research. Amendment 262 proposes leaving out “in other ways” from the end of subsubsection (2), which provides further clarification that enables collaboration between UKRI and a council carrying out specific functions of UKRI.
As I have explained, these are technical drafting amendments that make it clear that UKRI and the councils are able to both continue with existing joint working and collaborate even more effectively in funding multidisciplinary research.
Amendment 261 agreed to.
Amendment made: 262, in clause 90, page 54, line 42, leave out “in other ways”—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 261.
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
UKRI’s research and innovation strategy
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 327, in clause 91, page 55, line 8, after “approval” insert—
“(c) consult with a Committee of Executive Chairs of Councils in the development of UKRI’s strategy.”
This amendment would ensure UKRI’s governance structure includes a Committee of the Executive Chairs of the Councils who are consulted with as part of UKRI’s strategy.
Although the amendment is probing, it is important, not only in terms of the practical arrangements that must characterise the relationship between UKRI and its nine councils but in terms of the signal—or lack of signal, if the Government do not move down this road—that it is in danger of sending to the academic community and the learned societies and institutions, which have already spoken strongly about the measure. That is why we, with the advice and opinions of many of those people, have tabled the amendment, which would ensure that
“UKRI’s governance structure includes a Committee of the Executive Chairs of the Councils who are consulted with as part of UKRI’s strategy.”
I read that out carefully, because I want to engage with the paper to which the Minister referred this morning, which Committee members should have seen: “UKRI: Vision, Principles and Governance”. Produced at the beginning of this month, it is a joint paper between the Department for Education and the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The White Paper and the Bill have outlined the Government’s arrangements for UKRI and its nine councils.
The board will consist of the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chair of UKRI, as well as between nine and 12 representatives of academia and industry. We really need a huge organogram, perhaps overlaying a large 19th-century painting, on the wall at this point to understand it, but I will do my best. Each of the councils will be headed by an executive chair with five to nine ordinary council members, but—this is the crux of the matter and of this discussion—the executive chairs of the councils do not sit on the UKRI board.
The Nurse review recommended that there should be a committee of the executive chairs of the councils that includes the CEO of UKRI and provides a continuing link to UKRI’s governing board, but the governance arrangements proposed in the White Paper and the Bill do not include an executive committee, although the Bill provides UKRI with the power to establish one. The factsheet published by the Government, which I have just quoted, makes that point. It says:
“It will be critical for the Board to work closely with the Executive Chairs and ensure highly effective co-ordination across UKRI and its key partners. Therefore, our policy intent is for the Executive Chairs of the Councils—along with the CEO, CFO and other senior directors of UKRI—to sit together on an Executive Committee, to support engagement with the Board and cross-council working. This is in line with good practice on organisational governance and Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations.”
Some people might query the definition of Sir Paul’s recommendation that the Government have chosen to incorporate into the factsheet, but even if they do not, the fact remains that it does not go as far as the Royal Society or many others have called for by making it a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill.
I return to what I have said previously: I am not questioning the current Minister’s enthusiasm or bona fides for this arrangement, simply noting an observable fact. We must legislate for all sorts of Ministers, good, bad and indifferent, over a period of time, and regulation is needed on the face of the Bill to assure people that they can survive the occasional—dare I say it—bad Minister, autocratic Minister or whatever.
The Royal Society believes that it is essential that UKRI’s
“strategy and operation is not driven only by the priorities of the Government or the Board—”
which it describes as “top down”—
“but also by the research and innovation community (bottom up).”
I see the eyes of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath lighting up at the reference to “bottom”; that is an in-joke related to a revelation that the hon. Gentleman made earlier in proceedings, Mr Hanson. We will not get into that now.
In his review of the research councils, Sir Paul Nurse
“envisaged this being realised through the establishment of an Executive Committee…Under the proposed reforms, the analogous Committee would include the Executive Chairs of the Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England.”
The Royal Society believes that UKRI’s governance arrangements
“should include an Executive Committee of the Councils’ Executive Chairs”.
Just in case members of the Committee are beginning to think this resembles one of those medieval theological debates about how many angels could dance on the end of a pin, I think it is important to understand the issues and concerns at stake here. For that, I refer to the excellent speech by Lord Rees in the Queen’s Speech debate earlier this year, in which he discussed the proposals of the White Paper. The Minister will be pleased to note I do not intend to quote all of the speech, but I will quote a little bit of it. Lord Rees, who is a highly respected figure in academia, has strong concerns about the White Paper. He said:
“There are widely-voiced anxieties that the changes are needlessly drastic. It is proposed that all seven research councils will lose their royal charter—even the Medical Research Council, which has a global reputation and a century-old history.”
He then talked of the various things that will happen, saying:
“After any reorganisation, there are transitional hassles before the new structure beds down… When the research councils set up the so-called shared research service in 2008, the overheads went up, not down. The Government’s proposals are based on a review by Sir Paul Nurse, who accepted that the current research support system worked fairly well but aspired to improve it. It is seductive to believe that reshuffling the administrative structure will achieve this, but it may not prove either necessary or sufficient and may indeed be counterproductive. Moreover, it is already proving hard to attract people with the stature expected as heads of research councils. That may be harder still if the posts are downgraded.”
He concludes:
“It is plainly important that the existing research councils mesh together and collaborate when necessary…these aims can surely be achieved with good will and capable management within the present structure by strengthening high-level input from the CST and—”
here is the rub—
“reviving a body resembling the old advisory board for the research councils to play the role envisaged for UKRI’s board. When there are so many distracting pressures in the educational and research world—
bear in mind Lord Rees made the speech on the Queen’s Speech, before the outcome of the referendum was known and before Brexit—
“surely we should avoid risky upheaval in a system that is working reasonably well and which really needs no more than some fine-tuning.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2016; Vol. 773, c. 79.]
The Minister and others may well dispute that, but the concerns Lord Rees articulated are not restricted to him. Others, perhaps less forcefully, have said similar things. Only today, an article has appeared in The Guardian by Stephen Curry, who is a professor of structural biology at Imperial College and a member of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. He repeats the points others have made by querying the efficacy of the Bill and suggesting, in this respect, that it is not necessarily going to do the business. He says:
“The bill does not even provide for the creation of an executive forum that would allow the heads of the new research committee to communicate the views of their researcher communities to the CEO of UKRI. Although a supplementary document published just last week by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)”—
—by which I assume he means the joint publication of BEIS and the Department for Education—
“now envisages such a committee, the system of governance is significantly more top-down than before.”
That is the point.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad to have the opportunity to give assurances on UKRI governance. First, I would like to address the proposition of a committee of executive chairs. I hope hon. Members were reassured by the fact sheet we published on 12 October, to which the hon. Gentleman referred on a number of occasions. As he said, the fact sheet states clearly that it will be critical for the UKRI board to work closely with the executive chairs and ensure highly effective co-ordination across UKRI and its key partners. Our policy intent is for the executive chairs of the councils, along with the CEO, CFO and other senior directors of UKRI, to sit together on an executive committee to support engagement with the board and cross-council working.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill does not set that out. I refer him to the general response I have given to these sorts of request for more information on the face of the Bill, which is that the Bill is a legal framework for these reforms. In drafting it, we are trying to find the right balance between providing enough detail appropriate for a piece of primary legislation and the need to allow flexibility for UKRI to develop the right governance structures, so that it can evolve swiftly in response to changes in the science and innovation landscape.
Gordon Marsden
I entirely accept that point. I said at an earlier stage that I welcome the fact that the Bill has moved away from the tradition of some preceding Bills—not in this area—of just producing a box that everything comes through. I appreciate there is a balance to be struck, but on this particular point, to which so many people in the academic and research communities are sensitive, does the Minister not understand it is important to do the maximum that can be done, even if it is not on the face of the Bill, to reassure those people?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We understand the desire for clarity in respect of the committee. At this stage, the detailed design of UKRI will be developed in conjunction with UKRI leadership and existing partner organisations and in line with Government guidance for non-departmental bodies. The fact sheet we have published shows, I hope, that our overarching approach on governance is clear in that respect. Further details will be captured in a framework document, which we have discussed. That will be published once agreed with UKRI’s CEO and board as per the usual practice with non-departmental public bodies. I am glad, though, that the hon. Gentleman was not pressing for the executive chairs themselves to sit on the main UKRI board—that is how I understood his remarks. That is a point on which he and I are in agreement. We do not believe that that would serve the purposes of the organisation.
The second aspect of the amendment is that it would require the committee, to which we have formally committed in the fact sheet, to be consulted on UKRI strategy. It will be for UKRI itself to define the detailed process for developing the strategy. However, I assure the Committee that we would expect it to be an iterative process involving the councils and executive chairs, and informed by engagement with the relevant stakeholder communities. The executive committee, on which the hon. Gentleman is keen and about which I am enthusiastic, seems to me to be a sensible instrument to achieve that aim. I hope the Committee will agree that this is simply a matter of good organisational governance. I do not think it would be appropriate to write it into primary legislation, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for taking some time to spell out the Government’s motivation, and I heard what he had to say. I am sure there will opportunities for further questioning. As he says, it is an iterative process. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Grants to UKRI from the Secretary of State
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 263, in clause 93, page 56, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) Where a grant is made in respect of functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89, terms and conditions under subsection (1) may be imposed only if—
(a) they are requirements to be met before financial support of a specified amount or of a specified description is given by Research England in respect of activities carried on by an institution, and
(b) they apply to every institution, or every institution within a specified description, in respect of whose activities that support may be provided.”
This amendment provides that where the Secretary of State makes a grant to UKRI in respect of the functions exercisable by Research England (i.e. the giving of financial support to eligible higher education providers (see clause 89)), terms and conditions can only be imposed if they are requirements to be met before the financial support is given and if they apply to all institutions or institutions of a particular description.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 284, in clause 93, page 56, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) In making grants to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must specify the separate allocation of funding to be made by UKRI to—
(a) functions exercisable by the Councils mentioned in section 87(1) pursuant to arrangements under that section,
(b) functions exercisable by Innovate UK pursuant to arrangements under section 88, and
(c) functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89.
(1B) No variation may be made to the allocation of funding specified by the Secretary of State in subsection (1A) unless the House of Commons has passed a resolution approving any such variation and the variation has the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.”
This amendment would ensure there would be separate financial allocations to the Research Councils (collectively), Innovate UK, and Research England.
Government amendments 264 to 267.
Joseph Johnson
The Government amendments in this group will ensure that, in setting the terms and conditions of grants to Research England, the Secretary of State is under the same limitations as in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Specifically, amendments 263 and 265 provide that directions or terms and conditions of grants can be given only if they apply to every institution, or to every institution of a specified description. In addition, the specific requirements must be met before financial support is given. Amendments 264, 266 and 267 are consequential changes required by amendments 263 and 265, and will ensure that the purpose of clauses 93 and 94 remains clear.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for indicating earlier that he was willing to allow me to say a few words on amendment 284 before he responds to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have been contacted by many institutions in the devolved nations about amendment 284 more than any other. They are concerned about the potential that hazard will be placed in their way because of the funding structure. The amendment would ensure separate funding allocations for the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England. It is supported not only by the significant number of institutions that I mentioned earlier, but by the Scottish Funding Council. I have had extensive discussions with Dr John Kemp, who is the acting chief executive there.
We know that Scotland performs well in attracting funding—grants, studentships and fellowships—from the research councils, although it does not do quite so well in attracting funding for research institutes and research infrastructure. We of course recognise that there is always scope for flexibility in funding, but there is a difference between building flexibility into something and building in something that will create a hazard to core funding. That is what particularly concerns me about the clause: as it stands, it will allow the Secretary of State or the UK Government, if they so wish, to alter the balance of funding among the research councils.
Any grant to UKRI is ultimately research project funding, which of course 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 the funds distributed for research infrastructure by the latter body will be available only to English institutions. Separate financial allocations must be introduced for Innovate UK, Research England and the different research councils collectively.
We are extremely concerned, too, that there are no provisions in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State and the UK Government do not give directions to UKRI to move funds in year on its own initiative between constituent parts—especially to Research England. That would definitely not be in the spirit of the Nurse report, nor would it give Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland a fair and equal say in research allocation. If for whatever reason funds had to be moved between research councils and Research England or Innovate UK by the Secretary of State, that must surely happen only if the devolved Administrations gave their consent.
Amendment 284 would ensure that fairness and transparency were at the forefront of the reserved funding allocation to UKRI and the allocation to Research England. It would also ensure that the balanced funding principle was measured in relation to the proportion of funding allocated by the Secretary of State for reserved UK and devolved England-only funding, and that clarity was provided on when that might not be achieved. Many bodies that have talked to me are at a loss as to why the appropriate funding streams are not set out in the Bill. I am therefore particularly keen to hear the Minister’s response.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that it is now 3.27 pm and the Committee finishes at 5 o’clock. Although there is potential for further debate, Members should bear that in mind if they want to debate later issues.
Joseph Johnson
I do not believe that amendment 284 is necessary. The Bill already ensures that each research council will retain significant authority and autonomy over its functions and disciplines. The Government have also set out their intention to make funding allocations to each of the councils to support those functions. As now, such allocations will be subject to Government rules and processes for managing public money. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify the allocations made to the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, with no ability to vary allocations without the consent of Parliament. That would be restrictive, and it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to scrutinise potentially small budget flexibilities that had already been scrutinised by the Treasury.
Amendment 284 would also require the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government in respect of any variation in allocations, even when those matters were reserved to the Secretary of State. Such an amendment could compromise value for money where the time delays involved in such approvals would make any budget flexibility impractical.
Amendment 284 would therefore introduce an unnecessary and overly restrictive requirement, and to make such an amendment would hinder best practice in managing public money and make the system inflexible. UKRI is already bound by rules established for managing public money and a financial accountability and assurance framework that will be set up with the Department. Those arrangements do not constitute a reduction in oversight by Parliament or devolved Administrations, and on that basis, I ask Members to support amendment 263.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In practice we cannot see the pictures in the Committee.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South for the opportunity to discuss Haldane. Let me reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to the fundamental principle that funding decisions should be taken by experts in their relevant areas. As my predecessor in this role, David Willetts, said in 2010:
“excellence is and must remain the driver of funding decisions, and it is only by funding excellent research that the maximum benefits will be secured for the nation.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 139WS.]
We have ensured that that principle is reflected in the design of UKRI.
The provisions in the Bill contain several measures to protect the Haldane principle, including that UKRI will be established as an arm’s length body independent of Whitehall; that UKRI will be required to devolve functions within specified fields of activity to its constituent councils, ensuring that individual funding decisions are made by relevant experts; and that subsidiarity in the design of UKRI will ensure that the councils take all scientific and other decisions in their area where expert knowledge is essential to driving excellence.
As hon. Members know, I published a fact sheet on 12 October that sets out more details of how the Bill protects the Haldane principle, which I hope has been helpful. I do not agree that the amendment would strengthen the Haldane principle in the Bill. I believe the unintended consequence would be to weaken significantly the safeguards on public funding within the legislative framework. The Secretary of State currently has an equivalent power of direction over research councils in section 2 of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and our proposals in clause 94 are intended to mirror that.
The rationale for this power relating to the money given to UKRI, which is at present upwards of £6 billion per annum, is that the Secretary of State can deal swiftly with any financial issues arising from, for example, mismanagement. That ensures the most effective safeguard for public finances. Such powers of direction are rarely used, but given the very large sums of public money for which UKRI will be accountable, they are proportionate. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 328.
Gordon Marsden
Again, I thank the Minister for using the opportunity of our probing amendment to say a little more about how he envisages the Haldane principle being enshrined in the Bill. That has been helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 265, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
‘( ) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in respect of functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89, only if —
(a) it relates to requirements to be met before financial support of a specified amount or of a specified description is given by Research England in respect of activities carried on by an institution, and
(b) it relates to every institution, or every institution within a specified description, in respect of whose activities that support may be provided.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State can only give a direction about the allocation of grants to UKRI in respect of the functions exercisable by Research England if the direction relates to requirements to be met before the financial support is given and if it relates to all institutions or institutions of a particular description.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. International student migration and post-study working arrangements are important issues for the HE sector and the Government. Brain gain is definitely the key to our sustained success as a knowledge economy, but I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for commissioning research into post-study work. The Bill is focused on creating the necessary structures that will oversee higher education and research funding for many years to come. The amendment proposes a short-term piece of research on an element of migration policy, and that is not consistent with the scope and functions of UKRI. That said, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain briefly the Government’s approach to student migration and to post-study working arrangements for international students.
The Government greatly value the contribution that international students make to our universities, including those in Scotland. We want our top universities to continue to attract the best students from around the world. The UK has a generous post-study work offer for overseas students who graduate in the UK. International graduates can remain in the UK to work following their studies by switching to several existing routes. For example, if they get a graduate-level job, they can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa. If they start a business, they can move to a tier 1 entrepreneur or graduate entrepreneur visa, or they can do work experience under a tier 5 temporary worker visa. There is no cap, as we have discussed previously, on the number of students who can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa and all degree students are potentially eligible to stay on for post-study work.
Roger Mullin
The trouble is that the requirements and criteria set for graduate-level work might well be appropriate for the south of England, but looking at the recent case of the Brain family and the amount of work needed to allow that family from Australia to get a tier 2 visa and stay and contribute in Scotland—thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—those requirements are not as suitable for our circumstances as the Government pretend. The Minister went on to talk about tier 1 visas; over the past year, in the region of 70% of applicants for tier 1 entrepreneurship visas have been rejected. It does not seem to me that that is adequate in providing for the future.
Joseph Johnson
We always want to ensure that our visa system is working well and we believe, with respect to people switching from tier 4—the student route—into tier 2, that it is working well at present. Certainly, at least looking at the numbers of people switching, under our current arrangements more than 6,000 international students switched from tier 4 into tier 2 in the UK in 2015; that is an increase from around 5,500 in 2014 and 4,000 in 2013. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tier 1 and the number of rejections. That reflects an element of abuse in the old tier 1 category, which was then the post-study work category, with a published Home Office assessment undertaken in October 2010 finding that three in five of the then tier 1 migrants were in unskilled work. That is the basis on which changes were made to our system.
Until 2012 there was a dedicated post-study work route under tier 1 of the visa system, as I just mentioned, which saw a significant number of fraudulent applications and graduates who were remaining unemployed or in low-skilled work. That is why we replaced it with a more selective system, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This reform to post-study work has not prevented the UK from attracting international students. Since 2010, applications to UK universities have gone up by about 14% and we remain the second most popular destination in the world after the US for international students.
I am therefore unconvinced that such research would add value, given that the current visa system provides generous post-study work opportunities and the Government will, in any case, shortly be consulting on these issues. As I have explained, the Bill is in any case not the appropriate mechanism for commissioning such research. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Roger Mullin
I am happy to say I have made my point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 266, in clause 94, page 56, line 26, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.
Amendment 267, in clause 94, page 56, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) In this section “specified” means specified in the direction.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Balanced funding and advice from UKRI
Joseph Johnson
I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with the Committee more detail about how the Government are setting out in legislation for the first time the dual support system for research and introducing, in legislation, the concept that the balance between the two funding streams is important. That is a significant enshrinement in law of one of the key features underpinning the success of our research system. Up until now, pretty much with the stroke of a pen at any fiscal event the dual support system could be done away with, and that will not be possible once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Stern’s recent review of the research excellence framework described the two strands of the dual support system as
“essential, intertwined and mutually supportive”
drivers of the UK’s success in research. Dual support combines project funding for excellent research proposals, which is forward looking, with formula-based block grant funding that rewards performance retrospectively. So one element is forward looking and the other is backward looking. In his report, Sir Paul Nurse described the system as
“one of the bedrocks of UK research”
that was identified as critical to the UK’s world-leading reputation. The legislation ensures that in the future it will be mandatory to provide support for the block grant provided by Research England, and for the funding provided by the research councils.
Clause 95 introduces an additional obligation to provide proportionate funding for each of the two parts of dual support, first to ensure that what constitutes a reasonable balance for dual support is considered carefully by the Secretary of State before grants to UKRI are made.
Joseph Johnson
I am just coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point—I am going to anticipate his question. Secondly, the Secretary of State must consider any advice from UKRI about what that reasonable balance may be.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is semi-telepathic. I was going to touch on that point, but I was also going to touch on how he envisages the assessment being made. Ultimately, this is about sums of money and the balance between retrospective and prospective funding. Who, in that scenario, would make those sorts of decisions?
Joseph Johnson
The Secretary of State will be required to consider UKRI’s advice on the balance of funding. The new legal protections will apply to future Governments as much as to this one. We have already shown in our two previous spending reviews our consistent support for science funding and the dual support system, but we want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible for Governments to respond to the circumstances at the time, which is why we do not seek to fix a specific proportion for dual support in the Bill.
When considering what the balance of funding should be, we expect that the Secretary of State will, as now, consider issues such as the strategic priorities of the research base, the sustainability of higher education institutions, research capability and other research facilities supported through the UKRI budget. So balanced means taking into account the balance of those kinds of interests, which will determine how the Secretary of State will support the dual support system in his allocation decisions.
The Secretary of State will continue to allocate the councils’ budgets separately through an annual grant letter to UKRI. The allocations of the research councils on the one hand and Research England on the other will, as now, make up that dual support system.
Legislation must be sufficiently flexible for Governments to respond to circumstances at the time, but they will have to consider the balance of dual funding, unlike now, where no such protection exists. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this provision has been warmly welcomed by a huge number of key stakeholders across the sector. We have heard enough from several of them already, so I will not give them another outing; we do not need to rest on our laurels in that respect. To ensure that the new protection for dual support that is so welcomed by the research community is delivered through this legislation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I only pause to reflect that in politics, there can never be too much gilding of the lily. I take the points he has made. His remarks are a helpful contribution to what I am sure will be a continuing discussion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 ordered stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 96 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Provision of research services
Amendment made: 268, in clause 99, page 58, line 5, leave out “in relation to” and insert “into”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This is a drafting amendment to ensure that clause 99 is more consistent with other clauses in Part 3.
Clause 99, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 100 and 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Definitions
Amendment made: 269, in clause 102, page 59, line 4, leave out “social science” and insert “social sciences”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment amends the definition of “science” in Part 3 so that it includes social sciences and so ensures consistency with the language used in clause 87(1).
Clause 102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 103 and 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Transfer schemes
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 270, in schedule 10, page 98, line 13, after “means” insert “the Secretary of State or”.
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to be a “permitted transferor” for the purposes of a property transfer scheme or staff transfer scheme made under Schedule 10.
Joseph Johnson
These amendments provide additional, complementary powers to those already in the Bill, to enable an orderly and efficient transfer of staff, property and assets. We have reflected further on the Bill’s provisions as we prepare for transition, and the amendments are intended to help make the transition planning more straightforward.
Amendment 270 empowers the Secretary of State to be a permitted transferor alongside HEFCE, OFFA, Innovate UK and the research councils. That will mean, for example, that when the Department for Education stops regulating what are currently known as alternative providers and the OFS becomes responsible for regulating all providers, there will be an option to transfer DFE resources to the OFS to support that where appropriate.
Amendment 271 creates a standard provision consistent with precedent transfer scheme powers in other legislation, such as the Public Bodies Act 2011. It enables modifications to be made to transfer schemes so that the changes have effect as if they had been in place at the original date of the scheme. That is the most efficient way to enable tidying-up exercises where, for example, the destination or arrangements relating to staff or assets might for legitimate reasons be reassessed during the transition process.
Amendment 270 agreed to.
Amendment made: 271, in schedule 10, page 99, line 14, leave out from “provide” to end of line 15 and insert—
“(a) for the scheme to be modified by agreement after it comes into effect, and
(b) for any such modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme comes into effect.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment makes it clear that modifications to a property transfer scheme or staff transfer scheme under Schedule 10 can be made so as to have effect from the date on which the scheme came into effect.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105
Power to make consequential provision etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry if I have delayed a bundling up of clauses.
The power to make consequential provision of one sort or another often appears in Bills. It is a phrase that slips off the tongue and sometimes down the gullet rather too easily. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the implications of subsection (2), which reads:
“(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify—
(a) primary or secondary legislation passed or made before this Act or in the same Session as this Act, or
(b) subject to subsection (3), a Royal Charter granted before this Act is passed or in the same Session as this Act.”
Those anodyne phrases, which have been polished over many years by parliamentary draftspeople, can often pass by unnoticed, but in this context it is worth debating for a few moments the propriety of the Secretary of State being given such powers when we are told that they will involve, for good or ill—people can make their own decision—the overturning of not 100 years but several centuries of custom and practice with royal charters. Some people believe that the Bill will also cause a major shift in the relationship between the higher education sector and the state—a relationship that anyone who is of an antiquarian disposition, or even just knows their history, will know goes back nearly 800 years. That is why several organisations have called for changes to be made to the Bill.
I am particularly unhappy about the complete removal of the powers of royal charters. We have debated that issue previously, and I do not intend to go over it again, but this clause is the practical expression of that airbrushing out of royal charters and a long-stop to the development of powers for the Office for Students. That is why Universities UK has called for a higher threshold of evidence to be required of the OFS before it can take sanctions against an institution. The University of Cambridge said in its evidence that the revocation of degree-awarding powers or university title
“is not a decision to be made without a high level of scrutiny and proper accountability.”
This is not simply an arcane argument among academics, because as the Opposition have endeavoured to emphasise, what affects universities, particularly in the 21st century, is not just what affects their students and academics but what affects the people who work in them, the local economies that are affected by them and so on. It is therefore not arcane or antiquarian to discuss whether the Government are going too far in this issue.
As it happens, two articles in the last couple of weeks—an editorial in Nature and an article in the Financial Times—have made the point that the Government need to be challenged closely on these issues, in a way that frankly we were not able to do on Second Reading. We have endeavoured to begin that process in Committee, but I suspect it will have to continue in another place. There is a fundamental question to be asked. If the Government answer it satisfactorily, with the right assurances that the powers that the clause gives the Secretary of State will be exercised judiciously and reasonably, perhaps everybody will close their books and say, “Well, there we are. We don’t have to worry about keeping royal charters and all the rest of it.” The onus is on the Government to make that demonstration, and I submit that they have not made that case very strongly so far in Committee.
Joseph Johnson
I say at the outset that the clause is an entirely standard provision; it is essential to be able to update previous legislation to bring it in line with the Bill. However, I am glad to have the chance to address the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Clause 105 enables the Secretary of State to make changes, by regulation, to other legislation, as a consequence of provision made by or under the Bill. Royal charters can be amended only in consequence of provision made by or under the clauses on degree-awarding powers or university title. The Bill provides that such changes be made by regulations that are subject to either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure, depending on the nature of the changes. If they amend or repeal an Act of the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland legislation or a royal charter, the regulations must follow the affirmative procedure; otherwise, the negative procedure is to be followed.
Let me provide some further colour to that rather technical description. We have long recognised that in order to be able to regulate the sector effectively, refined express powers to remove degree-awarding powers in very serious cases are vital. Those powers signal to the sector what is at stake if standards fall. A key focus of the new system will continue to be quality and the protection of the English higher education system. That would be undermined if a provider’s quality were to drop to unacceptable standards and it could none the less continue to award degrees or call itself a university. The Bill therefore includes express powers to vary and remove degree-awarding powers and to remove university title, giving the OFS the power to intervene where necessary, which will help to protect both students and the quality and reputation of English higher education.
The powers are intended to be applied only if other sanctions and interventions have failed to produce the necessary results. Some might say that the express powers are a risk to students, but the opposite is the case. If a provider was to lose its degree-awarding powers under the new system, we would expect student protection plans to come into force, enabling students to complete their degree. That is far less risky than asking students to stay with a poor provider and to continue to pay for poor provision.
Several higher education institutions have been established via royal charters. We do not propose to change that. The Bill does not revoke universities’ royal charters, and we envisage that powers to amend them will be used only in the rare circumstances where it may become necessary following the OFS’s removal of degree-awarding powers or university title enshrined in a royal charter. In such situations, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Secretary of State will be able to amend royal charters. That power is explicitly limited and can only be used if appropriate and, importantly, in consequence of provisions that relate to degree-awarding powers and university title. The power is necessary to give seamless effect to the new powers to vary or remove degree-awarding powers and remove university title, and it will help create a level playing field for all new providers.
The powers in the clause are explicitly limited and can be used only if appropriate and in consequence of provisions that relate to degree-awarding powers and university title. We do not envisage a scenario where that would result in the revocation of an entire royal charter that established an institution. Importantly, there are safeguards in clauses 44, 45, 54 and 55, which apply to any decisions by the OFS to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers and university title. Those powers include the right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal, which is an important independent check that means that the OFS cannot just revoke degree-awarding powers and university title contained in a royal charter. The Secretary of State cannot make any consequential amendments to royal charters because of provisions in the Bill, or following the exercise of OFS’s powers, without parliamentary scrutiny.
The clause ensures that the provisions in the Bill work as intended, while preserving an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for the legislative changes that need to be made. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 1
Amendment made: 111, in schedule 11, page 102, line 30, at end insert—
“21A (1) Section 82 (joint exercise of functions) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1) to (1B).
(3) In subsection (2), for “Great Britain” substitute “Wales and Scotland”.
(4) In subsection (2A), after “Scottish” insert “Further and”.
(5) In subsection (3)(a)—
(a) for “a higher education funding council” substitute “the HEFCW”,
(b) for “the National Assembly of Wales” substitute “the Welsh Ministers”,
(c) for “it is discharging its” substitute “they are discharging their”, and
(d) after “Scottish” insert “Further and”.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment repeals subsections (1) to (1B) of section 82 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in consequence of the provision made in amendment NC3. It also amends the remainder of that section to remove the Higher Education Funding Council for England from its provisions, to make consequential changes and to update references to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the National Assembly for Wales.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12
Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 3
Amendments made: 272, in schedule 12, page 109, line 24, at end insert—
“20A The Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
20B (1) Schedule 3A (functions exercisable concurrently or jointly with the Welsh Ministers) (which is inserted by the Wales Act 2016) is amended as follows.
(2) In the Table in paragraph 1(2), in the entry relating to the Science and Technology Act 1965, in the column headed ‘Functions’, after ‘relating to’ insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation and’.”
This amendment amends Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (which is inserted by the Wales Bill) so that the functions of a Minister of the Crown under section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (powers to support research etc), so far as relating to UKRI, are not exercisable concurrently with the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 273, in schedule 12, page 109, line 28, at end insert—
“21A (1) In Part 2 of Schedule 7A (specific reservations) (which is inserted by the Wales Act 2016), Section C11 (Research Councils) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the beginning insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation and’.
(3) In paragraph 85—
(a) at the beginning insert ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation (‘UKRI’), and’, and
(b) after ‘relating to’ insert ‘UKRI and’.
(4) In paragraph 86—
(a) omit ‘Arts and Humanities Research Council within the meaning of Part 1 of the Higher Education Act 2004, and the’,
(b) for ‘that Act’ substitute ‘the Higher Education Act 2004’, and
(c) for ‘that Council’ substitute ‘UKRI’.”.
This amendment amends the reservation regarding Research Councils in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (which is inserted by the Wales Bill) to ensure that UKRI (like Research Councils) is a reserved matter and to take account of the Arts and Humanities Research Council ceasing to exist under clause 101.
Amendment 274, in schedule 12, page 109, line 37, at beginning insert
“In the English language text,”.
This amendment and amendments 275, 276 and 278 ensure that both the English language text and the Welsh language text of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 are amended by Schedule 12 to reflect the establishment of UKRI and the fact that its predecessor bodies cease to have effect.
Amendment 275, in schedule 12, page 110, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text, omit the entries relating to—
(a) Cyngor Cyfleusterau Gwyddoniaeth a Thechnoleg,
(b) Cyngor Ymchwil Biotechnoleg a Gwyddorau Biolegol,
(c) Y Cyngor Ymchwil Economaidd a Chymdeithasol,
(d) Y Cyngor Ymchwil Meddygol,
(e) Cyngor Ymchwil Peirianneg a Gwyddorau Ffisegol,
(f) Cyngor Ymchwil yr Amgylchedd Naturiol, and
(g) Y Cyngor Ymchwil i‘r Celfyddydau a‘r Dyniaethau.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Amendment 276, in schedule 12, page 110, line 5, at beginning insert
“In the English language text,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Amendment 277, in schedule 12, page 110, line 7, in column 1 after “Innovation” insert
“(“Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig”)”.
This amendment inserts a reference to the Welsh name for “United Kingdom Research and Innovation” in an amendment made to the English language text of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 by Schedule 12.
Amendment 278, in schedule 12, page 110, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text, insert at the appropriate place under the heading ‘cyffredinol’—
‘Ymchwil ac Arloesedd y Deyrnas Unedig (‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation’) | Safonau cyflenwi gwasanaethau |
Safonau llunio polisi | |
Safonau gweithredu | |
Safonau cadw cofnodion’”. |
—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 274.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 279, in schedule 12, page 110, line 12, leave out from “Crown)” to end of line 14 and insert—
“, in paragraph (a), for ‘the Natural Environment Research Council’ substitute ‘United Kingdom Research and Innovation’”.
This amendment amends the amendment made by paragraph 24 of Schedule 12 to section 10(4)(a) of the Antarctic Act 2013 to ensure that the reference in that provision to the British Antarctic Survey is retained.
Joseph Johnson
The amendments are all consequential amendments to other legislation. Amendments 279 and 280 are to schedule 12, and make a number of consequential amendments that reflect the impact of part 3 of the Bill on existing legislation. Paragraph 24 of schedule 12 is specifically directed at the Antarctic Act 2013. In making these changes, we wish to preserve a reference to the British Antarctic Survey, which is currently contained in section 10(4) of the Antarctic Act 2013. As originally drafted, paragraph 24 of schedule 12 did not achieve that objective. Amendment 279 ensures the correct change will be made to section 10(4) of the 2013 Act.
Amendment 280 is a technical amendment necessary to ensure that the territorial scope of the 2013 Act remains unchanged after it is amended to account for the creation of UKRI. Amendment 281 relates to clause 111, which sets out the territorial extent of the provisions of the Bill, some of which extend to the whole of the UK, and some of which extend only to England and Wales. Schedule 12 makes provision for minor and consequential amendments to existing legislation, including the Patents Act 1977. That Act also extends to the Isle of Man as well as the whole of the United Kingdom. This technical amendment ensures that the amendments and repeals made to section 41 of the Patents Act by schedule 12 will have the same extent as that section, which includes the Isle of Man.
Amendment 279 agreed to.
Amendments made: 280, in schedule 12, page 110, line 14, at end insert—
“(2) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 34 of the Antarctic Act 1994 (power to extend to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories) apply in relation to section 10 of the Antarctic Act 2013 as amended by sub-paragraph (1).”.
The Antarctic Act 2013 confers a power to extend the provisions of Part 1 of that Act to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories (see section 18 of that Act). This amendment provides that the power of extension can be used to extend section 10 of that Act as amended by the Bill to any of those jurisdictions.
Amendment 312, in schedule 12, page 110, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment means that pension schemes established for members or staff of an existing research council remain within Schedule 10 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (and are therefore subject to the restrictions in section 31 of that Act).
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111
Extent
Amendments made: 112, in clause 111, page 61, line 23, at end insert—
“() section25 (rating the quality of, and standards applied to, higher education);”.
This amendment and amendment 113 are linked to amendment 40 and provide for clause 25 and clause 75 (which contains relevant definitions) to form part of the law of Scotland and of Northern Ireland (as well as the law of England and Wales) in light of the application of clause 25 to Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish higher education providers as a result of amendment 40.
Amendment 113, in clause 111, page 61, line 25, at end insert—
“() section75 (meaning of ‘English higher education provider’ etc);”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 281, in clause 111, page 61, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (3) does not apply to the amendments and repeals made by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to section 41 of the Patents Act 1977 which have the same extent as that section.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment ensures that the amendments and repeals made to section 41 of the Patents Act 1977 by Schedule 12 to the Bill have the same extent as that section - which includes the Isle of Man.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Commencement
Amendments made: 114, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert “and section (Joint working)”.
This amendment provides for NC3 to be commenced by regulations.
Amendment 115, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert—
“and section (Advice to Northern Ireland departments)”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides for NC17 to be commenced by regulations
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 313, in clause 112, page 61, line 39, after “103” insert “and section (Pre-commencement consultation)”.
This amendment provides for clause (Pre-commencement consultation) to be commenced by regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 16—Pre-commencement consultation.
Joseph Johnson
I want to ensure that the OFS and UKRI, as new bodies, are in a strong position to make an impact from the outset, so it is essential we make provision for preparatory to work to begin ahead of them coming into being. The amendment will allow the OFS and UKRI to rely upon consultations carried out by the Secretary of State, the director of fair access, in the case of OFS’s, or HEFCE, before the consultation provisions of the Bill come into force, as if that consultation had been carried out by the OFS or UKRI under those provisions. That means that requirements on the OFS and UKRI to consult can be taken forward in advance on their behalf, so that planning can begin on the systems they will rely on. That will help to ensure a smooth and orderly transition. It also means the sector will not have to wait until the new bodies are in place before it can be legitimately consulted on key aspects of the reforms, such as registration conditions and the new regulatory framework.
Amendment 313 agreed to.
Amendment made: 282, in clause 112, page 61, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections 78, 79 and 80 come into force, so far as relating to a matter specified in an entry in column 1 of the following table, on such day as the person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the table may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, after consulting the person (if any) specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the table.
TABLE
Matters: | Commencement by: | After consulting: |
Powers exercisable by the Welsh Ministers | The Welsh Ministers | |
Powers exercisable by the Secretary of State concurrently with the Welsh Ministers | The Secretary of State | The Welsh Ministers |
Powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to Wales | The Secretary of State | The Welsh Ministers |
Other matters | The Secretary of State.” |
—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment provides for clauses 78, 79 and 80 (financial support for students) to be brought into force by the Welsh Ministers, so far as relating to powers exercisable by them; by the Secretary of State after consulting the Welsh Ministers, so far as relating to powers exercisable by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers concurrently, or by the Secretary of State in relation to Wales; and otherwise by the Secretary of State.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 283, in clause 112, page 61, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Section(Amendments to powers to support research) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment provides for NC7 (which amends powers to support research under the Science and Technology Act 1965 and the Higher Education Act 2004) to come into force 2 months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 7—Amendments to powers to support research.
Joseph Johnson
The majority of research funding is administered by the seven research councils, HEFCE in England and equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations. That will continue with the advent of UKRI. However, an additional proportion of research funding is allocated by Ministers through powers apportioned in section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004. It is under those powers that, for example, BEIS funds the UK Space Agency.
In this Bill, the powers of UKRI to fund research are defined as powers to make
“grants, loans or other payments”
and to set terms and conditions for those—for example, to charge interest. However, there is no equivalent clarity in the 1965 Act and 2004 Act on the funding powers of Ministers. The amendment will ensure there is equivalence between UKRI and Ministers’ powers under those Acts. It will also ensure that Ministers and UKRI are able to make grants, loans or other payments and to specify terms and conditions.
Amendment 283 agreed to.
Amendment made: 118, in clause 112, page 62, line 3, leave out subsection (3)—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 282.
Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Retention of fee related income
“(1) The OfS must pay its fee income to the Secretary of State except to the extent that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, directs otherwise.
(2) “Fee income” means the sums received by the OfS by way of—
(a) fees charged under section 63 (registration fees) or 64 (other fees), or
(b) costs recovered by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(f) or 64(2)(g).
(3) The OfS must pay its other fee related income to the Secretary of State.
(4) “Other fee related income” means the sums received by the OfS by way of—
(a) penalties imposed by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(g) or 64(2)(h), or
(b) interest charged by virtue of regulations made under section 63(2)(i) or 64(2)(j).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion after clause 64, requires the OfS to pay the fees which it receives under clauses 63 and 64, and the costs which it recovers in recovering those fees, to the Secretary of State except to the extent that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, directs otherwise. It also requires the OfS to pay the penalties and interest imposed under those clauses to the Secretary of State.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Joint working
“(1) A relevant authority may exercise any of its functions jointly with another relevant authority if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that it appears to the relevant authorities concerned that exercising the function jointly—
(a) will be more efficient, or
(b) will enable them more effectively to exercise any of their functions.
(3) In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a) the OfS,
(b) UKRI, but only in relation to functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements made under section89,
(c) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
(d) the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council,
(e) the Secretary of State to the extent that the Secretary of State is exercising functions under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc),
(f) the Welsh Ministers to the extent that they are exercising their functions under Part 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (further and sixth form education in Wales), or
(a) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, in relation to funding higher education, or research, in Northern Ireland but only to the extent that the Department is exercising functions in connection with such funding.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(g) “higher education” has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion in Part 4 of the Bill, allows relevant authorities to work together if it appears to them to be more efficient or would allow any of the authorities to exercise their functions more effectively.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Amendments to powers to support research
“(1) In section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (further powers of Secretary of State), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) The power to give financial support under subsection (1)(a) includes, in particular, power to make a grant, loan or other payment, on such terms and conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(1ZB) The terms and conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the relevant authority to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by it if any of the terms and conditions subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with,
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the relevant authority in accordance with any of the terms and conditions remains unpaid, and
(c) require a person to whom financial support is given to provide the relevant authority with any information it requests for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions.
(1ZC) In subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB), ‘the relevant authority’ means—
(a) in the case of the power of the Secretary of State to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of the power of the Welsh Ministers to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in the case of the power of the Scottish Ministers to give financial support under subsection (1)(a), the Scottish Ministers.’
(2) In section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (research in arts and humanities), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(5) The powers under this section to give financial support include, in particular, power to make a grant, loan or other payment, on such terms and conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(6) The terms and conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the relevant authority to require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by it if any of the terms and conditions subject to which the sums were paid is not complied with,
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the relevant authority in accordance with any of the terms and conditions remains unpaid, and
(c) require a person to whom financial support is given to provide the relevant authority with any information it requests for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘the relevant authority’ means—
(a) in the case of the power under subsection (1)(a), the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of the power under subsection (2)(a), the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in the case of the power under subsection (3)(a), the Scottish Ministers;
(d) in the case of the power under subsection (4)(a), the Northern Ireland Department having responsibility for higher education.’”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This new clause, which is for insertion after clause 101, amends section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and section 10 of the Higher Education Act 2004 to make clear that the powers they contain to provide financial support for research include power to make grants, loans or other payments subject to terms and conditions - including those which may require the recipient of support to repay sums, pay interest and provide information.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Pre-commencement consultation
“(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply in relation to a provision of this Act under or by virtue of which the OfS has a function of consulting another person.
(2) At any time before the provision comes into force (and whether before or after the passing of this Act), the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE or any of them acting jointly—
(a) may carry out any consultation that the OfS would have power or a duty to carry out after the provision comes into force, and
(b) for that purpose, may prepare drafts of any documents to which the consultation relates.
(3) At any time after the provision comes into force, the OfS may elect to treat any consultation carried out or other thing done under subsection (2) by the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE (or any of them acting jointly) as carried out or done by the OfS.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to a provision of this Act under or by virtue of which UKRI has a function of consulting another person.
(5) At any time before the provision comes into force (and whether before or after the passing of this Act), the Secretary of State or HEFCE or the Secretary of State and HEFCE acting jointly—
(a) may carry out any consultation that UKRI would have power or a duty to carry out after the provision comes into force, and
(b) for that purpose, may prepare drafts of any documents to which the consultation relates.
(6) At any time after the provision comes into force, UKRI may elect to treat any consultation carried out or other thing done under subsection (5) by the Secretary of State or HEFCE (or the Secretary of State and HEFCE acting jointly) as carried out or done by UKRI.
(7) In this section—
‘the DFA’ means the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education;
‘HEFCE’ means the Higher Education Funding Council for England.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion after clause 106, enables the OfS to rely upon consultation carried out by the Secretary of State, the DFA or HEFCE before the consultation provisions of the Bill come into force as if that consultation were carried out by the OfS under those provisions. It also enables UKRI to rely upon consultation carried out by the Secretary of State or HEFCE before the consultation provisions come into force as if the consultation were carried out by UKRI.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Advice to Northern Ireland departments
“(1) The OfS and UKRI may provide such advisory services as the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland may require in connection with the discharge of the Department’s functions relating to higher education in Northern Ireland.
(2) The services may be provided on such terms as may be agreed.
(3) For the purposes of this section ‘higher education’ has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This clause, which is for insertion in Part 4 of the Bill, makes provision for the OfS and UKRI similar to the provision made in section 69(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 regarding the Higher Education Funding Council for England and allows for the provision of advice to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
De-registration: notification of students
“(1) The governing body of a higher education provider must inform all students enrolled on a course if it—
(a) is notified by the OfS of its intention to suspend the provider’s registration under section 17(1),
(b) is notified by the OfS of its intention to remove it from the register under section 19(1),
(c) is notified by the OfS that it will refuse to approve a new access and participation plan under section 21(2), or
(d) has applied to be removed from the register under section 22(1),
(2) The governing body of an institution must notify students under subsection (1) by the date on which—
(a) the suspension takes effect,
(b) the de-registration takes effect, whether enforced or voluntary, or
(c) the expiry date of any existing access and participation plan that will not be renewed and the period of time for which approval of a new plan will be refused, whichever is applicable”—(Gordon Marsden.)
This amendment would require that any students still undertaking courses at that provider are notified if the provider becomes deregistered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Roger Mullin
I would like to say a few words in praise of the new clause. I have moved 10 amendments today. Many dozens of amendments have been tabled, but I think this is the most important one we face, because this is the one that speaks to who we are as a community and as a people. I would like to praise and thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work the Scottish Government have done in this field. I hope that any civilised society would see the need to support this measure.
Joseph Johnson
I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling this new clause, which relates to access to support for students recognised as needing protection. I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and recognise his commitment to this issue. It is one that is already addressed, however, 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. In addition, we have recently amended the regulations to allow those who have been in the UK as a matter of fact for at least half their lives or at least 20 years to access student support after three years of lawful residence.
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 fees status after only three years’ residence in the UK. 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 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. That important rule establishes that generally the student has a solid connection with the UK before they are entitled to support and home fee rates. The second part of the amendment would, in effect, break that long-established policy by extending support to asylum seekers who have been granted temporary leave to remain only and who have only a recently established and potentially temporary connection to the UK. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw the motion.
Paul Blomfield
I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Minister accurately described the position, which is that those who are granted refugee status gain eligibility from day one and those granted humanitarian protection have to wait three years. Until recently, the UK gave very few people humanitarian protection. The default option was refugee status. However, when the Government introduced the Syrian resettlement programme, they decided to give people five years’ humanitarian protection instead of refugee status, with the rights that that would previously have given them. The Government have never explained why. Humanitarian protection is usually given to those who do not quite meet the strict criteria of the refugee convention, but for whom it is not safe to return home. It cannot be the case that that applies to people brought here under the Government’s own programme for Syrian refugees.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is shaking his head. I therefore wish to press new clause 12 to a vote.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the Committee’s consideration. My final duty is to report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Joseph Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. My Department has today provided the Committee with an assessment of the implications of amendments made during Committee for the territorial extent and application of the Bill and for how it relates to the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations.
I also want to say that I am very pleased that the Bill has been scrutinised so thoroughly and in such a collegiate and generally good-humoured fashion. We sat a little late on Tuesday 11 October but adjourned early on Thursday 13 October and we have now completed the proceedings with four or five minutes to spare.
I thank Committee members personally for giving so much of their time and energy to the scrutiny of the Bill and for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate. We have been listening carefully to all the points made during the Bill’s passage through Committee and are grateful for all the observations, comments and proposed amendments, even if we were not able to accept all of them—
Joseph Johnson
Or indeed any.
We have had a robust and well informed consideration of every part of the Bill, and the Committee has been admirably steered by you, Mr Hanson, and by the other Chairs, particularly Sir Edward Leigh. I pay tribute to the usual channels for the way in which they have co-ordinated our work and ensured that there was proper time for us to scrutinise all the Bill’s provisions fully and carefully.
Lastly, I thank and recognise the hard work of Hansard in recording our deliberations; the Clerks for their advice throughout the Committee stage; and my very hard-working and brilliant officials in the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Last, but by no means least, I thank the Doorkeepers for helping to keep us all in good order.
Gordon Marsden
Further to that point of order, Mr Hanson. I associate myself and my hon. Friends with, if not all the Minister’s comments, certainly those in respect of you and your fellow Chairs. We had an appearance from Mr Christopher Chope as well as seeing Sir Edward, of course.
I pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. Members will know—or might want to take note, because one of these days they might be on the Opposition Benches—that, for the Opposition and Government, the progress of Bill Committees is often like David versus Goliath in terms of the resources available. The Public Bill Office have been scrupulously fair and helpful in that respect, so I pay tribute to its staff.
I also pay tribute to the fantastic contribution of all my hon. Friends among the Opposition and, indeed, to the contribution of the Scottish National party Members, which has been important. We have endeavoured to scrutinise you—not you, Mr Hanson, but the Government, within an inch of their nine lives. We will continue to do so as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
I associate myself with what the Minister said about the efficiency and efficacy of the usual channels. I will not be quoting Enoch Powell’s statement about the Whips. I particularly thank our colleagues from Hansard and the Doorkeepers.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsThursday 13th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2016 - (13 Oct 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 56, page 33, line 31, after “providers” insert
“or linked institutions in relation to such providers”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 90 to 92, 291, and 94 to 101.
Joseph Johnson
It is great to have you back in the Chair, Sir Edward.
These amendments will ensure that premises of all institutions that act on behalf of a provider to deliver higher education courses—for example, as part of a franchising or subcontracting arrangement—are within scope of the powers to enter and search set out in clause 56 and schedule 5. The provision is vital to ensure that all students are protected to the same level. Amendment 291 also makes a small change so that the powers to enter and search cease to apply where the breach is of an initial registration condition.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
May I echo the Minister’s sentiments by saying what a great pleasure it is to have you in the Chair again, Sir Edward?
We welcome the amendments, which put important flesh on the bones and are not simply technical, as some amendments are. They show that the Government have looked at and taken cognisance of the complex structures in which such things can be done and particularly what the National Audit Office said in 2014, when it conducted an inquiry into private higher education providers after concerns were raised relating to support provided to students at some alternative providers.
The provisions in clause 56 address some of those concerns, but the Minister will know—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central talked about this on Tuesday, when discussing new clause 9—that we have in this arena at the moment some very complex business, corporate and judicial arrangements. This is only talking about companies that operate principally in the United Kingdom. I am not saying that every alternative provider in the UK is good or that every alternative provider from outside the UK is bad. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, the more complex the structure, the more opportunities there are for difficulty—I put it no stronger than that.
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend said that some companies are
“less concerned than others with the quality of the offer they make…Theirs is a model in which companies offer a product, and students are then attracted by aggressive marketing…are let down by the quality of provision…and face enormous debts to repay.”—[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 383.]
Of course, those are the worst circumstances. Given the Minister’s eagerness to expand the alternative provider sector, I know he is doing his best to assure us all that this will be the exception rather than the rule, but if we look at what has happened in the United States—the Century scandal and various other problems—we see that the common denominator is complex structures of corporate governance that have allowed some of these abuses to flourish. We therefore welcome the strengthening of the provisions by these amendments.
I refer to the Commons Library briefing, which says:
“The Impact Assessment states that this provision will ‘deter noncompliant behaviour’ and ‘reduce reputation risk’ to the sector. It should also facilitate the recovery of misused public funds.”
The impact assessment says that the provision will reduce those risks, not that it will eliminate them. We therefore believe it is right to proceed on the precautionary principle. We welcome the amendments and will wait to see whether they are adequate for the purpose.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the amendments. We share the same objectives, but I point out that it is not only newer entrants into the sector who require us to have these powers; there have also been instances in what we may regard as the classic university sector that have made it necessary for the powers to be introduced. I draw to his attention some cases we have seen in that part of the sector, which is by no means immune from the kinds of problems we want to ensure we stamp out.
One high-profile case that the hon. Gentleman may well remember in the sector funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England was that of London Metropolitan University, which provided inaccurate data returns to HEFCE, resulting in it receiving significantly more funding than was due. The investigation into concerns about the university was hampered by access issues. HEFCE subsequently decided to recover access funding of £36.5 million over the three years up to and including 2007-08. So I would steer the hon. Gentleman away from the black and white picture of “alternative providers bad, classic sector good”, because it is not as simple as that, as he well knows.
The amendments will ensure that the powers of entry and search are effective and proportionate. I commend them to the Committee.
Amendment 89 agreed to.
Amendment made: 90, in clause 56, page 33, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) A “linked institution” in relation to a supported higher education provider means an institution which acts on behalf of the provider in the provision of a higher education course by the provider.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment extends the power of entry so that it applies to premises occupied by institutions that are linked to supported higher education providers as defined in the amendment. Amendments 89, 91, 92, 94 and 95 are consequential on this change.
Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Powers of entry and search etc
Amendments made: 91, page 77, line 11, after “provider” insert
“or a linked institution in relation to such a provider”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.
Amendment 92, page 77, line 17, after “provider” insert
“or a linked institution in relation to such a provider”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 290, page 77, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) the justice of the peace is satisfied that the use of entry and search powers is the only practicable way for the matter to be investigated.”.
This amendment would allow search and entry powers to be used only in cases where a justice of the peace is satisfied that there was no other practicable way forward.
It is a great pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir Edward.
I say to the Minister at the outset that amendment 290 is a probing amendment to test whether he thinks sufficient safeguards are in place for universities on powers to search and enter premises of higher education providers. I am sure we all agree that where incidents of fraud, financial mismanagement or other illegal behaviour have or are suspected to have occurred, it is exceptionally important that there is a power to investigate allegations in a timely and efficient way, and in some circumstances the use of search and entry powers will be necessary to carry out those investigations. However, there is some anxiety in the university sector that there might not be sufficient safeguards in the Bill on the court process to approve powers of search and entry. The amendment is simply to ask the Minister whether sufficient safeguards are in place, or whether it would be possible to add an additional safeguard of more court oversight.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment and for clarifying its probing nature. I reassure her that her intention is already achieved by schedule 5, which states that in order to issue a warrant a justice of the peace must be
“satisfied that…entry to the premises is necessary to determine whether the suspected breach is taking place or has taken place”.
A warrant may be issued only in relation to a suspected breach that is
“sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises”
and where entry to the premises would be refused or requesting entry would
“frustrate or seriously prejudice the purpose of entry.”
That means, in effect, that a warrant will be granted only when necessary and when it is not practical to enter or request the information on a consensual basis.
The hon. Lady asked what further safeguards there are. Further safeguards are built into the powers of entry and search, including that entry must be
“at a reasonable hour”,
that the warrant must
“identify, as far as possible, the suspected breach of a registration condition or funding condition”,
and the premises may be searched only
“to the extent that is reasonably required for the purposes of determining whether there is, or has been, a breach”.
Warrants granted under the powers will not allow for individuals to be searched. We are confident that those are strong safeguards that effectively ensure that the powers of entry and search can be used only if necessary and if that is the only practicable way for a matter to be investigated.
I agree that it is vital that proper safeguards are in place to ensure that those powers are always used appropriately. I believe that the strong safeguards set out in schedule 5 as drafted achieve that, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard the Minister’s extremely helpful clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 291, in schedule 5, page 77, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment has the effect that the power of entry cannot be exercised in relation to a breach of an initial registration condition.
Amendment 94, in schedule 5, page 78, line 7, after “provider” insert “or linked institution”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.
Amendment 95, in schedule 5, page 78, line 20, after “provider” insert “or linked institution”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.
Amendment 96, in schedule 5, page 79, line 1, after “the” insert “relevant”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.
Amendment 97, in schedule 5, page 79, line 2, leave out “occupying the premises”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.
Amendment 98, in schedule 5, page 79, line 7, after “the” insert “relevant”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.
Amendment 99, in schedule 5, page 79, line 8, leave out “occupying the premises”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.
Amendment 100, in schedule 5, page 81, line 36, at end insert—
““linked institution”, in relation to a supported higher education provider, has the meaning given in section56(3);”.
This amendment defines “linked institution” for the purposes of Schedule 5.
Amendment 101, in schedule 5, page 81, line 36, at end insert—
““relevant supported higher education provider” means—
(a) in the case of premises occupied by a supported higher education provider, that provider, and
(b) in the case of premises occupied by a linked institution in relation to a supported higher education provider, that provider.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment defines “relevant supported higher education provider” in order to identify such providers where a linked institution is occupying the premises. Amendments 96, 97, 98 and 99 are consequential on this change.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57
Power to require information from unregistered providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
I note that subsection (6) of the clause states:
“But nothing in this section authorises the OfS to provide information where doing so contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.”
Can the Minister say whether that alters any of the Department’s current practices for the provision and commercial use of information?
Joseph Johnson
The office for students is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and is not authorised to infringe it. There is no derogation from the provisions of that Act for the OFS, but the OFS is also restricted by the fact that it may share information with another body only if appropriate for the efficient performance of the functions of either the OFS or the other body. As such, the clause allows for close engagement between the OFS and other bodies subject to the Data Protection Act.
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry to press the Minister further, but he elaborates on the purpose of what is said, but does not really answer my question as to whether the Bill will change the status quo and make it easier or more difficult for commercial use to be made of the information in question. Perhaps if he finds it difficult to respond on this occasion, he might like to write to the Committee.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am happy to write to the Committee on that point to clarify my answer, if that would be helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Duty to publish English higher education information
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 292, in clause 59, page 35, line 12, leave out “body” and insert “bodies”.
This amendment would allow for the option of more than one information/data provider in the future.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving his probing amendment. I am grateful for the chance to clarify our intentions.
The amendments seek to allow for more than one designated information body. A core principle of our reforms is to minimise the regulatory burden on providers. Following the principle of gathering information only once, to avoid duplication, we believe it is best for the sector to have only one body designated to collect the information at any one time. Making a single body responsible for higher education data functions replicates the current co-regulated arrangement, which the sector has stated it is keen to see continue, but I assure Members that the OFS will be able to engage with other bodies and to contract out where appropriate, which could be used to assist in running an information campaign for students and prospective students, for example.
Gordon Marsden
I understand that point, and this is one area in which I am not arguing that proliferation or competition would necessarily be a good thing. My only concern is about where that leaves the current arrangements. For example, as I understand it data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency cover the part-time market but UCAS data do not. Where does that leave us regarding which information and data providers such institutions have to engage with?
Joseph Johnson
Our intention in the reforms is merely to replicate the current arrangements, which are working well. There has been no call from providers or the sector generally to have a multitude of bodies designated for the purpose of collecting information. The focus of the data body is very much on the statistics process, not on admissions per se. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
It may be too early in the morning for me because I have still not quite absorbed the full detail of that response, although I am sure it is accurate. However, on the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We can always return to the subject in another place, if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
These amendments also have at their heart the need to reflect and respond to the increasing diversity of higher education students and providers in England. That is why the Open University and one or two other organisations have suggested that it might be helpful to amend clause 59. Their suggestions are embodied in the proposed amendments. We have a lot of sympathy with those organisations’ belief that these changes would lead to a more balanced distribution of effort in the communication of higher education information to prospective students.
The Minister and I have crossed swords—no, not crossed swords; we have talked in a collaborative way about the importance of expanding the opportunities that are given to younger people in both the academic and the vocational arenas. The Minister also spoke the other day about the Government valuing adult students. It is therefore important that the structures for determining how information is published should be available to all people, whatever their age or individual circumstances. That is the purpose of amendment 295.
Again, the amendments are probing. We are not arguing that they need to be in the Bill, but it would be helpful if the Minister commented on whether he considers the existing terminology applying to the duty to be entirely adequate to deal with the changes that he envisages and the existing diversity of higher education students and providers. Perhaps he can indicate, by guidance or other comments, to the bodies coming into operation that the needs of adult students as a very diverse group should be reflected in the mechanisms that reach them.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments. On amendment 293, I assure hon. Members that I entirely agree that careful consideration of where information is published and on what platforms is an essential part of ensuring the publication of information meets the needs of students and those considering higher education. However, clause 59 already requires the OFS to have regard to what, when and how it publishes information in the way most helpful to students; where information is published is implicit within that duty. We fully expect the OFS to ensure that information is published so that all students, school leavers and adult learners have access to it.
I fully support the issues raised in amendment 294 and 295. It will clearly be incredibly important that the OFS operates in the interests of all students, regardless of age or individual circumstances, and I believe the Bill as drafted already achieves that. The drafting of clause 59(5)(a) and (b) is already sufficiently broad to encompass all prospective students, and clause 2 places a general duty on the OFS to promote equality of opportunity for all students. The legislation clearly sets out our firm intention that the OFS will take into account the needs of students and prospective students from all backgrounds across the full range of its activities, including information dissemination.
As for amendments 296 and 297, we have already included in the Bill measures requiring the OFS, when publishing information, to have regard to what would be helpful for registered higher education providers. The OFS will have the discretion to consult any relevant bodies as part of its consultation process, including staff representative bodies, where it considers this appropriate, but we do not think it is for the OFS to separate the interests of providers and their staff members. In most cases, these will align anyway and the interests of staff and what data they need to provide a high-quality experience for their students will be shared with their institution and therefore represented already, but we recognise that there may be instances where higher education employees want corporate information relating to the accountability of their own institution. In such instances, it is a matter of good governance that providers ensure they offer sufficient transparency to their staff on the information that they require. We do not see it as an appropriate responsibility of the OFS or the designated body to intervene in making available provider data to its employers.
Gordon Marsden
I want to press the Minister on the reporting requirements on higher education providers. We have talked about the interests of students, but there is also a key interest in those reporting requirements for the workforce, particularly key workforce data that would assist in ensuring a sustainable sector. This is something that the University and College Union and other organisations representing people employed in the higher education sector are concerned about. Would this, for the sake of argument, include information on insecure contracts and on student and staff ratios?
Joseph Johnson
Those are questions that the OFS will consider when setting out guidance on these matters. It is not for me now to prescribe in detail the kinds of information that would be included in the arrangements. What we are clear about is that the OFS will seek the views of institutions; included in those views will be the interests of the employees of those institutions. We do not want to create an artificial distinction now. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 293.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for that response. It is clearly useful that we have had acknowledged in the debate today the interests of employees in the sector as well as the interests of students. I have heard what he has to say. He can be assured that, as and when the OFS comes into force, we will keep a vigilant eye on it to make sure that it does indeed do what the Minister says he would like it to do, or hopes it will do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Studies for improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness
Gordon Marsden
I assure the Minister that we have no problem with the clause as such; my understanding is that it replicates an existing power held by HEFCE. The clause is perhaps phrased slightly broadly—economy, efficiency and effectiveness can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder rather than subject to detailed metrics. However, mindful of the Government’s wish not to micromanage in this area, I am not going to press the Minister on that.
I am going to ask the Minister this: when replicating a power held by one existing body and assigning it to a new body coming into being—that is going to be a lengthy process, as we know, and we will no doubt discuss it further in Committee—it would be interesting to know what assessment, if any, the Department has made of how effective that power has been prior to now.
Joseph Johnson
This is an important clause. Students invest significantly in their higher education experience and Government continue to make a substantial amount of public money available to higher education providers. It is essential for both students and taxpayers that those providers operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that is exactly what the clause addresses.
The clause gives the OFS the power to conduct efficiency and effectiveness studies of providers and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is precisely the same power as HEFCE has under section 62 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. In answer to his last point, I should say that HEFCE has done a great job as a funding council. This is one of the powers it has used to enable it to make an assessment of the performance of the sector.
Gordon Marsden
No one is here today to pronounce negatively during the funeral rites for HEFCE, but I did ask a very specific question. Before the Department decided to bring forward the clause, which as the Minister rightly says replicates a power held by HEFCE, had it done any assessment as to how effective the power had been in the first place? Do I take it that the answer is no?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have given careful consideration to all the powers HEFCE has, how it uses them and those that are appropriate to map over to the new body. He can take it as read that the fact we have decided to replicate the provisions that apply to HEFCE to the new body—the OFS—means we have undertaken a thorough assessment that it is a relevant power that has been necessary in the past and we expect to continue to be necessary in the future. It is justified, given the investment students and Governments will continue to make in higher education, and I believe the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Does the Minister intend to table regulations or guidance that would make obvious the set of circumstances in which HEFCE might arrange for a study into the efficiency of an organisation? This is not a carte blanche power to go in because it decides on a whim to do a study on a particular institution, because there are grounds for concern that would trigger a study being carried out on a particular institution. Alternatively, is his intention that this should be a carte blanche power and that the OFS can decide one day that it is not sure an institution is being as efficient as it could be, so it will commission a study to look into it? Where is the trigger information, so that we can better understand the use of this power?
Joseph Johnson
We would not expect to set out the precise circumstances governing the use of this power in the Bill, but they will be subject to guidance from the Department to the office for students in the normal manner in due course.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister asks me yet again to trust in the sentiment of what his Department has done, but the answer, I fear, is that there was no specific or distinct assessment of the sort for which I have asked. Nevertheless, I have heard what he has to say. We will see how the transfer operates, and on that basis I am content to leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Other fees
Dr Blackman-Woods
Amendment 239 would add another subsection to clause 64 to give higher education institutions a guarantee in the Bill that costs would not be applied to them, through the fee regime, that should not be borne by them. For example, if a problem in one institution meant that the OFS had particularly burdensome costs, it could not in some way average those costs out across other institutions—ones that were not “guilty” of whatever the activity was. It is not absolutely clear in clause 64 that higher education institutions would be protected from that sort of practice, and I am not sure that schedule 7 protects them, either, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten me further about that.
The Minister will know that this concern was raised by the University Alliance. In its written evidence to the Committee, it was clear that it thought that it would be very unfair for well managed and high performing HEIs to pick up costs relating to others that might be in breach of a particular provision. With the amendment, we are asking that it be explicit somewhere in the Bill that only fees relating to the activities of that institution can be applied to it.
Amendment 240 would amend the Bill so that the Government, not universities, were responsible for the set-up and running costs of the OFS. The reason for that is primarily that so much of the income that goes into universities now comes from students themselves. Often when Government Members are talking about universities, there seems to be a belief that there is this huge body. I am not saying that public money does not go into universities. Of course, some public money does, but it is now only a fraction of the running costs of universities.
One reason why the Minister has argued for putting up fees is that universities need more income from fees if they are to be able to run properly. Most of their income comes from fees, so if the OFS is funded by universities, actually students are paying for it or a huge part of it—not only for the set-up costs, but the running costs. If students were asked whether they wanted the costs of the whole regulatory regime for universities and everything else that goes with the OFS to be borne by them, or substantially borne by them, they would not be very happy. I hope that the Minister is open to listening to the case for a much fairer system. Students already have a lot of costs.
Interestingly, according to the screen in the room, the Government are asking universities to put a lot of money into setting up and running grammar schools and all sorts of other schools. Who is paying for that activity? It will be borne predominantly by students. I do not mean the running costs of the schools, but the setting-up cost will be borne largely by students because students are largely funding the sector. It seems totally unfair that the Government have come up with this new regime but do not seem happy to put their hand in their own pocket and pay for it. That is not a reasonable course of action.
The Government are not clear in clause 66 or schedule 7 what the Secretary of State will actually be making grants for. I suggest the Minister tells his right hon. Friend that if the Government are serious about making the system work properly and not putting additional costs on students, who are already carrying a very big burden of paying for university, a very good use of money would be ensuring that grants were made available to the OFS on a regular and timely basis to cover running and set-up costs.
Joseph Johnson
The OFS has the power to charge other fees beyond the registration fee, in recognition of the fact that it may deliver specific services and one-off processes that would not apply to the majority of providers. That is a fair approach, meaning that providers that require a particular additional service are those that will be charged for it. As an example, the OFS may look to charge for the process of commissioning a registered higher education provider to validate other HE providers’ taught awards and foundation degrees.
Ultimately, the exact detail of what other fees may pay for is to be determined, but we have made clear that fees should be charged only on a cost recovery basis. I would also like to assure Members that any other fees made via the provision would be part of the overall fee regime, on which we will be consulting this autumn. As such, they would require Treasury consent and be included in regulations subject to the negative procedure before they could be brought into force.
On amendment 239, let me start by assuring Members that there is no intention to use the powers under clause 64 to charge other fees for a different service or activity that is not related to the particular service or activity for which the other fee has been charged. However, it is important that we allow the OFS sufficient flexibility in setting charges for each individual additional activity or service that attracts other fees, so that it is either able to set a flat rate where that makes most sense administratively or to vary fees according to the size of a provider, where there are grounds for doing so on the basis of access and affordability.
Subsection (3) enables cross-subsidy between charges relating to the same services or activities. In doing so, it is clear that the clause does not enable cross-subsidy between additional charges for different services or activities. Amendment 239 would prevent the OFS from charging on any basis other than the specific costs incurred by each individual provider and might affect the OFS’s ability to build cover into the fee regime for overhead costs relating to the specific activity being charged for. That clearly works against the rationale for enabling a fair element of cross-subsidy within the main registration fee under clause 63.
On the hon. Lady’s points about set-up and transition costs, I entirely sympathise with the principle that students should not pay for the set-up costs of the OFS. Let me assure the Committee that we will consider areas where Government may provide supplementary funding to the OFS, including to ensure that students do not incur the additional costs associated with transition to the new regulator. That will form part of our upcoming consultation on registration fees.
It is, however, our intention that once the new system is in place, providers will share the running costs of the new regulator with the Government, which will bring the model into line with that of other established regulators that are co-funded through a combination of fees charged on the sectors they regulate and funding from Government. It will also make the funding of HE regulation more sustainable, reducing the reliance on Government grant, and create an incentive for providers to hold the new regulator to account for its efficiency.
Joseph Johnson
These are questions that will be covered extensively in the consultation that the OFS will hold on the fee structure that it will implement in due course. Questions relating to the weighting of the fee according to the size of the provider will certainly be an important part of the consultation.
We recognise the importance of working collaboratively with the sector to shape the final design of the charging structure. That is why we have not set out the detail of the fee regime in the Bill. We intend to consult, as I have said, in the autumn, so this will be developed with HE providers and other interested parties in due course.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I seek clarification. The Minister said in his earlier remarks, if I heard him right, that the Government are seeking to replicate existing arrangements as far as possible. The comparison between HEFCE and the OFS is obvious, and yet there seems to be a new financial arrangement being put in place where universities share the running costs, so the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham that we are imposing that as an additional cost on students are valid. Have I misunderstood that? Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has got it right. We are asking the sector to share in the running costs of the regulatory structure, as is common in many other regulated sectors of the economy. It is in the students’ interest—
Joseph Johnson
No, I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, if I can.
It is in the students’ interest that institutions are properly regulated through an efficient and cost-effective system, which is what we are setting out to deliver through these reforms. This is in line, as I have said, with other regulated sectors where consumers indirectly fund the cost of regulation. For example, Ofgem recovers its costs from the licensed companies that it regulates, which pass on costs to consumers through their energy bills. The crucial thing is that we have made it very clear throughout that any fee should be fair and proportionate, not creating disproportionate barriers to entry and not disadvantaging any category of provider.
We will therefore explore options for the use of Government funding to supplement the registration fee income. For example, there may be an argument for the Government to help meet a new provider’s regulatory costs in its early years and to cover the transitional cost, as I have already said, of moving to the new regulatory structure. The Government have already committed to fund the teaching excellence framework—the TEF—that the OFS will operate. So it is in the students’ interests that providers are properly regulated through an efficient and cost-effective system, which is what we are setting out to deliver.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Given that student fees will be funding the new regulator, and given the Minister said it is in the students’ interests, students will be better assured that the regulator is serving their interests if they are represented on the board of the regulator.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman returns to one of his favourite themes. We are ensuring that the student interest will be properly represented, and better represented than it ever has been in the system’s regulatory structures. Schedule 1, which we have discussed extensively already, makes provision for the Secretary of State to ensure that he has regard to the desirability of people on the OFS board having experience of representing student interest, and they will do that effectively.
Gordon Marsden
I intervene to amplify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North. The Minister made reference—off the cuff, I assume—to Ofgem. He said it was entirely reasonable that Ofgem recovered costs from its providers, which is all well and good, but Ofgem does not recover costs from the employees of the providers, which is essentially the principle on which he appears to be operating.
Joseph Johnson
I am sorry, but I simply do not follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Does he want to explain further?
Gordon Marsden
I am more than happy to. The Minister said a few moments ago, and prayed in aid, that in his view it was reasonable for students to bear some of the costs on this issue by referring to Ofgem. If I heard him correctly, he said that in other areas Ofgem recovers costs from its providers. The Minister is not making a correct analogy. Ofgem may recover money and costs from its providers, but it does not recover the costs from either the employees of the providers or, for that matter, the consumers of material that the providers provide. The Minister is asking students to chip in to that process. The analogy is flawed.
Joseph Johnson
I am not sure it is flawed. I think the hon. Gentleman has not understood the points his colleagues are making; that is the thrust of it. To help him on this, the point his colleagues are making is that providers are being asked to pay a registration fee, and that universities or HEIs draw income from a multitude of sources, one of the most important of which is tuition fees—therefore students, indirectly, will be contributing to the pot of resources that enable providers to pay their registration fees. That is the thrust of the point his colleagues were making. Employees of the higher education institutions are not making any contribution. I think he has misunderstood the point his colleagues were making.
Joseph Johnson
Employees of Ofgem, equally, are not making a contribution to the cost of running Ofgem. He is getting completely muddled.
Joseph Johnson
The analogy is perfectly reasonable: a regulator is charging a registration fee to the beneficiaries of its regulation. The end users of the service or product are ultimately indirectly contributing towards the cost of the benefits of running the regulator.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend; now is not the time to be talking about the proportions between who is paying what, when and how. However, will he confirm that, in the consultation, the proportions between what the state will be paying and what the providers will be paying will be decided at that stage?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, that is exactly right and I have already given some examples of some of the areas in which the Government will want to be making a contribution towards the overall costs of the regulatory framework.
I assure hon. Members that the power under clause 66 is about enabling the Government to express their funding priorities. This recognises that in a world where we set maximum fees, Government need to ensure that they can direct money to some high-cost courses to ensure it remains viable for providers to teach them. Amendment 240 would prevent this. It would also have a further particularly unwelcome, and I am sure unintended, effect in that it would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make teaching grant to the OFS and replace it with an ability to make grant only for the OFS’s set-up and running costs. That would remove the OFS’s ability to fund activity such as high-cost science, technology, engineering and maths courses or widening participation.
Amendment 240 would undermine the sustainability of our HE funding system, to the detriment of students. Further, we are taking the opportunity in this legislation to refresh the protections for academic freedom so that they are appropriate for today’s circumstances. I ask the hon. Member for City of Durham to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
If I heard the Minister correctly, he confirmed that I am right to be anxious about what is happening with regard to clause 64. I think he said that there would be overhead charges arising from the activity of all the institutions that would then be borne by each one individually. So there could be additional charges in that overhead fee because it proves extremely difficult to get information from some institutions or the OFS wants to have a lot of specific projects relating to specific institutions. Perhaps that is not what the Minister meant, but it seems that subsection (3) is being used to allow some cross-subsidy—that is the term he used. I am extremely concerned about that, as are a number of institutions.
What is the limit on that cross-subsidy? That is an incredibly unfair and probably, in the long run, unworkable system. I expect that a lot of HEIs will not be happy at all to be charged what they see as a fairly high overhead charge for services or activities that have nothing to do with them as an institution. I am happy for the Minister to correct me, if he wants to.
Joseph Johnson
I am happy to try to provide further reassurance on this point, if I did not do so sufficiently the first time round. It is our intention that the registration fee will be fair, proportionate and affordable for providers. With that in mind, we will explore options for Government funding to supplement the fee income that the OFS receives from providers. We have already committed the OFS to fund, for example, the teaching excellence framework.
An element of cross-subsidy can be a sensible means of achieving a balanced approach to cost recovery across the sector and is well established in other charging systems. For example, subscription fees paid to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education currently pay for more than the benefits providers receive and cover other costs, such as running and infrastructure costs and international work conducted by the QAA on behalf of the sector. Having this element of overhead covered by charges is therefore something that the sector is familiar and comfortable with.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes, but the QAA is about quality assurance; it is not a regulator in that sense. The point I am trying to make with amendment 239 is that institutions need to be protected from bearing costs created by one or a group of other institutions. At this point, the types of activity that will feed into the overhead charge are not clear.
Rather than labour the point, I would like the Minister to take on board these anxieties—which are, after all, not only ours, but have been put in written evidence to the Committee from one of the university mission groups—and see if anything could be added to the Bill or come subsequently in regulations that would give institutions more assurance that they will not have charges levied on them that are created by some other group of institutions or another individual institution. I will beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 239.
The exact wording of amendment 240 might not be exactly right, but the sentiment behind it is that students should not be paying substantially for the OFS, which is what they will do. The Minister might think it is in students’ interests for them to pay for the OFS, but I do not. It is in students’ interests that the OFS is there and operates effectively and efficiently, but it is quite a big leap to say that they should therefore pay for it. Student loans are already an onerous charge for our students. They often come out of university with debts in excess of £40,000, and simply putting up the fees in order to pay for more and more of the whole sector is not something we should support.
Joseph Johnson
I will have a go. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are riddled with internal contradictions, unfortunately. He started by saying that transition costs are high. Indeed, they are £8.2 million in the first year of the operation of the office for students in 2018-19. Inevitably, given that the Government are committing to paying for the transition costs, their share of the OFS’s overall costs will be higher in the initial year than in subsequent years. That is why, as he rightly identified, there is a decline in the Government’s share of the overall tab being picked up. If he did not understand it, that is the reason why—
Joseph Johnson
I am going to press on, because I have a number of other points to make. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong that this cost will necessarily fall on students. As he well knows, the sector has significant income from a variety of sources. Many universities also have scope to make potentially significant efficiency savings in how they operate. The idea that all costs will necessarily be shunted directly on to students is ridiculous.
The hon. Gentleman needs to get this into proportion. He should be aware that the sector’s overall income is in the order of £30 billion a year. We are talking about asking the universities to take some of the burden off the general taxpayer, who will otherwise have to meet this cost, by making a contribution in the order of £15 million in the first year. He needs to get his arguments into some sense of proportion.
Joseph Johnson
No, I will keep on going. Creating the office for students is about improving the regulatory system and creating a stable, level playing field for providers. The OFS will operate on a sector-funded model, with co-funding from Government, bringing the funding approach in line with that of other regulators. The Bill will enable that, granting the OFS the powers to charge providers registration fees and other fees to cover the costs of its functions.
Joseph Johnson
No, I think we have had enough on this, so I am going to carry on. The OFS’s power to charge other fees under clause 64 will allow it to charge for specific services and one-off processes that would not apply to all providers in a registration category.
Gordon Marsden
On a point of order, Sir Edward. This is a disgrace. The debate is about significant interpretation of statistics. The Minister is attempting to present his case and is referring to points that my hon. Friends and I have made. It is, at the very least, a lack of courtesy for him not to allow us to question him further on those statistics.
The Chair
Unfortunately, I cannot rule on questions of courtesy. If the Minister wants to give way, he can give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak after the Minister, to get his point across, I am happy to facilitate that.
Joseph Johnson
Thank you, Sir Edward.
We would not want to specify in primary legislation a full list of the services, but they could include work that the OFS does in future on validation with individual providers or support on specific investment plans that require additional financial brokering and due diligence.
On new clause 2 and the retention of fee-related income, the Bill as drafted provides only that the OFS’s income will be paid into the consolidated fund. On reflection, that is too blunt an approach and is not in line with best practice elsewhere. We think it should be possible for the OFS to retain some of these costs, but only in certain cases, where the Secretary of State agrees to it with the explicit consent of the Treasury. The new clause takes a best practice approach, aligning the legislation with standard Treasury guidance.
Gordon Marsden
Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to reply on this matter. It is a matter of much regret that the Minister is so uncertain in his statistics that he is not prepared to take interventions from the floor on these specific issues.
I repeat the points that we have made, and I will address one of them. The Minister talks about the total Government support and the transition figure being taken out. That makes it all the more remarkable, given that the transition funding is being taken out, that the Government are not proposing to increase their share of the pot.
The Minister talks about small amounts of money and trifles, as he regards them, in regard of the university sector. I repeat, in case the Minister did not hear, that the estimate for total Government support—the money that the Government are putting in 2019-20—is only £8 million. The amount of money they expect the sector to put in is £24.4 million, which is a ratio of 3:1. That completely demolishes the Minister’s suggestion that this is a fair and equitable process.
In papers such as this document there would normally be some contingency funding element. There is no contingency funding element in there at the moment. We can only take these figures at face value. What they say is that the Government think that the new OFS structure is going to be such a rip-roaring success for universities that by the second year universities will be happy or content, or it will be useful to them, to provide 75% of the costs and the Government only 25%.
There are no contingency figures for problems. There are no contingency figures for success. What if these new providers all get going very quickly as well as the registration facilities and everything else of the OFS? We do not know what the state of Government will be in 2019-20 or beyond. This is a completely unacceptable premise on which to proceed financially and economically, let alone on grounds of justice or the effect on students.
This is a mess. The Minister is welcome to intervene on me if he wishes as he has not responded to my question on whether the figures or any part of the document was revised after the Brexit referendum. He knows as well as I do that the implications of Brexit on the higher education sector will be substantial. Yet he has not said a word about it. He is welcome to intervene and tell me whether this has been revised or not, and if not, why not.
Gordon Marsden
There we are. One of the most significant issues in British politics in recent years, having massive effects on all parts of our economy including higher education, yet his Department sat there and did nothing—absolutely nothing—with this document. We are expected to hear from the Minister that it will be all right on the night. Well, we do not believe it will be all right on the night and nor does the university sector. I and my hon. Friends do not see why students in principle, let alone in practice, should be expected to bear the load for a significant amount of that money. On that basis, we oppose clause 64.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsThursday 13th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2016 - (13 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 162. One interesting thing about the Bill is that in a number of provisions—clauses 2, 35, 66 and 69 and schedule 1—it seeks to include some protection for academic freedom. It says that
“the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect academic freedom, including, in particular, the freedom of English higher education providers…to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed…to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of academic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, and…to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.”
That is all very well, but this set of circumstances is interesting in that it is very limited and therefore does not embrace the whole of academic activity.
The reason why I have tabled the amendment, which is actually to clause 77, is to ensure that there is a definition of what the Government mean by “academic freedom” in the Bill. It may be that the Minister thinks that that is clear enough or it has been dealt with elsewhere. I am suggesting with the amendment that academic freedom could be defined by using section 43 of the Education (No. 2 Act) 1986, because it says:
“(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies”—
that includes universities—
“shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes…the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—
(a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or
(b) the policy or objectives of that body.”
The Minister may not like that definition, but I am very open to his bringing forward other definitions. The point that I am trying to make is that the set of circumstances described in the Bill is too narrow to give sufficient reassurance to all academics and visiting lecturers that they will have some protection for academic freedom.
I appreciate that this is a difficult area, and it is becoming more and more difficult because universities have to balance protecting academic freedom with ensuring that there is no incitement to hatred on any of the grounds that are unlawful. I appreciate that it is not easy, but when we are talking about academic freedom in primary legislation, we must all be clear about what we mean by academic freedom and the totality of the circumstances to which it will be applied.
I also say to the Minister that many academics, particularly from European countries, are feeling very anxious. They are particularly concerned at the moment that their activities will be subject to a level of scrutiny that perhaps will not apply to others and that it might be grounds for asking them to leave. They are just feeling very insecure, so anything that the Minister can do to help them to feel more secure, to balance the very difficult situation that I have identified and to put something helpful in the Bill, would be very much welcomed.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
Academic freedom is one of the fundamental strengths of our higher education system. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Blackpool South to find the best way of protecting it, and I sympathise with the motivation behind amendments 299 and 301, which seek to enhance the protections for academic freedom already in the Bill.
The language used in the Bill is based on the protections in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which have successfully ensured for nearly a quarter of a century that HE institutions can develop and teach entirely free from political interference. That approach has proved to be robust over time and, in our view, it is the best way of ensuring that academic freedom is protected in the future. The Bill preserves academic freedom as a broad general principle, with specific areas of protection explicitly and unequivocally set out. By contrast, defining academic freedom too tightly would risk limiting its meaning and, by extension, limiting the Bill’s protections.
The Bill imposes the first statutory duty on the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the need to protect academic freedom”
whenever he or she issues guidance, conditions of grant or directions to the office for students. It introduces a set of protections for academic freedom that apply comprehensively to the ways in which the Government can influence how the OFS operates. It refreshes and reinforces the current protections for academic freedom, ensuring that they are fit for our HE system today and are sufficiently robust to last for decades into the future. Although I completely agree with the intention behind the amendments, I do not think that they add anything practical to the Bill’s thorough and comprehensive approach to protecting academic freedom.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South raised the question of staff. The Bill supports the academic freedom of staff at HE institutions by giving the OFS the power to impose a public interest governance condition on registered providers, as we discussed when we debated clause 14. Providers subject to such a condition will have to ensure that their governing documents include the principle that academic staff have freedom within the law to question received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial opinions without fear of losing their job or their privileges. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is a vital principle, which is exactly why the Government have ensured that it must be included as a component of the condition set out in clause 14.
Amendment 162 would define academic freedom differently, by referencing section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which is a provision about freedom of speech and in particular about the obligation of certain HE institutions to
“take…steps…to ensure that freedom of speech…is secured for…students and employees…and for visiting speakers.”
Defining academic freedom in that way would introduce a lack of clarity and would not adequately capture what the Bill seeks to protect.
Our approach in the Bill is absolutely clear that academic freedom must be protected. It also sets out comprehensively the areas in which the Government must not interfere:
“the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed…the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of…staff…the criteria for the admission of students”
and the application of those criteria in particular cases.
I remind the Committee what Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, stated in his evidence on this point:
“I also particularly like the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22-23, Q32.]
Amendment 162—inadvertently, I am sure—would actually weaken the protection the Bill provides for academic freedom. I ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his considered and measured response to amendment 299. It was helpful of him to elaborate some of those key issues in the way he did. As I have said previously, I am mindful of the fact that these things are extremely difficult to define comprehensively on the face of a Bill, but I welcome the direction of travel in respect of the issue we have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham can speak for herself, but the Minister is right to say that she has raised a separate issue. As I am satisfied with the Minister’s response to my amendments, I am content to withdraw them.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I listened to what the Minister had to say. I am not particularly allied to that specific form of words, but, as the Bill mentions academic freedom so much, there should be something in it about what it encompasses. I leave the Minister to reflect on that.
I have one further question. The clauses that refer to academic freedom mention the courses and
“the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed”.
If they are taught in part through a programme of visiting lecturers, does freedom of speech apply to those lectures? The point of my question was to ascertain whether the Bill should to go beyond academic freedom to include freedom of speech. If the intention was to limit that because of other legislation, which is absolutely right and fair, there should be some clarity from the Government on that.
Joseph Johnson
I assure the hon. Lady that, yes, the Bill would cover the circumstances she described.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 104, in clause 66, page 39, line 29, leave out “or” and insert “and”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment and amendment 106 make the language used in clauses 66(3)(a) and 69(2)(a) consistent with that used in equivalent provision in clauses 2(3)(a) and 35(1)(a) and make clear that they cover the manner in which courses are taught, the manner in which they are supervised and the manner in which they are assessed.
Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
regulatory framework
Joseph Johnson
The amendment raises issues that we have previously debated in broad principle, so my arguments will not be unfamiliar to the hon. Gentleman. The clause sets out how the OFS must prepare and publish a regulatory framework, which in turn details how it will regulate higher education providers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the importance of ensuring that the OFS consults appropriate groups before publishing such a key document. The requirement to consult will help to ensure that the way the OFS intends to regulate and carry out its functions is transparent, proportionate and risk based.
Clause 67 already places a requirement on the OFS to consult bodies representing the interests of providers and of students on higher education courses and
“such other persons as it considers appropriate”
before publishing its regulatory framework. Although it will be for the OFS to decide who to consult and for representative bodies to decide how to respond, we expect the interests of providers—as I said in an earlier response—to encompass the interests of the staff at those providers. In addition, as clause 67 already provides for the OFS to consult any other persons as it considers appropriate, it is already drafted in such a way as to give the OFS discretion to consult HE staff. Given the wide range of issues that the OFS’s regulatory framework will cover and the requirement already in the Bill for the OFS to consult anyone it considers appropriate, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister said that since we had already been around this track, the arguments that he was going to put would not be unfamiliar to me, and he will not be unfamiliar with my response. It is a great shame, as the amendment would strengthen, rather than diminish, the Government’s position and credibility with those groups. Clearly, we are not going to agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 105, in clause 67, page 41, line 4, leave out subsection (10).—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment removes clause 67(10) which contains a definition of a term which is not used in clause 67 and is therefore unnecessary.
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
My question is fairly straightforward and simple. I refer the Minister to subsections (5), (6) and (7). I am assuming that those provisions give powers to the Secretary of State to restrict direct funding that would come, under normal circumstances, to a provider from the Secretary of State via the OFS, rather than supplying further money in any circumstances. Is that correct?
Joseph Johnson
The clause effectively replicates the powers that the Secretary of State has in relation to HEFCE at the moment under section 81 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, but with an important difference that I want to flag. The clause applies the same protection to issuing directions as clause 66 does in relation to conditions of grant, that is to say, in issuing general directions, Ministers must have regard for the need to protect academic freedom and cannot set directions in terms of course content, teaching methods, who HE providers employ or who they admit as students. That is a new and additional protection, compared with current legislation. As with section 81 of the 1992 Act, directions under this clause are subject to parliamentary oversight via the negative procedure. To give the hon. Gentleman a feel of how we intend use these powers, we expect they would be deployed in the most exceptional circumstances. In fact, the equivalent powers in the 1992 Act have never been used.
Those exceptional circumstances might, for example, include the OFS’s refusal to follow Ministers’ injunctions where a particular provider was involved in financial mismanagement. We believe the clause to be necessary if we are to ensure that such a situation does not arise.
Gordon Marsden
So the purpose of the clause, in those exceptional circumstances to which the Minister referred, is to stop the provision of further financial support.
Joseph Johnson
Yes, indeed. That is certainly the intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Power to require information or advice from the OfS
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 302, in clause 70, page 42, line 32, at end insert—
‘( ) Any information received by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must be made publicly available.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish any information it receives from the OfS under section 70.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who also put her name to this, may wish to add to my contribution. I do not want to detain the Committee for long. The amendment expresses again our sense that we need to make it clear in the Bill that there will be greater transparency and scrutiny of the sector by stakeholders and parliamentarians. I say that in support of the establishment of the office for students and its bona fides in the wider world rather than to undermine it. Any new organisation, certainly in its first years, should be as transparent as possible.
I think it was Edmund Burke who famously said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The price of new institutions in the 21st century, to have credibility and be acceptable, is eternal transparency. This would be a good place to start. That is why we propose that the Bill should include the requirement that the Secretary of State publish any information received from the OFS under clause 70.
Joseph Johnson
I sympathise with the amendment’s intention; that is, the desire for greater openness in the policy-making process. However, I fear that, instead of promoting openness, the amendment risks inadvertently creating a more closed, less honest decision-making process, and may have further unintended consequences.
The Government will request information from the OFS to help reach policy decisions. Those decisions will inevitably require difficult judgments about how to prioritise funding. As an independent regulator, the OFS needs to have the confidence to be able to speak freely and frankly to Ministers. It will not be able to do that if all those conversations have to happen in public through this publication requirement.
Requiring all information received under this provision to be made public risks inhibiting how the OFS responds to requests for information. I believe that would have damaging consequences for how the OFS interacts with Government, making that interaction guarded and less than wholly frank. It also risks damaging the policy-making process, with decisions made on partial rather than comprehensive information.
There are parallels here with the Freedom of Information Act, which provides exemptions to ensure free and frank discussions during the policy-making process. Let me assure the Committee that the OFS, as a public authority, will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, just as the Government are now, allowing individuals to request information subject to the statutory exemptions.
In addition, some of the information the OFS will give to Government may be sensitive, for example, relating to its own staff or to the financial affairs of HE providers. Publishing that information may infringe people’s privacy or put a provider at a competitive disadvantage.
Clause 59 places a statutory duty on the OFS or an appropriately designated body to publish information and requires the OFS to consult students and other stakeholders about what information it should publish, when and how. We believe that that provision will ensure that all the information that students and others need will be in the public domain.
I understand and sympathise with the motivation of the hon. Member for Blackpool South in tabling the amendment, but I none the less ask him to withdraw it in the light of the explanations that I have given.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response. He gave a measured and balanced analysis of the eternal argument about the amount of real-time disclosure that there should be as opposed to other issues. I say again that perhaps staying in this place for a longish time increases one’s scepticism about the arguments for commercial sensitivity. If many of us had £1 for every time we did not get a response from a Department on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, we would be rich, but there we are. I understand the Minister’s points. I am not entirely sure that I agree that the balance is right, particularly in the first years of a new body, but it is a fine judgment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Power to require application-to-acceptance data
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 71, page 42, line 38, leave out “in” and insert “for”.
This amendment clarifies the language in relation to qualifying research.
The amendment is minor and technical. It ensures that the language in the clause reflects the clear intention to use application-to-acceptance data for the purpose of qualifying research as defined in subsection (4). That is consistent with our stated policy intention.
Amendment 107 agreed to.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 306, in clause 71, page 43, line 13, after “Secretary of State” insert
“providing that it demonstrates a potential public benefit.”
This amendment means that the Secretary of State can only require a body to provide research if is in the public interest to do so.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to support my hon. Friend’s amendment, and to try to draw out from the Minister any other comments he might wish to make specifically on the impact of clauses 71 and 72. Again, I am not implying that there are any sinister motives involved; it is the law of unintended consequences that needs to be guarded against, once again.
My hon. Friend obviously referred to the “capacity” of UCAS to deal with the implications of the two clauses, and it is not for me to comment on that. However, I will pick up on the point she made about data protection, because I have received representations from various parties. The gist of them seems to be that without some clarification of or change to these two clauses, there is a danger—I put it no more strongly than that—that these clauses would give the state access to all university applicants’ full data in perpetuity, for users who would only be defined as “researchers” and without “research” being defined at all; that might be capable of being changed under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Therefore, there are significant concerns that the safeguards need to be stronger to ensure that the clauses are not misused by others and that scope changes are not made in the future. One example that has been given to me is the suggestion that if this database is opened up, and subsequently shared via proposals in the Digital Economy Bill, there is a possibility that the entire nation’s education data from the age of two to 19 could be joined to university data, which of course is then joined to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Alternatively, it could be joined to HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions afterwards, without there being sufficient safeguards or oversight for other uses designated by the Secretary of State.
I accept that this is a complex and difficult area and we are in real time here—the Digital Economy Bill is moving ahead. But in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has said, could the Minister reflect on this? He or his officials might wish to have discussions with his colleague taking forward the Digital Economy Bill, because there is genuine concern out there. I am not necessarily saying the nightmare vision of everybody from two to 19 having all their data exposed to anybody in the way described will come to pass, but if there are genuine, legitimate concerns—my hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these areas and has already referred to them—the precautionary principle might apply.
I would welcome any further reassurance the Minister can give; if he does not wish, or is not able, to give that reassurance today, perhaps he will be able to give more information before the end of Committee stage, or shortly subsequent to it.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these amendments to clause 71. As I have said before, the Government attach great importance to widening participation in higher education as a means of improving social mobility. Access to application-to-acceptance data, and a better understanding of those data, is vital if we are to have more effective policies, as commentators such as the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission have stated. Indeed, the director of research at the Sutton Trust has said that
“there is much more we can learn about the choices that disadvantaged young people make on higher education with better data. The Ucas database can do a lot to improve what we know about that decision-making process.”
Taking amendment 306 first, I stress that public interest is at the heart of the clause and that is why it is in the Bill. I assure the Committee that any research undertaken using the data made available under clause 71 would be into topics in the public interest, such as equality of opportunity and what drives social mobility. An example might be longitudinal studies looking at the impact of choices made during school years, through higher education, to employment outcomes. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said that the availability of UCAS data is essential to help us refine our policies to advance social mobility, which is a goal all members of this Committee share.
These data will help us build a richer picture of the impact of decisions made by prospective students, with a view to refining and improving Government policy. If merged with other datasets in the future, it will provide a broader view than we have at present. For example, we may be able to calculate more clearly the economic benefits of being a graduate. In addition, clause 72(2)(c) prohibits the publication of any report that includes information that may be regarded as commercially sensitive, and clause 72(2)(b) prevents the publication of any report that may lead to the disclosure of an individual’s identity. So there are clear constraints as to what can and cannot be published following the data being made available for research purposes. Given that, we believe the amendment is not necessary.
Turning to amendments 307 and 308, I assure the Committee that the information we are seeking to share is already routinely collected and held by bodies such as UCAS in carrying out its admissions functions. So this should not cause a significant extra burden, and restricting the Government’s ability to request data could limit the development of social mobility policies unacceptably.
However, in drafting legislation we need to consider both current developments and possible changes in the future. Although we anticipate requesting these data on only an annual basis, in standard formats, in a way that broadly reflects current admissions cycles, we already know that some parts of the sector are moving away from the annual admissions cycle, as discussed in earlier debates, towards a more flexible process with multiple admissions dates—a move I know is very much welcomed by all hon. Members.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not rise to oppose the principle that the Higher Education Funding Council for England should cease to exist, as that would blow a large hole in the Bill—I am sure he would not wish that to happen, and I would not necessarily wish it to happen, either—but I want to tease out some of the implications of that process.
I refer all members of the Committee back to the original White Paper, which was produced in May. Chapter 3 was intriguingly titled “Architecture”—whether it is classical or brutalist I leave for future generations to judge—and the chapter summary included a rather arresting phrase:
“The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA)”—
the Committee will be relieved to know that I am not going to talk about the Office for Fair Access—
“will be dissolved following creation of the OfS.”
Leaving aside the image of mad scientists and test tubes created by the dissolution, I want to raise a serious and practical point in the context of what the White Paper said at an earlier point, on page 51, about the teaching excellence framework.
What are the implications of what I can only describe as the interesting ménage à trois, which will continue for some time, between HEFCE, the QAA and the OFS—with OFFA being a peeping Tom, if we want to continue the metaphor? What will that mean in practical terms for the administration of these important processes?
This is for illustration—let us not reopen the debate about the TEF—but paragraph 20 states:
“In Year One, where the TEF does not involve a separate assessment process, the Government will publish a list of…eligible providers who have had a successful QA assessment and therefore have achieved a rating of Meets Expectations.”
Of course, that has now been changed. Paragraph 20 continues:
“From Year Two onwards, TEF will be delivered by HEFCE working in collaboration with QAA, until such time as the OfS is established. After this point, the OfS will deliver TEF.”
It is the process over those three years and what the relationship between all these various bodies will be in practical terms that concerns me most. The process would concern me in any case, whatever the broader political context—I am sorry if the Minister inwardly groans when I refer to Brexit again—but I am concerned about that two-and-a-half or three-year period. I assume, although he might wish to correct me, that it is expected that the OFS will deliver TEF from 2019. That is how it looks at the moment but, as has already been discussed—most people, whatever their views, recognise this—those two or three years will be a period of considerable turmoil for our institutions and the way they are regarded in the outside world in the context of the Brexit negotiations, which may very well mirror that period.
I am deeply concerned, as are others—this has been mentioned to me by numerous vice-chancellors and other people who are concerned—that if we do not have a bit more clarity about how the relationship between HEFCE and the OFS is going to work in the transition period and where the QAA stands in all of this, that will not be good for the reputation of our universities internationally or for establishing the OFS on a clear footing. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to give a long exegesis on this today, but would be helpful if he gave at least some indication of how he sees those bodies interacting in that period and, in particular, what the implications are for the staffing and the resources of those different organisations, given the conversations and discussions we had earlier.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. We are obviously giving considerable and careful thought to the transition from HEFCE to the OFS, and we have been doing so since the start of our reform process, with the Green Paper last November and the White Paper, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In the White Paper, we say clearly that the OFS will be established in 2018-19, and that it will deliver the teaching excellence framework from that date. That perhaps gives the impression that it is going to be an abrupt movement of people and resources, but there will be significant continuity from HEFCE, which has excellent capabilities in many respects. We want to preserve all the quality people who are doing good work at HEFCE, so I hope that the transition will be fluid and that there will not be discontinuities that will disrupt the operation of the TEF under HEFCE and the operation of the TEF under the OFS. To a great extent, the very same people will be involved.
On the transition more generally, we are looking to transfer responsibilities from HEFCE and OFFA to the OFS in a clear and transparent manner during that period. We hope that the transition will avoid any duplication of roles, enabling us to dissolve HEFCE and OFFA quickly after the OFS formally comes into existence. In the White Paper, we say that we anticipate that happening in April 2018.
Clause 73 allows for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to cease to exist, and enables the transition of responsibilities to take place. It is quite a significant clause, because we are putting to bed a funding council model of regulation that has been in place for a very significant period. I formally want to put on the record the Government’s recognition of the extraordinarily good work it has done over the period of its existence. I also want to restate our belief that it is time, as we have discussed previously in this Committee, to put in place a new model of regulation that will keep us at the cutting edge of higher education for decades to come.
Gordon Marsden
I wish to associate myself with the Minister’s comments about HEFCE. I talked earlier about the rocky road at an earlier period in its history, but I agree with his overall assessment. May I press him slightly on the issue of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education?
Gordon Marsden
The relationship that the QAA currently has with the TEF and how that will operate during the process of dissolution we are discussing.
Joseph Johnson
As we set out in the Bill, one of the very first things that the OFS will do when comes into existence will be to consult on a new regulatory framework. It will then put in place a process that will lead to the designation of a quality body, which could be any body that is capable of representing the broad and diverse universe of providers in the HE sector and that can provide the high-level quality assurance processes that the QAA offers on behalf of the sector. Those are the qualities that the OFS will look for in recommending any quality body to the Secretary of State for approval as the quality body described in the Bill. That body could be the QAA, but the Bill is not prescriptive about that; it just sets out the general intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Meaning of “English higher education provider” etc
Amendment made: 108, in clause 75, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (1) is subject to express provision to the contrary, see section 25(1C) and (3) (rating the quality of, and standards applied to, higher education).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendments 40 and 41.
Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 76 and 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Power to make alternative payments
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 242, in clause 78, page 47, line 19, at end insert—
“(ca) in the case of alternative payments in connection with a higher education course, for the cancellation of the entitlement of an AP recipient to receive a sum as part of an alternative payment in such circumstances as may be prescribed by, or determined by the person making the regulations under, the regulations, where the payment of the sum has been suspended;”.
This amendment and amendments 244 and 245 make clear that regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 may make provision for payments to students and others in respect of alternative payments, grants and loans in respect of higher education courses to be cancelled, where the payments have previously been suspended under the regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 243 to 245, 282 and 118.
Joseph Johnson
The amendments will allow approval to receive student funding to be linked to OFS registration within the new regulatory framework. They also allow Ministers to cancel suspended student support payments where it is necessary to do so—for example, in cases of fraud. I am pleased to say that, following a request from the Welsh Government, we have ensured that the provisions apply to Wales and have set out the procedure for the commencement of the clauses.
Amendment 242 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Revocation of the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015—
“The Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (Statutory Instrument no. 1951/ 2015) are revoked.”
This new clause would revoke the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which moved support for students from a system of maintenance grants to loans.
New clause 10—Impact of changes to financial support for students on access and participation—
“(1) The OfS must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, report to the Secretary of State an assessment of the impact of changes to student financial support arrangements made within the previous twenty-four months on access and participation, and make recommendations.
(2) The OfS may, in making the assessment of such changes as specified in section (1), make recommendations to the Secretary of State about further necessary changes to student support to enhance or mitigate the impact of that change on access and participation.
(3) The OfS must, within twelve months of any change to student financial support arrangements coming into force and after two twelve month periods thereafter, report to the Secretary of State an assessment of the impact of the change on access and participation and make recommendations.
(4) The OfS may, in making the assessment of such changes as specified in section (3), make recommendations to the Secretary of State about further necessary changes to student support to enhance or mitigate the impact of that change on access and participation.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay the reports specified in subsections (1) and (3) before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new Clause would require the OfS to report to the Secretary of State on the impact of changes to student funding on access and participation.
New clause 11—Access to support for modular study—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, set out arrangements in regulations made under sections 22 and 42 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, as amended, to provide support for students studying for institutional credits, as distinct from working towards a full qualification.”
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for module-specific loans, rather than requiring people to be working towards a full qualification to qualify for access to financial support.
New clause 13—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.”
New clause 14—Student loans: regulation—
“(1) Any loan granted under section 22(1) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, (“student loans”) irrespective of the date on which the loan was granted, shall be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
(2) Any person responsible for arranging, administering or managing, or offering or agreeing to manage, student loans shall be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.”
New clause 15—Higher Education loans: restrictions on modification of repayment conditions—
“(1) A loan made by the Secretary of State to eligible students in connection with their undertaking a higher education course or further education course under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 shall—
(a) not be subject to changes in repayment conditions retroactively without agreement from both Houses of Parliament;
(b) not be subject to changes in repayment conditions in the event of the loan being sold to private concerns, unless these changes are made to all loans, in the manner prescribed above;
(c) be subject to beneficial changes, principally to the repayment threshold, in line with average earnings.
(2) In section 8 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008, for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Loans made in accordance with regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30) are to be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39).””
This new clause would ensure no retroactive changes could be made to student loan repayment conditions without agreement from both Houses of Parliament.
Joseph Johnson
We have had a lengthy debate about issues that hon. Members and I have already debated on many occasions over the past year. I am sure they are familiar with many of the points I will make in response.
I will start with the overarching position, which is that Britain has some of the very best universities in the world and this Government are committed to putting them on a strong and sustainable financial footing to ensure that that continues. Our student funding regime achieves exactly the right balance between students, taxpayers and universities. Our decisions have allowed us to remove the cap on student numbers; we have increased up-front financial support to students and made above-inflation increases for some of the poorest; and I am proud to say that as a result of our decisions, more people, not fewer, are going to university, including record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As I have told the Committee before, the entry rate for the most disadvantaged 18-year-olds has risen under the current system to 18.5%, a record high. Disadvantaged young people in England are now a third more likely to enter university than they were when the coalition Government came into office. The system is progressive; it ensures that those who benefit the most from their education contribute more.
I was struck and a little disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State claimed that the Bill was silent on social mobility and widening participation. I do not think that that is the view of the Committee as a whole. I am surprised that she has not taken into account the various ways in which the Bill moves forward Government policy on widening participation. For her benefit, I will remind her of some of the key ways in which it does so. It makes equality of opportunity a core duty of the OFS. As we were discussing an hour or so ago, it places a transparency duty on providers, shining a spotlight on those that need to go further on social mobility. It introduces an alternative finance product so those who cannot access interest-bearing loans for religious reasons can access student finance. It mainstreams the director for access and participation’s role in the office for students, giving that important function the full suite of OFS levers and sanctions. It ensures that information collected by the admissions body can be used for research on social mobility. It enables new providers to enter the sector, providing greater diversity of provision for a wider range of students. Those are just some of the many ways in which the Bill takes us forward on social mobility, and I was disappointed that she did not acknowledge any of those.
Angela Rayner
I suppose the issue is gusto—whether the Bill has teeth and the ability really to drive social mobility. I was hoping that the Minister, instead of just reeling off what he has told us before, would come with me today and do something actually to help social mobility. That is why I am disappointed with his response.
Joseph Johnson
As I was going to say, our funding system for higher education has enabled us to put it on a sustainable financial footing and, in turn, lift the student number cap. If we moved back to the old way of funding universities through direct Government grants and the payment of tuition fees and maintenance grants, we would have to reimpose the student number cap, which would inevitably have an impact on widening participation. We have seen in Scotland how the alternative funding model that the Labour party wants to move us back to crimps social mobility. We see that in all the data from Scotland on widening participation and access. The hon. Lady needs only to look at the Scottish example to see how her policies would take us backwards on social mobility. She needs to look carefully at how the record participation of people from disadvantaged backgrounds under our funding system is driving social mobility and will continue to do so in the years ahead.
Angela Rayner
I thank the Minister for giving way once more; he is being generous with his time. Does he agree that Labour’s announcement about how we would plan the corporation tax rate to pay for things such as education maintenance allowance to be reintroduced was a really progressive step and would be the best way to help all our students?
Joseph Johnson
There is always the option of raising taxation and imposing on the general taxpayer the burden of paying for—
Joseph Johnson
The general taxpayer or businesses. If the Opposition want to hammer business taxpayers, they can hammer business taxpayers too. Our funding system allocates a share of the cost of providing higher education to those who are going to benefit from it. It is not all of the cost, because as hon. Members well know, the Government make a deliberate and conscious investment in the skills base of this country by having an income-contingent student loan system that results in significant Government subsidy of student borrowing. The Government and the taxpayer are making a contribution but we feel that, to have a sustainable system, it is appropriate that the primary beneficiaries of higher education make a significant contribution to its cost. That is what our funding system does, and it has enabled us to lift student number controls, driving social mobility and access in a way that no previous funding system has ever managed.
New clause 8 would revoke the 2015 student support regulations. Those regulations replaced maintenance grants with loans for new full-time students starting their courses in the current 2016-17 academic year. The shadow Secretary of State made some comments about process and how we had avoided proper scrutiny of the change we made. I remind her that, in making that change, we correctly followed the parliamentary process as determined by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1988, introduced by the last Labour Government. [Hon. Members: “No it wasn’t—1988?”] Sorry, did I say ’88? I beg your pardon; 1998, introduced by the last Labour Government.
I also note the Government’s success in expanding access to higher education. To maintain that success we need to ensure that higher education funding remains sustainable, which is why we have replaced the previous system of maintenance grants, saving £2.5 billion a year. We have replaced maintenance grants with increased maintenance loans for new full-time students starting their courses in 2016-17. The poorest students are receiving the most financial support through those subsidised loans, with an increase of up to 10.3% on the previous amount of support for eligible students.
Gordon Marsden
I observe in passing that the Minister keeps saying there has been a great improvement in disadvantaged student access. I would not say it is a great improvement; I would say it is an important improvement. That is true if we look at 18 to 21-year-olds, but as he has heard me say ad nauseam, it is not true of adult, mature or part-time students. On loans, it is late in the day and I do not wish to be controversial, but if I were being controversial, I could say that those are rather weasel words. A loan is not a guarantee of that money being spent. A loan is going to be used and spent only if the people who are offered it feel it is of sufficiently good value to take it up. The truth of the matter is, and we have seen this with the advanced learner loans, that when adult students in particular do not think they can afford those loans, they do not get taken up. Some 50% of the advanced learner loans did not get taken up and that money went straight back to the Treasury, so that is not money that is automatically invested, but money that is offered, and if the terms of trade are not right, people will not take them.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed part-time and mature students as part of the bigger picture. We also went through the mature numbers in some detail on Tuesday, and from recollection, mature numbers are actually now at a record level. I am probably going to get this wrong, but I believe they are at around 83,000 in the last full year, exceeding the previous high of around 82,000 a few years ago, so we are now back on track. Mature numbers certainly took a dip but they are now back at record levels.
We acknowledge and agree that we want to address the decline in part-time numbers. The origins of that fall are complex but they certainly predate the start of the increased tuition fee era, as we discussed on Tuesday. Some of the origins of the decline can be traced back to the Labour Government’s imposition of the equivalent and lower qualification restriction, which we are now in the process of lifting.
Joseph Johnson
Yes, partially—as public finances permit. We are also in the process of putting in place a reformed funding scheme for part-time students so they can access maintenance loans on the same basis as full-time students. We are conscious that there has been a decline in the number of part-time students and we are determined to address it. We are putting in place significant measures to enable us to do so.
Last year, the Leader of the Opposition announced that he was keen to scrap tuition fees, a key architectural feature of our sustainable funding system, which prompted Lord Mandelson recently to describe the move as “not credible” and not “an honest promise”. It is important that we are honest when making commitments to the general public. That key point by Lord Mandelson in his interview with the Times Higher Education mirrored similar remarks by former shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, who went even further when he described the Labour party’s failure to identify a sustainable funding mechanism for higher education as a blot on Labour’s copy book.
Angela Rayner
The Minister is making great play of his sustainability model and suggesting that the Opposition do not have one. Is he aware that the OBR report on sustainability says that the debt increase by this Government will be 11% of GDP when they write off the existing debt under their proposals?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady may want to tell us more about her sustainable model. We have a sustainable funding model and it is delivering record participation for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Surely she should welcome the level of investment that the Government are consciously and deliberately making in our higher education system. I thought that the Labour party would welcome Government investment in our higher education system but, on the contrary, it seems to be lamenting it. That is extraordinary.
Angela Rayner
The Minister fails to understand that I said in my contribution that the Government are increasing debt for future generations and not providing a sustainable model. He is trying to hoodwink the public into believing that that is what he is trying to do. He should be honest with the public.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady should look carefully at the benefits that students get from higher education. She will have seen the frequently rehearsed statistics showing that a woman who goes through higher education can expect lifetime earnings that are £250,000 higher, net of tax and the cost of university, than she would have had, with the same qualifications, if she had not gone through university, and the figure for a man is £170,000. The model is sustainable.
Gordon Marsden
I do not believe that at this hour of the afternoon, even allowing for the Chair’s indulgence, we should get involved in trading statistics, but the Minister might like to reflect on the fact that, because there has been an expansion in the number of students—I referred to this when I talked about graduates in the north-west earning only £16,000 or £17,000—many of the figures that he and his colleagues merrily chirp about are based on past experience. None of us can say what the situation will be in 10 years, but we know, and a variety of reports show, that the graduate premium is rapidly decreasing.
Joseph Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the evidence from bodies such as the IFS, I think he will find that the graduate premium is holding up. Certainly there is variability across institutions and between courses, but there is still robust evidence for a graduate premium.
The Chair
Order. We are going wider and wider, and we are getting more and more worked up. I think we should calm down. The Minister has made his point. Stick to the new clauses.
Joseph Johnson
I will crack on, Sir Edward.
New clause 11 is intended to support learner flexibility, as helpfully discussed at length in Tuesday’s debate. The Government are committed to student choice and share the ambitions of Members of all parties to support flexibility to meet students’ circumstances. Supporting students who wish to switch higher education institution or degree is an important part of our reforms.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government recently ran a call for evidence on credit transfer and accelerated degrees. We were pleased to receive more than 4,500 responses, which we are currently looking at carefully. We need to consider a number of issues before moving forward, and we recognise the central importance of student funding arrangements alongside wider issues such as student demand and awareness, and external regulatory requirements. We expect to come forward, as I said previously, by the end of the year with our response to the call for evidence.
Turning to new clauses 13, 14 and 15, I share hon. Members’ desire to ensure that students’ interests are protected when they take out a student loan, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out how we will ensure that. The key point is that student loans are not like commercial loans. Monthly repayments and interest are based on the borrower’s income, not on the amount borrowed. Borrowers repay nothing if they earn below the £21,000 threshold. Repayments are affordable and the loan is written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower.
Hon. Members have suggested that an independent panel should consider terms and conditions, and that changes to repayment terms and conditions should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. However, the key terms and conditions governing the repayment of the loan—the repayment threshold and rate, and the interest charged on the loan—are all set out in regulations. The current procedure already allows Parliament to debate or vote on any changes to the repayment regulations. That is the appropriate level of accountability for the decisions.
Wes Streeting
The Minister has outlined his views on terms and conditions. Does he agree that the Financial Conduct Authority should regulate student loans on the basis that it looks not only at terms and conditions, but at the premise on which a financial product is sold? That is where the Government have come a cropper.
Joseph Johnson
It has long been a feature of our system that we have a highly subsidised student loan, offered on a universal basis by the Student Loans Company, to all borrowers who can benefit from a higher education. It is massively different from a commercial product, which can cherry-pick who to lend to and charge market rates of interest.
Our student loan product is heavily subsidised, as hon. Members described earlier. It is income contingent, so borrowers only repay when they earn £21,000. It is written off altogether after 30 years. The interest rate charged would certainly be lower than that charged by commercial organisations when faced with a similar scenario.
Joseph Johnson
You won’t goad me into giving way. The Chair has indicated that he wants us to make progress, and that is only fair to him after a long day.
The current procedure already allows Parliament to debate and vote on all this. New clauses 14 and 15 address the issue of the FCA. We do not believe that we need to change the arrangements, which, since the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, have enabled the loans to be exempt from consumer credit legislation. Parliament confirmed the exemption from regulation under consumer credit legislation in 2008, when the then Labour Government passed the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008. The factors that led Parliament to that decision remain valid today, and the current system of parliamentary oversight is the most appropriate for this statutory loan scheme.
New clause 15 relates to equal treatment for borrowers whose loans have been sold. I am glad to be able to reassure the Committee that borrowers whose loans have been sold are protected by the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008. I can also confirm that for the planned sale of pre-2012 income-contingent loans, purchasers will have no powers to change the loan terms in any way and will have no direct contact with borrowers.
New clause 15 would also require the repayment threshold for all income-contingent student loans to increase in line with average earnings. The precise value of the repayment threshold is a key factor in determining the long-term sustainability of the loan system, and in particular the extent to which taxpayers—many of whom are not graduates—subsidise loans. Any Government have to be able to balance the interests of taxpayers and graduates in the light of the prevailing economic circumstances. The decision last year to freeze the threshold was taken precisely because economic circumstances had changed, with the result that the taxpayer would have had to pay substantially more to subsidise the loans than was originally intended.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister says the terms were changed because of changed economic circumstances. Is it not the case that the reason was flawed planning by the Government? He will recall that when the changes were introduced in 2012, the Minister at the time, now Lord Willetts, was arguing that the resource accounting and budgeting charge—the non-repayable debt facing the Government—would be around 28%. Many of us, including independent experts, argued that that was not credible and that it would be much higher.
Gradually, over a period of years, the Government’s projections shifted from 32% to 36% to 38%, moving up to the mid 40%s and at one stage modelling—not confirming—a RAB charge of more than 50%. At that point, the new system became more expensive to the public purse than the one it replaced, as well as imposing additional debt on students. Was the Government’s incompetence on this not the reason?
Joseph Johnson
No, it is not right. The historical record will show that the original RAB charge projections ended up being more or less in the ballpark. The RAB charge is estimated by the Department now to be between 20% and 25%. The real thing that changed was that earnings did not rise as rapidly as we expected, which meant that fewer people were repaying and the cost of providing the loan system to the taxpayer would therefore be higher than anticipated. When the policy was introduced, the threshold of £21,000 was about 75% of expected average earnings in 2016. Updated calculations based on earnings figures from the Office for National Statistics show that figure is now 83%, reflecting weaker than expected earnings growth over the intervening period. The proportion of borrowers liable to repay when the £21,000 took effect in April is therefore significantly lower than could have been anticipated when the policy was introduced. That is the issue. I will now carry on.
The current funding system is fair to students, graduates and taxpayers. We must also ensure it supports all eligible students, irrespective of their religion. Ever since student loans were introduced there have been concerns about their impact on Muslim prospective students, who might consider they are not consistent with the principles of Islamic finance. Those concerns were backed up by our research, which shows that Muslim students make less use of student loans than their peers. Clause 78 sets out our intention to provide the Secretary of State with the power for the first time to offer alternative payments alongside existing powers to offer grants and loans. We believe clause 78 will help advance equality of opportunity by allowing the Government to provide a new form of financial support for students who feel unable to access interest-bearing student loans due to their religious beliefs.
Wes Streeting
The Minister will be pleased to know I really welcome this important step to widen access. Does he have a sense of the timetable for when this will kick in, so I can inform Muslim students in my constituency or other students who would also have access to this mechanism when they might be able to take advantage of it?
Joseph Johnson
I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes the measure. There is a happy consensus on it in all parts of the House. We are pleased that as a Government we took the initiative to consult on this back in 2014, and we now have a legislative vehicle that will give the Secretary of State for the first time the ability to offer a non-interest-bearing product. We are currently constrained from putting that kind of alternative finance package in place. We are dependent on the passage of the Bill, but our intent is to get cracking on it as soon as parliamentary business allows.
This Government are committed to a sustainable and fair funding system. We are seeing more people going to university and record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I hope the Opposition can see that their amendments can now be withdrawn safely and that the student funding regime is sustainable and already works in the best interests of students and this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Power to determine the maximum amount of loan etc
Amendments made: 243, in clause 80, page 49, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) for the designation of a higher education course for the purposes of this section to be determined by reference to matters determined or published by the Office for Students or other persons;”.”
This amendment makes clear that regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 may make provision for the designation of higher education courses for the purposes of that section to be determined by reference to matters determined or published by the Office for Students or other persons.
Amendment 244, in clause 80, page 49, line 29, at end insert—
“(1B) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(fa) in the case of a grant under this section in connection with a higher education course, where a payment has been so suspended, for the cancellation of any entitlement to the payment in such circumstances as may be prescribed by, or determined by the person making the regulations under, the regulations;”.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 242.
Amendment 109, in clause 80, page 49, line 31, leave out “in relation to England”.
This amendment provides for new subsection (2A) of section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (which clause 80(2) inserts into that section) to apply to Wales as well as England.
Amendment 245, in clause 80, page 49, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) In subsection (3), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) in the case of a loan under this section in connection with a higher education course, for the cancellation of the entitlement of a borrower to receive a sum under such a loan in such circumstances as may be prescribed by, or determined by the person making the regulations under, the regulations where the payment of the sum has been suspended;”.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 242.
Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Qualifying institutions for purposes of student complaints scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
The clause expands the student complaints regime to a list of new higher providers that are required to join the higher education complaints handling scheme. That in itself is good and useful, but I want to discuss the nature of the expansion that requires this student complaints regime. In discussions on the Bill so far, the Minister has been at pains to praise competition and the free market in expanding provision and expanding opportunity, both for providers and for students, but the interesting issue is the nature of the expansion.
I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the QAA report that was highlighted in Times Higher Education on 28 July this year. That report said that 19 of the 23 new providers that were inspected were located in the London area, with 12 clustered within a one-mile radius of the centre of the capital. The report also said that although the total number of inspections is small, the proportion of unsatisfactory reviews appears to be increasing. In 2013-14 one of seven providers inspected failed to meet standards and in 2014-15 seven of the 20 fell short.
The point I want to make is that it is not sufficient simply to amend the student complaint regime to accommodate an increase in numbers of providers. The Government should really be paying some close attention to whether the increase in new providers is geographically and regionally fair. Competition there may be, but that is competition largely in and around one city: London. The Campaign for the Defence of British Universities says:
“it is local and regional universities that do the heavy-lifting on social mobility—not the most selective universities…And in many parts of England”—
as we have discussed when talking about the implications of Brexit for funding for universities—
“they are often engines of economic growth as well.”
The Minister’s new counterpart, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, understands that well and has made strong points about the need to spread advantage and equality, but it seems to me that in what the Government have said so far on competitiveness and encouraging new providers there has been very much focused on London and the south-east. The Minister will no doubt talk about Hereford and one or two other places, but if the Government are serious about expanding new provision or utilising existing provision in further education colleges to expand numbers and include those new institutions providing higher education in the student complaint regime, as the clause provides for, they have to do far more on their diversity strategy to ensure that new providers, good though they may or may not be, are not simply confined largely to London and the south-east.
Joseph Johnson
Our higher education sector enjoys an excellent reputation around the world. We want to continue to ensure that all HE students enjoy a high-quality learning experience. It is important that there are effective arrangements in place for students to raise concerns and formal complaints in the relatively small number of cases when things go wrong.
As it stands today, the responsibility for handling student complaints rightly rests in the first instance with the autonomous and independent institutions that deliver higher education. Providers will want to respond to feedback from their students, including those issues raised through complaints. That will both enable the speediest resolution of issues for the student and provide the institution with a means of improving quality for all their students in the longer term. When complaints remain unresolved, there is a well established service offered by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
The scheme operated by the OIA was set up as an alternative to the courts and is free of charge to students. The clause extends access to the service to the students of all providers that are included on the OFS register. In practice, that means that those providers that have chosen to join the OFS register but are not accessing public funding will be part of the OIA scheme. That should give protection to an additional group of students that are part of the higher education system. We should also expect to see an improvement in complaint handling arrangements at those providers. A major part of the OIA’s role is also to spread good practice in complaints handling more generally.
The clause also states that where a provider ceases to be a qualifying institution for the purposes of the student complaints system—for example because they have been removed from the register—that provider becomes a transitional provider for a 12-month period. That puts into legislation an additional protection to all students by ensuring that complaints can now be considered in that 12-month period.
I turn to some of the points the hon. Gentleman made in his remarks about coldspots. We are not specifying particular places where the OFS must direct resources or new providers need to be. We want to be led by market demand and the needs of learners across the economy, and we are encouraged by evidence that coldspots are attracting new entrants. He and I have discussed a number of those new entrants over the past few months, and he is familiar with the examples in Hereford, the new institutions coming up in Suffolk and the proposed institutions in Milton Keynes, and so on. We are pleased that market processes are encouraging new entrants to fill such coldspots, but we are not just leaving it to the market; we are proactively identifying opportunity areas. He will have seen the announcement in recent days of 10 areas of England that we have identified as clearly experiencing social mobility challenges because of a relative lack of high-quality provision, including his own patch in Blackpool. I hope he will welcome the Government’s steps to identify parts of the country, including his own, that need special attention and action.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Higher education corporations in England
Amendment made: 110, in schedule 8, page 89, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert—
“(1A) The application of the seal of a higher education corporation in England must be authenticated by the signature of—
(a) the chair of the corporation or some other person authorised for that purpose by the corporation, and
(b) any other member of the corporation.
(1B) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of a higher education corporation in England or signed on the corporation’s behalf—
(a) is to be received in evidence, and
(b) is to be taken to be executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is shown.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment replaces the new section 124ZB(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 with two new subsections. New subsection (1A) requires the seal of a higher education corporation in England to be authenticated by two signatories, the chair or other authorised person and one other member. This replicates the current requirement in paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988. Subsection (1B) replaces current subsection (2) with wording that is consistent with that used in Schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Tenth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 11th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 October 2016 - (11 Oct 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Hanson, although we have not made as much progress in your absence as you might have hoped. It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Blackpool South in his place on time to start the proceedings. I am glad that he did not have to scapegoat Network Rail for his late arrival.
Gordon Marsden
I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to defend the Government in all shapes and forms, but that does not necessarily involve defending Network Rail. If he carries on in that vein I might have to examine his record of interests to see whether he has shares in the company.
The Chair
Order. Members will have to fill me in on that at a later time. In the meantime, I call the Minister.
Joseph Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman wants to lodge his time of arrival at Victoria, we can verify his claim with the operator and get to the bottom of his late arrival.
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments. They touch on points that we discussed extensively at an earlier stage in our proceedings, and they are intended to clarify the role and responsibilities of the director for fair access and participation in relation to access and participation plans.
We are giving amendment 200 careful thought. There is obviously agreement on both sides of the House that social mobility is a huge priority, and all the more so now for the current Government. Widening access and participation in higher education is one of the key drivers of that. The OFS will have a duty to consider the quality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation in higher education across all its functions, so widening access for and participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be at its very core. It will be the responsibility of the OFS to ensure that it is fulfilling that function. As I have said before, it continues to be our clear intention that the OFS will give the DFAP responsibility for activities in that area. We envisage that, in practice, that will mean that the other OFS members will agree a broad remit with the DFAP, and that the DFAP will report back to them on those activities. As such, the DFAP will have responsibility for the important access and participation activities in question, including agreeing access and participation plans on a day-to-day basis.
We do not accept that the reforms will undermine the ability for stretching access plans to be agreed and strengthened. Indeed, the OFS as a whole will have responsibility for promoting equality of opportunity, which, as I have said, means that it will have access to the full suite of OFS sanctions. I will come on to describe what those could be.
Amendment 205 is intended to ensure that the DFAP can issue guidance and warnings when a provider does not meet their targets. In future, we expect that the OFS will continue to monitor a provider’s progress against its plan and agree targets with it, as the director of fair access does now. Concerns about progress would be raised directly with the provider. That has proved to be an effective system, with the current director of fair access’s interventions having led to an improvement in targets at 94 institutions and increased expenditure at 37 for 2017-18. Where it was considered appropriate, a range of OFS sanctions would be available, including the power to refuse an access and participation plan. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I welcome what the Minister has said, which is consonant with what he has said on previous occasions. I repeat our view that it would be beneficial to make the amendments, for the reasons that I have given, but I accept the Minister’s assurance that he is giving them careful thought. There will be a number of opportunities to develop them at other stages of the Bill’s passage, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 28, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
‘( ) The OfS must, in deciding whether to approve a plan, have regard to whether the governing body of an institution has consulted with relevant student representatives in producing its plan.
( ) In this section “relevant student representatives” means representatives who may be deemed to represent students on higher education courses provided by the institution including, but not limited to, persons or bodies as described by Part 2 of the Education Act 1994.”
This amendment would ensure that when higher education providers produce an Access and Participation Plan, they must consult with students and student representatives, including – but not limited to – the students’ union at that higher education provider.
This amendment would add a new subsection to clause 28, to ensure that before a participation and access plan is approved, the institution in question can demonstrate that students have been consulted in the drawing up of that plan. It is a positive step forward that, through measures in the Bill, institutions will be required to produce participation and access plans. I know that a number of organisations, including the National Union of Students, welcome and support those provisions. However, as the Minister will be aware, much of the excellent access and outreach work at universities is done by students, often co-ordinated by their students unions. The amendment would therefore recognise the work of students and ensure that they are involved when their university produces the access and participation plan. The amendment would give student representatives the chance to discuss their views on their university’s plan and ensure that it reflects the interest of current and future students.
We had a long discussion in this morning’s session about student representation, but I hope that the Minister can be a bit more forthcoming about student involvement in the plan. Frankly, it is hard to envisage how a plan for widening access and participation could be drawn up without speaking to current students and involving them in what that plan ultimately looks like. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady has again raised the important issue of student representation and involvement, this time in the development of access and participation plans. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to set out how students are already involved in the development and monitoring of access agreements, including through students unions or associations.
The Office for Fair Access expects providers to include a detailed statement on how they have involved and consulted students in the development of their plan. For example, providers are encouraged to set out where students have been involved in the design and implementation of financial support packages. Some students unions run information, advice and guidance sessions to explain the support packages, to ensure maximum take-up from eligible students. That approach, which has been in place for over a decade, has been successful. All providers produce statements on consultations with their students, and the director of fair access has had regard to those when deciding whether to approve a plan. Over time, the quality of engagement with students has improved. Some providers include text written by their student representatives as part of their access agreements, and some student groups send in their own separate submissions. Although that approach has worked well, we will reflect on the hon. Lady’s comments and consider how best to ensure that students can continue to be engaged in this area in the future. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter.
Currently, the director of fair access agrees targets proposed by providers as part of their access agreements. The DFA’s powers do not enable him or her to impose targets at present. This approach was founded on the desire to protect an institution’s autonomy over admissions and its academic freedom. Those are fundamental principles, on which our higher education system is based and on which it has flourished. This group of amendments seeks to change that approach to agreeing access and participation plans and introduce greater prescription in this area.
We asked for views on this precise question in our Green Paper consultation, including whether the OFS should have a power to set targets, should an institution fail to make progress. Importantly, OFFA did not agree and said that the OFS should not have a power to set targets. Its response highlighted the importance of providers owning their targets. If targets are set externally, they can become both resource-intensive and a blunt instrument. This can make it difficult to hold institutions to account when progress is slow. Effort becomes focused on the process rather than broader improvements in access and participation. That is why we did not take these proposals forward.
The Bill includes arrangements to call providers to account where they are considered to be failing to meet their access and participation plans. Where it is considered appropriate, there would be access to a range of OFS sanctions. As I said in answer to an earlier amendment, these include the power to refuse an access and participation plan, to impose monetary penalties and, in extreme cases, to suspend or even de-register providers.
I hope I have therefore reassured the hon. Member that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards to tackle under- performance and I ask him to withdraw Amendment 16.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for outlining the range of sanctions that apply within the scope of the legislation. I think that is in part reassuring. My point is more a message for institutions rather than for the Minister per se, and it is that institutional autonomy is often used as a convenient cover to avoid and escape accountability. Institutions have largely gone along with the direction of travel of higher education policy, both for funding arrangements and the regulatory environment. It seems to me they want all the benefits of having a more marketised consumer-led system without the downsides of accountability and responsibility to—in the most crude and reductive sense—consumers. That is not the language I tend to use, but none the less the brave new world of the marketisation of higher education speaks increasingly of consumers.
I think it is unacceptable and harder questions ought to be asked of institutions. It was my intention that these powers would be used only in extreme circumstances, or in cases of particular failure, because it is not desirable to have external targets set, for the reasons outlined by the Office for Fair Access in its submission. I thought the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge was rather coy in the evidence session before the Committee. The recent example of the University of Cambridge, where it tried to row back from the previous commitment it had made to access and participation targets, was a good example of the Office for Fair Access working, where robust dialogue behind the scenes and a respectful relationship with institutions can lead to the right outcome.
As we travel further down this system, I think we will encounter further difficulties. It is right and proper that there should be powers for the office for students to hold institutions to account. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the powers in the Bill and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point to which we should pay attention, and he is absolutely right. Earlier, he cited Birkbeck’s important role in creating opportunities for social mobility through modes of part-time learning over many years. He—and, I hope, the Minister—may have seen the Gresham lecture given earlier this year by the long-time Master of Birkbeck, Baroness Blackstone, in which she focused on some of these exact issues with funding and proposed radical solutions, which at least deserve attention. For example, recognising the strategic importance of part-time learning, in the same way as we recognise the strategic importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, she argued that perhaps we need to look again at the funding model to provide support for the delivery of part-time education, which in many ways is more expensive for universities than conventional learning. For example, she argued that maybe we could look at incentives through adjustments to the national insurance system.
A number of interventions made today deserve serious consideration, but I simply propose my amendment in the spirit of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bath. We need to do much more work on this issue, which should be a central responsibility of the OFS.
Joseph Johnson
I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendments and grateful again for the chance to discuss them. I have always been clear that fair and equal access to HE is vital. Everyone with the potential to benefit from education in every form should be able to do so. Studying part-time and later in life brings enormous benefits for individuals, employers and the economy, so let me reassure the Committee that the Government are acting to support part-time students and part-time provision. Funding, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, is obviously important. Over the course of the past few years, the Government and the predecessor coalition Government have taken significant steps to transform the funding available for part-time study. Going back to moves made in 2012-13, we started to offer tuition fee loans for part-time students so that how learners of all ages choose to study does not affect the tuition support available. Looking forward to 2018-19, we will, for the first time ever, provide financial support to part-time students, comparable to the maintenance support we give to full-time students with the introduction of part-time maintenance loans.
As the hon. Gentleman said, other factors are also an important part of the picture of what is happening in part-time provision. He was gracious enough to allude to the Labour party’s introduction of the equivalent and lower qualification restriction, which has undoubtedly also been a contributory factor to the decline in numbers. We have started to lift this restriction, principally by providing financial support from Government for a second degree if people wishing to study retrain part time in a STEM subject from September next year. This will allow more people of all ages to retrain in key STEM subjects.
Amendment 207 relates to providers including part-time and mature students’ provision in access and participation plans. Let me reassure the Committee that we agree that a focus on part-time and mature students in access and participation plans is important. That is why our recent guidance letter to the director of fair access in February this year asked him to provide a renewed focus on part-time study in his guidance to institutions on their access agreements for 2017-18. This should be of particular benefit to mature learners.
I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that mature learner numbers, which dipped following the change in the fee regime in the middle of the last Parliament, have now recovered significantly and were at record levels at around 83,000 in 2015—compared with the previous high of 81,000 that they touched in 2009 and the 2006 levels of about 56,000 to 57,000—so they are now moving back in the right direction.
The Bill will help further by giving the OFS the flexibility to ask providers to focus on key areas that are important to widening participation and social mobility, in the same way that the Secretary of State’s guidance to the director of fair access currently allows. Clause 31 covers the general provisions that might be required by regulations. These arrangements provide flexibility in access and participation agreements so that they can focus on widening participation for different groups of students. I therefore believe that the Bill already delivers the aim of this amendment.
I turn to the amendment on the OFS’s duty to report on part-time higher education provision. The OFS has a duty requiring it to consider the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students in the provision of HE in England, and a duty to cover equality of opportunity. It must prepare a report on the performance of its functions during each financial year, which will be laid before Parliament. The Bill also contains powers under clause 36(1)(b) for the Secretary of State to direct the OFS to report specifically on matters relating to equality of opportunity. That could of course include part-time learners.
Paul Blomfield
I welcome the direction of travel of the Minister’s comments. Could he share with the Committee whether he would expect the OFS specifically to look in that work at the issue of part-time students as an early priority?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, that was the purpose of our guidance to the director of fair access back in February, to signal that we wanted to see further progress on institutions making part-time study a core feature of their offer. So, yes, I would imagine that this would be priority focus of the OFS. In conclusion, I do not believe the amendment is necessary. There are sufficient provisions in the Bill to ensure that part-time and mature study are priorities for the OFS and the director of fair access within it. I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Sheffield Central to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I have heard what the Minister has to say. The direction of travel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central says, is extremely welcome as are, indeed, the figures that the Minister quoted, but I would gently remind him that, for all the demographic reasons that I have spoken about, we need to speed up that expansion of participation. However, I hear what he has to say, will look forward to further discussions on it in this Bill and possibly subsequently and, with that, I am content to withdraw our amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 34, page 19, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “should”.
This amendment would require the OfS to identify good practice on the promotion of equality of opportunity and to disseminate advice about good practice.
This is a small but meaningful amendment that relates obviously to the clause on good practice. We could have a pedagogical debate on what good practice is but the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go down that route, except to observe that “may” is, of course, a word much in vogue with the Conservative party at the moment, but “may” is also a word that is often in vogue in the drafting of Bills when a minimum rather than a maximum of things is expected. In this particular instance, given that the Government are saying, quite rightly, that good practice is key to the promotion of equality of opportunity and that they need to give advice about such practice to registered higher education providers, it would do no harm whatsoever to strengthen that guidance to the OFS. It is not micromanagement, it is strengthening the advice. That is why, Mr Hanson, we have suggested that on this occasion rather than having the word “may”, we should have the word “should”.
Joseph Johnson
We believe that the Bill as drafted delivers the policy intent behind the amendment. Spreading good practice in widening participation is currently a key part of the director of fair access’s role. We want the office for students to continue to undertake this role.
The Office for Fair Access currently undertakes a programme of evaluation, research and analysis. This aims to improve understanding and inform improvements in practice by identifying and disseminating good practice. Universities expect to spend £833.5 million through access agreements in 2017-18 on measures to improve access and success for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is important that this money is used effectively on the basis of evidence of what works best.
Higher education providers use the outcomes of OFFA’s research and good practice so that they can develop their own initiatives and policies, based on the latest evidence. It is important that the office for students continues to build this bank of evidence and best practice on widening participation, so that performance continues to develop and improve.
Through the Bill, the OFS may provide advice on good practice in relation to access and participation, so we are clear that the Bill as drafted enables that to continue in the future. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
This trio of amendments is designed to strengthen and reinforce our concern that the operation of the OFS, like that of any major new public institution of that nature, should receive adequate and sufficient scrutiny, not simply on the Floor of the House but in various Committees, and certainly in at least one relevant Select Committee. I remain unclear about whether any aspects of the Bill will be covered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in any shape or form. The Minister himself may still be groping towards some of these answers, so I will not press him on that. That is why the amendment say “committees” rather than “committee”.
The principle is very important. I have spoken previously about the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and my regret that it was not applied in the case of this Bill, which is complex. The other important role that Select Committees can play is monitoring and taking things forward. The Government propose and pass Bills, but Select Committees are, on the whole, relatively non-partisan and relatively positive in the suggestions they make. I think it would be valuable for the various things coming forward from the OFS to be reported fairly crisply and usefully to the relevant Select Committee. That accounts for amendment 211.
It is also important—there are precedents for this in the case of Ofsted and other aspects of education policy—that the OFS has a duty to report to the relevant Select Committees with its annual report or special reports, particularly on matters relating to equality of opportunity. Again, I am not suggesting that there would be any innate reluctance on the part of the OFS to do that, but we do not know who the board and chief executives will be. When we set up new bodies, rather than do as we have sometimes done in the past—engage in a tussle between the Executive and the legislature, which often generates a lot of heat, but not much light—I think it is important that we ensure the OFS has a responsibility to examine expenditure, administration and policy in that respect. That is the reason for amendment 212.
Finally, to say that the OFS must report to the Secretary of State in its annual report or in special reports on matters relating to equality of opportunity is of paramount importance, not least for all the reasons that my hon. Friend and I have discussed under previous amendments. Again, that simply strengthens the argument we made in relation to amendment 209.
Joseph Johnson
We believe that the Bill as drafted will deliver the policy intent that the hon. Gentleman wants. The OFS will be required by schedule 1 to provide an annual report covering all its functions. Reporting on access and participation matters will sit with the OFS, which will also have a new duty requiring it to consider equality of opportunity in connection with access and participation plans across all its functions. The OFS’s work on access and participation should be reported to Parliament as part of its overall accountability requirements. It would not be consistent with integrating the role into the OFS for the DFAP to report separately.
Clause 36 supplements the requirement for an annual report and allows the Secretary of State to direct the OFS to report on widening participation issues—either in its annual report or in a special report. That replicates an existing provision, in place since 2004, which has never been used. We agree this is important and have retained the requirement, so that if there are specific concerns about access and participation at a particular time there is a mechanism for the Secretary of State to request action. The Bill requires that the OFS annual report and any special reports on access and participation be laid in Parliament. As that will ensure that any such reports are publicly available, open to scrutiny and accessible to all appropriate House of Commons Committees, we do not think it necessary to specify the requirement in greater detail in legislation, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
Obviously the Minister has a slightly more expansive view of what the Bill allows or expects to do than perhaps we do, but we hear what he has to say. He has put the importance of these issues and conditions straightforwardly on the record and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
It is a great pleasure to speak in support of my hon. Friend’s amendment. In his speech, he has encapsulated one of the most important and exciting developments in 21st-century learning that the Bill could achieve.
My hon. Friend referred to market failure and he was right to do so. It is interesting that about a week ago the Jisc parliamentary briefing for the Bill specifically talks about this in terms of the Government’s proposals to deregulate parts of the higher education market. I understand that Jisc is sponsored as the UK’s expert body for digital technology by the Department. It says that there needs to be a mechanism for recognising and communicating the credits students have gained for modules already studied. It is essential that well managed credit accumulation and transfer scheme arrangements are in place to support students who are affected by market exit. Jisc also talks about the need for a mechanism for recognising and securely storing the credits students have gained for modules already studied, so that these credits can then be transferred to a student’s next institution. It makes the obvious point that disorderly wind-down or abrupt closure where the data are lost would have serious implications for affected students and potentially for the reputation of the sector. I think that reinforces my hon. Friend’s argument.
I also want to make the point that credit transfer is very important for people who want to move from one institution to another, not least in the circumstances that have been described, but it is also vital in terms of the new flexibilities that the work, life and study balance will require in the 21st century. I will not repeat what I have said on a number of occasions and in a number of places about this, except to emphasise the very strong belief that I and many others hold that the world of further education, higher education and online learning are morphing into each other, sometimes much more rapidly than conventional universities or even conventional policy makers realise, and that process will continue. The question for us in this country is not whether it will happen or not. It will happen. The question is whether it will be our institutions—those higher education and lifelong learning institutions for which we are famous—that take the advantage of this, or whether we will be colonised, if I can use that word, from outside. I think those are really important issues for the Minister to consider, not least in the context of the response to the call for evidence from May.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has said that these ideas have been floating around for years. Of course, I am duty bound both to him and to Sir Bernard Crick, who is no longer with us, to praise the initiative of my noble Friend Lord Blunkett, who published “The Learning Age” in 1999 with Bernard Crick, which put forward some very innovative ideas in that area. We know what the problems were at the time with individual learning accounts. I was one of the people who sat on the Select Committee that looked at that. There were obviously difficulties, but the principle of having accounts that enabled a credit-based system and banking of credits is a very important one. We are unlikely to achieve huge success unless we take a fundamental look at some of the broader issues of funding, but that is for another day and another time and certainly does not fall within the relatively narrow scope of the amendment. I only make the point because I think the two things have to be considered in tandem.
The truth of the matter is that we have systems in the UK at the moment which recognise previous learning. In Scotland there is the Scottish credit qualifications framework, which integrates work-based and lifelong learning. We could learn a lot of things from lots of different places. If the Government are really keen to make progress and to support the sort of ideas that I, my hon. Friend and many other people have discussed, they could do far worse than go back to the major work produced in 2009 for the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education by Tom Schuller and David Watson, “Learning through Life”, which has some very innovative and important things to say in that area.
This is an area where there is still fruitful work going on. The Learning and Work Institute has produced ideas for a new citizen skills entitlement, which merits further consideration. Ofsted has talked about how well providers prepare learners for successful life in modern Britain. Ruth Spellman, the chief executive officer of the Workers’ Educational Association, said when its report on this matter was launched just before the recess:
“An Education Savings Account...would enable individuals to save for their future Education... This could also encourage and attract employer contributions, particularly if government were to allow tax relief...this would create longer-term and more stable funding streams”.
That is on the funding side; the other part of the equation is the credit accumulation.
As the Minister knows, I spent nearly 20 years as an Open University course tutor. What I learnt from that process, apart from the immense sacrifices and dedication of the students, is that the ability to engage in study programmes that coped with things that happened in life—perhaps students had to care for an elderly relative, or had family issues, or were simply ill—and the ability to take years out but not to lose all of that credit are absolutely key to where we need to go in the 21st century.
This is a probing amendment, but it is a pointed probe in the sense that the Government have an opportunity to do significant things in this area that would attract a lot of support. We want them to do those things. They are overdue.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling the amendment. It touches on a subject to which we are giving much careful thought, as I indicated when we discussed it briefly earlier in our proceedings.
Supporting students who wish to switch to another higher education institution or degree is an important part of our reforms. It is vital that we make faster progress in this area, and I share the general sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It is disappointing that we have not managed to put in place an effective mechanism of the sort proposed up until this point. The sector can do more to offer flexible study options to meet students’ diverse needs, and it can do more to support social mobility by doing so.
There is an obvious link between withdrawal rates and students not being able to transfer between providers. The amendment refers to a credit rating service. Although we want to enable credit transfer, we want to do so in a context of institutional autonomy, which is crucial to the reputation and vibrancy of UK higher education. We want to avoid a universal approach that undermines that by inadvertently homogenising or standardising provision, which would risk the loss of the great diversity that is one of the key strengths of our sector.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Government called for evidence on credit transfer and accelerated degrees. We were pleased to receive more than 4,500 responses and we are in the process of analysing all of those carefully. There are a number of issues that we need to consider before moving forward, including the extent of student demand and awareness of the issue, the funding implications that the hon. Gentleman touched on, and external regulatory requirements. We expect to come forward by the end of the year with our response to the results of the call for evidence that we have conducted.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I can see another issue if we use student retention as one of the metrics of the teaching excellence framework. If students change institutions, will that be taken into account? Will leeway be given to institutions that allow students to transfer credit?
Joseph Johnson
That is an important point that the TEF panel assessors will take into account. It has been factored into the development of the teaching excellence framework metric, but that is obviously an important point to bear in mind.
Although I understand the reason for the amendment, there are powers already in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to require the office for students to report on matters relating to equality of opportunity in either its annual report or the special report that I mentioned before, and any such report would have to be laid before Parliament, so there is no need explicitly to require reporting on the establishment of a national credit rating and transfer service as a means of improving access to and participation in higher education. The measures in the Bill support our ambitions on widening participation in general. As I said, we are giving the call for evidence responses very careful thought. In the meantime, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I think we share a similar ambition. Although I understand it, I am a little anxious about his caution about what he described as homogenising. I do not think anyone wants that. People celebrate the diversity of the sector and would not want in any way to undermine it, but we need to find some way in which universities that may be reluctant to embrace a system such as the one we are discussing are enabled and encouraged to do so more actively than they have been in the past. The enormous energy that went into modularising and semesterising programmes, with the objective of encouraging CATS, failed precisely because of that issue. I hope that when the Minister has had the opportunity to look at the impressive number of responses to the consultation, he will be willing to think radically about how we can embed that sort of system within our higher education terrain. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Financial support for registered higher education providers
Amendment made: 241, in clause 37, page 21, line 7, at end insert—
“but also includes a 16 to 19 Academy (as defined in section 1B(3) of the Academies Act 2010).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment ensures that the definition of “school” used in clause 37 of the Bill includes 16 to 19 Academies.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Authorisation to grant degrees etc
Dr Blackman-Woods
I shall continue in the same vein as my hon. Friend. Amendment 235 queries whether the OFS should have the sole power and control over who can grant research awards. Giving the OFS the sole power would mean that it would not have to work with any research funding bodies, or indeed any other relevant agencies, in coming to a decision about whether to grant an institution research degree-awarding powers. There are two significant problems with that. First, the OFS granting research degree-awarding powers without reference to other bodies diminishes the level of expertise going into the decision-making process about whether a specific institution should have those degree-awarding powers. In addition, given that UKRI, Research England and the national academies and learned societies also have responsibilities for providing research funding, it seems to be a major error not to consider what role they would have in the granting of research degree awarding powers. Apart from anything else, it could affect funding decisions that those bodies make.
Consulting UKRI and Research England, among others, on whether to grant research degree-awarding powers would allow for a variety of opinions to be aired and would ensure that the OFS is not acting in isolation. It is really important that the Minister looks at that. He helpfully produced a paper, which we got a couple of days ago—I am not sure when it was produced—which talks about how UKRI should work in partnership with other bodies. Unless I have missed it, though, we do not seem to have had a similar exercise on who the OFS needs to work with.
Particularly with regard to research degree-awarding powers, it would be helpful if the Minister gave some thought to the full range of institutions that need to be involved, not least because this is the second really important point. As the system stands and is described in the Bill, it lacks oversight and checks and balances from the research sector. There is nothing to be gained from the OFS working alone, but a lot to be gained from it working in collaboration. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful that hon. Members have raised the role of UKRI in the authorisation of the granting of degrees. Our reforms are designed as a single, integrated system that reduces complexity, eliminates barriers to close working and delivers clear responsibilities, especially for the protection of the interests of students. To deliver that integration and close co-operation, it is vital that the OFS and UKRI are empowered to work together. For that reason, clause 103 makes provision to ensure that they do that in a way that enables them to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently.
One key area in which the OFS and UKRI should work in close co-operation is the assessment of applications for research degree-awarding powers, and the provisions in clause 103 will facilitate that. I am satisfied that the provision for co-operation between the OFS and UKRI will address the concern that the hon. Gentleman rightly touches on in his amendment.
The Secretary of State will have powers to require that co-operation to take place if it does not do so of its own accord. We intend to make it explicit in the Government guidance on degree-awarding powers, which we plan to publish, that we expect the OFS to work with UKRI in that way. On that basis, it is not necessary to capture that point in clause 40 as well, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss FE institutions, many of which are colleges, and degree-awarding powers. Institutions in the FE sector can currently apply for and obtain taught degree-awarding powers so long as they provide higher education and meet the relevant criteria. Indeed, in June of this year, Newcastle College Group became the first FE college to be granted taught degree-awarding powers, and other colleges are in the process of applying.
Any institutions that obtain taught degree-awarding powers, including FE Colleges, are already authorised to grant certificates and other awards as well as degrees. Institutions in the FE sector will continue to be able to apply for and obtain taught degree-awarding powers under the reforms in the Bill. The proviso is that they must be a registered higher education provider and, like other registered higher education providers, meet the relevant criteria. We intend to consult on the detailed criteria following Royal Assent and before the new regulatory framework takes effect. There is therefore no intention to prevent FE colleges from accessing taught degree-awarding powers through the Bill.
As happens now, institutions in the FE sector will also be able to apply for foundation degree-awarding powers only—with the proviso that, in addition to being registered and meeting other criteria, they provide a satisfactory statement of progression setting out what the provider intends to do to enable students to progress on to courses of more advanced study. Again, that is in line with the current arrangements for FE colleges that wish to apply for foundation degree-awarding powers. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Gordon Marsden
Whether the amendment is unnecessary or not—obviously guidance has been given that means we might want to discuss the matter further—does the Minister agree that the ability for colleges to accredit individuals with a certificate for higher education would be a big step in the right direction? That is essentially what the Association of Colleges is asking for.
Joseph Johnson
We will obviously look very carefully at the submission from the Association of Colleges, and officials have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We will go away, have a further look at the issue and reassure ourselves that the approach that we are taking is the correct one, but for the time being, we believe that the Bill covers his intentions, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for that reply. We look forward to the further rumination, if I can put it that way, on the particulars of the issue, and on that basis I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
Martin Wolf said:
“The reform of Britain’s universities is a betrayal”—
Gordon Marsden
No I will not. I am just about to finish the quote. Then the Minister can intervene.
“The reform of Britain’s universities is a betrayal of Conservative principles”.
So there we have concerns across the sector, even in the Minister’s own party.
Joseph Johnson
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Martin Wolf is an aspiring Conservative member, as he put it?
Gordon Marsden
No. I said that Martin Wolf was not about to cross the Floor to join the Labour party and that is exactly the case. [Interruption.] If Mr Wolf wanted to put things on record I am sure he could do so, but that is the point I am making. The Bill is causing concern among the Conservative party’s own traditional supporters and representatives, and elsewhere. That is the important issue to be addressed here.
The Bill, as the Council for the Defence of British Universities has said,
“is designed to give encouragement to ‘new providers’ but has few safeguards to protect students from for-profit organisations… Experience in this country, and particularly in the US, suggests extreme caution is needed to protect the reputation of British universities”.
Those are some of the issues that we have tried to mitigate in our amendments. I have asked the Minister a range of specific questions regarding the TEF paper, and I invite him to respond to them.
Paul Blomfield
I rise to speak to new clause 9, fairly briefly. I do not want to repeat the concerns that have been ably outlined by my hon. Friends, but I want discuss one particular problem. The Minister is deeply conscious of the risks presented by some potential new providers. We have discussed those risks outside of the Committee, and he recognises the importance of having a robust regulatory framework.
New clause 9 would deal with a specific problem of which the Minister will be aware in relation to some private providers in this country and, in particular, in the United States, where the terrain is similar to the one that he is, arguably, trying to create through the Bill. One problem in the United States—this is also true in Australia to a significant degree, as the Minister knows, because he has looked at the system there—is that a business model has developed for some avaricious companies that see the opportunity to milk the public funds that are available to support students through loans.
Those companies are less concerned than others with the quality of the offer they make, and they have no long-term commitment to students. Theirs is a model in which companies offer a product, and students are then attracted by aggressive marketing, draw down a loan, are let down by the quality of provision, end up with a degree with questionable value, and face enormous debts to repay. It is a model that neither I nor the Minister want, but it has been encouraged, in some cases, by the transfer of ownership once degree-awarding powers have been given. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South mentioned BPP and Apollo, but the Minister is also aware of the problem in the United States.
The new clause would ensure that the regulatory portal for entry to degree-awarding powers will be triggered if an institution changes ownership, because the culture, commitment and quality of provision can change substantially when that happens. Likewise, if restrictions have been imposed in another jurisdiction on the owner of an institution with degree-awarding powers—we know that many companies in the sector operate across countries—that should be a sufficient signal to us to be worried and to review any decision on degree-awarding powers for that owner in our jurisdiction. In those two respects, the new clause would simply provide a trigger to re-open the decision to give degree-awarding powers, which I would have thought the Minister would agree with. I hope he will either support the amendment or reassure me about how he intends to address the issue.
Joseph Johnson
I am still reeling from the hilarious image that the hon. Member for Blackpool South conjured up of Martin Wolf as an aspiring Conservative Member of Parliament. I worked with Martin for 13 years at the Financial Times and I have no doubt that that characterisation of his career plans is very wide of the mark. Judging by some of his contributions to the debate over the future of HE in this country, he might be more likely to seek to become master of an Oxford college. But a Conservative MP? I think not.
The Chair
Order. He is also not on the face of the Bill, so stick to the argument—or lack of it.
Joseph Johnson
We are justifiably proud of our HE sector, and our country is renowned as the home of many world-class institutions, but that does not mean that we should be satisfied with the status quo. As I have said before, the current system is too heavily weighted in favour of existing incumbents, which is stifling innovation in the sector. As Emran Mian, director of the Social Market Foundation, has said:
“Higher education is too much like a club where the rules are made for the benefit of universities. These reforms will begin to change that.
Students will have access to more information when they’re making application choices; and universities will be under more pressure to improve the quality of teaching.”
Under the current regime, new and innovative providers have to wait until they have developed a track record that lasts several years before they can operate as degree-awarding bodies in their own right, no matter how good their offer or how much academic expertise they bring to bear. To develop that track record, they typically have to rely on other institutions to validate their provision in some way, which can be a huge obstacle. The onus is on the new entrant to find a willing incumbent and to negotiate a validation agreement. Such agreements can be one-sided and in some cases prohibitively expensive, as we heard in evidence given to the Committee.
Our reforms will ensure that students can choose from a wider range of high-quality institutions and will remove any impression that, as John Gill, the esteemed editor of Times Higher Education, put it, existing universities can
“act like bouncers, deciding who should and should not be let in.”
If a higher education institute can demonstrate its ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier for it to start awarding its own degrees—not harder, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South would like—rather than needing to have its courses awarded by a competing incumbent. Earlier in this sitting, the hon. Gentleman said that the whole point was that it should be difficult. We fundamentally disagree. If there are high-quality providers out there that want to come in and provide high-quality education, we want to make that easier for them, not more difficult.
Gordon Marsden
Again, the Minister is trying to set up a straw man. “Difficult” does not mean “impossible”. It means that, because literally hundreds and in the future possibly thousands of people will be relying on the decision that is made, there should be due process—a significant process. The trouble with what the Minister suggests is that he is not just making it easier, he is making it far too easy.
Joseph Johnson
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look back at the transcript of our earlier discussions and reread his comments. He said that the whole point was that it should be difficult. That is a fundamental point of difference between us. We believe it should be easy for high-quality providers to get into the system and offer high-value-for-money higher education.
We know how important universities can be to their local economies. Recent research by the London School of Economics has demonstrated the strong link between universities opening and significantly increased economic growth. Doubling the number of universities per capita is associated with more than 4% higher GDP per capita. However, the sector has built up over time to be serving only parts of the country. It is not providing employers with enough of the right graduates, especially STEM graduates. It can do more, as we discussed earlier, to offer flexible study options to meet students’ diverse needs, and it can do far more to support social mobility. Most OECD competitor countries have a higher proportion of the population entering higher education than the UK. We have about a 51% first-time entry rate, compared with an OECD average of about 60%.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Would the Minister accept that, if the Government are serious about wanting more people to have an experience of higher education, that can be done through expanding the current institutions or in a more measured way of bringing alternative providers into the system? My anxiety has grown over the afternoon, because making it easy for alternative providers will not necessarily guarantee sufficient safeguards for students or the public.
Joseph Johnson
Of course we want high-quality provision to expand, whether through the entry of new institutions or the expansion of existing institutions that do well in the quality assurance frameworks that we have in our system—the research excellence framework and the TEF that we are introducing for teaching. They will get more resources and will be able to expand high-quality research and teaching activities. That is how we see the market developing in this country.
The system needs to have informed student choice and competition among high-quality institutions at its heart. Competition between providers in higher education—indeed, in any market—incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better-quality products and services. The Competition and Markets Authority concluded in its recent report on competition in the HE sector that aspects of the current system could be holding back competition among providers, which needed to be addressed. That is what we are doing with the provisions in this and later clauses, including those covering validation.
Paul Blomfield
I would be grateful if the Minister could share with us the work that the Department has done on comparing the impact of private providers in other countries with developed higher education systems. My understanding is that there is very limited evidence to suggest that increased competition has contributed to innovation, higher quality or lower prices within the countries that the Department has looked at. Could he share the evidence?
Joseph Johnson
First, I would encourage the hon. Gentleman not to try to compare apples and pears by talking about the US experience. Many of the parallels that he is attempting to draw with the so-called private sector in the US are not really relevant to our environment here in the UK. US private providers are subject to little state control. We have a strong, and increasingly strong, regulatory framework in place to ensure appropriate oversight. I again encourage Opposition Members not to disparage institutions that they describe as for-profit or private providers. Let us remember first that all higher education institutions are private to begin with—every single one of them. Let us try to get that straight in our minds right away.
Joseph Johnson
No, I am going to make this point, because the hon. Gentleman has already intervened. Let us also remember that there are exceptionally good providers in the sector delivering high-quality education sector, for example Norland College, the University of Law or BPP University. For-profit providers have among the highest levels of student satisfaction in the system, demonstrated for example by the University of Law coming joint first in overall satisfaction in the most recent national students’ survey. I find it sad and disappointing that the hon. Member for Blackpool South wants to disparage such institutions and those who choose to study at them.
Gordon Marsden
I am not disparaging those institutions. They have reached that position precisely through the rigorous system that we currently have, which the Minister is proposing to dismantle. He has failed to address some of the questions I put to him. For example, does he seriously believe that the introduction of single-subject DAPs is a good thing for students?
Joseph Johnson
I will shortly come on to the single-subject degree-awarding powers measures that we are proposing, and yes, I obviously believe that specialist provision is to the advantage of the higher-education system, because it will help us address many of the skills shortages that the country faces. We can point, for example, to the New Model in Technology and Engineering institution in Hereford, which will be a specialist STEM provider in an HE cold spot. That is precisely the kind of new entry that we want to encourage into the system.
Competition expands the market and widens choice to the benefit of students. That is generally, although not universally, accepted. It is certainly accepted by the sector itself.
Joseph Johnson
I am going to make some progress, because I have got a fair amount to get through.
Universities UK, the representative body, has said it welcomes the Government’s intention to allow new providers in the system to secure greater choice for students and to ensure appropriate competition in the higher education sector. Paul Kirkham pointed out in a speech earlier this year that
“there are many reputable APs out there, providing specialist, bespoke education and training to students who, lest we forget, consciously choose such an alternative.”
The story of those new entrants and of diversity and provision has been one of widening participation. We want them to be able to compete on a level playing field.
As we discussed earlier, the world is changing fast, and the higher education sector needs to change too if it is to meet the needs of 21st-century learners, yet in a 2015 survey of vice-chancellors and university leavers 70% of respondents said that they expected higher education to look the same in 2030 as it does now—largely focused around the full-time three-year degree. The risk is that, given their position, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know, for example, that the share of undergraduate students in English higher education institutions studying full-time first-year degrees—the traditional model—has increased from 65% in 2010-11 to 78% in 2014-15. Allowing the vested interests of incumbents to continue to protect what is effectively a one-product system that promotes only the three-year, full-time, on-campus undergraduate university course as the gold standard comes with considerable risk. It is a high-cost and inflexible approach, and given that in excess of 50% of the population wish to engage in higher education, it cannot be the only solution. That system of validation is curbing innovation and entrenching the same model of higher education.
As Paul Kirkham said in evidence to the Committee:
“There are significant risks to student and taxpayer of a very static, non-changing universe of providers and way too much emphasis on the three-year, on-campus degree.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 13, Q15.]
As Roxanne Stockwell, the principal of Pearson College, said in her submission:
“It is clear that the dominance of the one-size-fits-all model of university education is over. Fee rises have transformed students into more critical consumers and the government is right to recognise this in their reform package. Students are calling out for pioneering institutions offering alternative education models and an increased focus on skills that will prepare them for the careers of the future—with the mind-set and agility to fulfil roles that may not even exist yet.”
We must not be constrained by our historical successes.
Carol Monaghan
I do not recognise the picture of higher education that the Minister is painting. It has changed greatly, even in the past 10 to 20 years. There is a massive focus on skills, and students are now leaving university with much greater abilities, and the problem-solving, business and employability skills that are required. I simply do not recognise the picture of traditional HE that the Minister paints.
Joseph Johnson
I urge the hon. Lady to recognise that huge value has been added to the sector by the arrival of new entrants. New providers have tapped into unmet demand, and that is why they are springing up. They are surviving the test of the marketplace and meeting a need that is not presently being met. That is why they are coming into existence; they are providing value and succeeding and thriving in the marketplace. We should welcome what they bring rather than denigrate it.
As a report on international experience by the Centre for Global Higher Education found, private providers can
“swiftly provide courses to meet unmet demand, and deliver them in convenient ways, such as online or in the evening and over the weekend.”
We also know that they offer greater flexibility to potential students by having different course start dates throughout the year. Alternative providers are already supporting greater diversity in the sector, which we should all welcome. Some 56% of students at alternative providers are aged 25-plus—I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool South cares greatly about mature students—compared with only 23% of students at publicly funded institutions. They have higher numbers of black and minority ethnic students, with 59% of undergraduate students at alternative providers coming from BME ethnic groups compared with 21% at higher education institutions overall.
Gordon Marsden
All the statistics that the Minister has just reeled off, which we recognise, underline precisely why we need rigorous—not blocking—regulation. The sorts of people who are going to the providers he talks about are those who will suffer most greatly if those providers go belly up. That is why we need rigour in that area, and that is why the best alternative providers have succeeded and are coming through at the moment. He is constantly setting up straw men.
Joseph Johnson
We are in agreement. There will be robust quality gateways, financial management tests and governance tests in the system.
Joseph Johnson
They are as robust as they need to be, and they will ensure that only high-quality, well managed, stable institutions that deliver high-quality higher education enter our system.
As I have set out, current would-be new entrants typically rely on competitors for a foothold in the sector. It is hard to think of another sector—including those involving major once-in-a-lifetime decisions, such as mortgage or pension providers—where one provider is beholden to another for market entry in that manner.
Inevitably, the nature of our validation requirements has a moulding effect on entry into the system. New providers may feel forced to adopt practices, habits and mentalities of incumbents in a way that can stifle innovation or even cede some of the new entrants’ competitive advantage. For example, we can read in the evidence provided by Le Cordon Bleu how that can happen. It chose not to offer a UK degree via the validation process, as it felt it would be required to hand over its recipes, techniques and individual culinary style to another institution in order to have its courses validated.
Joseph Johnson
I will make some progress, if the hon. Lady will let me.
In the case of Le Cordon Bleu, the intellectual property of its course would be free for the validating institution to redistribute as it saw fit. We have heard a fair amount from Opposition Members about for-profit providers, and the idea that for-profit institutions would not act in the interests of students. That is simply not true.
The Chair
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refrain from heckling? He has the opportunity to speak, and he can respond in due course.
Joseph Johnson
The insinuation that followed the persistent tropes denigrating private providers, new providers or alternative providers was very clear: the hon. Gentleman sees for-profit providers as fly-by-night operators out to exploit naive students at the expense of taxpayers. The whole riff he has been developing over weeks before this Committee is unmistakeable, and it is simply not true.
We need a diverse, competitive higher education sector that can offer different types of higher education, giving students the ability to choose between a wide range of providers. We must not constrain entrepreneurial activity and stifle innovative provision at students’ expense. New ventures are driven by a range of motives, not just by wealth creation, such as the desire to innovate and create new products, the desire to prove themselves better and smarter and a desire to create a personal legacy. It also seems strange that on the one hand making a profit is deemed distasteful, whereas on the other hand to fail to make a profit would be judged as a sign of financial unsustainability. There is an inherent contradiction in the hon. Gentleman’s approach to this question.
Turning to the specifics of amendments 216, 217, 218, 220 and 234, I hope—although I may not be successful—that I can still assure hon. Members that the reforms we are proposing will ensure that both the interests of students and the wider public are well served. In recognising the need for the changes that I have just set out, we also recognise the great importance of sustaining and improving quality and standards. Our plans are designed to ensure that quality is maintained, and 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. We intend that the assessment of whether a provider meets the criteria to hold degree-awarding powers would rest with the designated quality body; this mirrors current arrangements.
In order to become eligible for degree-awarding powers, providers will have to register with the OFS. We expect them to register in either the approved or approved fee cap categories. This would ensure that applicants for degree-awarding powers meet high market entry and ongoing registration conditions, which we expect to include quality and financial sustainability, management and governance criteria. As now, degree-awarding powers will either be granted on a time-limited or an indefinite basis. Degree-awarding powers being awarded on a time-limited and renewable basis in this way is critically not new: alternative providers and further education providers are already granted these powers on a six-yearly renewable basis. We intend to level up the playing field and raise the quality threshold so degree-awarding powers are granted on a time-limited basis to all in the first instance, with the opportunity for all to progress to indefinite degree-awarding powers subject to satisfactory performance.
What we do intend to do is change the requirement that new high-quality providers have to build up a track record and be reliant on incumbent institutions to validate their provision. However, as we set out in the factsheet on market entry and quality assurance that we published and sent to the Committee, we plan that in order to be able to access time-limited probationary degree-awarding powers, providers will also need to pass a new and specific test for probationary degree-awarding powers. Under this test, we expect applicants to be required to demonstrate that they have the potential to meet the full degree-awarding powers criteria by the end of the three-year probationary period and we fully expect probationary degree-awarding powers to be subject to appropriate restrictions and strict oversight by the OFS in order to safeguard quality. We expect this oversight to be similar to the support of a validating body, except that new providers will not need to ask a competitor to do this.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is now beginning to address the specific points I made, although he has still not commented on the rationale for allowing single-subject DAPs. That is not the same as STEM ones, Minister, because those cover a much broader range of things. May I ask the Minister specifically whether he considers the inclusion of self-evaluation as a key element in deciding whether people should have these degree-awarding powers sufficient and adequate?
Joseph Johnson
As he has pressed on this first, let me come to the hon. Gentleman’s point about single-subject degree-awarding powers. We want the scope of degree-awarding powers to be more flexible, so that both probationary and full degree-awarding power holders would be able to offer degrees in specific subjects or with greater choice of levels. This would enable them to start awarding degrees while developing their provision and capacity, to assume increased levels of powers and enable the removal of restrictions over time. Holders of single-subject DAPs will, if granted validation powers, be able to validate in that subject only, and we intend that they will be eligible for university title. There are many specialist providers that I believe would benefit from this. For example, Norland College has been delivering specialist education since the 1860s and could be one of the providers that seeks to benefit from these provisions. It has a solid reputation for the quality of its provision.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s more recent point about self-evaluation, we intend self-evaluation to be only one part of a thorough and robust process to assess readiness for probationary degree-awarding powers. Understanding what it means to uphold academic standards is essential for any provider and should be tested, and we intend to consult on detailed criteria that we plan to publish in guidance.
Paul Blomfield
I am sorry that the Minister sought to characterise our concerns in the way that he did. There are good examples in many countries across a diverse range of higher education providers, but he will also recognise that there are examples of unscrupulous operators who have caused real problems, not just in the United States—also in Australia. In the US, it has led the federal authorities to take legal action on behalf of students against some of the providers. All we are seeking to do is to ensure that a robust framework is in place to protect us from that situation in this country.
On new clause 9, I was reassured to some degree by the Minister’s comments on change of ownership, but I would welcome clarification on whether the review process that he would expect would be as robust as the initial regulatory entry. He did not address my concerns on the restrictions being imposed on providers in other jurisdictions, which is the second part of new clause 9, and whether that would also trigger the sort of review I am seeking through the new clause.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasoned approach. The approach that the OFS would take would depend on the circumstances of any transfer of ownership. The whole philosophy of the OFS is that it is a risk-based regulator that seeks to act in a proportionate, reasonable way. Given that core approach to the way that it will regulate the sector, we would not expect it to have a one-size-fits-all policy response to every particular circumstance that might arise. I think the answer is that the OFS would evaluate the situation in light of all its duties and take a decision on how to proceed on that basis. That would include circumstances such as those covered by the other part of the new clause relating to other jurisdictions and legal environments outside this country. The OFS would evaluate it and take a view.
Paul Blomfield
I will not press the new clause to a vote at this stage but I will seek future assurances, particularly in relation to that second part about action in other jurisdictions. Does the Minister not agree that if we are considering circumstances in which providers are known to have transgressed in other countries we would expect a significant review of their operation in this country?
Joseph Johnson
In our reforms, we have deliberately taken out the function of the Privy Council in the granting of degree-awarding powers and university title in order to streamline the processes and transfer responsibility for those functions to the office for students. At the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for degree-awarding powers the QAA advises HEFCE. HEFCE advises the Department, and the Department then advises the Privy Council. There is a similar process for university title. That is unduly complex and time-consuming to little or no additional advantage.
On the whole, there was no opposition to these changes in the responses we had to the Green Paper. This response to our Green Paper consultation from a provider that has only recently gone through this process illustrates the point:
“Removing the role of the Privy Council in making decisions about DAPs and University Title seems prudent. Our experience of the process suggests that this stage does not have added value and merely extends the time taken to complete the process.”
In fact, we checked back through recent history and there were no examples of the Privy Council not following the Department’s advice on granting degree-awarding powers and university title—not one.
Under our new system, the office for students, as the independent sector regulator, will be best placed to take decisions on degree-awarding powers and university title. That will cut out some of the process and lead to a more streamlined system. I know the hon. Member for Blackpool South wants to make things more difficult for providers, but we want to make things simpler. This is one of the ways in which we envisage reducing the bureaucracy and burdens that prevent high-quality new providers from entering the sector.
Joseph Johnson
I am going to make some progress.
In its evidence to the Committee, Independent Higher Education supported this view:
“The transfer of this authority to the OfS, a modern regulator, away from the outwardly archaic and opaque mechanism of approval by the Privy Council, will be more appropriate for a dynamic and diverse sector which includes industry-led provision and overseas providers bringing their extensive experience to the UK”.
However, I recognise that the amendments are probably born of a desire to ensure proper independent decision making, with a view to protecting the quality and prestige of these awards, as well as students in the system. Let me therefore be clear that I fully agree with that intention and have designed a system that will do just that.
Let me explain how the future processes will work. With regards to degree-awarding powers, we have every intention of keeping the processes, which have worked well to date, broadly as they are. We expect the process to remain broadly peer review-based and we envisage that the OFS will seek information from the quality body, with involvement from an appropriately independent committee. On university title, again, we are not planning to change the independent decision making and scrutiny. For both areas, we want decisions to continue to be made by an arm’s length body, based on departmental guidance that has been subject to consultation as and when appropriate. That also applies to variation and revocation of degree-awarding powers and revocation of university title. Additionally, those processes will be supported by a right of appeal, as set out in clauses 45 and 55.
Although I thank Opposition Members for giving me the opportunity to talk about these important matters, we have designed the new system with the right safeguards in place. Reinserting a role for the Privy Council would therefore add nothing except unnecessary process, so I ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
Well, I am reassured that the Minister thinks he has managed to produce a brand-new system that is going to work absolutely perfectly; that is what people always say when they produce brand-new systems. For the avoidance of doubt, we were not suggesting retaining the Privy Council in its existing position, and nor were the people who supported our proposal. It was a backstop, and I hope the Minister understands that—I have tried to make it as clear as possible.
The Minister has given various assurances today; we will see how they pan out in practice. I maintain that it is a risk to create a new brand on the international HE stage without a backstop, when we are going to be in such difficult circumstances over the next two or three years. However, we are not going to agree, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
Indeed. Give that man a gold star.
Before we get into ridiculous territory, the serious point is that if we are to have confidence in the system that the Minister is proposing, it is important to have a body that can advise. That is the intention behind the new clause. The idea was put to us by MillionPlus but the view is shared by a large number of other organisations, including UUK, which the Minister quoted earlier.
MillionPlus believes that
“strong safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that any body that is awarded degree awarding powers or university title has met the criteria to do so, and will not put student interest at risk, or potentially damage the hard earned reputation of the entire higher education sector in the UK.”
Those are all things that we have been praying in aid this afternoon.
The new clause would go a long way to meeting that requirement. Subsection (2)(a) would provide for a committee to advise the OFS in general as to how it is fulfilling its functions. Subsections (2)(b) and (c) would allow for that committee to advise the OFS on the particular uses of its power to grant degree-awarding powers or university title.
The new clause allows the OFS to revoke degree-awarding powers or university title without consulting the committee, which means that any argument against it on the grounds that it might create problematic delays if urgent action were required would be mitigated. In fulfilling its role, we would expect the committee to seek advice from the designated quality body.
The current arrangements—and the Minister has made great play of praying in aid the current arrangements—for conferring degree-awarding powers and university title on an institution require, in England, the Higher Education Funding Council for England to seek the advice of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. That is not required in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, but it clearly sets a precedent where appropriate expertise is sought prior to any decision making. It is therefore vital that the OFS continue to seek advice from the designated quality body prior to any conferring of degree-awarding powers and/or university title—[Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening. There is, therefore, a strong argument for introducing the new clause further to reflect that obligation.
Joseph Johnson
We have debated clause 40 extensively, so I will turn straight to new clause 6. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of safeguarding quality and ensuring that only high-quality providers can access degree-awarding powers and university title. We are taking that very seriously. I hope that that came through adequately in the technical note that we published a few weeks ago before the party conference recess.
I am interested that hon. Members have proposed the establishment of a committee with similar responsibilities to the current Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers. I assure this Committee that we have every intention of keeping the processes around the scrutiny of applications for degree-awarding powers, which have worked well—including those around scrutiny of applications for university title—broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element of independent peer review, most likely in the form of a committee of independent members. As now, we would expect that committee to play a vital role in the scrutiny of applications, bringing to bear its unique and expert perspective on the process, and enabling the OFS to draw on its expertise in coming to a decision.
Gordon Marsden
The amendment reflects the concerns we have discussed about the revoking of powers. It also reflects the concerns of a number of bodies, not least Cambridge University, which has expressed real concern about that being done simply by statutory instrument. Cambridge University said in its evidence:
“The Bill must include measures to guarantee appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over the OfS’s discharge of its enforcement powers and imposition of penalties, including the revocation of Degree Awarding Powers and University Title. This is to ensure that any decision that may impinge on institutional autonomy is properly considered and good reason for doing so needs to be established.”
In this case, that means provisions must be scrutinised and approved by both Houses of Parliament. We accept that these occasions are likely to be rare, which is precisely why we think the matter should be reserved for both Houses of Parliament.
Joseph Johnson
The amendments relate to the power to revoke or vary degree-awarding powers, which is one part of the suite of tools available to the OFS under the new regulatory framework. We have long recognised that in order for the sector to be regulated effectively, refined and express powers to vary or remove degree-awarding powers in serious cases are vital. That makes it clear to providers what is at stake if quality drops to unacceptable levels. It does not mean we are interfering with the autonomy of providers.
We intend that the OFS and the new quality body will work with providers to address any emerging problems early on. The OFS would use the power to revoke degree-awarding powers only when other interventions had failed to produce the necessary results. However, I recognise the significance of these refined, express powers and the need to put the right safeguards in place. That is what clauses 44 and 45 are designed to do.
On amendment 222, I hope I can provide some reassurance. I fully agree that when making a decision on whether to vary or revoke a provider’s degree-awarding powers, the OFS should be able to draw on all relevant information. That may include information provided by other organisations such as students unions, other providers or the local community. Of course, we also plan for the OFS to make decisions having received information from the designated quality body and UKRI. The provisions in clause 58 already enable the OFS to co-operate and share information with other bodies in order to perform its functions. We expect the detail of how that should work to be set out in departmental guidance, and we plan to consult on the detail of the guidance prior to publication.
I turn to amendment 221 and the actual process of variation and revocation. Clauses 44 and 45 set out in detail what that process will look like, and we intend them to be supported by more detailed guidance. A significant safeguard in the right to appeal to the first-tier tribunal is contained in clause 45. Having a structured appeals process is vital to ensuring that providers have a clear voice and that the system can hold the trust of students and taxpayers and maintain the world-class reputation of the sector. That is a very strong protection in the Bill and means that the powers of the OFS can be checked by the judiciary.
A decision by the OFS cannot take effect before the routes of appeal are exhausted, and any order by the OFS to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers would be a statutory instrument. That would mean it could be published, thus ensuring appropriate transparency. Together, those are strong safeguards, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response and particularly for his assurance in respect of amendment 222 that there will be consultation with other organisations. I must ask the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University and various others whether they will be content with this simply being a matter for statutory instrument. We will see how the process works out, but I am content with the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Validation by authorised providers
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 46, page 26, line 5, leave out
“authorised taught awards and foundation degrees”
and insert
“taught awards and foundation degrees that the provider is authorised to grant”.
This amendment is technical and is needed because clause 46(5) defines “authorised” by reference to a registered higher education provider rather than a taught award or foundation degree.
The clause enables the OFS to commission registered degree-awarding bodies to extend their validation services to other registered providers, if, for example, there is a mismatch between supply and demand. The OFS can commission providers to extend their validation services only if that is allowed by the provider’s degree-awarding powers. The OFS cannot bestow new powers on degree-awarding bodies via the commissioning ability. However, the current language in this clause, which refers to
“authorised taught awards and foundation degrees”,
is a little unclear. The amendment seeks to clarify what we mean by an “authorised” award by using clearer, simpler language. It puts it beyond doubt that the OFS can commission a provider to validate only the taught awards and foundation degrees that the provider is authorised to grant. This is a technical amendment and does not change the scope, purpose or effect of the clause.
Amendment 75 agreed to.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 46, page 26, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Such commissioning arrangements shall include commissioning the Open University as a validator of last resort.”.
This amendment ensures that the Open University rather than the OfS itself is the validator of last resort.
This is a probing amendment to test the Minister’s easy-going, laissez-faire attitude about which courses can be validated and by whom. It is far from clear in clauses 46 and 47 what sort of institution the Minister has in mind for the OFS to use as a validator and, in particular, a validator of last resort. The Opposition are a little bit worried that new providers—or indeed existing providers—could be touting their degrees around different institutions just waiting for one that will validate them, and that the OFS will support that. [Interruption.]
Joseph Johnson
It is essential that along with the direct entry route to the market, which we discussed earlier in relation to clause 40, new providers should be able to choose to access first-class validation services if they feel that would be the right choice for them. We know from the Green Paper consultation responses that validation arrangements can be mutually beneficial for new providers and incumbents alike. They can enable new providers to draw on the knowledge, skills and expertise of more well established providers in the design and delivery of their awards, while building up their own track record of performance. For incumbent providers, validation can serve as an additional revenue stream and enable them to offer complementary HE provision to their own students. However, validation arrangements can also be one-sided, as the power to enter into, and charge for, a validation agreement lies with the validating body. In the extreme, as we have heard, that could lead to incumbent providers essentially locking new providers out of the system indefinitely, or making it prohibitively or unreasonably expensive.
I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the important role that the Open University already plays in providing validation services, and I also welcome its general support for the need for the provisions in the clause. Furthermore, I thank the Open University for the way it is already engaging with the QAA and Independent HE to consider how to improve validation services and remove some of the barriers that new providers currently experience. However, I do not think it is right or necessary to include a role for the OU in legislation, as the amendment would have us do.
I would expect the OFS to need to adopt a purely voluntary, open, fair and transparent approach to any commissioning arrangements, so that all providers understand how they can get involved and what would be expected of them. The OFS must be able to set out the terms of the commissioning arrangements and choose the most appropriate registered higher education provider at the time, to ensure that it can continue to stimulate the development and reach of good-quality validation services. If the OU wanted to enter into commissioning arrangements to offer validation services with the OFS, the Bill would not prevent that from happening, but it would not be appropriate to prescribe a role for one registered higher education provider over another in legislation.
Turning to the intent underlying the amendment, we of course expect the parties with which the OFS enters into validating arrangements to be of similar stature to the Open University and to offer the same kind of high-quality provision. I therefore ask the hon. Member for City of Durham to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I think it would help us if the Minister provided some further clarity on the guidance or regulations that will underpin commissioning arrangements, so that we can be absolutely certain that a high-quality provider will ultimately be commissioned as the validator of last resort. Will the Minister reflect on that and bring some further reassurances back to us? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Validation by the OfS
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 26, line 42, after “authorise” insert “authorised”.
This amendment and amendment 77 limit the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the OfS to authorise registered higher education providers to enter into validation arrangements on its behalf. The providers are required to be “authorised” (defined in the new subsection (6A) added by amendment 78), both to grant the taught awards or foundation degrees to which the arrangements relate, and to enter into the validation arrangements to which the arrangements relate.
Joseph Johnson
The Government’s higher education reforms will allow providers to choose which model of HE provision best suits their needs, removing any unnecessary barriers to market entry for high-quality providers and promoting institutional competition and student choice. To achieve that, it is essential that along with a direct entry route to market, HE providers that can meet relevant quality thresholds and have a degree they want to introduce into the higher education market should be able to access first-class validation services, if they feel that would be the right choice for them.
Clause 47 enables the Secretary of State to authorise the OFS to act as a validator of last resort if he or she deems it necessary or expedient. It also states that the powers set out in regulations may allow the OFS to authorise registered HE providers to validate taught awards and foundation degrees on its behalf. We intend to give the OFS the ability to validate only if there are serious circumstances that warrant it, for example if serious or intractable validation failures exist. It is vital, though, that we set the right parameters for use, which is why it will be for the Secretary of State to authorise the OFS to act as a validator of last resort should he or she deem it necessary or expedient, having taken the OFS’s advice.
The Secretary of State would then need to lay secondary regulations before Parliament, which I would expect to set out the terms and conditions of any OFS validation activity. They would provide Parliament with the opportunity to see those conditions, and Parliament would retain the power of veto. In addition, the OFS should authorise only HE providers that have the necessary degree-awarding powers to validate taught and foundation degrees on its behalf. The clause does not make that explicit, so my amendments ensure that the Secretary of State’s powers are explicitly limited in that way. That important limitation safeguards academic standards and quality, to protect student interests, and I therefore ask hon. Members to allow the amendments to be made.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Amendments made: 77, in clause 47, page 27, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) But regulations under subsection (1) may not include power for the OfS to authorise a provider to enter on its behalf into validation arrangements which are—
(a) arrangements in respect of taught awards or foundation degrees that the provider is not authorised to grant, or
(b) arrangements that the provider is not authorised to enter into.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 76.
Amendment 78, in clause 47, page 27, line 11, at end insert—
“(6A) In this section, ‘authorised’, in relation to a registered higher education provider, means authorised to grant taught awards or foundation degrees, and to enter into validation arrangements, by—
(a) an authorisation given—
(i) under section40(1),
(ii) by or under any other provision of an Act of Parliament, or
(iii) by Royal Charter, or
(b) an authorisation varied under section43(1).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment defines “authorised” for the purposes of clause 47, using the same definition as is used in clause 46.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
Because of the lateness of the hour I will try to be as brief as possible, even though the Opposition believe that it is fundamentally important that the clause be deleted. I have listened to the Minister and I appreciate the modifications made by his amendments—that is why we did not oppose them—but the fact remains that there is something very strange indeed about setting out powers that could ultimately make the OFS both the regulator of the market and a participant in it. I am rather surprised to hear the Minister, with his emphasis on competitive zeal, proposing a closed shop, which is what it would be. It is not just we who think that; UUK, most of the existing groups and other contributors have said the same.
If the Government want people to trust the OFS to represent student interests properly and protect the quality of HE, it must have a vested interest in those things and in nothing else. For the Government to be producing legislation that could eventually allow the OFS to compete with other providers to validate degrees—it might one day have to be judge and jury—risks tainting the reputation of the OFS from the start, and at the very least placing it in an invidious position. That is why UUK has said that it has grave concerns about the powers in the clause. It says:
“We cannot foresee any circumstances which would justify the creation of such a clear conflict of interest in the position of the OfS, and therefore do not think the bill should grant the OfS this power regardless of any protections through parliamentary scrutiny or governmental oversight. We recommend that clause 47 is removed from the bill.”
We agree with UUK, for the reasons I have just explained, and we will oppose clause 47 standing part of the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
It is essential that along with a direct entry route into the market, new providers can choose to access first-class validation services if they feel that would be right choice for them. We need to consider how these arrangements would work in the context of the new single regulatory framework and market entry reforms, rather than the existing system. For new providers without their own degree-awarding powers that do not want to choose the direct route to market entry, their ability to find a validating partner and to negotiate a good value-for-money validation agreement with them is vital in order to become degree-level providers and to generate good-quality, innovative provision.
We only need to look at recent events at Teesside University. Following a change of leadership, Teesside University said in March this year that it would be ending its validation of higher education programmes in the wider college network outside the Tees valley in 2017—a decision that will affect 10 FE colleges. Teesside admitted that the decision was made
“purely on the university’s strategic direction of travel and not as a reflection on the quality of the provision”
it had been validating. Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said that the announcement had come as a “very unwelcome surprise” to colleges, and that it would create
“significant problems and additional work and cost”
for them as they try to seek new validating partners.
Ensuring that new high-quality providers are not locked out of the market via their preferred entry route is essential to ensuring that students are able to access the right type of higher education for them. I therefore want to ensure that the OFS has all the necessary tools at its disposal and is properly empowered to recognise and reward good practice or to quickly intervene and correct any serious systemic failures that might occur. If the OFS finds that there are insufficient providers with the capacity or appetite to enter into direct validation agreements with other providers or into commissioning arrangements with the OFS, or if those fail to correct the problem, the OFS will need to find another way to promote competition and choice.
Without these further powers, the OFS could be forced to stand by and watch while good-quality providers that do not want to seek their own degree-awarding powers remain locked out of degree-level provision indefinitely. That would be especially problematic if severe or stubborn intractable validation failures emerge. Jonathan Simons, head of education at the Policy Exchange think-tank, said that the Teesside case was a good example of why institutions should not be forced to rely on incumbents to validate their degrees. As he put it,
“Being dependent on a university for validation puts colleges in a subservient position and at the mercy of universities making decisions about withdrawing partnerships, not least when universities and colleges are competing for the same students…This is exactly why either colleges should be able to have awarding powers themselves, or there should be some sort of degree awarding council.”
Clause 47 enables the Secretary of State to authorise the OFS to act as a validator of last resort should he or she deem that necessary or expedient, having taken OFS advice. We expect the OFS board to have experience of providing HE, so its members will be well placed to understand if there is a systematic problem with validation services across the sector. I also expect OFS advice to be informed by consultation with the sector, so that it has a better understanding of the root causes of any problems and how providers and stakeholders think those can be best fixed. I envisage that the consultation would culminate in the OFS presenting the Secretary of State with a compelling, evidence-based argument that clearly demonstrates the scale, nature and severity of the validation problem and why giving it powers to validate through secondary regulation is the right solution to address that.
Such a power would also allow the OFS to delegate this role to other registered providers that can be authorised to validate awards on its behalf, as we have discussed. For example, I envisage that the OFS could choose to contract in people with the right skills and practical experience of higher education so that the validation service has access to the cohesive academic community it needs to perform this function effectively. In doing so, I expect the OFS to assure itself of the quality of any potential contracting partners, including by obtaining information from the designated quality body.
I am aware that some providers and stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential for the clause to create a conflict of interest—in other words, if the OFS is operating in the market it is regulating, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South put it. I would like to provide reassurance that that option is intended to be used only in extreme circumstances, after other measures have been tried and failed. As I have already said, regulations giving the OFS that power will be put before Parliament. If made, that secondary regulation would essentially allow the OFS to unblock any unnecessary and intractable barriers to degree-level market entry, essentially fixing a market failure.
Joseph Johnson
We see this power as coherent with our overall vision for the sector of encouraging a competitive market. We see it as a backstop power that will address effectively what would be a market failure in the absence of providers able to validate high-quality provision in a certain area or subject. I urge the hon. Lady to reread the evidence the Committee was given from parties who had had difficulty securing validation agreements or who could attest to the difficulty that others had had in securing validation agreements. They are high-quality providers who had needlessly been made to run an obstacle course in pursuit of validation arrangements.
As I said, I want to provide reassurance that this option is intended to be used only in extreme circumstances after other measures have been tried and failed. It will come before Parliament in the form of secondary regulations. If made, it will allow the OFS to unblock any unnecessary and intractable barriers to degree-level market entry, enable new providers to introduce a more diverse range of innovative degree programmes to students and enable students to achieve an OFS-validated degree award.
I would expect the OFS, as the regulator of HE quality and standards and champion of student interests, to be best in class in demonstrating that its validation services abide by best practice validation principles and deliver to the highest standards. I would also expect the OFS to put in place appropriate governance arrangements that ensure that an appropriate level of independent scrutiny is applied to the validating arm of the organisation and safeguards to protect student interests.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 49, page 28, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (10)(a)—
(a) for “means” substitute “—
(i) means”, and
(b) after “outside the United Kingdom” insert “, and
(ii) includes the Office for Students”.”
This amendment extends the definition of “United Kingdom institution” in section 214 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to include the OfS and so ensures that the offence in that section relating to offering unrecognised awards granted by such an institution also covers awards granted by the OfS.
Joseph Johnson
The amendments will make some clarifications to clauses 49 and 50, which amend the unrecognised degree provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988.
Amendment 79 will ensure that we take a consistent approach to the offence of providing unrecognised degrees. Degree awards made by the OFS and by persons wrongly purporting to be the OFS will also fall within the scope of the provisions concerning unrecognised degrees.
Amendments 80 to 83 and 85 to 87 will ensure that when an English body is included in a recognised body order, it will not be presumed able to grant any or all degrees if its powers have been granted under the Bill. To see what degrees it can grant, it will be necessary to refer to the order that gives or varies its powers to grant degrees. Such orders and regulations will be statutory instruments and should be published accordingly. These provisions are part of the steps that we are taking to ensure, for example, that an English provider that is given only the power to grant bachelor degrees can be caught by the unrecognised degree offence if it grants a masters degree.
Amendment 84 is corrective in nature. It reflects that providers with degree-awarding powers that enable them to validate are free to enter into validating agreements with other bodies without needing further authorisation under the Bill to approve a course. Any validation agreements whereby courses are approved will still need to be in accordance with that body’s academic governance arrangements.
Amendment 88 makes it clear that existing orders relating to degree-awarding bodies remain valid. The status of providers listed on those orders will only be affected if the OFS subsequently varies or revokes their degree-awarding powers.
Amendment 79 agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Unrecognised degrees: supplementary
Amendments made: 80, in clause 50, page 28, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) For subsection (1) substitute—
(1) The appropriate authority may by order designate each body which appears to the authority to be a recognised body within subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c).
(1A) For the purposes of sections 214 and 215, any body for the time being designated by an order under subsection (1) as a recognised body within subsection (4)(c) is conclusively presumed to be such a body.”.
This amendment and amendment 86 amend the power of the OfS, the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers under section 216(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to designate those bodies which appear to them to be authorised to grant degrees or other awards. In the case of bodies authorised under the Bill to grant awards (i.e. English higher or further education providers or the OfS) or bodies permitted to act on behalf of such bodies to grant awards, designation does not result in a conclusive presumption that they have power to do so. Whether an award granted by such a designated body is a “recognised award” and so exempt from the offence under section 214 of the 1988 Act will depend upon whether the body is authorised to grant the award in question.
Amendment 81, in clause 50, page 28, line 37, leave out “subsections (1) and” and insert “subsection”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.
Amendment 82, in clause 50, page 29, line 13, leave out
“falling within paragraph (za) or (zb) of section 214(2)”
and insert
“within subsection (4)(a) or (b)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.
Amendment 83, in clause 50, page 29, line 16, leave out “that paragraph” and insert “subsection (4)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.
Amendment 84, in clause 50, page 29, line 18, leave out from “body” to end of line 19.
This amendment amends one of the new requirements which clause 50 adds to section 216(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for being a body listed under subsection (2) of that section. The new requirement enables a body to be listed where it provides a course in preparation for a degree to be granted by a recognised body with degree awarding powers under the Bill. The course must be approved by the recognised body. The amendment removes the requirement that the approval has to be authorised by the recognised body’s degree awarding powers.
Amendment 85, in clause 50, page 29, line 20, leave out
“falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of section 214(2)”
and insert “within subsection (4)(c)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.
Amendment 86, in clause 50, page 29, line 22, leave out from “subsection (4),” to the end and insert
“after ‘means’ insert
‘—(a) a body which is authorised to grant awards by—
(i) an authorisation given under section40(1) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”),
(ii) an authorisation varied under section43(1) of the 2016 Act, or
(iii) regulations under section47(1) of the 2016 Act,
(b) a body for the time being permitted by a body within paragraph (a) to act on its behalf in the granting of awards where the grant of the awards by that other body on its behalf is authorised by the authorisation or regulations mentioned in paragraph (a), or
(c) ’.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 80.
Amendment 87, in clause 50, page 29, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) In the heading, after ‘awards’ insert ‘etc’.”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.
Amendment 88, in clause 50, page 29, line 33, leave out
“by the Secretary of State”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 80 and makes clear that no orders made under section 216 of the Education Reform Act 1988, whether by the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers, before the coming into force of clause 50 are affected by the amendments made by that clause.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Use of “university” in title of institution
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 51, page 30, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) The power may be exercised as to include the word university in the name of the institution only when it can demonstrate that—
(a) it offers access to a range of cultural activities including, but not restricted to, the opportunity to undertake sport and recreation and access to 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.”
This amendment ensures that a broad range of activities and opportunities are available to students before allowing a higher education institute to use the title of ‘university’.
The Committee has already gone round the houses on this issue, but the amendment specifically addresses what sort of institution can use “university” in its title. We previously discussed whether something that was not a university could be called one. The amendment would ensure that if something has “university” in its title, it is actually a university, not an institution that is delivering either a single subject—as appeared to be the case in the Minister’s earlier example—or a range of subjects but with nothing else that would enable any of us to recognise it as a university.
Our universities have an excellent reputation not only for providing high-quality education but for delivering all sorts of other things alongside it, such as access to a range of cultural activities, sporting and other recreational activities, good-quality student support, access to health and wellbeing services, specialist support where necessary, opportunities for volunteering and the opportunity to join a student union. The institution itself plays a positive civic role. From clause 51, it appears that absolutely none of that will be necessary in the future for an institution to be called a university. If that is not massively dumbing down our university system, I do not know what is.
I see no justification for allowing an institution to use university in its title when it is clearly not a university and does not provide the range of services associated with a university. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to assure us that he will uphold the quality and excellence of our higher education sector and ensure that all students get not only a chance to have those higher level skills, but an opportunity for personal development and sporting development in a place where their specialist educational needs are supported by the institution.
Joseph Johnson
We return to the criteria that we expect providers to meet in order to obtain a university title, which we discussed quite extensively at an earlier stage in the proceedings. As I have said before, we only want providers with full degree-awarding powers to be eligible for a university title. That process tests, among other things, academic standards and whether there is a cohesive academic community. It is a high bar that only high-quality providers will be able to meet. We are clear that we want to maintain that high bar in the future.
The amendment highlights the breadth of opportunities offered by participation in a higher education course. I welcome the idea behind it, but I do not believe such a prescription is desirable in legislation. There are many examples of extracurricular activities and experiences offered by higher education institutions, such as sporting groups, the arts, associations and exchange opportunities, and many providers play an important role in their local communities in that respect. I agree that in many cases these activities contribute greatly to a student’s learning and personal and professional development and can be as much a part of their education as traditional lectures. When a student is deciding where to study, they are making a decision based on many factors, for example, the qualification they will receive, the cultural and social opportunities, the student organisations they could join and what support is available to them. One size does not fit all and student populations vary hugely in their requirements, as we discussed before. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education institutions are themselves best placed to decide what experiences they may offer to students and what relationships they have with other local organisations, without prescription from central Government.
Paul Blomfield
In response to an earlier remark I made, the Minister said that he expected all universities to provide services to support students’ mental health. Does he stand by that remark in this context?
Joseph Johnson
That is their duty under the Equality Act 2010—they have to ensure that students are not discriminated against if they have mental health issues and so on—and also their duty of care. That is an important part of what universities do in supporting students, who they have autonomously admitted, through their studies. Having taken that decision, it is important that universities make sure that those students have the academic and the counselling support to enable them to get through their courses of study.
As now, we intend to set out in guidance the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title, and we plan to consult on the detail before publication. The OFS will then make decisions having regard to that guidance. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments. Allowing the possibility of university title being granted to a single-course institution with no supporting services or extracurricular activity is not setting a high bar; it is setting an extremely low bar. The reality of clause 51 is that an institution—a single-course institution—could become a university with no additional services or offers whatever to students.
I heard what the Minister said about guidance and I assume that that guidance will address the specific concerns that I raised previously in Committee and this afternoon. On the basis of the fact that the Minister will produce guidance and, presumably, will let us have some idea of what is going to be in that guidance before we finish our deliberations on the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Ninth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 11th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 October 2016 - (11 Oct 2016)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 199, in clause 25, page 15, line 17, at end insert?
‘(3) 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 198 would ensure TEF measures were subject to scrutiny by, and approval of, both Houses of Parliament.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope—unexpectedly, as you take the place of Sir Edward and the other standing Chair of the Committee. I thank hon. Members for tabling this amendment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blackpool South was not here to move it, but his colleague did so superbly and briefly, which is the sort of taciturn approach to moving amendments that we welcome and would like to see followed throughout the rest of today’s proceedings. I do not, however, believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve its objectives or, indeed, proportionate, given the protections we have put in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My apologies for my lateness; Members will not be surprised to hear that it was a result of Network Rail.
I do not believe that the Government’s record so far in saying there are sufficient safeguards gives us a great deal of confidence. The truth of the matter is that there are still major issues with the teaching excellence framework that cannot simply be resolved down the Committee corridor at some point. They need proper and full scrutiny on the Floor of the House of Commons, which is why we tabled these amendments. In a spirit of good will, and because my colleague moved the amendment in my place, I will not detain the Committee further. I do, however, note that we view the whole way in which the TEF is being handled in administrative and governmental terms as very fishy. We will continue to probe the Minister on it, so his hopes of a swift finish to the day might be dashed.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 25, page 15, line 14, after “ratings” insert “—
(a) ”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 40.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 40, 41, 108, 109, 112 and 113.
Joseph Johnson
I am delighted to move these amendments. One of the strengths of our higher education sector is the way it operates across the whole UK. Though education is devolved, that has not stopped us working together for the benefit of all. This is no different for the TEF. My officials and I are working closely with our counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we have set out in our White Paper that that has led to higher education providers across the whole UK being able to participate in the first year of the TEF. We have had positive discussions with the HE sectors themselves to ensure that year 2 of the TEF takes account of the different approaches in each nation and ensures that every provider is assessed on a level playing field. I am delighted that all three of the devolved Administrations have now confirmed that their providers will be allowed to take part in year 2 of the TEF if they so wish.
As Alastair Sim of Universities Scotland said, when giving evidence to the Committee,
“the engagement with the Department for Education has been constructive and creative about how the metrics of the TEF might be configured in ways that take account of Scottish interests.” —[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 67, Q103.]
These amendments allow that kind of collaboration to continue so the OFS can, subject to the consent of the relevant devolved Government, receive applications for TEF assessments from providers across the UK. Amendments 37, 40, 112 and 113 will enable Ministers in the devolved Governments to decide whether to opt in or out of the TEF scheme. Even if a devolved Minister gives their consent, participation in TEF will remain voluntary for individual providers, as it is in England.
I am keen to address the points made in the evidence sessions about the need for the TEF to recognise the distinctive approaches to higher education across the UK, and we have ensured that the devolved nations are fully represented in the governance structure for the TEF going forward. Amendments 41 and 108 ensure we are using the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish definitions of “higher education course” for the purposes of the TEF. Amendment 109 amends clause 80 so that, where Welsh Ministers exercise their existing powers to set maximum fee loans in Wales, they can do so by reference to matters outside of regulations. That could be the list of providers and their relevant tuition fee limits, based on their TEF ratings, which will be published by the OFS.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I will raise some of the issues and concerns that Scottish institutions have with the TEF. The Minister has rightly said that Scottish institutions now have the ability to participate in the TEF, but Scottish institutions already have their own quality assurance under the enhancement-led institutional review. That is a collaborative quality assessment that looks at improving standards across the board, whereas the metrics within the TEF at the moment seem to lower standards somewhat. The problem that Scottish institutes have if they do not participate in the TEF is that when they compete in the international market students can look at somewhere with a high TEF rating and compare it with Scottish universities that might not have participated. If some do and some do not, there is a two-tier process.
We would look for some benchmarking of Scotland’s quality assurance against the TEF, so that institutions that choose to participate in the TEF do not disadvantage others or do not have to undergo a double level of quality assurance. We ask that the enhancement-led institutional review should be recognised as meeting the requirements of TEF year 1, to avoid any detriment to Scottish higher education.
Joseph Johnson
Let me reiterate that these amendments provide enabling powers for the OFS to run a TEF scheme that includes higher education providers across the UK subject, as I said, to the consent of Ministers in those Administrations. I am delighted that my devolved counterparts have agreed that they are content to allow their providers to participate in TEF in year 2. We welcome the commitment of Scottish Ministers to allow their universities—their higher education institutions—to participate if they wish to do so. We certainly take on board all the points made by the hon. Lady.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 25, page 15, line 15, after “and” insert “the”.
This amendment ensures that the OfS can assess all of the standards that apply to the higher education provided by a provider and ensures consistency with the language in clause 23(1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 39, 44, 46 to 48, 51, 54 to 58, 65 and 66.
Joseph Johnson
I turn now to a relatively large group of minor and technical amendments, which will provide consistency of language and drafting across the Bill as well as additional clarity on specific points.
I do not wish to spend a lot of the Committee’s time on these, as they are purely technical amendments that do not change the core policy. All of them, except for amendments 56 and 65, ensure the language is consistent across clauses 23, 25, 26 and schedule 4.
Amendment 56 clarifies that when the Secretary of State removes a quality body’s designation, she must set out all of the reasons for the decision. Amendment 65 clarifies that “graduate”, for the purposes of schedule 4, means a graduate of a higher education course provided in England. As the designated body will be undertaking functions only in England, it was important to clarify that we were talking only about graduates of a course provided in England.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendments made: 39, in clause 25, page 15, line 15, leave out second “the”.
This amendment ensures that the language of clause 25 is consistent with clause 23 and clarifies that a scheme can cover some or all of the education provided by a provider.
Amendment 40, in clause 25, page 15, line 16, after “rating” insert “, and
(a) to higher education providers in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, in respect of whom the appropriate consent is given, regarding the quality of, and the standards applied to, higher education that they provide where they apply for such a rating.
‘(1A) “The appropriate consent” means—
(a) in the case of a higher education provider in Wales, the consent of the Welsh Ministers to the application of subsection (1) to the provider;
(b) in the case of a higher education provider in Scotland, the consent of the Scottish Ministers to the application of subsection (1) to the provider;
(c) in the case of a higher education provider in Northern Ireland, the consent of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to the application of subsection (1) to the provider.
(1B) Such consent—
(a) may be given either generally in respect of all providers or in respect of providers of a particular description or named providers,
(b) is given by notifying the Chair of the OfS, and
(c) is valid until it is revoked by notifying the Chair.
(1C) For the purposes of applying the definition of “higher education provider” in section 75(1) to subsections (1)(b) and (1A), the reference to “higher education” in that definition—
(a) in the case of an institution in Wales, has the meaning given in section 75(1);
(b) in the case of an institution in Scotland, has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;
(c) in the case of an institution in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15));
and the reference to “higher education” in subsection (1)(b) is to be read accordingly.”
This amendment and amendment 41 extend the power of the OfS to make arrangements under clause 25 for a scheme for giving ratings to English higher education providers regarding the quality of, and the standards applied to, higher education that they provide so as to also include Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish higher education providers where the relevant devolved administration consents and the provider applies for a rating. Amendments 108, 112 and 113 are related amendments.
Amendment 41, in clause 25, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3) For the purposes of applying that definition of “standards” to subsection (1)(b), the reference to a “higher education course” in that definition—
(a) in the case of an institution in Wales, has the meaning given in section75(1);
(b) in the case of an institution in Scotland, means a course falling within section 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;
(c) in the case of an institution in Northern Ireland, means a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)).”—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 40.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 286, in clause 25, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3) In making arrangements under subsection (1), the OfS must, after a period of consultation, make—
(a) an assessment of the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is in fact linked to teaching quality; and
(b) an assessment of potential unintended consequences which could arise from an institution seeking to optimise its score on each metric, with proposals on how these risks can best be mitigated.
(4) The assessment under subsection (3) must be made public.”
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.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I hope this is a proposal on which we can find agreement across the Committee. With this amendment, I am seeking to reflect the recommendation made unanimously by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, when we looked at teaching quality in our recent report. There were some areas where we robustly did not agree, but this is a matter on which we did, and I am sure that if I deviate from that consensus, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase will pick me up on it. Although we fully endorsed the Government’s focus on teaching excellence, in the light of evidence we heard we were concerned about getting the arrangements right. The metrics being proposed were not, as the Government recognised, measures of teaching quality; they were rough proxies.
The three key metrics are employment, retention and the national student survey. We discussed employment briefly under earlier clauses. In all the evidence we received, and certainly across the Committee, it was recognised that employment destination, although important, is not a satisfactory measure of teaching quality. That is an important point, and it is an issue that the Government are concerned about in relation to their work on social mobility and creating opportunities, on which the Prime Minister has put great emphasis. If someone comes from the right school and the right family and goes to the right Oxbridge college, it does not matter how well they are taught; they will probably end up in a good job; that is widely recognised. Employment destination is not a measure of teaching quality. The Select Committee were concerned that that is a flawed metric for measuring teaching excellence. That is not controversial; it is something on which we find cross-party agreement.
Paul Blomfield
Even from my position sitting in this Committee Room, I would not wish to assess that evaluation, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman might want to share that with the Committee. It highlights in a particularly graphic way how we know the NSS does not provide a satisfactory metric in that respect. However, as the Government said, these are proxies.
The amendment would ensure, as the Select Committee recommended, that the office for students has a responsibility, in overseeing the metrics, to ensure that they can confidently and accurately measure teaching quality and nothing else—not the personal features of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, not employment outcomes based on family background and school connections, but teaching quality. On that we are all agreed, and I therefore hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment on a subject that he and I have discussed on many occasions over the last year or so. I am sure we will continue to do so for some time to come.
The summary of our position is that excellent teaching can occur in many forms. There is no one-size-fits-all definition of teaching excellence, but great teaching, defined broadly, increases the likelihood of good outcomes, and metrics are crucial to measuring those outcomes. Chris Husbands, the TEF chair and vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, has noted that the TEF’s approach is realistic about the difficulty of assessing teaching quality. He wrote:
“It does not pretend to be a direct audit of the quality of teaching. Instead, it uses a range of evidence to construct a framework within which to make an assessment—looking at a range of data on teaching quality, learning environments and student outcomes.”
In developing the metrics, we and the Higher Education Funding Council for England have listened carefully to the consultation feedback. We have used a set of criteria to decide which metrics to use: that they must be robust, valid, comprehensive, credible and current. We wanted to use tried and tested data sets that are already widely established in the sector, not least to avoid the need to collect new data and impose a burden on institutions. There is currently a limited set of metrics that meet those criteria, but those metrics do allow for differentiation across providers. For example, on retention and student outcomes, many providers are well above or below the current sector-accepted benchmark. Quality teaching clearly makes a difference. To quote Chris Husbands again, his
“sense is that as the system matures, the metrics will also mature, but it is difficult to argue that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are not the right places to look to make an assessment.”
We consulted extensively on the metrics as part of the year 2 technical consultation and made further improvements to the way the metrics were handled. The sector has welcomed our changes. For example, on the publication of the TEF year 2 documentation, Maddalaine Ansell, the chief executive of University Alliance, said:
“There are decisions here that we strongly welcome, such as a broader approach to benchmarking…and a more granular system for looking at performance differences… We remain confident that we can work with government to shape the TEF so it works well as it develops.”
Let me turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and other hon. Members made on the metrics proposed and on widening participation. Essentially, the question was, “Won’t the TEF metrics and the TEF process itself encourage providers not to take people from disadvantaged groups?” The answer to that question is clearly no. Providers will be required to demonstrate their commitment to widening participation as a precondition of taking part in the TEF. Assessors will consider how the provider performs across all modes of delivery and its effectiveness at meeting the needs of students from different backgrounds. The assessment process will, however, explicitly look at the extent to which the provider achieves positive outcomes for disadvantaged groups, and the metrics will be benchmarked to prevent the TEF being gamed and to ensure that no institution is penalised for having a large cohort of disadvantaged students.
It is worthwhile reflecting on what a current vice-chancellor says about this aspect of the TEF in relation to widening participation. Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent, recently wrote:
“Emphasising widening access, selecting these metrics, and connecting TEF and fee flexibility will prompt, if pursued rigorously, ever more serious consideration within universities of the ways in which young people from poorer backgrounds get in, are supported in staying, and get decent jobs when they leave. These are just the conversations that we ought to be having in universities more often and with greater results.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sure it is always possible to find one vice-chancellor who might agree with the Government’s approach, but the Minister must have had representations from a range of universities, including the Open University, that are really concerned about the weight that is being attached to things like retention. I know they have raised that with Committee members; I would be astonished if they had not raised it with the Minister.
Joseph Johnson
I think the hon. Lady is trying to present the TEF metric as being in conflict with widening participation. It is not; it is supportive of it. It is a precondition of participating in the TEF that institutions need an access agreement, and that sets an increasingly high bar for their commitment to widening participation. Research by the Social Market Foundation, for example, has found that there is no link between increased widening participation and worsening continuation rates. The hon. Lady and her colleague are setting up an Aunt Sally or a straw man; there is no evidence of the link that they are asking the Committee to consider.
While non-continuation rates are higher among the most disadvantaged students, some institutions are clearly successful at keeping those low as well. This cannot just be because some institutions are selective and have enrolled the most qualified and motivated students from disadvantaged groups. The Social Market Foundation research points to a number of institutions, with different profiles, that are making a success of the student experience. They include City University, St Mary’s Twickenham, Aston, Bishop Grosseteste, Lincoln and Kingston, which have among the highest retention rates of all institutions for the most disadvantaged students.
It is also worth hon. Members listening to what Les Ebdon, the director of fair access, had to say on this matter, because he probably knows more about it than anybody in the business. To quote his response to the TEF year 2 publication:
“The minister has made it clear that he sees fair access as being integral to the TEF, and I welcome the publication of the year 2 specification. The links to fair access have been further strengthened, following clear support from the sector in their consultation responses. It is especially pleasing to see specific measures on positive outcomes for disadvantaged students, and clear instructions to TEF panellists that they should consider disadvantaged students at every stage.”
Paul Blomfield
I want to raise a slightly different point on retention. The Minister will be aware of the recent publication by the Higher Education Policy Institute of a report produced by Poppy Brown that discusses the crisis in mental health in our universities, the growing concern across the sector and the investment of some institutions in, and different responses to, the challenge. What are his thoughts on the effect that growing crisis in mental health might have on achieving successful outcomes in retention and what support universities might need in doing that?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that subject. I commend the vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, Anthony Seldon, for leading a campaign to raise awareness of this important issue across the HE sector. It is vital that universities take full responsibility for the wellbeing of their students, towards whom they have a duty of care. Ensuring that students are supported throughout their studies, including during difficult periods relating to mental health or other issues that cause them to need counselling services, is an important part of a university’s overall pastoral role.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked about regional employment variations across the system and how they will be taken into consideration in the TEF. That is an important point to which the Department has been giving considerable thought in developing the TEF. The TEF assessors will be able to take local employment into account when they assess providers’ qualitative submissions. If providers believe it is relevant to provide regional employment maps alongside their data on outcomes through the destination of leavers from higher education survey, the panel of assessors will be ready to take any such points into consideration. Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that students are mobile to a great extent and that we live in a national labour market. Regional employment maps will not be the only factor that assessors take into account, but they will take them into account in making their broad, rounded assessment of a university’s contribution to good outcomes.
In our consultation on the TEF metrics we received strong support for our proposals, with more than 70% of respondents welcoming our approach to contextualising data and the provider submissions. We will continue to review the metrics in use, and where there is a strong case to do so, we will add new metrics to future rounds of the TEF. We have taken and will continue to take a reasoned approach to the metrics. We have thought carefully, consulted widely and commissioned expert advice. Given the co-regulatory approach I have described, we expect the OFS to take a similar approach in future. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sheffield Central to withdraw his amendment.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his remarks. He is right to say that we have discussed this issue at length on many occasions, and no doubt we will continue to do so. I have also discussed it at length with Chris Husbands, whom the Minister cites extensively.
I do not want to take up the Committee’s time by critiquing the Minister’s remarks. He said much with which I agree, although I disagree with some points. I simply ask that we focus on what the amendment says, because I do not think it contradicts anything that he has just said. It simply says that
“the OfS must, after a period of consultation, make…an assessment of the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is in fact linked to teaching quality”.
If he would like to say where he disagrees with the idea that metrics on teaching quality should demonstrate teaching quality, I would be happy to take an intervention. In the absence of that, I feel that I should press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gordon Marsden
The hon. Gentleman no doubt considers himself a bit of an expert, given his co-vice-chairmanship of the all-party group on students, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central chairs. I hear what the gentleman from the QAA said. Of course, the QAA, as well as the Higher Education Funding Council for England and various other organisations, will be under the sword of Damocles over the next two to three years as the Bill goes through, so perhaps it is not surprising that there might be some circumspection about commenting on the situation. The fact of the matter is that no one knows. No one knows because the detailed basis on which the TEF will eventually be implemented is still not there. I will come on later to why the Government seem to be missing several tricks in not moving further down that road at the moment, but that is the case right now.
What we know is that the evidence is piling up about year-on-year tuition fee increases that are not based on merit. There might be arguments for increasing tuition fees, but the Government are setting out an automatic mechanism for a two-year period that will significantly and substantially increase fees with no impact assessments and no reference to the quality of the university degrees that are being graded, in a rather trivial PR fashion, as gold, silver and bronze. That is the reality, and the Minister cannot escape from it.
On some of the tuition fee issues and on how the Bill would set in stone that the fee increases will be linked to the TEF, allowing all the work to be done in the OFS away from the daily scrutiny of Parliament, documents such as “Does Cost Matter?”, produced by the National Education Opportunities Network, found that if fees increased, young people who were eligible for free school meals would be the most likely to reconsider going to university, followed by non-white young people.
We have a lot of evidence and a lot of suggestions that that sort of process will have a double-whammy effect. First, it will do nothing for the reputation of the universities in those two years. They will not be able to demonstrate their reputation over and above that which is already there because the metrics for the TEF in the two years are so crude. What it will do is empower them to increase their fees, and we know how various universities chose to interpret what the Minister did in the summer by increasing fees for current students, as well as for future students. That will be a serious and difficult issue.
I am sorry to tell the Chief Whip that I cannot name the next person I wish to quote because he wishes to write anonymously—[Laughter.] That is because he is a young academic who is too financially insecure to risk rocking the boat over the TEF structure. Not the Chief Whip—I promoted him—but the Government Whip will perhaps store his guffaws and allow me to quote from a piece about the TEF in The Guardian on 23 September.
“There was—at least in my mind—huge potential for the Tef to recognise the valuable job that teaching-intensive universities do, and encourage sound pedagogical practice… Rather than doing any of these things, the Tef will be based on three crude metrics: student retention and progression; the number of students in paid employment after graduation; and scores on selected items of the National Student Survey… Methodologically, the Tef is flawed. For instance, students’ assessments of individual teachers show persistent gender bias, and the item on assessment and feedback hardly ever changes, whatever the context. It’s also flawed conceptually: ‘satisfaction’ is not the same as ‘learning’, as any psychology text will tell you.”
That was something the hon. Member for Cannock Chase’s colleague amusingly commented on earlier. The writer continues:
“The Tef isn’t concerned with the art and practice of teaching. It does not set out to capture and promote those practices… I don’t believe that universities have to resign themselves to the Tef structure… But I can’t speak out: as a young academic, I’m far too financially insecure to risk rocking the boat.”
Let me quote somebody who is prepared and able to put her head above the parapet: a senior professor of psychology at Oxford, Dorothy Bishop.
“The report shows that while the costs of TEF to the higher education sector…are estimated at £20 million, the direct benefits will come to £1,146 million, giving a net benefit of £1,126 million.”
She shows clearly that crucial data from statistical modelling show that the
“TEF generates money for institutions that get a good rating because it allows them to increase tuition fees in line with inflation. Institutions that don’t participate in the TEF or those that fail to get a good enough rating will not be able to exceed the current £9,000 a year fee, and so in real terms their income will decline over time.”
Joseph Johnson
Will the hon. Gentleman state clearly whether he opposes allowing universities to increase their fees in line with inflation? Does he want a real-terms reduction in universities’ revenues from tuition fees? Currently, the £9,000 is worth £8,500 in the money of 2012; it will be worth £8,000 by the end of this Parliament. Does he want to starve our universities of resources?
Gordon Marsden
I point out respectfully to the Minister that he is the person making the decisions. What I am pointing out is that the TEF is being undermined as a concept by the cynical linking of fees on an “as you were” basis over a two-year period. That is the issue. There are all sorts of other issues relating to the merits and demerits of increasing tuition fees that we could discuss, but they are not within the broadest scope of clause 25 and I want to get back to the TEF. If the Minister wants on another occasion to have a lengthy debate about what his Government have done over the past four years for part-time and mature learners by trebling their tuition fees, for example, I would be interested to have that.
Joseph Johnson
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, since 2009-10, someone from a disadvantaged background is now 36% more likely to go to a university than they were when we came to power? That demonstrates that there is no inherent contradiction between the fee model we have put in place and continuing to make progress on widening participation.
Gordon Marsden
I acknowledge any improvements, however they have come, for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but there is also the counter-evidence of the figures that I have given. The Minister knows, because he will have been lobbied very hard by the Open University, Birkbeck and others, that there is great concern out there about the whole process. The Government have become complacent. Coming from a relatively low level of increase, the assumption is that they can continue to load debt on to young people. I come back to what I said. If they do that in the context of the teaching excellence framework, they are not helping students, not helping universities and not helping the social mobility that the Minister and I desperately want to see in this country.
In terms of the teaching excellence framework and the proposal as to how the ratings work and how the tuition fee will be linked to it, we should think about the people who advise those who might apply to universities. It was interesting to see the comments of the spokesperson for the large independent schools talking about this in the TES at the end of August. He said:
“What does this tell us about the way the HE sector views itself? Is it becoming fundamentally more commercialised? Are universities simply in a fight for survival”—
he is talking about the rise in fees—
“Or are they just realistically pointing to the cost of what is still, let’s not forget, a world-class sector?”
The Committee will have to excuse my French, as it were, but this is what he says:
“Perhaps, once the python has swallowed the pig, £9,250 has been accepted with a shrug of the shoulders and once-a-year rises are the norm throughout our big HE sector, this little storm will seem irrelevant. But I doubt it. Prospective students…need more than ever to consider their options carefully. For many, a strong UK university degree will still be absolutely the right thing…For others, a free…degree apprenticeship will be a better option.”
He also said others may look abroad and that
“as we take transition from school to university more seriously, it will be interesting to know how many of our graduates decide their degree was not worth the money paid.”
The Minister will have had representations, and rightly so, from the Campaign for British Universities and others on the alternative white paper, which suggests that the Bill should include
“A major opportunity…to review and reduce the burden of red tape facing all UK institutions. Yet this bill proposes additional and wasteful bureaucracy.”
It also makes the point that
“the TEF’s costs will be borne by universities themselves, which will be forced to pass on these costs to students and their families. And, since even the highest TEF scores will only allow fee increases equal to inflation”
that will be a problem. It continues:
“The TEF is also entirely wasteful because there is simply no solid evidence that UK university teaching is of such poor quality that additional regulation is needed.”
I do not entirely share that perspective, but I do share the concerns of those people who are worried that the calibre of their teaching and what they are doing will be significantly affected by the way in which the Government are linking the TEF with increased tuition fees.
The TEF process really ought to have more debate on the Floor of the House. If the Opposition had greater confidence that the Minister and his team were looking at that broader element, we might be less severe in our criticisms. However, it is not just us saying such things. In the Royal Academy of Engineering’s submitted evidence, HERB 41, it welcomed the principle of the TEF and said it has
“long argued for improvements in the balance of teaching”.
However, it also talked about the importance of the
“use of benchmarks for comparison between universities on aspects such as ethnicity and socio-economic deprivation.”
Indeed, those are issues that my hon. Friends have already talked about. It continued:
“The Academy would like to see the TEF move towards a discipline based measure as soon as possible, as a TEF score for an entire university will not provide any meaningful data”.
Therein lies the nub of it. That is an issue on which the Minister has been questioned on several occasions in diverse places and on which, thus far, we have no answers.
It is not unreasonable for people to be concerned about where that is going. It is not unreasonable for us to ask questions, and it is certainly not unreasonable for us to ask them when, yet again, we see the Government trying to shoehorn through a measure without proper scrutiny in the House, linking it in a way that will not be valuable and successful for our students or for our universities.
I remind the Minister that the two-year period the Bill proposes we now commence, of an “as you were” situation that will allow universities to increase their tuition fees to a yet unknown amount, will coincide with a period of huge political uncertainty as we manage to negotiate—or not, given the Government’s current record—a satisfactory outcome to the referendum. We see today in the foreign exchange figures and all sorts of other figures how uncertain that process will be. We know already of the blockages and concerns in terms of research that HE institutions in this country say they will face as a result of Brexit, and we will no doubt return to those issues in part 3 of the Bill. In that situation, maintaining the quality of our universities and the understanding of the quality of UK plc internationally will be crucial.
We only get one chance with these things. If the Government ruin the potential of a teaching excellence framework by linking it inappropriately, by not addressing some of the major issues I have talked about and by producing a situation where students and universities feel unsatisfied and the rest of the outside world wonders what on earth is going on, they will inflict damage on the HE sector in this country—unwantedly—that would take decades to recover from. It is an act of complete and supreme folly at this time to use party political games to avoid having to make decisions about inflation-based rises in tuition fees and to shoehorn that into a framework that was never designed for that process. That is why we are profoundly concerned by clause 25 and the way in which the Minister has responded, and we shall oppose clause stand part.
Joseph Johnson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got the chance to make his big speech, having missed the first opportunity at the start of today’s proceedings. He said he was late in arriving due to Network Rail. I pause on that for a second, because on coming into the House of Commons this morning, I overtook him on Great Smith Street. The Committee might be interested to know that he was looking at his mobile phone and walking rather slowly. I was making my way purposefully in order to be here on time, so that I could hear his great speech, and I have finally now got it.
Gordon Marsden
Before we degenerate into discussion of the speed at which the Minister and I proceeded towards Parliament, he might like to note that I came into Victoria station, where the tube station was closed, and therefore was walking not at an unreasonably slow pace but at a reasonable pace. If he would like to return to the issues, instead of trying to score silly points, he might do better.
Joseph Johnson
I think I have made my point. Network Rail is running well under this Government and will continue to do so.
As hon. Members will know, the quality of our higher education system is something we are rightly proud of, but teaching is not always given the recognition it deserves. Teaching quality is of paramount importance. It frames the experience that students have while in higher education and determines their future opportunities and experiences in the workplace. Governments of both parties have recognised that we need to do more to drive up the quality of teaching in our institutions.
Information on teaching quality is not always available or clear to prospective students. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, just 18% of students feel they have enough information on how their fees are spent, and one third would have chosen a different course if they had known what they do on completing. This information will shape their future, but prospective students are effectively making decisions blind. The teaching excellence framework, which was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, addresses that by setting a scheme for the impartial assessment of different aspects of teaching, including student experience and the job prospects of graduates.
The framework puts teaching on a par with our country’s world-leading research, so that we not only get more students into higher education but ensure it is worth while for them when they get there. I am delighted that the devolved Administrations have confirmed they will allow their providers to take part in the TEF in year 2, meaning that we have one system that operates across the whole UK. The TEF will reward providers that deliver high-quality teaching for all. It will support the propagation of good practice across the sector, and it will address the information gap, giving prospective students more information about the teaching they will receive and the outcomes they are likely to obtain.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. A lot of the information underpinning the metrics in the TEF has already been collected. Did the Department do any modelling of what the outcome would be, particularly for the gold-silver-bronze regime? Was there any attempt to measure the reputational damage that could be done to the sector if universities somehow slip inadvertently into the bronze category? Higher education in the UK has an excellent national and international reputation, which could be seriously impeded if the Government are not careful. Has any modelling been carried out?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. HEFCE has been developing the TEF on behalf of the Department and will have undertaken considerable analysis of how it will operate across the system. We are clear that the ratings are the reflection of the tough quality standards that we expect of our providers. We have a world-class HE system. The ratings will provide recognition on top of the tough quality standards that are imposed on all providers in return for securing entry into the system. I would not agree with any assessment that a bronze rating would be lowly; it would be a significant achievement.
Paul Blomfield
The relationship between the TEF and the financial sustainability of the sector is important, so I want to press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. The Minister will agree with me on the importance of international students as a source of revenue, and I am sure we were both disappointed by the Home Secretary’s comments last week. What consideration has been given to the impact of the TEF on international student recruitment? If it was part of an international move, that would be fine, but if we are unilaterally choosing to grade our universities and say that some are not as good as others, does the Minister not recognise that that is potentially a significant disincentive, at a time when we are already losing market share?
Joseph Johnson
The TEF, and its link to the inflationary uplift in fees on a conditional basis for those universities demonstrating high-quality teaching, will be important for the financial sustainability of the sector.
Let us start with the financial sustainability of the sector, which was the opening part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The TEF puts in place conditions that allow us to enable institutions to raise their fees in line with inflation. If we do not do that, as I said earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool South, the value of fees in real terms will decline to £8,000 per year by the end of this Parliament. That is unsustainable. As we have heard from many people who gave evidence to the Committee, we cannot come back here in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time with fees still pegged at £9,000 when prices in the rest of the economy will have risen substantially. This is a responsible step to put the funding of our institutions on a sustainable footing.
I now turn to the other issue raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about international students. We welcome international students and the contribution they make to our world-class university sector. That is why I was delighted this morning to announce that EU students applying to our universities for entry in the 2017-18 academic year will be eligible for the Student Finance England range of loans and grants, as they are now, for the full duration of their course of study, in the normal way. That demonstrates that this Government continue to welcome international students: they make a big contribution to our system.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement the Minister has made this morning. The concern the Opposition has outlined is that the TEF is being used as a Trojan horse for the increase in fees. It may be pegged to inflation now, but what is to stop a different approach in the future, once the principle is established? On that point, given the Home Secretary’s speech at the Conservative Party conference, is the Minister not concerned that the bronze-silver-gold rating system could be linked to the international student visa system, with greater preference given to gold institutions, compared with silver or bronze?
Joseph Johnson
Before I respond, let me first touch on the issues raised by the hon. Members for the City of Durham and for Sheffield Central about the TEF and the reputation of the sector as it might be perceived by international students. We strongly believe that the TEF will enhance the overall reputation of the sector. We would be the first country to introduce such a system of assessing teaching excellence and students will have a better idea of what they can expect from their time of study here in England and in other parts of the country that choose to participate in it than they will anywhere else in the world. Providers with high levels of the TEF will have been through an extraordinary process of scrutiny that will help them market themselves more effectively around the world.
Let me turn to the other points on migration made by the hon. Member for Ilford North. As he will imagine, I am working closely—as are other members of the Government—with the Home Office on various options regarding student migration and, in particular, whether our student immigration rules should be tailored to the quality of course and educational institution. No decisions have been made on the best way to do that. The Home Office has indicated that it will be consulting in the autumn on a number of measures to remove opportunities for abuse, while still ensuring that the UK can attract genuine students from around the world. I reiterate, for the hon. Member’s benefit, that we will not be looking to cap the number of genuine students from outside the EU who can come to study in the UK. I hope that that provides him with reassurance.
Gordon Marsden
On that point, in relation to the broader point of reputational damage, the Minister is making great play of the fact that this will be a game-changer for us internationally, and so on; but the truth remains that, for good or bad reasons, students internationally do not know what the TEF will ultimately be based on. The Minister knows that there has been huge discussion about the inadequacy of merely giving one TEF rating to an individual HE provider, as opposed to schools or courses. How on earth can international students, or any students, have confidence in a system as a gold standard measurement when we have no further clarity on whether the TEF will be done on an institutional basis or on a school or disciplinary one?
Joseph Johnson
The UK, through the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, has long been at the forefront of quality assessment processes around the world, and its expertise is sought after in a number of countries. We expect that the TEF will likewise have a pioneering effect around the world.
Joseph Johnson
No, I am not giving way, thank you very much. We believe that the TEF has the potential to enhance the reputation of UK higher education.
Carol Monaghan
Does the Minister understand the difficulty faced by HE providers in the devolved Administrations? They are now in a difficult situation whereby if they participate in the TEF, they have to go through two different systems of quality assurance, but if they do not participate in the TEF, they have no badge so they will be disadvantaged in the international market. They have been placed in a difficult position.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to speak exactly to her points about how the TEF will work in Scotland and in the other devolved Administrations. It is right that HE providers across the whole UK have access to the TEF and the benefits that it will bring. I am delighted that my devolved Administration counterparts have confirmed that they will allow their providers to participate in TEF should they wish to.
I appreciate that how the sectors operate in the devolved Administrations differs from how the sector operates in England. It is crucial that the TEF takes into account those differences so as to recognise excellence in teaching in whatever form it takes. To that end, officials in the Department for Education have been working closely with officials in the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations. Our officials met with representatives of the Scottish HE sector in June and August.
I remind the hon. Lady of what Alastair Sim said in his evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago, when he noted that
“engagement with the Department for Education has been constructive and creative about how the metrics of the TEF might be configured in ways that take account of Scottish interests.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 67, Q103.]
The TEF framework for year 2, which was published on 29 September, was been adjusted to ensure that it can fairly assess the distinctive nature of HE provision in each of the four nations of the UK. That will allow the TEF to operate fairly across the UK, something the whole sector was keen to see.
I feel I have addressed the substance of the points raised, and I therefore ask the Committee to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 26, page 15, line 21, leave out “either or both of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 43, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59 to 64, and 67 to 73.
Joseph Johnson
These amendments bring the Bill into line with the policy stated in the White Paper. All the amendments except for amendment 62 remove the power for the Secretary of State to designate a body to undertake the functions in clause 25 and therefore operate the TEF. The TEF, as we have been discussing, is central to the improvement of the student experience, which is of core interest to students, and as per our policy intent in the White Paper, I believe that responsibility for the operation of the TEF should be held by the office for students.
Our intention has always been for the OFS to operate the TEF and we do not envisage a need to require another body to undertake these functions. In the absence of a compelling case, I believe it is simpler, clearer and, from a legislative perspective, more proportionate to remove the power to designate a body to run the TEF functions. I reassure the Committee, however, that removing this power does not prevent the OFS from working with others on the delivery of the TEF, which I recognise might be desirable at some point in the future. The OFS could, for instance, contract a body to support its work on the TEF, just as HEFCE is working with the QAA on delivery of year 2 of the TEF.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister talks about working with other people on the structure of the TEF. I press this not in a combative way, but merely in the sense of wanting to have some information. Can he provide any indication as to when or from whom he expects the delineations to how the TEF is to be delivered—whether by institution or by discipline or by school? When are we likely to know about that?
Joseph Johnson
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read our consultation response to the TEF year 2 proposals, which we published on 29 September. This provides significant detail about how the TEF will develop in years to come.
Turning to amendment 62, our policy intent is to ensure a co-regulatory approach to quality assessment. Clause 26 allows Ministers to establish a clear role for a quality body, administratively and visibly separate from Government and the OFS, as recommended by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills earlier this year. Amendment 62 provides a new power for the OFS to give general directions to a designated quality body on how it should carry out the assessment functions. The OFS can give only general directions and must have regard to protecting the expertise of the designated body when giving those directions.
This is not about dictating how the designated body should do its job or about giving the OFS the power to intervene in or dictate the outcome of individual cases. This change is solely to deliver on what our White Paper said, which is that the designated quality body would design and operate the quality assessment system, reporting to and within parameters set by the OFS.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Amendments made: 43, in clause 26, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment removes the ability to designate the functions in clause 25 (rating the quality of, and standards applied to, higher education) to be performed by the designated body and ensures that only the functions in clause 23 (assessing the quality of, and standards applied to, higher education) can be designated. Amendments 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 are consequential on this amendment.
Amendment 44, in clause 26, page 15, line 27, leave out
“an assessment function, the function does”
and insert
“the assessment functions, the functions do”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment and amendments 47, 48, 54, 55, 58 and 66 ensure consistency of language with paragraph 1 of Schedule 4.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Assessing higher education: designated body
Amendments made: 45, in schedule 4, page 73, line 7, leave out “either or both of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 46, in schedule 4, page 73, line 10, leave out “and standards of” and insert
“of, and the standards applied to”.
This amendment and amendments 51 and 57 ensure that the language used in relation to standards in Schedule 4 is consistent with clauses 23 and 25.
Amendment 47, in schedule 4, page 73, line 15, leave out
“be designated under this Schedule”
and insert
“perform the assessment functions”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Amendment 48, in schedule 4, page 73, line 17, leave out
“be designated under this Schedule”
and insert
“perform the assessment functions”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 230, in schedule 4, page 73, line 29, at end insert
“(ca) a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff”.
See amendment 231.
Gordon Marsden
In moving these two amendments, we wish to pick up a theme that we have previously expressed on several occasions: the office for students needs to be an office not just for students. So far, as regards the membership of its bodies, the Government have been relatively reluctant to do that. The OFS needs to address and promote the interests of higher education staff. This is a really serious issue. The Minister will have heard the concerns expressed by a wide range of higher education staff about this Bill and about issues to do with the TEF. There is also a general sense that the Government sometimes seem to think that all they need to do is to round up a certain number of vice-chancellors to say a certain number of things on a particular occasion and they will have the approval of the whole higher education sector, but that of course is not the case. For the higher education sector to succeed and flourish, it needs the co-operation, collaboration and involvement of all its members, so, again, the amendments are designed to take us down that road.
The first amendment, 230, would straightforwardly insert into schedule 4 the appropriate phrase:
“a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff”.
The second amendment, 231, says the same thing. The purpose of both amendments—Opposition Members have touched on this issue previously—is to ensure that before recommending the designation of a body to perform assessment functions, the OFS consults bodies and, indeed, individual groups of higher education staff. If the Government want people at every level in the sector to buy into these reforms, as they regard them, and to buy into this new settlement with the OFS, it is crucial that the OFS has the broadest base of support and general enthusiasm across the sector. These modest amendments are designed to assist the Government in that process, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to be positive about them.
Joseph Johnson
I welcome the discussion, recognising the importance of a diverse range of views and interests across HE in ensuring that a suitable body is designated to manage the assessment of quality on behalf of the OFS. As the amendments and this brief debate have highlighted, the staff of our HE providers are of course an important part of what drives quality. That is clearly recognised in current practice. The views of HE staff and their representatives are sought by Government, HEFCE and others in consultations on decisions that introduce changes to the HE system. They are already represented on the advisory groups and committees of bodies such as the QAA and HEFCE. However, the amendments would introduce an additional level of prescription for the OFS that I do not believe is desirable. By providing a more prescriptive list of required consultees, we would run the risk that the OFS did not feel able to use the discretion provided under the schedule to consult such persons as it considered appropriate. The prescribed list should be limited to those who are fundamentally essential to taking a decision on whether a quality body is suitable and can deliver on the co-regulatory approach. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I will withdraw the amendment, but I am sad, yet again, that the Minister thinks that the only thing that matters is the people who sign the cheques or who press the buttons or take the decisions. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is the way it will be seen outside the massed ranks of the Government by many in the sector: this is an opportunity missed, as it has been missed so far on the Bill with students, to put them in the frame for a brand-new structure. That is what people will be concerned about. I will withdraw the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, but the Government should think very carefully about the way in which they are alienating so many people in the sector. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 49, in schedule 4, page 73, line 39, leave out “either or both of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 50, in schedule 4, page 74, line 1, leave out “recommended function or functions” and insert “assessment functions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 51, in schedule 4, page 74, line 4, leave out “and standards of” and insert
“of, and the standards applied to,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 46.
Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 74, line 6, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 53, in schedule 4, page 74, line 19, leave out from beginning to “and”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 54, in schedule 4, page 74, line 24, leave out “an assessment function” and insert “the assessment functions”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Amendment 55, in schedule 4, page 74, line 27, leave out “function” and insert “functions”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Wes Streeting
If that were the case, the QAA would need to come back and explain why it chooses to have students on its board. The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what the QAA said. What it has said, quite rightly, is that it is important to engage students at every level and to have meaningful engagement and dialogue with students beyond simply putting them on the board of an institution. I have not heard anyone from the QAA say—but I am happy to see the evidence printed in black and white in the record or written evidence—that institutions should not have students on the board of higher education institutions, and I have not heard anyone say that the office for students should not have student representatives on the board. If that were the case, they would be arguing against their own student representation on the board of the QAA, which I think they value because it has been there for some time and continues to be present.
I do not agree with the false dichotomy that the hon. Member for Bath has put forward. I do not think it is either/or. I agree with him: we do not just want students represented on the board and we need meaningful engagement throughout the system, but that is not a choice; both are necessary for the benefit of everyone involved in higher education.
Having made these arguments, I hope the Minister is inclined to follow existing practice at least, by making sure that whichever organisation is appointed as the designated quality provider follows the QAA’s practice of having at least two student representatives on the board. We are now nearing the end of this Committee stage. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the continued resistance to having guaranteed student representation is making the Government’s words on student engagement and the centrality of students to the Bill ring rather hollow.
Joseph Johnson
Again, we have had a good debate on the importance of student involvement in the HE sector and its systems and structures. I certainly agree that the quality body will need to represent the diverse interests across the HE sector, including those of students.
Hon. Members will be pleased to note that that there is already good practice established by the QAA of building student representation into the quality system. To summarise, the QAA includes two student representatives on its board of directors, has established a student advisory board to provide support, and includes students in its review and scrutiny processes for degree-awarding powers. Crucially, however, this is not set in legislation. It happens because it is considered to be an effective way of making an informed assessment of quality—an approach I hope will continue. The arrangements for the two student board members are set out in the QAA’s articles of association, and this is a more appropriate level for such stipulations to be made than in legislation itself.
The conditions set out in paragraph 4 of schedule 4 are there to ensure that we can establish an effective co-regulatory approach with the sector, as recommended by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. It is not designed to prescribe specific interests, but instead to make clear that the quality body should represent and have the confidence of a broad cross-section of the sector. I am keen that paragraph 4 remains flexible and not prescriptive, to guard against the risk that at some point in the future a suitable and well qualified body could be disbarred from designation on a technicality. This does not, however, prevent a designated quality body from involving student representation as an effective way to carry out its quality assessment functions.
Even without legislation, when future Secretaries of State come to a view on whether a body is capable of performing the assessment functions in an effective manner, I would imagine that they would look at a range of matters. These may include whether the student interest was represented within the organisation and whether that representation or lack thereof would have an impact on its capability. However, I recognise that hon. Members are making clear the importance of continuing this level of student engagement within the quality body. I also appreciate the strategic level on which amendment 232 in particular asks for this to be considered, rather than over-specifying the membership of the independent quality body itself. However, I remain confident that any designated quality body would include such representation without the law having to specify it. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady is reassured, and ask that she withdraws her amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have to say to the Minister that I really do not follow his logic at all. What is being argued is that the reason we are going through the whole assessment of quality is so that students get information that will help them to understand more about the quality of teaching in an institution. Yet somehow the student voice is not being put in the Bill as a group of people who must have confidence in the body that is being set up. That seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary. It does not make any sense at all.
Joseph Johnson
Part 2 of schedule 4 states that the OFS must consult with people representing a broad range of students before recommending a suitable quality body, so we will be consulting students. The OFS itself, as we have discussed previously, will include on its board people who must have experience of representing the student interest.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister says, but unfortunately because of the way in which paragraph 4 is constructed it is very clear about the body representing a broad range of higher education providers and having the confidence of the higher education providers. We are not saying that that is unimportant, but it is equally important that students have confidence in the body and are represented on the body. I do not think that we are going to resolve this issue at the moment, but I ask the Minister to take this issue away, look at it again, and see if he can come up with a form of words that would keep everybody happy. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment—
Higher Education and Research Bill (Eighth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsThursday 15th September 2016
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 September 2016 - (15 Sep 2016)
Dr Blackman-Woods
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the way in which the wider experience of university contributes to the overall student experience. Indeed, a necessary part of that student experience is universities ensuring that there is adequate student support and a range of wellbeing services, and that specialist learning or special needs are met through the university learning support system. It seems a little odd, to put it mildly, that in the list of “other initial and ongoing registration conditions” in clause 13, there is absolutely nothing about the range of services that an institution should provide; it is all about regulation. It is important that the sector is properly regulated, but that is not sufficient.
A few months ago, I was standing where my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South is sitting now, questioning the Housing Minister about starter homes. I made the point to him—this is directly relevant—that a starter home was not affordable housing just because the Government legislated for it to be affordable housing or thought that it was affordable housing. Clearly, a £450,000 house in London, or a £250,000 house outside London, is simply not affordable. Alas, that Minister did not take my advice and went ahead with legislation that said that such houses were affordable, when clearly they are not. Now, of course, the Government are having to revisit that legislation and what they are doing on starter homes, because it was absolutely obvious that they could not simply legislate for something to be what it is not. I fear that the same will happen with the Bill, and the Government will say about a college or specialist provider, “It is a university if it meets these regulation conditions,” when in any other context it would be considered not a university but a specialist provider.
I am trying to help the Minister to avoid falling into the same trap of legislating for something that clearly is not what the Government try to make it out to be by suggesting that it would help us all in our deliberations—indeed, it would help some of us to negotiate our way through the clauses dealing with registration conditions—if the Minister clarified what he thought a university should be and the range of services that an institution should provide before it is able to use “university” in its title. We really do not want students to think that an institution provides a certain range of services when it clearly does not and has no intention of ever providing the range of services or opportunities that one would normally associate with a university.
It would be helpful to hear what the Minister thinks a university is and what range of services he would like to see universities normally provide. Can he reassure us that no institution will be able to call itself a university when it clearly is not one?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I do not want to delay the Committee for long with what might risk turning into an abstract and philosophical conversation about what a university is. After all, that question has occupied theoreticians of education through many books and learned articles. At its most literal, a university can be described as a provider of predominantly higher education that has got degree-awarding powers and has been given the right to use the university title. That is the most limited and literal sense. If we want a broader definition, we can say that a university is also expected to be an institution that brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and self-critical academic community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people, the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of research, scholarship and professional practice. To distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a place where students are developing higher analytical capacities—critical thinking, curiosity about the world and higher levels of abstract capacity in their thinking. In brief, that is my answer to what a university is.
Let me turn to the nitty-gritty of the hon. Lady’s amendment and her suggestions for how we can improve the registration conditions. Her amendment highlights the breadth of opportunities offered by participation in an HE course, and it is welcome in doing so. However, I do not believe that putting that into legislation would be desirable. There are many excellent examples of extracurricular activities and experiences offered by higher education institutions—sporting groups, arts groups, associations of all kinds and exchange opportunities. I agree that, in many cases, those activities contribute greatly to a student’s learning and personal and professional development. As the hon. Lady said, they can be as much a part of a student’s education as traditional lectures.
When a student is deciding which institution to study at, their decision is based on many factors, including the qualification they will receive, the cultural and social opportunities presented to them, the student organisations they can join and the support available. Higher education institutions think very carefully about the range of extracurricular activities they offer and the additional opportunities for students on or around campus. They are tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of their particular student bodies. One size does not necessarily fit all, and student populations vary hugely in their requirements. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education institutions are best placed to decide what experiences to offer without prescription from the Government.
Dr Blackman-Woods
In our deliberations, we have heard, particularly from the possible new entrants into the sector, that they wish to have a level playing field. Part of the point of this amendment is to genuinely make it a level playing field. We do not want to take diversity out of the sector; we just want to ensure that all institutions that could become a university provide a basic level of services.
Joseph Johnson
There may be high-quality institutions based in, for example, urban locations that cannot offer the broad range of services that campus-based, big institutions can. That does not mean they are lesser institutions; it just means that their student populations have their own purposes in coming to that particular institution and want their needs to be met in a way that is relevant to their institution. For those reasons, I do not believe that a one-size-fits-all, prescriptive approach is the best way to achieve the hon. Lady’s goals.
The Chair
I am sure we are all grateful for the Minister’s definition of a university. He said it is about high levels of abstract thinking—I learned a lot about that in the union bar.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 13, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) The OfS may strengthen the registration conditions for new providers depending on the assessment of that new provider’s previous track record and future sustainability.”.
This amendment would enable the OfS to set stricter entry requirements for new providers by considering previous history and future forecasts.
It remains a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, even under these heated circumstances. There appears to be a little more of a draft coming through; if we dissipate some of our hot air it may become even greater.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for what she said because it is germane to this amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and myself. The amendment tries to define what new providers that might wish to become a university have to do, and I think it is incumbent on us to think a little harder than is perhaps sometimes the case about a new provider’s
“previous track record and future sustainability.”
The Minister was quite right not to engage in a “philosophical discussion”— I suspect if he had not said that, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, would have perfectly reasonably bashed him on the head—but there is a balance between that and simply saying, “This is what a university does.” That is particularly true when talking about new providers. In earlier exchanges, the Minister referred to Lord Mandelson, whose grandfather, Herbert Morrison, when asked what the definition of socialism was, famously replied:
“Socialism is what a Labour Government does.”
That is a reductionist argument with which I am sure the Minister would not agree, but we need to ask some serious questions about what guarantees and provisions we would require from new providers.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill
“places immense faith in the magic of the market”—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 720.]
to produce new providers and to take them on board. It is philosophically consistent, if I may be so grand, with the paean to competition and the markets in the White Paper, which says:
“With greater diversity in the sector…our primary goal is to raise the overall level of quality. But we must accept that there may be some providers who do not rise to the challenge, and who therefore…choose to close some or all of their courses, or to exit the market completely. The possibility of exit is a natural part of a healthy, competitive, well-functioning market and the Government will not, as a matter of policy, seek to prevent this from happening. The Government should not be in the business of rescuing failing institutions—decisions about restructuring, sustainability, and possible closure are for those institutions’ leaders and governing bodies.”
That is all very well as a paean to free-market Friedmanism, and perhaps those who had drafted it had had a good lunch at the time, but the truth of the matter is that it is not the people who draft such things who have to deal with the consequences, but the people on the receiving end, who are not just students—although students are a key part of that process—but everyone who works with, is sponsored by or supplies those new providers. Therefore, it is important that we talk about that—we will do so in more detail when we reach clause 40, which deals with some of the issues to do with awarding powers, so I will be careful not to step into that territory.
Cutting corners in the process of becoming a higher education provider can pose a serious risk to staff and students, and it can increase the risk of public money being misused. If we are in any doubt about that, I would refer to the Public Accounts Committee report on alternative providers published in February 2015. The Committee was fair about the potential benefits of alternative providers, but hard on some of the things that had happened in the preceding period. It stated:
“The Department pressed ahead with the expansion of the alternative provider sector without a robust legislative framework to protect public money…and…failed to identify and act quickly on known risks associated with the rapid introduction of schemes to widen access to learning…The Department does not know how much public money may have been wasted…and…should report back to us urgently with an assessment of how much public money is at risk of being wasted”,
and so on. I appreciate that the Minister was not in place at the time, but the report was a fairly comprehensive slap on the wrist for the Department for Education about how the matter had been treated.
No doubt the Minister will come back and say, “Ah, but that was then, and this is now. We have done lots of other new things”, but the trouble is that that argument does not solve the problem. As a result the University and College Union, among other organisations, submitted a detailed paper to Committee members, including a number of specific examples of where things had gone wrong. It argued that to allow commercial providers a quick, low-quality route into establishing universities and awarding degrees would mean that those studying and working in the sector were seriously vulnerable to the threat of for-profit organisations moving into the market for financial gain, rather than from any desire to provide students with a high-quality education or teaching experience.
The University and College Union also quoted figures from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: between 2010 and 2014-15 the number of alternative providers rose from 94 to 122. Furthermore, the matter is one that concerns the public purse, as well as the protection of students, because student support for those alternative providers rose from £43 million to more than £600 million. Also, in 2014 the National Audit Office reported concerns about abuses of the student loan system by for-profit providers. It mentioned that drop-out rates at nine of them had been higher than 20% in 2012-13, compared with 4% across the sector in general.
As I have mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee published its report in February 2015. If the Minister therefore says, “Ah, well, we don’t want to put more obstacles in the way of potential new providers. We don’t want to make it overly onerous for them”, all I can say is that we have to look at the track record up until now. That is not to disparage any of the new providers who might come forward or the evidence that was given in our sessions. It is merely to say that the precautionary principle is often a wise one to proceed on. It is not often I quote President Reagan with approval. He was famously asked, during SALT negotiations with the Soviets, whether he trusted them. He said he worked on the principle of “trust but verify”. Trusting but verifying is the thrust of the amendments.
In case the Minister is tempted to say that we are digging up old history, it is not that old. Since he referred to something I said in 2002, I think I am being generous in only digging up recent history. Only this year the West London Vocational Training College had its designation for student support funding revoked following a Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education report that said that it had failed to establish the authenticity of applicants’ academic qualifications, admitted some students who were demonstrably not qualified to enter their course, included some students who had not met the English language proficiency requirement and admitted some students after qualifications awarding body Pearson—which is for profit and has been there for a long time—had blocked it from registering new entrants.
Before the Minister either personally or corporately allows some of his officials to write more paeans to the benefits of the market and competition, perhaps he would indulge us by considering the amendment. It is important that the registration conditions for new providers consider previous track record and future sustainability. Of course, not all new providers will have a track record and I think one of the witnesses mentioned that at the evidence session. If that is the case, the presumption should be to look more stringently at their future sustainability.
The proposal is not that they must have both but they certainly must have one. It is on that basis that I put the amendment forward for consideration.
Joseph Johnson
I start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that there will be no cutting of corners to allow an easy route into the sector for providers who would not pass our exceptionally robust thresholds in terms of financial sustainability, management, governance and quality. The single gateway into the sector that we are putting into place through the Bill and the robustness of its processes are of key importance to the success of our reforms. The hon. Gentleman and the Government are at one on that question.
I explained when debating earlier clauses and amendments that risk-based and proportionate regulation is the basis on which the office for students will operate. “Trust but verify”, as the hon. Gentleman put it, might be a good way to describe it. It will protect the interests of students and the taxpayer while providing a regulatory system appropriate for all providers.
Clause 5 requires the OFS to consult on and publish initial and ongoing registration conditions. Different conditions will be applied to different categories of providers. Although it is for the OFS to determine those conditions, we expect that they will reflect those first set out in the Green Paper and subsequently confirmed in the White Paper. We expect they will include academic track record, as demonstrated by meeting stringent quality standards, checks on financial sustainability, including requiring financial forecasts from providers, and other important issues, such as the provider’s management and governance arrangements.
In addition, clause 6 provides the OFS with the power to apply specific ongoing registration conditions based on the OFS’s assessment of the degree of regulatory risk that each provider represents.
Joseph Johnson
As set out in our technical note on market entry and quality assurance, which was sent to the Committee, although not necessarily successfully received by some Members, we have given a clear indication that OFS will be consulting representative bodies in the sector to establish answers to that sort of question. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to feed into that consultation when it is under way.
Clause 6 provides the OFS with the power to apply specific ongoing registration conditions, based on the OFS’s assessment of the regulatory risk that each provider represents. Where the OFS determines that a new provider represents a higher level risk it may, under the powers already included in the Bill, apply more stringent conditions. Moreover, the OFS may also adjust the level of regulation at any time, should there be a change in a provider’s circumstances or performance. That may be appropriate if a provider’s financial forecasts, as supplied when the provider first applied to join the register, eventually prove perhaps to be have been over-optimistic.
While I understand fully the reasons for the amendments and agree with the need for the OFS to take such matters into account, I believe that the Bill already provides the OFS with the powers necessary to take a wide range of issues into account.
Gordon Marsden
Before the Minister sits down, I would say that all of that is welcome. The paper to which he refers and the student protection plan, which I have now looked at, are welcome. The student protection plan is strong in direction of travel but weak on detail and we can come to that on another occasion. The Minister is perfectly reasonably laying a number of onerous requirements on the OFS, particularly as regards the forecasts that his Department has produced on the potential for new providers to want to take on charges, university title and licence. Is the Minister at all concerned about what resources the OFS will have to carry out this process? If there is going to be a rush of new providers there will be substantial requirements of it, given what the Minister has just said.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will have read the impact assessment, which goes into some detail about the future cost projections for the OFS. That will give him and the Committee a sense of the OFS’s resources to deal with the anticipated new providers in the sector. In addition, the Higher Education Funding Council for England is a very competent funding council and we want to maintain all the excellent capabilities that it has, including the people who undertake the important roles relating to quality in the system.
As I was saying, although I agree with the reasons for the amendments, I believe they are unnecessary, given the provisions we are making in the Bill in respect of safeguards for quality in the system and, therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I have heard what the Minister has to say and am reassured by his commitments. As always, the devil will be in the detail and we will want to probe further but at this point I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Public interest governance condition
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the gender pay gap in higher education. There is something like an £8,000 difference in the pay awarded to male and female academic staff. My amendments do not deal specifically with the gender pay gap, but instead address the inequality between pay at the top and at the bottom.
The amendments would address those issues in two ways. The first is to require universities to publish the pay ratio between the highest-paid staff and the lowest-paid staff and the median rate of pay. That would get remuneration committees to think hard, when telling front-line staff that they cannot afford pay rises, about whether they are applying the same principle to staff at the top. According to the Times higher education survey, one in 10 universities paid their leaders 10% more in 2014-15 than the previous year, while average staff pay rose by just 2%. It is incredibly demoralising for university staff, academic staff and support staff when they feel they are exercising pay restraint but see university leaders not leading by example.
Publishing the pay ratio would bring about greater equity and a greater focus on low pay. I do not see any good reason why any university in this country should not be an accredited living wage employer. I hope that one outcome of the amendments would be to reinforce many of the campaigns led by students unions and trade unions to persuade universities to become accredited living wage employers.
As well as proposing publishing information to push for transparency, the amendments would strengthen accountability by including staff and student representatives on remuneration committees. That is important for two reasons. One is that staff representatives, through the University and College Union and other trade unions, and student representatives, through their students unions, bring a degree of independence from the process. They have a legitimate interest in ensuring fair pay from a staff perspective and also from a student perspective, in terms of ensuring that their fees are well spent.
There is also a broader point, which ties into the interesting exchange earlier about the idea of a university being, as well as all the things that the Minister set out in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, a community. An important part of a university is the academic community in the university. It is not made up just of university leaders and staff; students are also part of it, and I think that it is important to include them in the decision-making process.
I therefore hope that the Minister looks favourably on the amendments. They would reinforce the signal that he has already sent through the HEFCE grant letter. They would help to concentrate more effectively the minds of remuneration committees, as well as bringing about a wider range of perspectives to ensure that they are reaching the right conclusion, to the benefit of students, staff and the taxpayer. I hope that the Minister supports the amendments.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Ilford North for his amendments, to which we are giving some thought. However, I emphasise that the public interest governance condition that the clause contains is a vital component of the new regulatory framework and is designed to ensure that providers are governed appropriately, as he wants them to be. That is in recognition that some providers’ governing documents—in particular, those of providers accessing Government grant funding—are of public interest.
Let me first explain how we envisage the public interest governance condition working. Clause 14 explains what the condition allowed for by clause 13 is. It will be a condition requiring certain providers’ governing documents to be consistent with a set of principles relating to governance. The principles will be those that the OFS thinks will help ensure that the relevant higher education provider has suitable governance arrangements in place. That is not new. Legislation currently requires the governing documents of certain providers—broadly, those that have been in receipt of HEFCE funding—to be subject to Privy Council oversight. That is the backdrop.
Let me deal with the amendments. I do not believe that amendment 25 is necessary, and it could be confusing. The arrangements are already set out and designed for the primary purpose of ensuring that appropriate governance arrangements are in place and that best practice is observed. The introduction of the term “practices” through the amendment would risk changing the scope of the public interest governance condition to give it a much wider and more subjective application and imposing a significant and ambiguous regulatory burden on the OFS. That would stray outside our stated policy objective and beyond the OFS’s regulatory remit.
The suggestion in amendments 26 and 27 is to include principles relating to transparency of remuneration as being helpful for potential inclusion within the consultation process. We resist those also. We do not think that it would be helpful at this stage to make them mandatory components in clause 14. That is because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, higher education institutions are autonomous institutions and the Government cannot lightly dictate what autonomous institutions pay their staff. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have already as a Government recently expressed concern about what appears to be an upward drift in senior salaries. The previous Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and I put this explicitly, as the hon. Gentleman said, in our most recent HEFCE grant letter. We clearly stated that we want to see sector leaders show greater restraint. The hon. Gentleman will also know, as a seasoned veteran of the HE sector, that higher education institutions are now obliged to publish the salaries of their vice-chancellors anyway, but as I said, we are watching this issue very closely and doing everything we can to urge the sector to exercise restraint, without crossing the line and interfering in the practices of autonomous institutions.
Ben Howlett
Will my hon. Friend give assurances, however—I agree this should not be put in the Bill—that he will work with the new OFS to ask them to look at remuneration, and also make sure that transparency is at the very heart of the OFS in relation to remuneration?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Transparency is a big feature of the reforms in other respects and it is important we continue to ensure that the OFS is attentive to the issues around remuneration in the future, as we have asked HEFCE to be in our last grant letter.
To make sure we get this list of principles absolutely right, clause 14 requires the OFS to consult on its contents. This is because we wish to ensure a transparent and full re-evaluation of the current and any subsequent lists, and to provide all interested parties with a full opportunity to make their own representations and help shape the terms of the list in a positive way. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Ilford North to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, particularly his initial remark that these amendments are on issues that the Government are carefully considering. I hope that the Minister will take the exchange we have had this afternoon on board and think about more precise amendments. I note that he made a technical objection to amendment 25, and hope that he will therefore reflect on whether a better form of wording would achieve the objectives.
There are a couple of issues I want to pick up, in terms of the Minister’s principal objections. He talked about university autonomy and of course that is an important principle, but he has also conceded that universities are already required to publish the pay of the highest paid members of staff in an institution. The amendments propose a very simple and relatively minor extension to make sure there is transparency about the lowest paid. There are issues within institutions where some staff, particularly support staff, are paid at frankly unacceptable levels—in particular if they are contractor staff. I do not think it would be a gross intrusion into university autonomy to proceed with the principles outlined in the amendments. There is certainly not the threat to university autonomy that universities have been audibly whingeing about in the last few days. I hope the Minister will go away and think carefully about that.
Having said that, the Minister has raised a particular technical concern and I am mindful of the crack hand of the Whip—even when he is not in his place he is very effective at marshalling the troops—so conscious of the numbers, and the practical issues the Minister has put forward, I am content and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
But it is not, and I will explain why. Clause 14 deals with a public interest governance condition. The need, or concern, for the amendment has been brought to my attention, and possibly to the attention of other members of the Committee, by the Open University because it is alert—as the Minister and I always are— to the unintended consequences of legislation. I am also alert to the fact—as I hope the Minister will be, because he will want the successful completion of the Bill, if not on his tombstone, on his CV—that Bills like this one do not come along that often. Therefore, we need to try, without having a crystal ball, to look at where higher education is going in the next 20 years. The Open University, of course, is particularly concerned because it also operates, as the explanatory notes say, in other UK nations. It is therefore important that the Open University is not unintentionally removed from those provisions.
The Open University has been going for more than 40 years, but other potential providers, groups and conglomerates will increasingly want to operate across other UK nations through different mechanisms and in different media. We therefore have to try to future-proof the Bill for the development of online and other sorts of learning, as well as for the traditional campus-based learning that we all know and love—that is true in your case, Sir Edward, and possibly in other people’s cases, too.
I do not want to labour the point, but new forms of teaching are rapidly developing, such as massive open online courses. The Open University has come together with a number of other organisations on the FutureLearn programme. Groups of organisations that have not historically put their material out for formal or informal learning, particularly in the arts and cultural sector, might see the potential to do so and to produce largely online degrees that are quite specific to the stuff they put out, which is welcome. I do not know whether we will quite reach the nirvana on which the Minister mused. If he has been misquoted, I will let him correct me, but I think at one stage he speculated as to whether Google or Facebook might want to enter from the wings.
As for today, this is principally and specifically something about which the Open University is concerned. I am sure that the devolved Administrations will also be concerned, because they do not want to have different levels of regulation for institutions that operate across the United Kingdom, let alone across other jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom.
This is a probing amendment in the sense that I am presenting the Minister with a difficulty. If, by any chance, what I have suggested is technically inadequate, I would be more than happy for him to propose an alternative.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, which we have carefully examined. The amendment would change a reference in clause 14 from “English higher education providers” to “Higher education providers in England”. The term “English higher education provider” is defined in clause 75 as one
“whose activities are carried on, or principally carried on, in England”.
In practice, that means any higher education provider that carries out the majority of its activities in England. In that sense it replicates the definition in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It is important to note that that wording is capable of including a provider that carries out activities outside England. The only proviso is that the provider must carry out most of its activities in England.
Clause 14 relates to the public interest governance condition that can be set as an initial or an ongoing condition of registration of any registered higher education provider. A provider that has such a condition will be required to ensure that its governing documents are consistent with a set of principles relating to governance. We intend that the OFS will monitor compliance with those principles upon a provider’s registration and as part of its annual monitoring of a provider’s governing documents.
The public interest governance condition is an essential aspect of the new regulatory framework. It is right that the condition should be applied to all registered higher education providers but that it should not apply more widely. To apply the public interest governance condition to any institution that happens to provide some HE in England would extend the OFS’s regulatory reach beyond that which is appropriate and would expose some HE institutions to double regulation.
Joseph Johnson
I will press on because this is a complicated set of arguments.
Such double regulation does not seem right, and it would not respect existing devolution arrangements in cases where an institution is already providing higher education across the nations of the UK. To make it a bit less abstract, let me give an example of HEFCE and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. At present HEFCE regulates all HEFCE funded providers who carry on activities wholly or principally in England. Likewise, HEFCW regulates providers whose activities are wholly or principally in Wales. HEFCE regulates activities outside English borders—for example, the Welsh activities of a provider that principally operates in England—and HEFCW regulates the English activities of a provider that principally operates in Wales. Those arrangements ensure that there is neither a regulatory gap, nor double regulation, across the UK.
Giving the OFS the ability to regulate providers involved in providing any HE in England at all, no matter how limited, would upset the current balanced devolution arrangements. Even if the amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool South were applied only to the public interest governance condition, it would expose Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish providers, which might have only a minimal presence in England, to additional regulation from the OFS for their activities in England.
Gordon Marsden
I appreciate that it is a complicated situation—I often use the example of a Rubik’s cube—and this is obviously part and parcel of that process. The Minister prayed in aid the arrangements made in the 1992 Act. There is a world of difference between the way people operate in higher education in 2016 and how they operated in 1992, hence the various references I made to online providers and all the rest of it. I am concerned to capture in the legislation what the situation would be for people who operate as an online provider, as the Open University increasingly does. How can the structure the Minister describes, which was principally set up for an analogue world, cope with a digital one?
Joseph Johnson
The Bill is designed to cope with the growth of online HE providers. Providers of distance learning or online HE courses will be covered by the definition in clause 75 if the majority of their activities take place in England. If that is not the case, they can bring themselves into scope by setting up their presence in England as a separate institution and meeting the OFS’s registration conditions. Considerable thought has been given to the future-proofing of the legislation to take into account the growth of online and distance provision.
The hon. Gentleman asked about foreign institutions wanting to set up in England. Providers of HE courses will be covered by the definition in clause 75 if the majority of their activities take place in England. If a foreign university wished to set up base here, to appear on the register, and to hold English degree-awarding powers and a university title, it would need to set up its presence in England as a separate institution and meet the OFS’s registration conditions.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the Open University. I reassure him that we believe that the Open University will count as an English HE provider. According to published data from July 2015, the majority of its students are in England, and most of its income is from English sources. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that the Open University plays a valuable role in HE provision right across the four nations of the UK and it is rightly proud of its status as a four-nation university. Its status as an English HE provider under the Bill should not be seen to detract from that in any sense. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I am reassured by the Minister’s explanation. It was important to have that exchange, because what he said and the implications of it for future-proofing are important. It is important to get it on the record at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I always bow to the Clerks’ superior knowledge, but I confess I was slightly mystified about why amendments 170 and 171 are yoked because they cover different issues. I will have to keep them within the scope of the one clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North asked the Minister about definitions of “university” and wisely constrained himself to talking in fairly straightforward terms and did not become too philosophical. I will try to do the same in the context of this amendment.
We had a debate about what should and should not be in the Bill. Clause 14, to my surprise when I first saw the Bill, refers to
“the principle that academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law”.
In my judgment, it is unusual to see that in a Bill and I was so bold as to table the amendment because the one group of people the academic staff did not seem to be protected from were Government or other relevant stakeholders. It talks about ways in which they might be protected against, presumably—perhaps the Minister will amplify this—being affected by their provider. One can think of all sorts of situations without naming individual universities. Hypothetically, for example, a university might depend heavily on funding or support from companies promoting genetically modified foods and so on.
I will not mention a particular university although I will mention a particular controversy. In future, a university might, for example, receive funding from the proponents of fracking and find that a member of its staff who was not keen on fracking had all sorts of legitimate academic arguments against it. Such examples, which I believe will be covered by the clause, are well understood. The amendment is about how the Government or other relevant stakeholders might also constrain that because that will arise in any Government. I think back to when Baroness Thatcher was deprived of an honorary degree from Oxford because of the views of the congregation at that time—not that she was moved to be punitive or, as far as I am aware, to be terribly concerned about the matter. Nevertheless, circumstances may arise in which a university might put itself against the view of a Government Department, Minister or something else.
If we are going to have all these others things in the Bill, the amendment would not be a bad idea, although it is a probing amendment, obviously. I tabled it partly from curiosity because I want to tease out why these specific things have been put in the Bill when in other circumstances I would expect them to be in guidance or whatever.
My only other point relates more to the whole of clause 14 and putting forward new ideas and controversial and unpopular opinions. I do not want to set a hare running, but there is a fine line between controversial or unpopular opinions, or sometimes perceived opinions, and things we now take for granted should not come under the purview of the academics promoting them. Some may remember the furore around Professor Eysenck and his supposed research about the abilities of certain races to perform better at sports, for example. Some will remember a time when university academics pontificated about the origins of homosexuality and so on. These are not hypothetical issues. Getting the balance right between being allowed to put forward
“ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions”
and those things that we in an evolving society now regard as unacceptable is always difficult. That is why I was curious to see this proposal in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think about the issues in terms of the Government and other stakeholders and to respond.
I will turn to the entirely separate matter of amendment 171, which is more straightforward and far less philosophical. In line with everything the Opposition have said and will continue to say—and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North sallied forth today—this concerns the position of students. Surely it makes sense to require the OFS to consult students, the academic workforce or their representatives before revision of the list.
Again, that would need to be proportionate. We had this argument on an earlier clause but I am not suggesting that every small item of detail that requires a revision of the list should be consulted on. Fundamentals that perhaps change the pattern of work in a university or the closing of a campus should surely require students and academic staff to be consulted and to put forward their opinions to the OFS. That is the basis of amendment 171.
Joseph Johnson
The governance condition is a vital component of the new regulatory framework. It is designed to ensure providers are governed appropriately. Taking amendment 170 first, academic freedom is one of the fundamental strengths of our system and I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are fully committed to protecting it. We absolutely agree that academic staff must be able to teach and research without interference.
The OFS is obliged to consult on a list of principles that can make up this governance condition. The Bill, therefore, rightly does not prescribe what should be included in that list, with the one notable exception that the hon. Gentleman has identified, which is the principle of freedom for academic staff
“(a) to question and test received wisdom, and
(b) to put forward new ideas and controversial…opinions”
without losing their jobs or privileges. The amendment relates directly to that wording, which has been highlighted in consultation with the sector as being of great importance. That is why clause 14 ensures that that important principle remains included in legislation for the future.
The hon. Gentleman asked where the exact wording comes from. It is from the Education Reform Act 1988, which now cross-references to freedom of speech and academic freedom provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, in relation to actions of governing bodies in preventing people being drawn into terrorism. The wording is also the same as specified in the Committee of University Chairs’ higher education code of governance. This is a tried and tested definition of academic freedom, widely valued and understood by the sector.
The Bill includes a comprehensive range of protections for academic freedom, of which this is just one. It defines for the first time all the ways in which the Secretary of State may influence the OFS by issuing guidance, in terms of setting conditions of grant and giving specific directions to the OFS. In each case, the Bill places an explicit and specific statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect academic freedom, and it lists the areas in which the Secretary of State may not interfere.
While I can reassure hon. Members of our commitment to academic freedom, I do not believe that the amendment adds anything to what are already extensive protections from Government interference in academic freedom, specified in multiple places in the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, the OFS will need to consult prior to determining and publishing a new list of these public interest conditions.
I turn to amendment 171 and the issue of who the OFS needs to consult, on which I am glad to be able to provide some reassurance. I fully believe that the list of principles on which the governance condition will be based should be as proportionate as possible and consulted on widely. I therefore welcome and sympathise with the suggestion that student bodies and academic staff should be included. In fact, I firmly expect those groups to be covered under subsection (8)(c), which states:
“such other persons as the OfS considers appropriate”.
It would be inappropriate, however, to attempt to list all parties the OFS needs to consult on the face of the Bill. That approach would risk drawing up what could be seen as an exhaustive list, thus excluding anyone else from such an important consultation.
I assure hon. Members that I firmly expect the OFS to conduct a fully open consultation, inviting the views of anyone with an interest, including students and staff. The Bill as drafted fully allows for that to happen. In the light of all those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
Taking amendment 171 first, I entirely accept and am reassured by what the Minister said, which will be welcomed. There is always an argument about not wanting to list everything under the sun because we might miss something, and that is fair.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, which the Minister will be pleased to hear. Without us spending half an hour going through the various bits and pieces of statute— we are obviously not going to resolve it this afternoon—if we stopped people in the street and asked, “What is one of the most important things that a new office for students, preserving academic freedom, would want to do?” I would not be surprised if they said something like, “Well, Government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere.”
These are not hypothetical issues; they are real ones—for example, universities or colleges that get support in the area of fracking. Those are real issues, but we are saying, “Oh, well, it’s all covered somewhere else.” I am not knocking the specific examples on the face of the Bill, but I do not understand why things like questioning and testing received wisdom and new ideas need to go on the face of the Bill but something as fundamental as saying, “You can’t be done for challenging Government policy or Government Ministers” is not.
Joseph Johnson
I will continue to reflect on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He makes some interesting suggestions, and we will take them away and have a think.
Gordon Marsden
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Power to impose monetary penalties
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling her amendments. They would require that evidence must first be provided to the OFS that a provider has breached its registration conditions before a sanction may be imposed, such as a monetary penalty or removal from the register, or a suspension placed on the provider’s registration.
The Bill as drafted states that the OFS may take such actions if it appears to the OFS that a breach of conditions has occurred. The test of “it appears” needs to be read alongside the rest of the clause and schedule 3. Regulations will set out the factors to which the OFS must or must not have regard when deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty. They will be subject to consultation and targeted at ensuring that the OFS can impose a monetary penalty only when there is good reason to do so. In addition, the hon. Lady will be aware that the OFS, as a public body, must act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with general public law principles.
I recognise the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. Although I understand and respect the intentions behind them, the OFS will be a public body acting in accordance with public law. It is clearly the case that
“if it appears to the OFS”
requires the OFS to make a judgment and take responsibility for its decisions, which seems to me to be the right approach. If we accepted the amendment, the changed wording
“where evidence is provided”
would be more passive, almost implying that, provided the OFS has received some evidence, it could trigger the sanction without applying a rigorous approach. We surely want a more engaged OFS than that, applying its judgment flexibly, sensibly and proportionately.
Clause 2 is clear on that point, too, making it clear that the OFS must follow the principles of best regulatory practice, including that its regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. The hon. Lady might take further assurance from the fact that any intention to impose a suspension or monetary penalty or to remove a provider from the register must have clear processes, described in the Bill, that allow for a minimum period of 28 days for providers to make representations to the OFS. The only exception to that rule is where the OFS considers that a suspension should take effect immediately because of an urgent need to protect public money. Those provisions create important safeguards for providers. I am clear that any compliance action proposed by the OFS must be based on well founded concerns, and I am confident that the Bill as drafted makes the necessary provisions.
I add that clause 2 requires that the OFS, when performing its functions and duties, must have regard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. I assure Members that if the OFS is not acting in a reasonable and proportionate manner in respect of the issues raised by the amendments, such guidance will be given. On that basis, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. If I have got it right, although “appears to” might be rather loose language, subsection (3) means that regulations will set out the types of evidence that the OFS might consider. In addition, if the regulations are not considered to be sufficient or have not been adopted properly by the OFS, additional guidance will be given by the Secretary of State to assist the OFS in its decision making. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 15, page 9, line 22, after “interest” insert
“, and
(d) the retention of sums received”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 33.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 33, 102 and 103.
Joseph Johnson
The Bill grants the office for students the necessary powers to impose penalties on higher education providers and recover costs and interest related to unpaid penalties and costs. As drafted, the Bill provides only that those sums will be paid into the consolidated fund. On reflection, that is too blunt an approach and is not in line with best practice elsewhere. We think it should be possible for the OFS to retain some of these costs, but only in certain cases in which the Secretary of State agrees to it with the explicit consent of the Treasury. We are clear that the OFS should be allowed to retain income only when it relates to its costs, not when it is imposed as a penalty or deterrent.
For the avoidance of doubt, Government amendments 32, 33, 102 and 103 align the legislation with standard Treasury guidance. They make it clear that OFS income is to be remitted to the Secretary of State unless the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, directs otherwise.
Gordon Marsden
I have no wish to detain the Committee over Government amendments that seem to me entirely sensible and proportionate. However, I have a question for the Minister that is not merely hypothetical, because significant sums of money that were extracted under the previous Government, for example in LIBOR fines, found their way into curious parts of the Consolidated Fund, enabling the Chancellor to stand up and produce rabbits out of hats in the various Budgets. That is another matter and we will not go into it, but it leads me to my point, which is that I am entirely happy and relaxed for the money to go to the OFS or even to the Secretary of State, but I would be rather less relaxed if I thought it would disappear into the Treasury without trace. Will the Minister give me an assurance that this money will be ring-fenced for the Department and will not simply go back into the Treasury?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further line of questioning, which I will reflect on. I cannot give him that assurance now, but I will reflect and hopefully provide some further assurance in due course. In the meantime, I reiterate that the amendments are to bring the treatment of OFS income in line with best practice by allowing the OFS to retain some of its income, but only where the Secretary of State so directs, with the explicit consent of the Treasury.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Monetary penalties: procedure, appeals and recovery
Amendment made: 33, page 72, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
“Retention of sums received
5 The OfS must pay the sums received by it by way of a penalty under section 15 or interest under paragraph 4 to the Secretary of State.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16
Suspension of registration
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 16, page 10, line 11, after “ends” insert
“otherwise than when the provider is removed from the register”.
This amendment provides that the OfS’s duty to enter the date on which a provider’s suspension ends in the register does not apply where it ends with the provider’s removal from the register.
The amendment removes the requirement for the OFS to enter the date of the end of the suspension of a provider in instances when the provider has been removed from the register. Given that, in the event of deregistration, there will no longer be any entry in the register to enter a date against, it is a sensible clarification of the OFS’s duties in such cases.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 172, in clause 16, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) A suspension must not exceed 365 days.”.
This amendment would ensure suspension of a provider’s registration cannot exceed more than one year.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues, which I agree are important, and that is why we have given them very careful thought at every stage in the development of our reform proposals.
The Bill provides important enforcement tools for the OFS, including a power to suspend a provider’s registration if it appears to the OFS that there has been a breach of the provider’s registration conditions. This imposes a powerful incentive for providers to adhere to the OFS’s conditions, and is therefore critical to safeguarding the quality and reputation of our HE sector, and to protecting students.
Amendment 172 seeks to ensure that any suspension imposed on a provider’s registration cannot exceed a period of more than 365 days. Imposing a limit of that nature to a provider’s suspension seems arbitrary and may be unhelpful, for example, when a suspension has been imposed in cases where a provider is “teaching out” students during a period that could exceed 365 days. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman just one very quick example of why we would not want to have a limit of that kind.
Clause 17 puts in place a clear process for dealing with suspension, including setting out to providers the reasons for imposing a suspension and any remedial actions that may be required of them. We envisage that such remedial action requirements will not only state clearly what needs to be done but set out clearly the date by which such actions need to be taken.
The OFS will treat any breach of conditions as a serious matter and will require providers to put matters right promptly. Indeed, clause 18 allows the OFS to deregister a provider if its powers to suspend are insufficient to deal with a breach of a provider’s conditions. That will provide a clear safeguard for students, as it will avoid unnecessarily lengthy—even unduly protracted—periods of suspension.
I turn to amendment 174. The Committee has already discussed student protection plans, which the OFS can impose under clause 13. As the Committee has heard, we want the basic principles for having a student protection plan to be applied to any and every situation where a material change may potentially affect students’ continued participation on a course or at an institution. Such situations could include an event where a provider’s registration has been suspended.
We would expect providers to set out to students clear arrangements as to how student protection plans would handle material changes that might occur, including suspension. Information to students should include a clear process and provide clarity about options and mitigating actions, and the objective is to minimise any potential negative impact on students. The Bill also gives the OFS the ability to specify what transitional financial support students may receive if they are at a provider that has been deregistered by the OFS, resulting in designation for student support being removed.
On that basis, therefore, although I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the importance of having a robust regulatory framework and tough threshold conditions for entry for high-quality providers, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as I strongly believe that the Bill already contains the necessary provisions to safeguard students’ interests.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister has quoted chapter and verse as to what the OFS might or might not be able to do, but what he has not been able to do is address the specific circumstances that I have listed, and I press him on this point about the differences between accommodation and all the rest of it. If he does not want to make this particular change to the Bill, how does he intend to ensure that the OFS considers all of those matters?
Joseph Johnson
We published an explanatory guide to the student protection plans, which was made available to the Committee yesterday, and that was an early provision of information to assist the Committee. Of course, the OFS will properly consult relevant bodies when it comes to drawing up the finer detail of how student protection plans should work.
Members of the Committee will have seen the kinds of measures that we expect student protection plans to include to assist students in those circumstances, such as suspension. We have listed four examples. The plans should include:
“provision to teach out a course for existing students; offering students an alternative course at the same institution”—
if it is just a programme or a department that is closing—
“making arrangements for affected students to switch to a different provider without having to start their course from scratch; measures to compensate affected students financially”.
Those are the kinds of things that we expect the consultation to flush out.
Gordon Marsden
I know the Minister is trying to be helpful. As I have said before, I am not dissing, to use a colloquialism, the student protection plans paper that has come forward, but it is very much a first stab at this. In particular, I want to ask him about the section on market exit at the end. Paragraph 35 states:
“Instances of a provider suddenly and without warning exiting the market completely are likely to remain extremely rare.”
I am sorry, but that is not historically accurate. We have had examples where providers have collapsed. The paragraph also states that
“the OfS will be able to work with students who want to transfer to alternative institutions”.
Say an institution was teaching law in a confined area and it was suddenly suspended for whatever reason and it had 1,000 students. Can the Minister tell me what alternative institutions would be available to pick up that tab and that group of students at that point? Just as importantly, what support—
The Chair
Mr Marsden, I can allow you to intervene as many times as you like—I am very easy-going on that—but we have to keep interventions brief, otherwise it is not fair on other people.
Joseph Johnson
Again, Sir Edward, I respond to the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that student protection plans are an existing feature of our higher education system, but the problem is that they are patchy and not systematic. The Bill will ensure that the OFS has the power to request student information plans systematically from categories of provider so that more students can benefit from the kinds of protections that are currently available only on a piecemeal basis. Those protections have helped institutions cope with the closure of courses or programmes, and we want to make systematic the existing best practice framework in the sector. That is our objective.
The hon. Gentleman is trying to conjure up this image of a sector that will suddenly be confronting the need to develop student protection plans, but they exist already. We are making them more widespread and on that basis, having given way a couple of times, I ask him to withdraw the amendment and agree that we are defending the student interest with this provision and putting in place something that the NUS has welcomed.
Gordon Marsden
Right—okay. I hear what the Minister has said. It is not my interpretation of what the NUS has said, which is why I am quoting chapter and verse from it, but the NUS can speak for itself. The problem with what the Minister has said—I accept his bona fides, his intentions and the rest of it, and I can see his frustration that I am not prepared to accept the broad assurances, but that is what they are—is that they are broad assurances that do not address some practical issues.
I go back to this point: the Minister cannot put a paper out to the Committee and not expect to be questioned on it in the course of the consideration of an amendment. I take him back to paragraph 35, which says that
“the OfS will be able to work with students who want to transfer to alternative institutions, with the aim”—
this is the additional thing—
“of their having banked credit for study already completed.”
The Minister knows as well as me, because he has made a big thing of the fact that he wants to do more about it in the future, that that situation of being able to transfer banked credit for study already completed does not exist in many institutions. That is one of the things that needs to be changed, but he wants to introduce a system that will make market exit much easier.
The Minister is blithely saying in the paper, “Of course they will be able to transfer to an alternative institution”, but he cannot give me any idea of what would happen in the particular example I gave him, or where the inducements would be. The paper also talks about the aim of students transferring with banked credit for study already completed, but the Minister knows perfectly well that is very fragmentary and very uncertain in the process that we currently have. Particularly in a crisis, hundreds of students could be transferred from one institution to another. Who will fund them? Will the Government stump up money? Will the university that takes them on board automatically have all those courses?
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 17, page 10, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) section 85 in the exercise of UKRI’s power under that section to give financial support, or”.
Clause 17(8) provides for an expedited suspension procedure where there is an urgent need to protect public money. This amendment adds financial support given by or on behalf of UKRI in the exercise of its power under clause 85 to the list of examples of public money for the purposes of that provision.
Subsection (8) provides the OFS with the power to suspend a provider with immediate effect where the OFS considers that there is an urgent need to protect public money. The clause lists particular examples of payments in the HE field that the OFS may want to protect and the amendment simply adds to that list payments made by UK Research and Innovation using the powers given to it by the Bill. The amendment provides a clear signal that the OFS will specifically take into account the need to protect UKRI funding when considering the suspension of a provider.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
De-registration by the OfS
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 18, page 11, leave out line 26 and insert
“breach (whether or not they have been, are being or are to be, exercised in relation to it).”
This amendment clarifies that the requirement in one of the pre-conditions for de-registration of a provider that the OfS’s powers to impose monetary penalties or suspend registration are insufficient to deal with the breach does not prevent those powers being exercised in relation to the breach.
Clause 18 sets out two types of case in which the OFS must deregister a provider. The first is when a provider, having previously been suspended or fined for breach of an ongoing registration condition, breaches the same condition or another of its conditions. The second case is when the breach of an ongoing registration condition is so serious that neither the imposition of a monetary penalty nor a suspension will be sufficient to deal with it. The amendment simply makes it clear that the OFS can come to a view that a fine or suspension would be insufficient to deal with a breach and then move to deregistration without first having had to take any action to impose those sanctions. That allows for appropriately speedy action in particularly serious cases—for example, cases of large-scale fraud. Of course, it will always be the case that the OFS could take such an approach only if the facts of the case justified it.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 18, page 11, line 37, at end insert—
“(8) The OfS must submit any list produced under subsection (7) to the Secretary of State who shall lay it before Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure the list of providers removed from the register is laid before Parliament.
Joseph Johnson
I do not want expectations to rise too high.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the deregistration of providers. The OFS list of deregistered providers will be a single, comprehensive record of English HE providers that have been removed from the register. As such, it will be updated in real time as and when additions are made to it. The list and the information in it will be publicly available and hosted on the OFS website. In that sense, there appears to be little value in placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make available information that the OFS will place in the public domain. The OFS will take steps to ensure that the register and the list of deregistered providers is well publicised.
On new clause 5, the powers that the OFS is given in the Bill to impose sanctions, suspend a provider’s registration and, ultimately, to deregister a provider are a powerful incentive for providers to adhere to their registration conditions. When the OFS proposes to suspend or deregister a provider, or to refuse to renew a provider’s access and participation plan, this is primarily a compliance measure to ensure that providers take necessary steps to comply with the conditions of registration that have been placed upon them. Providers are given time either to take corrective action or to make further representations to the OFS before any sanctions are imposed.
I understand the reasons for the new clause, but it would not be right for there to be widespread publicity when the OFS has yet to decide to take action, and when discussions, representations and evidence gathering may still be ongoing. Such publicity may cause reputational damage that would not easily be repaired, even if the provider addresses the OFS’s concerns and no action is ultimately taken. It may also dissuade those giving evidence from doing so and lead to the provider not being fully co-operative. That is not desirable, given that our aim is, whenever possible, to work with providers to improve their performance, and for them to continue to provide high-quality higher education.
Let me be clear: when a decision has been taken, if the OFS considers it appropriate that students should be informed of the actions taken, it already has the power when appropriate to compel a provider’s governing body to ensure that students are properly and promptly informed.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. We have already expressed our concern about the phrase “if the OFS considers it to be appropriate”. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham does not want to place huge burdens on the OFS, but I do not think “if the OFS considers it to be appropriate” is the right phrase. If an institution is in that situation, it should not be a question of whether the OFS considers it appropriate to notify students; it must do so. If I were the new chief executive of the OFS, I would consider it a dereliction of my duty not to do so. I see no reason, therefore, why we are not talking about “must”, rather than whether it is appropriate.
Joseph Johnson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but, as I have said on previous occasions, the OFS will be a public body that has to respect general public law principles and will need to act reasonably and proportionately in everything it does. I assure him that it is certainly our expectation that the OFS will act in the interests of students and will consider making it a specific condition of registration that a provider’s governing body advises students promptly and accurately of OFS proposals to take action against it. Where a provider applies to the OFS to be voluntarily removed from the register and students are still on such a provider’s courses, they will be notified through actions set out in the provider’s student protection plan. On this basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to put a couple of particular questions to the Minister about this process. Obviously the refusal to renew an access and participation plan would be of significant concern. The whole idea of access and participation plans is to take forward the process of widening participation that the Minister and all of us have committed to, so refusing to renew one is actually quite a significant step. In the text the Minister has provided, there is a lot of detail about the circumstances in which that might take place. The Bill talks about the OFS notifying
“the governing body of the provider”
about this. I was not quite clear about the implications of this particular phrase, so I would be grateful if the Minister were to expand on it, but subsection (3) says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about… matters to which the OfS must, or must not, have regard in exercising its powers under subsection (2);”.
I would welcome some clarification, however brief, on that. That is the first point.
My second point touches on our earlier discussions. What would the position and the relationship of the director for fair access and participation be in this process? At what stage, for example, would his recommendations be reviewed? Would he have a veto—that is perhaps the wrong word—or the sole power to make that decision, which the OFS board would just rubber-stamp, or does the Minister envisage a conversation between the OFS board and the director before refusals were made clear? As I have said, this is not a power that should be used lightly. It is not a light issue for the students who will be affected by no longer having access to an access and participation plan nor for the provider who will have its plan removed and for whom it will potentially appear as a black mark on its corporate reputation.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool South for giving me a chance to provide some clarification. The Government believe that anyone with the talent and potential to benefit from higher education should have an opportunity to go to one of our great institutions. In the new world, the OFS will take on responsibility for agreeing access and participation plans, so that even more people can have that chance. However, it is important that the OFS has a backstop power to refuse to agree a new plan where there have been concerns with previous performance, which would be used only in circumstances where it appears that a higher education provider has failed to deliver on commitments in its access and participation plan or has exceeded the specified limits for course fees.
The process that the OFS would follow in those circumstances will be set out in regulations. The regulations will cover the matters that the office for students should or should not take into account in deciding whether to refuse to renew an access and participation plan, the procedure it should follow when giving notice of the refusal to renew a plan, the impact of a notice of refusal and provisions enabling providers to apply for a review before a decision to refuse to renew a plan becomes final. Such detailed arrangements, covering the whole process of agreeing, renewing and enforcing plans, have been set out in regulations since 2004. The hon. Gentleman asked about clause 21(3). Those provisions replicate the provisions in the Higher Education Act 2004.
The director of fair access has not used his powers to enforce compliance with access agreements under the current system. However, we want to ensure that the office for students has the necessary teeth to act where there are concerns. Such a power underlines the priority that we place on widening participation and the key role the OFS will have in ensuring that continued progress is made in that area. I recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
It is extremely helpful of the Minister to lay that out. I asked a very specific question about at what point in the process the director for fair access and participation would be involved and whether he would have a full say. I accept that those are issues that can be dealt with when further guidance is put forward. They are important issues. As the Minister has just said, the current director has not yet had to use his powers in this area. If we are looking at a situation where there is going to be a significant expansion of providers over the next 10 years, which the Government’s own technical document makes very clear, we cannot assume that this process will not happen in the future. It would therefore be helpful for the Government and the OFS if some further thought were given to the relationship between the OFS and the director for fair access and participation on the important decision to refuse an access and participation plan as envisaged in clause 21.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Voluntary de-registration
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 191, in clause 22, page 14, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would ensure transitional measures were put in place by the OfS if a provider is removed from the register.
People might say that voluntary deregistration is not as important as a compulsory one. Nevertheless, even a voluntary deregistration has consequences. Therefore, with this probing amendment, we are asking the Minister to consider requiring the transitional measures to be put in place, rather being left as “may”. I leave that for the Minister to consider in context, but it is important for us not simply to have a situation of voluntary deregistration.
Joseph Johnson
The amendment would require the OFS to put in place transitional measures when a provider has applied to be removed from the register, even if it were the case that all students had completed their studies. We expect that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, transitional measures will be appropriate and that they will be made by the OFS. It is important, however, for the OFS to retain discretion to act when necessary, rather than being forced to take action that, in some circumstances, may not be appropriate, in particular when a provider is making an orderly exit from the HE sector.
There is little value in the OFS being required to make transitional arrangements when a provider has acted reasonably, responsibly, and has remained on the register until such time as the students have completed their studies. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in moving the amendment and fully agree with the need to promote such important issues, but it is not necessary, because the Bill already makes appropriate provision. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I hear what the Minister has to say. I am grateful for his explanation and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Assessing the quality and standards of higher education
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
Yes, indeed. There have been representations and plenty of discussion about why the Government felt it necessary to make explicit reference to standards here. The words “quality” and “standards” have distinct meanings within the higher education sector, even though both are encapsulated within what a layperson might consider to be the quality of a degree. While we consider that HEFCE currently has a role in assessing standards as part of its current quality duty, the lack of an explicit mention for standards has created some uncertainty and that requires correction.
Quality refers primarily to processes, such as whether a provider has suitable academic staff or is providing appropriate levels of assessment and feedback. Standards, on the other hand, refer to the level that a student is required to meet to attain a degree or other qualification. The common expectation of standards is set out in the “Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications”, which has the support of the sector.
It is essential that the office for students is able to ensure that providers are genuinely offering qualifications that are of a suitable standard to be considered higher education. Otherwise, we could be powerless to prevent a provider offering a qualification in, for example, mathematics which might require students to achieve no higher standards than a C at GCSE, while potentially passing it off as a degree and collecting student support from the taxpayer. This would clearly be unacceptable.
Let me be absolutely clear for the hon. Member for City of Durham and others. This is not about undermining the prerogative of providers in determining standards. It is essential that the office for students is able to ensure that providers are genuinely offering qualifications that are of a suitable standard to be considered higher education, otherwise we might be powerless to prevent a provider offering a qualification in, say, mathematics, which might require students to achieve no higher standard than a C at GCSE, perhaps while passing it off as a degree and collecting student support from the taxpayer. That would clearly be unacceptable.
Let me be absolutely clear for the hon. Member for City of Durham and others: this is not about undermining the prerogative of providers in determining standards. This is about ensuring that all providers in the system are meeting the threshold standards set out in the “Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications”, a document endorsed and agreed by the sector.
We are clear that the Government have no role in prescribing course content or structure and that institutional autonomy, as well as the consequential diversity of content and teaching styles across the sector, are crucial to the reputation and vibrancy of UK HE. However, it is important that we can ensure that the overall quality of HE in this country is not undermined by providers offering substandard qualifications, thus ensuring that students get what they pay for and that the taxpayer receives value for money.
As we heard from Pam Tatlow of MillionPlus during the evidence sessions,
“we have got to protect quality and standards for our students. We have also got to maintain a system in which we can maintain confidence.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 12, Q11.]
Together with our wider reforms set out in the Bill, clause 23 is a key element of our approach to maintaining a high and rigorous bar for entry into the system and providing effective oversight—goals that I know hon. Members share—while reducing the burden of inspection on those providers that are performing well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Seventh sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsThursday 15th September 2016
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 September 2016 - (15 Sep 2016)
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is normal practice for Ministers to table documents in advance of their being spoken to in Committee. In normal circumstances, I would expect all documents to be circulated to Members prior to the sittings in which they may be referred to. I am not aware from memory whether the document that Mr Marsden refers to has been tabled. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I am happy to do so, Mr Hanson. I appreciate there is a lot of material that Committee members have been sent in preparation, so I understand why the document might have slipped the hon. Gentleman’s attention.
Joseph Johnson
We did send the technical note to which I referred: “A technical note on market and quality assurance”. It was sent to the Committee on 5 September, along with my welcome letter. I recirculated it yesterday, along with a new information note that we are publishing to assist the Committee on a topic that we will be discussing shortly in relation to student protection plans. Both notes are available on the table in the corner of the room; they are also in the Library and online. As a matter of courtesy, should we publish further information notes in future, we will follow exactly the same practice and ensure the Committee has them in advance of debating them.
The Chair
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It appears that in this case, among the myriad information sent, this document was sent.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment, because it gives me a chance to express our support for her underlying intention to encourage more innovation and a wider variety of provision in the sector. As I have indicated, the Government are wholly in agreement on the need for that and we are actively encouraging it in all our reforms of the higher education system. We do want to encourage more accelerated and flexible provision—in fact, that was a specific manifesto commitment at the 2015 election.
The Bill, as we have discussed before, will help us towards our goals by levelling the playing field for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialist and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees are a particular strength of new and alternative providers, and they will help us to ensure that students can access learning in the form that suits them. I can give a few examples: Buckingham, BPP, Condé Nast College of Fashion & Design—it gave evidence before us—and Greenwich School of Management are all the kinds of newer institutions that offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree over two years, meaning that the student incurs less debt and can enter the workforce more speedily having completed the same amount of study.
We are determined to do more to support flexible provision and that is exactly why we issued a call for evidence earlier in the summer, seeking views from providers, students and others. That resulted in more than 4,000 responses, the vast majority of which, as the hon. Lady may expect, came from individual students. We were delighted to see that level of engagement. Many of the students expressed an interest in exploring the idea of pursuing an accelerated degree, so, as she identified, this is clearly an important issue.
We certainly sympathise with the underlying intention of the amendment. We believe the Bill will help ensure more students are able to choose to apply for accelerated courses. We are currently analysing the full range of the many responses we received to our call for evidence. I assure the hon. Lady that we expect to come forward with further proposals to incentivise the take-up of accelerated provision by the end of the year. On that basis, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That was a very positive response from the Minister, although he did not clarify whether we might get something at later stages of the Bill or whether it will come after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I am reassured that the Government are looking to see what they can do to help not just new entrants, but all universities to deliver their courses more flexibly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 10, page 6, line 36, after “means a” insert “higher education”.
This amendment and amendments 30 and 31 ensure that the courses which can be subject to the fee limit registration condition in clause 10 are confined to higher education courses - but excluding postgraduate courses which are not courses of initial teacher training. “Higher education course” is defined in clause 75(1) as a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988.
Joseph Johnson
These three small amendments clarify that only higher education courses can be subject to a fee limit registration condition under clause 10. The definition of a higher education course is in clause 75(1), which sets out various definitions for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill. Clause 10 already provides that, for the purposes of fee limits, a “course” and, as a result of these amendments, a “higher education course”, does not include any postgraduate course other than one of initial teacher training. The changes simply clarify that the scope of the clause is confined to higher education courses.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendments made: 30, in clause 10, page 6, line 37, after “of” insert “higher education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Amendment 31, in clause 10, page 7, line 2, leave out “course” and insert “higher education course”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
The Fee Limit
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
I used the phrase “Hamlet without the prince” in an earlier session. I find it quite astonishing that the Minister is either so supremely confident in the clarity of schedule 2, or so contemptuous of the need for it to be debated, that he did not speak to it. This may not be Hamlet without the prince, but there is an issue that dare not speak its name, certainly in the context of the Bill: the relationship of fees to quality. It is not exactly the issue that dare not speak its name, because although clause 25, which we will debate later, does not in any shape or form contain the dread phrase “teaching excellence framework,” it contains a form of words that might, if one were lucky, lead one to the conclusion that it has some connection with that, in the same way as it might have enabled my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to find the thing that she was trying to find on the Department for Education website.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is kind to invite an intervention. We are extremely committed to the teaching excellence framework, which was a manifesto commitment and the centrepiece of our Green Paper and White Paper, and which we discussed extensively in the evidence sessions. The framework is described clearly in clause 25 as a system for providing ratings to English higher education providers. I am looking forward to discussing it extensively whenever he wishes.
Gordon Marsden
Well, I hope that the Minister might wish to discuss the framework in terms of schedule 2, because that certainly has implications for it. Schedule 2 introduces the whole area of the fee limit and fee regime and deals with high level quality ratings and circumstances in which the provider has no access and participation plan. There is a mass of stuff that we could talk about.
Tucked away right at the end of this rather dry schedule is a section on procedure, which of course deals with the procedures for increasing tuition fees. If hon. Members wish to turn their attention to the dry page in question, it is page 70, line 30 onwards. The schedule deals there with fee increases and the basis on which those will take place in relation to paragraph 2, which deals with ways in which fee limits can be set and all the rest of it. That is all the detail of the thing.
It is curious that the schedule goes into all that detail, because the Minister announced major increases in tuition fees for 2017-18 in a written statement that was published on the last day before the summer recess along with 29 other written statements, which in the view of the press—these are not my words—were “smuggled out”. That was a matter of some debate on the last day of term, and suggests that he is very tentative about discussing this issue.
Joseph Johnson
I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s use of the term “major increases”. Does he acknowledge that we are in fact simply allowing the real-terms value to be maintained? There is no real-terms increase. Does he understand that?
Gordon Marsden
When I referred to a major increase, I was not commenting on the specifics of the percentage; I was talking about the fact that it will affect all students. Neither the Minister nor, as far as I am aware, anyone from his Department has seen fit to comment on the issue, but over the summer a number of universities have taken the confirmation in the written statement as a green light to put up fees not simply for those who enrol in 2017-18, but for those who already have a loan. There was some discussion in the media—again, I do not think the Minister took part in it—about whether, for example, a reference to the potential for fees to go up on the University of Exeter’s website constituted a good enough broadcasting of the issue. This will have a retrospective impact on students at a number of universities, and it has come about on the back of the way in which the Minister chose to announce the process.
If I remember correctly, when the Minister and his colleagues were pressed on the process, they said that they were doing it in accordance with the requirements of previous legislation. It is curious—I put it no more strongly than that—that when it suits him to smuggle a measure out in a statement on the last day of term, he prays in aid legislation that is more than a decade old, but when it comes to this thing, it is referenced in the context of the main Bill but without our being told anything more about the teaching excellence framework that will enable fees to go up.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to you, Mr Hanson. Although schedule 2 and clause 25 are closely enmeshed, I will do my best to observe your strictures.
Both the Conservative Members who intervened—maybe we can get everybody up before the end of the sitting—are missing the point. I am talking about the procedure—about the dichotomy between the procedure that the Minister is proposing today, but that he has not wanted to talk about, and the procedure that he and his colleagues employed before the summer recess to get the inflation-based element through.
Without straying into clause 25, I remind the Minister and his colleagues of what they said in the past and the basis on which the TEF was presented to this House. I am not saying the Minister did not have lots of discussions. He listened to the university sector, which was absolutely manic about the idea that it would have to produce lots of stuff for the first year of the TEF’s operation, and he said, “We’ll do it on the basis that you—the universities and higher education institutions—are essentially given a clean bill of health, which will enable you to implement an inflation-rated scheme”. That is what we are talking about: the dichotomy between those two things.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman seems a bit baffled by procedure. I remind him that we are using the same provision that the Labour Government introduced in 2004 so that universities do not suffer an annual erosion in real terms of their income.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is desperately trying to set up a whole series of straw people in order to get away from the essential elements of the arguments in the case. He is praying in aid what was set in legislation in 2004, when tuition fees were not £12,000; they are now set to increase from £9,000 to £12,000, possibly by the end of this Parliament. I am merely drawing attention to the dichotomy, which the Minister is clearly uncomfortable with, between the careful way in which he now wishes to place this proposal into legislation and the fact that he has had to rely on that mechanism.
My other point—I do not want to stray outside the schedule, but it is relevant—is that only two days before that statement, we had the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Even the most pedantic and pernickety of Ministers might have thought it was useful, in the context of the Bill, to talk about the teaching excellence framework, the impact it would have on fees and, in that process, to say, “Of course, I refer the House to the increase that I suggested might happen,” but at which point he had not moved.
Joseph Johnson
I remind the hon. Gentleman, as the contents of the White Paper seem to have eluded him on other occasions, in particular in respect to the widening participation statement we discussed on Tuesday, that the White Paper clearly set out that our policy for maintaining fees would be that they could increase with inflation. This was not a secret. We had announced it prominently in our White Paper.
Gordon Marsden
The question of what is or is not a secret is a matter for a lot of discussion, no doubt. What is not a matter for discussion is the fact the Government did not put the mechanism for this increase in the Bill until the last day before the summer recess started. In my view, they did that quite deliberately in the hope it would be smothered in public interest by the other 28 statements that went round. It is a common practice of Governments to do that, but it is reprehensible. It is particularly reprehensible when we now know that the consequences of it are that a number of universities have implemented it for existing students, and not simply for students enrolling from 2017-18.
As this subject is clearly irritating and frustrating the Minister quite a lot, I will move on to talk about the issues that affect the relationship between teaching quality and fees. We are going to talk about the detail of the TEF in regards to clause 25, so again I will comment in more general terms. The National Union of Students has made it clear that it firmly opposes statutory links between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching. My hon. Friends and I made that clear on Second Reading. I remind colleagues of what I said in the summer Adjournment debate, when I came to inform the House that this had been done in what I regarded as an irregular manner. I said:
“I think that the way the Government have dealt with this matter is thoroughly reprehensible…We engaged in a vigorous discussion”
on the Bill, as to
“whether it was right to link fees to the Teaching Excellence Framework, but at no time during that process did Ministers take the opportunity to say anything about the issue.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 1056.]
I am saying that today because I want it to be put on record that we are talking about the discrepancy in procedures.
It is a question not just of increasing the fees, but of increasing the loans by 2.8% to match that increase in fees. That will have all the knock-on effects on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Apart from the principled point that the NUS is making, as the Minister knows there is at least a degree of scepticism about the outcome for universities of linking the TEF with tuition fees, and scepticism on the part of one or two or them about linking it. Inevitably, however, students are on the hard end of this and they want to know what the evidence is for the measure.
The NUS rightly says:
“Since tuition fees were trebled in 2012, there is no evidence”
as a direct result of that process
“to suggest that there was a consequential improvement in teaching quality.”
It goes on to say that, broadly,
“There has been no change in student satisfaction with the teaching on their course, while institutions have instead been shown to spend”
in many cases
“additional income from the fees rise on increased marketing materials rather than on efforts to improve course quality.”
We will want to return the question of what this money will be used for when we talk about the obligations laid on new providers. Of course, if they sign up for the full-fat version of the fees, they will have to abide by the teaching excellence framework as well.
Gordon Marsden
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I merely remark that there are a whole range of other issues around what the teaching excellence framework needs to do for students and institutions, and no doubt we will have the ability to discuss those further when the Minister speaks eloquently on clause 25.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that he was once fully committed to the principle of funding on the basis of quality. May I remind him of what he said in 2001, when he was younger and wiser?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman said very clearly:
“We must reassess the balance between teaching and research…The HEFC should seriously consider incorporating a teaching quality assessment exercise in the RAE”.—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 170WH.]
That implies we fund teaching on the basis of quality just as we fund research on the basis of quality, which is precisely what we are doing.
Gordon Marsden
That is clutching at straws, but I stand by what I said in 2001. If the Minister will permit a mild compliment, I compliment the Government on grasping the nettle of increasing the way in which teaching, as a principle, is judged in relation to research. Many Labour Members have been banging on about that for years.
The Minister wants to go into history. When I was on the Education Committee in the 2000s, we questioned the then Labour Government vigorously about the research assessment exercise changes, and many of us on that Committee made the point that teaching excellence needs to be recognised and funded. There is no argument about us being in support of placing greater emphasis on teaching excellence. The argument is about whether we can save the Government from the consequences of their own folly. If the Government are not careful, they will taint the whole exercise through the cynical way in which they are using this simply as a coupon—I repeat the reference. That is precisely why a number of higher education institutions, including the University of Cambridge, have said that, and it is precisely why a number of Russell Group vice-chancellors—we will come on to this in clause 25—have shown themselves very lukewarm and sceptical about signing up to the TEF in the first place.
Gordon Marsden
The people I am calling misguided certainly, and possibly cynical, are the Minister and his—[Interruption.]
Joseph Johnson
I am extremely concerned that the vice-chancellor of Cambridge has been misrepresented in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We heard in the evidence session, and he said very clearly in his evidence, that the way the Government was recognising teaching through the TEF was, in his words, “really good”.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister is being very selective, of course. It depends on how we interpret the phrase, “the way”. All I can tell the Minister—I will sift through the mountain of papers here—is that we have ample evidence in the written material given to the Committee and submitted before Second Reading from the University of Cambridge on that matter. [Interruption.] I will give way in a moment, but if I may just quote from what I said in the Second Reading debate, to refresh the Minister’s memory:
“Long-established institutions such as Cambridge University have said quite straightforwardly that they do not support the link between the TEF and fees. Cambridge University states: ‘it is bound to affect’”—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 718.]
[Interruption.] I am sorry the Minister does not like it. It was the university’s written evidence that was given to us all when we debated the Bill on 19 July—[Interruption.]
Gordon Marsden
Right. I will continue. So that the Minister is in no doubt, Cambridge University stated in its written evidence to the Committee, in specific response to questioning on the link between the TEF and fees, that
“it is bound to affect student decision-making adversely, and in particular it may deter students from low income families from applying to the best universities”.
All the passion and enthusiasm that the Minister quite rightly generates for improving access for students from low-income families is in danger of being torpedoed, according to the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, because of the pernicious link that the Government have chosen to introduce between the TEF and the fee increase. If there is an argument for fee increases, let that argument be made separately.
Gordon Marsden
I will give way in a moment. Do not try and justify fee increases by referring to and using the teaching excellence framework in a way that, if we are not careful, will taint the whole process thereafter.
Joseph Johnson
I rise to bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention that there are many in the sector who can see that this will do exactly what he wants: it will enable universities to reinvest in teaching methods. I want to draw to his attention the words of Professor Steve Smith, the highly respected vice-chancellor of Exeter University, who said:
“At a time when our institutions face significant cost pressures the TEF presents us with an opportunity to invest in our students’ futures and the long-term economic success of our country, and to be recognised for outstanding teaching at the same time.”
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee in that respect. Of course university vice-chancellors are pragmatic people; they have to be. It is rather like when the late lamented Chancellor of the Exchequer said there could be any form of new structure for combined authorities as long as there were mayors.
Joseph Johnson
I am extremely concerned at the misrepresentation. These examples I am giving of individual vice-chancellors supporting the TEF and the fee link are not unrepresentative of the sector. That is why I am going to read to the hon. Gentleman the submission from Universities UK.
The Chair
Order. With respect, the Minister will have opportunities to make those points when he responds to the debate. Reading them into the record now would be quite a long intervention. I appreciate his points. If Gordon Marsden wishes to let the Minister intervene again, he can do so.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which helps us clarify what the Select Committee agreed. The report goes through the metrics, expressing reservations about employment. It is concerned that a narrow focus on employment will not demonstrate teaching quality. The truth is that if someone goes to the right public school and Oxbridge, however good the teaching quality at Oxbridge, they will get a good job because they know the right people and have got the right contacts. In itself, employment is no measure of teaching quality, and nor is retention.
I appreciate the Government’s initiative to improve retention as part of the widening participation agenda. It is positive, but the retention metric is open to university gaming: the best way of getting a good retention metric is by not taking students who are likely to struggle in university. It runs counter to the Government’s objectives, and there are similar concerns about the crudeness of the national student survey as a metric in itself.
The hon. Lady is right. We expressed those reservations and recognised that the Government were listening and were trying to move on them, but the Select Committee said very clearly that we wanted metrics with a proven link to teaching quality. The Government have not got those metrics yet. We will have that debate later.
The second point of concern in relation to the fees link is that the Government are rightly moving in the further stages of the TEF to subject-based assessment. Now, subject-based assessment is a good step because universities are large institutions within which there is a huge range of subjects and a great diversity of teaching quality, but to link a fee with an institutional assessment masks that range of teaching quality. People studying in a department where the teaching quality is not as good as in others will be paying higher fees. This flawed proposal does not enhance the Government’s objective and should be rejected.
Joseph Johnson
This has been a more heated debate than those that preceded it. I anticipated that it would be, and I hope we can move on to more consensual areas of the Bill shortly so that we can recover our composure. I am glad we are having this crucial debate, because this issue is clearly of huge concern to many Members. It highlights the big differences between what the Government are trying to achieve and what the Opposition would have us do.
Schedule 2 is crucial, in that it provides the mechanism for the setting of fee caps, which are central to fair and sustainable higher education funding. It replicates the provisions put in place by the Labour Government more than a decade ago with one difference, which I will come to later. First, I want to set out why the current funding system not only works for the sector but is crucial to its continued competitiveness.
The system we have established and are updating through the Bill, building on the measures put in place by the previous Labour Government, will ensure the sustainability of the HE sector and drive up the value to students by linking quality with fees. Our approach has been recognised by the OECD, which praised England as one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister will acknowledge that the quotes that he is giving—he may have reservations about them—are in relation to the fee system. The OECD has made no comment on the fees link.
Joseph Johnson
The OECD has made its comments and it is of the view that we have the most sustainable funding system of any country in the world. We are developing it further with our teaching excellence framework.
Despite what the Labour party said at the time, students have not been deterred from going into higher education and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have not been put off from going to university. We now have entry rates, as I have said, at record levels of 18.5% in 2015, up from 13.6% in 2009-10. In fact, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 36% more likely to go to university than they were when the Conservatives came into office in 2010. Our student funding system is fair and sustainable. It removes financial barriers to anyone hoping to study, and is backed by the taxpayer, with outstanding debt written off after 30 years. That is a deliberate, conscious decision by Government to invest in the skills base of the country.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister repeats his and his colleagues’ familiar statement about fee movement and extra participation, and all the rest of it; but I will also repeat what I have said: there comes a sticking point, and just because some of the more pessimistic assumptions about fee rises that were made in the late 2000s have not come to pass, that does not mean to say that there have not been casualties along the way.
Joseph Johnson
Our funding model, which we are continuing to develop and make more contingent on the delivery of quality, is a great strength of our system, and it is acknowledged as such by education experts such as the OECD. As a result of it, we have been able to lift the cap on student numbers. Labour was never able to do that with its model of funding. As a result, we have lifted the cap on aspiration and today we are enabling more people than ever before to benefit from higher education.
I do not believe that Labour’s proposals for funding higher education are remotely realistic, even if they were intelligible, and I am not the only person to think that. The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned Times Higher Education in his remarks. He might have read, in this week’s edition, an interesting interview with Lord Mandelson, former Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. On the question of how Labour will fund the removal of tuition fees he said:
“By spending less on health or housing? Or by raising general taxation, the burden of which would inevitably fall on middle-income families?”
He said that Labour was not being honest about its promises on tuition fees. Pledging to remove them was not
“an honest promise to make”.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Lord Mandelson?
Gordon Marsden
At the risk of sounding like Old Father Time, I will say that I have known Peter Mandelson far longer than the Minister, and I know one of his traits over the years has been to challenge and prick, and all the rest. What the Minister has said is not good enough. We are here to examine the Government’s record with students. The truth is that, since fees trebled, the figures for part-time students have gone down. There is no guarantee that the figures for other students will not go down as well.
Joseph Johnson
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I shall come directly to schedule 2. I could have invoked a large number of other senior Labour party figures who agree with Lord Mandelson, such as Ed Balls, who said exactly the same thing. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with one wing of the Labour party; but he does not agree with the other, either.
Joseph Johnson
I have been invited to carry on and speak about schedule 2, so I will press on for a minute. I will give way once I have made a bit more progress, if I can.
Tuition fees have been frozen since 2012 at £9,000 a year. That means that the fees have already fallen in real terms to £8,500 as things stand today. If we leave them unchanged they will be worth £8,000 in those terms by the end of the Parliament. It is not right or realistic to expect providers to continue to deliver high-quality teaching year in, year out with continually decreasing resources. The Committee heard that point made clearly by Chris Husbands, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, which is close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, when he gave evidence. He said clearly that it would be completely inappropriate for the university sector still to be stuck on £9,000 in 20 or 30 years’ time because no Government had the guts to allow fees to rise with inflation. That is precisely what we are doing.
Paul Blomfield
I welcome the Minister’s coming to the core issue of schedule 2, but his quote from the vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University referred to the case for a fees increase. Schedule 2 is about linking it to the teaching excellence framework. The Minister has yet to make the case, or even mention that link. Will he do so now?
Joseph Johnson
Happily. The hon. Gentleman is deluding himself if he thinks that the chair of the teaching excellent framework does not understand the fee link that he himself is implementing. He does his fellow Sheffielder something of a disservice in casting that sort of aspersion on him.
What we are doing in schedule 2 for the first time is ensuring that only those providers who can demonstrate high-quality provision can maintain their fees in line with inflation. The ability to raise fees with inflation was provided for by the last Labour Government in 2004, but without any reference at all to quality or the student experience. Through schedule 2, we are doing better than that. The TEF fee link, in particular, as Government Members have already noted, was endorsed earlier this year by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which said that
“we support the principle of a more sophisticated link…between teaching quality and fee level”.
Gordon Marsden
I do not want this to turn into an argument about semantics, but the reality is, as was mentioned earlier, in this schedule, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what the shape of it is. When the Select Committee said that, it was about the principle and the concept, not about the detail, which the Minister is either not in a position or not willing to tell us about.
Joseph Johnson
We can discuss the TEF in much greater detail at a later stage—I am looking forward to it—but we have consulted on it on several occasions now. The TEF is in shape. It is up and running, and it could not remotely be described in the way that the hon. Gentleman did.
Joseph Johnson
No, I want to make progress. The sector is familiar with the principle of linking funding to quality, which was introduced by the Conservative Government in the 1980s, when they introduced the research assessment exercise. Over successive iterations, the research excellence framework has undoubtedly driven up the quality of our research endeavour as a country, keeping us at the forefront of global science.
Joseph Johnson
No, I am going to make some progress. We are now extending this principle to teaching quality. Schedule 2 provides the mechanism for the setting of fee limits, allowing providers to charge fees up to an inflation-linked cap according to ratings of teaching quality established through the teaching excellence framework, which is mentioned under clause 25, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that he must get through his points. I will be brief. The teaching excellence framework, notwithstanding the fact that it is a one-size-fits-all judgment for the first year, is at the moment scheduled to come to fruition over only three or four years. The Minister knows very well that the conversion of the research assessment exercise into the research excellence framework took six years. Why, therefore, is he so confident that the Government will get it right in a short period of time?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticise us for taking time to get it right and then wish it were in place sooner. We are developing the TEF in a phased, careful way. We are listening to the sector. That is why it is being piloted and trialled in its first two years.
Wes Streeting
The Government have a laudable target to double the percentage of students from low-participation areas by 2020. Can the Minister explain how linking the TEF to tuition fee rises will enable students from the most under-represented backgrounds to access the courses with the best quality teaching?
Joseph Johnson
In order to participate in the TEF, all institutions will need to have an access and participation plan, and those access and participation plans and widening participation statements will be demanding. We have given strong guidance to Les Ebdon and, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have set the sector a demanding overall goal of doubling participation by 2020 of people from disadvantaged backgrounds from the levels we inherited back in 2009.
We are now extending the principle that we introduced for the funding of research to how we fund teaching, which is something the hon. Member for Blackpool South was himself suggesting that the Government should do back in 2002. Schedule 2 provides the mechanism for the setting of fee limits and allows providers to charge fees up to an inflation-linked fee cap according to its rating for teaching quality, which we will make possible through the TEF. The TEF, which was a manifesto commitment, will enable the impartial assessment of different aspects of teaching, including student experience and the job prospects of graduates. It will put teaching on a par with our country’s world-leading research so that we not only get more students into higher education, but ensure it is worthwhile when they get there.
Increasing fee limits in line with inflation is nothing new. It has been made possible since the Higher Education Act 2004 put in place by Labour, and it was routinely applied between 2007—by the last Labour Government—and 2012. Linking fee limits to teaching performance is new. It recognises and rewards excellence and will drive up quality in the system.
Dr Blackman-Woods
There is nothing in schedule 2 to suggest that as there is now a link between teaching quality and fees the additional fee income will be used to further enhance teaching quality. Will the Minister deal with that point?
Joseph Johnson
Such incentives will play a powerful role in rebalancing universities so that they focus more on teaching than ever before. We do not have marginal funding allocated towards teaching in our funding system for universities at the moment and this will be a powerful driver of change in that respect.
It is right that only providers that demonstrate high-quality teaching will be able to access tuition fees up to an inflation-linked maximum fee cap. We expect the TEF to deliver additional income for the sector of £16 billion by 2025 and it will also allow providers to reinvest in teaching methods that work. As the Sutton Trust said,
“we need to shake the university sector out of its complacency and open it up to a transparency that has been alien to them for far too long. It is good that they are judged on impact in the research excellence framework, and that the teaching excellence framework will force them to think more about how they impart knowledge to those paying them £9000 a year in fees.”
The fee link has been welcomed not just by individual vice-chancellors but by the sector. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central challenged me to reference a body representative of the sector and I am very happy to do so. Universities UK said:
“Allowing universities to increase fees in line with inflation, on the condition of being able to demonstrate high-quality teaching through an effective TEF, is a balanced and sustainable response to these two objectives.”
Let me reassure the Committee that, as I set out in the White Paper, our proposed changes to the fee limits accessible to those participating in the TEF will at most be in line with inflation—fee caps will be kept flat in real terms. Let me also reassure the Committee that, should the upper or lower limits be increased by more than inflation, which is certainly not our intention, it will require regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which require the approval of Parliament. That is in line with the current legislative approach to raising fee caps and we have no desire to depart from those important safeguards, so Parliament will therefore continue to retain strong controls over fees.
The Chair
Order. It is for the Minister to determine whether he wishes to give way or not.
Joseph Johnson
To summarise, the Government are committed to a progressive approach to higher education funding and to ensuring the financial sustainability of the sector. Schedule 2 establishes a direct link between fees and the quality of teaching—a principle supported by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the wider sector—along with a clear framework of control for Parliament. The provisions ensure that we can meet our manifesto commitment to deliver TEF under the Bill by ensuring that well-performing providers are rewarded so that they can continue to invest in excellent teaching.
Gordon Marsden
I would like to speak briefly to propose that we vote on stand part. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. He has on a number of occasions evaded our direct questions about the link between TEF and the fees. He has tried to subsume it into a broader argument about TEF. I repeat, so that no one is in any doubt, we support anything that will improve teaching quality and incentivise it. To be asked to buy a pig in a poke, which is how I have already described the measure, and for the Minister then to tell us us that any further iterations would simply go down the corridor—that is precisely what happened with the grants and maintenance loans, and we had to drag the Government to the Floor of the House to have a debate—is indicative of how defensive the Government feel about the arguments. That is why we wish to vote against the schedule.
Question put, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I merely want to emphasise to the Minister the extent of NUS concern about this issue. I met NUS representatives recently, and they understood that the Bill allows for new entrants into the sector and creates a registration system, which means that in future some institutions might fall foul of that system. The NUS does not have an issue with that, but with what protection there would be for students if a course closes or if the institution itself closes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said, this is a modest amendment, but it seeks to put something on the face of the Bill to include information about how students will be recompensed if their course or institution closes. Furthermore, NUS anxiety is based on experience of course closures, in which it has taken a long time for students to get their particular issues sorted out, such as transfer to another institution or on to another course. What reassurances can the Minister give to students who are really worried about that matter?
Joseph Johnson
I am happy that we are back on more consensual aspects of the Bill, and we share all the hon. Members’ interests and concerns in that respect. I am extremely keen to use this opportunity to set out our intentions for student protection plans. I hope that the Committee members found it helpful to read the explanatory note that we put out yesterday, although I appreciate that they will not have had much time to look at it. It is, however, available for their further perusal.
Student protection plans are not a new concept, and some providers already have them. The current approach across the HE system, however, is entirely voluntary, and coverage is far from consistent across the sector. What the Bill does, importantly, is give the office for students the power to require registered providers to put student protection plans in place. All approved providers and approved fee cap providers in receipt of public funds will be expected, regardless of size, to have a student protection plan approved by the OFS. That is new, and the measure has been welcomed by the NUS in its written evidence to the Committee. I have met the NUS on a number of occasions. If it has continuing concerns, following our publication of this preliminary clarifying material, I would be happy to meet again to discuss how we can go further, if necessary.
The plans as we have set them out will ensure that students know from the outset what kind of support would be offered to them if a course, campus or institution was at risk of closure, or if some other material change at their provider left them unable to continue their studies. Providers will be expected to make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot be delivered to students as agreed. Those plans will be proportionate and in line with the risk profile of the provider. We expect the OFS to require student protection plans to be implemented before a provider’s financial position becomes unsustainable. They will be triggered by material changes, to be specified by the OFS in guidance. The guidance will also provide further details on what the OFS expects to be covered in a plan and we expect that that will be subject to full consultation by the OFS. As a result, the Bill rightly does not prescribe the type of events or mitigations that should be included.
I can reassure Members that we fully intend for student protection plans to set out information, options and any remedial actions students can expect in any event where a material change occurs that could affect their continued participation in study. That is an important step forwards in the protection of the student interest in higher education. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. He laid out principles, and I am sure that all members of the Committee will want to study the document in some detail. We will no doubt have another opportunity to discuss it during our consideration of the Bill. On the basis of the progress in principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Sixth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 13th September 2016
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 September 2016 - (13 Sep 2016)
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not detain it long, but I want to make a couple of slightly different points on amendment 141. We have to recognise that all countries in the world face a particular challenge because of the changing nature of society, and that is going to impinge on educational challenges in particular. It was estimated that there were more researchers working in the last 25 years of the 20th century than in the entire prior history of the world. When that is put together with the processing power of new technology, the rate of change and the production of new ideas and research is accelerating apace. That itself feeds into real change that has been happening in the labour market. For example, it was suggested some years ago that those entering the labour market in the UK around the year 2000 could expect on average to have between eight and 10 career changes in their working life. We have therefore moved away from a world where it is only at a younger age that people are prepared for their future professional lives. There has to be better regard for lifelong learning and for how technologies and education systems will change to meet the challenge of the modern world. In that slightly wider context, I support amendment 141.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
First, let me say that I can see the principles that hon. Members are seeking to address here. I entirely agree that it is very important that the strong reputation of the English HE sector is maintained and that there is confidence in both the sector and the awards it collectively grants. The OFS has a key role to play in that. I also agree that the OFS will need to determine and promote the interests of students, that providers should continue to collaborate and innovate, and that studying part-time and later in life brings enormous benefits for individuals, the economy and employers. However, the OFS is already required under clause 2 to have regard to the need to promote quality and greater choice and opportunity for students.
Our higher education sector is indeed world class, and one of our greatest national assets. I entirely agree that it is crucial that this strong reputation is maintained and that there is confidence in both the sector and in the awards made by its providers. We have heard the same arguments about letting in poor providers at every period of great university expansion. The expansion of the sector over the decades has been the story of widening participation and access to the benefits of higher education. The concerns that we have heard at every wave of expansion have successively proved to have been manageable and, eventually, unfounded.
There is no specific current legislative provision that places a duty on the regulator to maintain confidence in the academic awards made by HE providers. However, the OFS is already required, under clause 2, to have regard to the need to promote quality, and good quality is the key ingredient that inspires confidence. As the Quality Assurance Agency recently noted, it is the Government’s intention that,
“no higher education provider will be given DAPs”
degree-awarding powers—
“without due diligence around quality assurance and this responsibility is expected to be carried out by the designated independent quality body.”
The QAA also said that,
“the transition to a more flexible, risk-based approach to awarding DAPs and university title…will help underpin the government’s policy objectives to open the sector to new high quality providers, encourage innovation and offer more choice to students”.
In particular, the power to award degrees will remain subject to specific criteria which all prospective providers must meet. The detail of those will be subject to consultation in due course, but I do not envisage the criteria themselves differing much from the existing criteria, and certainly not in a way where quality and therefore confidence is undermined.
The criteria for degree awarding powers are currently set out in detailed guidance. That will continue to be the case under the Bill. The current criteria and guidance for degree awarding powers run to 25 pages; all the criteria go towards ensuring quality and therefore confidence. Current guidance describes in some detail what is expected of providers with regard to key aspects concerning, for example, governance and academic management, academic standards and quality assurance, scholarship and pedagogical effectiveness, and the environment supporting delivery of taught HE programmes. We intend to consult on the detail of the future guidance, but will in all circumstances seek to assure quality. That level of detail cannot be captured in primary legislation.
Through our new regulatory framework, we are giving the OFS the powers to ensure that quality and standards are maintained. That will ensure that all parties, be they students, employers or the wider public, can have confidence that an English degree remains a high-quality degree and that it will continue to be something that has real value.
Let me deal with amendment 136. For the OFS to function effectively in the student interest, students should of course be represented, and that is our intention. Student interests are at the heart of our reforms, and we will continue to engage with our partners as the implementation plans are developed. As has been seen, from the Green Paper onwards we have sought the engagement and thoughts of all involved in the sector; we have engaged directly with students and their representatives, and I have had numerous meetings over the past year with student representative bodies including the NUS and the Union of Jewish Students, as well as many meetings with individual students. We will be embedding that culture of engagement within the OFS across all its duties, not just access and participation plans.
The Committee has heard from Universities UK, GuildHE and MillionPlus, all of which agreed that the general principle of student engagement was right, but that goes further than just representation. There needs to be a variety of mechanisms to enable student engagement, rather than just prescribing in legislation how that is to be achieved. The Office for Fair Access, for example, already requires providers to include a detailed statement on how they have consulted students in developing access agreements. The director of fair access has regard to that statement when deciding whether to approve an access plan.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister is right to point to the guidance from the Office for Fair Access, but may I just point out that what he describes has not always been the case? Although the current director of fair access may take the attitude that students ought to be involved, his predecessor did not always do the same.
Joseph Johnson
Under the current director of fair access, we have seen spectacular progress, as we all acknowledged in Thursday’s sitting, and we would expect him and his successor to continue with the excellent model that he has put in place. That has seen these arrangements work well, and that is why we do not think it necessary to legislate.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. He talks about the importance of engaging with students but, with respect, there is not a great deal of that engagement reflected in the Bill. Will the Minister reflect on that and perhaps some of our earlier debates on the issue?
Joseph Johnson
We obviously are thinking very carefully about the debates that we have at all stages of the Committee’s proceedings, and I am reflecting on how best we ensure that we achieve all our intentions to ensure that students are better represented in the sector’s systems and structures. We have put forward a proposal, which we discussed in great detail, in relation to the role of the OFS board in representing the student interest. We want to ensure that that is about more than representation and that the student interest genuinely is mainstreamed throughout everything that the OFS does.
That is why, for example, we absolutely recognise the need for access plans in particular to continue representing the student interest, and why in this Bill we are extending access plans to include participation and therefore looking at students and what happens for them right across their time in higher education. The hon. Member for Ilford North will appreciate that that goes far further than the plans introduced in 2004, which were limited to the point of access into higher education, rather than participation in and the benefits from higher education, to which we are seeking to extend them.
We will be embedding outreach activity to engage with students within the culture of the OFS, as part of its duty to promote quality and greater choice and opportunities for students. I would expect the OFS to use a range of ways to engage and consult with students, including social media, online consultation, and collaboration with partners, which has had wide reach in the past.
On amendment 140, the general duties of the OFS are absolutely consistent with the idea that providers should continue to collaborate and innovate in the new regulatory system, as we discussed extensively this morning. We are wholly supportive of collaboration where that is in the interests of students, and nothing in the Bill prevents it. Collaboration can take many forms, and we do not want to be prescriptive about what it should look like.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wonder if he could help me, because I am struggling to understand his point on this issue of collaboration. He says that he does not want to be prescriptive. He speaks highly of collaboration and of competition. Competition is on the face of the Bill. Can the Minister explain to me why he is prepared to be prescriptive in that context, but not in this one?
Joseph Johnson
We believe strongly that there is a need for competition to generate the driving forces that push up the quality of provision in the HE system and enable a more meaningful range of choices for students. We think that that would be in the student interest. Our overarching purpose is to make sure that the OFS operates in the student interest. We believe that that overriding goal captures many of the benefits that collaboration could achieve, and therefore putting collaboration on the face of the Bill would be redundant. When collaboration is in the interests of students it would already be covered by the OFS’s overarching duty in clause 2.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him that we will of course make clear in our guidance to the OFS that having regard to collaboration is part of its general role in having an overview of the sector and of the role of providers. We will make clear in the guidance that collaboration is compatible with competition when it is in the interests of students. The OFS does not need a separate duty to promote collaboration; it has a general duty to have regard to the student interest and can therefore support collaboration when it is in that student interest.
We know that there is a continuing entrenchment of the same model of higher education in this country. The share of undergraduate students in English higher education institutions doing typical full-time first degrees has increased from 65% in 2010-11 to 78% in 2014-15. It is important that the OFS has a focus on supporting a competitive and more innovative market. This will have the effect of making it easier for new providers to enter the market and expand, helping to drive up teaching standards overall, enhance the life chances of students, drive economic growth, and be a catalyst for social mobility. Competition will incentivise providers to raise their game, fostering innovation, which has been stifled for too long under the current system.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman about a lack of innovation. In my view, promoting innovation, like collaboration, does not require a separate duty. When it is in the student interest, the OFS will be fully able to support it, because the student interest is at the very heart of the OFS.
Wes Streeting
Can the Minister provide a specific example of where competition in higher education has been proven to raise standards? If he cannot provide a specific example in higher education, perhaps he can find an example across public service provision more generally.
Joseph Johnson
I think that it is generally recognised that competition is one of the great forces—
Joseph Johnson
Monopolies and the absence of competition in almost any sector that the hon. Gentleman cares to examine have led to a decline in the standards of public services, a lack of choice and a lack of quality provision. Competition is generally recognised as one of the great drivers of the consumer interest and we want it to continue to be so.
I turn now to amendment 141. I have always been absolutely clear that fair and equal access to higher education is vital. Everyone with the potential to benefit from education in every form should be able to do so. Studying part time and later in life brings enormous benefits to individuals, the economy and employers. That is why we are introducing maintenance loans for part-time study and have enabled more people to re-study through the extension of the exemption for equivalent or lower qualifications.
We want to promote retraining and prepare people for the labour market of the future, which is why we are reviewing the gaps in support for lifetime learning, including flexible and part-time study. New providers can play an important role here: 59% of students at alternative providers are aged over 25, compared with just 23% of students at publicly funded institutions.
Gordon Marsden
Indeed. We might make a bit more progress if the Minister were able to answer the question that I put, or rather the question from my colleague in the House of Lords that I echoed, about the part-time maintenance consultation, which is highly welcome but which, as was said, could not come too soon. Do we have a date for this yet?
Joseph Johnson
I will happily come back to the Committee with an intended date of consultation. We are moving full speed ahead with the introduction of the part-time maintenance loans, which will be an important feature of the new system. We are transforming the funding environment for part-time students and the consultation will take us one step towards our objective.
It is essential that the OFS works collaboratively with the Institute for Apprenticeships, which will play a significant part in accomplishing the agenda. Although I support the principles behind amendment 141, the changes sought by the hon. Members are more than adequately achieved by the current text. We would do well to keep the OFS’s duties and responsibilities more open to future-proof the new body against unforeseeable economic challenges. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary. We should avoid limiting flexibility. By doing so, we ensure that our education system remains responsive to change in the labour market and to the needs of our economy in the future. On that basis, although I understand the intentions of hon. Members, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for recognising that the excellent reputation of our higher education sector must be protected. However, promoting quality and maintaining confidence in the sector are not exactly the same thing. I will give a brief example. Let us say that 30 new providers are allowed to come into the sector as new universities, and that then there is a regulatory framework that says, “Oh, sorry, the bar wasn’t set quite high enough to begin with and you’re now going to be closed.” That could damage the reputation of the sector hugely even though it was, in fact, “promoting quality”.
I am not suggesting that we do not promote quality. I am suggesting that safeguards are needed in the Bill to ensure that the reputation of the sector is protected in addition to promoting quality. We may need to go away, look at the guidance that might be relevant to the issue, and return to it again once we have considered that in more detail. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With this amendment I want to test the Minister on how extensive he thinks the powers of the OFS and the Secretary of State should be. Large portions of clause 2 appear to have been transferred from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, but of course the context and consequences of the powers are now very different. Under the 1992 Act the powers related specifically to conditions attached to grant funding, and successive Secretaries of State and Ministers, including the current ones, have been able to use the powers to advise the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support some elements of provision, but that guidance has not covered courses. Instead, grant letters from HEFCE have focused on strategically important or high-cost subjects or matters such as employer engagement.
The Bill proposes to include these powers in the OFS’s general duties. Accordingly, the power provided to the Secretary of State by this clause no longer pertains to the direction of funds, which are in any case reducing, but is potentially focused on the decisions that institutions make on course provision. As it stands, the clause gives the Secretary of State extended powers to make decisions about course provision, including course opening and closure. That appears to completely undermine the autonomy of institutions and providers in course provision, which is one of the most successful outcomes of the 1992 Act because it allows universities to innovate and respond to new and emerging markets and to employer and student interest without ministerial direction or interference.
It is also difficult to see how those aspects of the clause align with the Government’s pro-market approach to the sector, or indeed with what the Minister has said about not wishing to be prescriptive. This measure could be highly prescriptive about what individual institutions are able to do. Perhaps that is not the intention of the clause, but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say so that I can get a better feel for what he thinks are the powers of the Secretary of State.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, which has been raised by a number of Members and by people beyond this Committee. For 25 years the Government have issued guidance to HEFCE on what are high priority and strategically important subjects, such as STEM. The Bill enshrines that guidance in law while simultaneously creating new protections to safeguard providers’ academic freedoms and institutional autonomy, which are, I believe we all agree, the cornerstones of our higher education system. In his evidence to this Committee last week, Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, praised the protections we have included in the Bill, saying that he particularly liked
“the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy, as originally proposed by Robbins and Dearing”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 23, Q32.]
Joseph Johnson
Pam Tatlow, chief executive at MillionPlus, agreed in her evidence to the Committee that,
“we have got to protect quality and standards for our students. We have also got to maintain a system in which we can maintain confidence”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 12, Q11.]
As a result, the Bill makes explicit mention of standards in order to ensure there is no uncertainty about the ability of the OFS to provide these assurances.
Amendment 161 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to refer to particular courses in her guidance to the OFS. There would be no ability for the OFS to have regard to the Government’s overall priorities and strategy for higher education where this relates to specific subjects; the amendment would remove that ability from current and future Governments. This would deviate from current practice, whereby the Government continue to issue strategic guidance in this way. I therefore strongly resist such an amendment.
Further, the Bill sets clear limitations on the Government’s powers to direct the OFS in order to protect academic freedoms and institutional autonomy. For the first time, it is made explicit that it cannot refer to parts of courses, their content, how they are taught, who teaches them or admissions arrangements for students. I hope that I have addressed the Committee’s concerns on these points and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that full response. I am reassured by what he has said. Providing that clauses 4 and 5 are implemented in the way he suggests, they should give enough reassurance to the sector that its autonomy is being protected. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
The register
Gordon Marsden
These amendments are to seek some strong reassurance about what the role of the Secretary of State may be. I always feel—not absolutely as a principle—that in such Bills it is sometimes better to say “must” than “may” because “may”, with all due respect to our Prime Minister, is open to a number of interpretations, which lead us into judicial review and other such matters. The purpose of amendment 143 is to help to inform the choices made by the Secretary of State and to ensure that any changes must—not may—be set out to show that they benefit the sector.
Amendment 144 is simply to emphasise the fact that the register will be a rolling register that will be updated regularly. I assume I am correct on this; if I am not, the Minister is welcome to intervene. While not expecting Parliament or the relevant Select Committees to receive a running commentary, we do feel it would be helpful to ensure that the register of higher education providers is published regularly. We have suggested a quarterly basis and that the register should be made available to Parliament and the relevant Select Committees—“Committees” is deliberately in the plural, Mr Hanson, because of this morning’s discussions about the cross-over between the two Departments.
Joseph Johnson
The higher education sector in England has undergone significant change over the last 30 years. The regulatory architecture we have today is out of date. As we have discussed, it was designed in the early 1990s for an era of limited university competition, student number controls and majority grant funding. As the funding that providers receive has passed from Government to students, so the basis for regulation has widened from the protection of the public purse to the protection of the student. At its heart, the system needs to have informed choice and competition among high-quality institutions. Competition between providers in higher education—indeed competition in any market—incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a choice of more innovative and better-quality products and services at lower cost. In order to deliver that competitive market, we need a single, simple regulatory system appropriate for all providers. We need to stop treating institutions differently based on incumbency or corporate form and instead create a level playing field with a single route to entry and a risk-based approach to regulation. The Bill will create just such a single regulatory system, underpinned, for the first time, by a single, comprehensive register of English HE providers.
Amendment 143 is intended to place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations—and consult before doing so—on the information that must be included in an institution’s entry on the register. I accept that the nature of the information on the register is vital. It is through establishing and publishing the register that we will, for the first time, be able to give students consistent and comparable assurances about all registered higher education providers. I also accept that there is a need to set out the information that must be included in a provider’s entry to the register in regulations that will be laid before Parliament and subject to scrutiny. Although the current draft of the Bill suggests that the Secretary of State may make regulations, that is standard legislative drafting and is not meant to imply that the Secretary of State will not usually make regulations. I can assure Members that they will be made, and that they will be subject to the usual scrutiny process. However, I believe that consulting on each and every case may be going too far if we are making only minor changes.
Amendment 144 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make the register available on a quarterly basis to Parliament and Select Committees. Entry on the register is voluntary, but if the provider wishes to access the benefits of student support and official recognition as an HE provider, it must be registered. The OFS register is a single, comprehensive record of those English HE providers. It gives students consistent and comparable assurances about all registered HE providers. It will be updated in real time, as and when changes are made to it, so it will be live. The register and the information within it will be publicly available, and will be hosted on the OFS website. There would be little value in placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make available information that will already automatically be in the public domain. On that basis, although I understand the intentions here and fully agree with the need to promote these important issues, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary; the Bill already makes the relevant provisions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful, succinct and indeed positive response to the intentions behind the two amendments. I am content with his explanation on amendment 143. I hear what he says about the information being available all the time, but one of the paradoxes of the digital age is that things that are there all the time for people to look at never get looked at because they are there all the time. I am not going to oppose this and I will withdraw the amendment, but I would ask the Minister and his officials to give proper thought as to how things are promoted online, rather than simply put online. I hope that the Department will take that on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Registration Procedure
Joseph Johnson
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his helpful and pragmatic suggestions. Before I turn to his amendments, it might be helpful if I explained how we expect the OFS to operate this risk-based approach to regulation in practice.
The OFS will consult on, and then publish, the initial registration conditions that all providers will be required to meet before they are granted entry to the register. The conditions will relate to important matters such as quality, financial sustainability and standards of management and governance. Providers that cannot demonstrate that they meet these standards will not be registered. Additionally, if the OFS considers that an institution or an element of an institution, such as its financial sustainability, poses a particularly high risk, the OFS can add, change or tailor specific registration conditions to the risks posed by the provider.
Amendment 145 seeks to increase from 28 to 40 days the minimum time the OFS must allow for a provider to make further representations in the event of the OFS proposing to refuse a provider’s application for entry on to the register. Amendment 149 has a similar theme: it would increase from 28 to 40 days the minimum time for a provider to make representation to the OFS if the OFS proposed introducing or varying a condition of registration. Finally, amendment 173 seeks to increase from 28 to 40 days the minimum period of time for a provider to make representations to the OFS if the OFS proposes to suspend the provider from the register.
Allowing providers an absolute minimum of 28 days to make additional representations to the OFS is not, in itself, ungenerous. The OFS is required to act in a transparent, accountable and proportionate manner. It is our firm expectation that if a provider has a good case for needing additional time to make a representation, the OFS would and will allow it. Members will note that the minimum period of 28 days has precedents. It is a frequently used time period for allowing appeals and representations, appearing, for example, in section 151A (5) and (6), “Power to impose monetary penalties”, in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
We could have chosen to follow much tighter timescales for making representations, such as the 14-day warning notice period for sanctions imposed under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We think a starting point of 28 days achieves the right balance between procedural fairness for the provider and an efficient, speedy outcome for others affected by the decisions, such as students.
Gordon Marsden
Yes, I hear what the Minister has to say, and although I have spoken against the omnipotence of precedent on previous occasions, I am not against precedent, and in the case that he mentioned, 14 days was perfectly reasonable. Entering into the spirit of what the Minister said on new providers, some of them—we could refer to some of those who presented evidence to us—would probably start off in an entrepreneurial state, without the full administrative panoply to be able to respond practically in that period. The purpose of putting down 40 days was to recognise that under the Government’s proposals, a number of much smaller institutions than we have had so far will want to gain approval.
Joseph Johnson
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s further clarification of his amendment, which we found helpful and constructive, as I said. I hope that the Government have explained their thinking. We feel we have a balanced and proportionate approach that gives providers a procedural chance to make representations, but that also takes into account the interests of other parties affected by such decisions.
For all three scenarios covered by the amendments, there is a clear process to follow: the OFS must notify providers of its intention. Furthermore, the particular characteristics of the higher education sector mean that proportionate regulation is needed to protect the interests of students, employers and taxpayers. Clause 2(1)(f) states that
“so far as relevant, the principles of best regulatory practice…should be…proportionate and…targeted only at cases in which action is needed.”
On that basis, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman means well, and although I fully agree on the need to promote these important issues, I do not believe that his amendments are necessary. The Bill already makes the necessary provisions, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I am reassured by what the Minister says, not least because the provision is de minimis and the OFS will be able to vary the period. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
The initial and general ongoing registration conditions
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for his amendment, which he was kind enough to flag to me last week. The Government fully share his aim of increasing the number of younger people registered to vote. Participating in elections at all levels is essential if we are to have a healthy democracy. Indeed, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to that aim by supporting and contributing financially to the pilot project of the University of Sheffield, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, as he mentioned.
The pilot project sought to integrate electoral registration with student enrolment. I congratulate the University of Sheffield on its commitment to devising a workable solution to the problem. It achieved the successful outcome of integrating online electoral registration and university enrolment using the university’s bespoke in-house enrolment software. The vice-chancellor should be commended as the driving force behind the successful pilot. However, this is not a case of one size fits all. Integrated registration is just one option that the Government will consider alongside others in determining how best to increase student registration. Those options will include working in partnership with student-facing organisations and local authorities.
The process should be voluntary. It would not be right to force all providers on the register to adopt such an arrangement. Administering such an arrangement will incur costs, which larger institutions such as the University of Sheffield may find easier to accommodate than smaller specialist providers. Moreover, it would not be appropriate to include such a condition in the Bill. The conditions of registration are primarily to provide proportionate safeguards for students and the taxpayer, and to take forward social mobility policies. Requiring providers to carry out electoral registration, particularly when there are other means of students enrolling on the electoral register, is not the best way forward.
In addition, the introduction of online electoral registration by the previous Government has made it simpler and easier than ever to register to vote. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration in June 2014, there have been more than 20 million applications to register. Some 78% of electors currently apply to register online, and that figure rises to 86% for the 18 to 24 age group. That demonstrates that the way in which electors engage with electoral registration is evolving.
The Government are looking at modernising and streamlining the annual registration canvass. Impacts on students from the current process will be picked up as part of the modernising electoral registration programme. We are looking at the lessons learned from enrolment pilot schemes, such as the one conducted successfully at the University of Sheffield, to see whether they have wider application. We are also considering other options to increase student registration, including as part of the Government’s democratic engagement strategy, and we expect to set that out early in 2017. Ahead of that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Paul Blomfield
I note the Minister’s points and I am grateful for his acknowledgement of the role that the University of Sheffield has played. I endorse it and reiterate how grateful we were for the support, both in encouraging the pilot and getting it off the ground financially.
The Minister highlighted the fact that the University of Sheffield used the opportunity to tweak its bespoke software, which is right. In a sense, that makes it not easier, but more challenging for the university, because the overwhelming majority of providers buy off-the-shelf software that is designed in partnership with user groups, and it is relatively easy to tweak that off-the-shelf software to minimise the cost for individual institutions.
The Minister said that the process should be voluntary. The important thing that should be voluntary in the process is students having the choice of whether to register. That is the important voluntary element, and that is what this system provides for. It simply draws students’ attention, when they are enrolling, to the opportunity to register and explains a little bit about that. They tick one box, which leads to another stage of providing a national insurance number. The important principle of voluntary engagement with the democratic process is at the heart of this system. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect providers to make such a minor adjustment when we are all committed to the principle.
The Minister makes the very fair point that this is not central to the purposes of the Bill, but I reflect back to him that the Government—and previous Governments—have on occasion been known to bung stuff into a Bill that was not central to its purposes when there was a convenient opportunity to do something that we all wanted to do. This is something that we all want to do.
Notwithstanding those reservations, if the Minister would commit to meeting me and the relevant Cabinet Office Minister to talk a little about how we can move this forward, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
I am happy to discuss further with the hon. Gentleman how we can involve the Cabinet Office. We have already had quite detailed discussions with Cabinet Office Ministers who are sighted on the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. They are aware of the status of our Bill, but I am happy to discuss this further outside the Committee.
Paul Blomfield
On the basis that we can meet with the Cabinet Office Minister responsible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to speak to this miscellany of amendments which has a common theme. Clauses 5 and 6 are about the registration conditions. The Minister has quite rightly put emphasis on the innovation of having a central register and everything that goes with it. It is therefore incumbent on us to consider that when registration conditions are made the OFS has considered the broadest range of recommendations about what will be very important decisions, either to allow a registration to go forward, or to revise it, sometimes in a minor way, but sometimes perhaps in a major way, or sometimes, of course, to refuse it. Because of that, the principle behind these amendments is that everybody who is involved in the life of that institution—insofar as practically possible—whether students, teachers, or the workforce that supports those institutions should have some input to that process.
Philosophically, that is a really important thing that the Bill and Ministers need to grasp. If we want to engage people more broadly in higher education, whether to work, to teach or to study in it, we have to give them a stake in the decisions that affect the institution where they are working. That is the principle behind the amendments.
Amendment 146 on the consultation of HE providers would omit, as far as the OFS is concerned, the phrase,
“if it appears to it appropriate to do so”.
This terminology is more redolent of an absolutist monarch such as Louis XIV, the Sun King, than of a new transparent organisation. The language is, to use the French, de haut en bas. The Minister has excellent French, so he will know what I mean. To be honest, it is daft to say
“if it appears to it appropriate to do so”.
Of course it is appropriate to consult higher education providers in such circumstances.
Amendment 147 is very specific, and it states that in clause 5, after the word “providers” we should insert for the avoidance of doubt, as the phrase has it, “staff and students”. The amendment would ensure that there is some consultation with bodies or informal groups representing higher education staff and students. I refer to informal groups because again I am conscious, not least because the Opposition do not want to be accused of stopping progress and innovation, that some of these new providers will be relatively small and may have relatively informal groupings. It is therefore not unimportant that the position of their staff and students is taken into account.
Amendment 148 is probably the most vital of the three proposed amendments to clause 5. If there are to be changes to an institution’s registration conditions, its students and student body should be informed. Members of the Committee might think that is unnecessary, as the students and the student body are bound to be informed, but as I have said previously, we should legislate for the worst scenarios and the worst employers and not for the best. There are recent examples or allegations relating to major changes to London Metropolitan University’s terms and conditions. I once sat on a Committee down the corridor that was talking about providers, and people from London Metropolitan were eloquent on this issue. It is essential that the OFS has a proper information process—the OFS needs to take responsibility for this—that ensures that students and their representatives are properly informed of changes to their institution’s registration conditions. That is crucial.
Finally, clause 6 addresses the specific ongoing registration conditions. Subsection (6) currently states:
“The OfS must have regard to any representations made by the governing body of the institution…in deciding whether to take the step in question.”
It is important that the OFS may also consider representations from other relevant stakeholders it considers appropriate. I hope the Minister will note that we are not advocating an absolute duty on the OFS to consult such people, but we would ask it to do so on a case-by-case basis. It is important to establish the principle in the Bill that stakeholders other than the governing body should be able to make representations to the OFS. Those other stakeholders are people who have invested two or three years of their time and money in studying. They are people whose livelihoods depend on the institutions in question. It is surely not too much to ask that the OFS should be prepared, where appropriate, to consider their representations, too.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful suggestions.
To ensure a level playing field, the Bill will require the OFS to determine and make public the conditions that institutions must meet to gain entry to the register and to remain on it. The conditions of registration, both initial and ongoing, will form the formal basis of the regulatory requirements on higher education providers under the new system. Those conditions include provisions relating to quality assurance, widening participation and data and information requirements. It is clearly the case that students, as well as providers, need clarity on the tests that the OFS will have required providers to pass in order to gain entry to the register, and the ongoing conditions that are in place, so that they can be confident about what it means for a provider to remain on the register.
Amendments 146 and 147 seek to make it mandatory for the OFS to consult each and every time it revises the general, initial and ongoing registration conditions, and to widen the base of those it should consult before doing so from higher education providers to also include staff employed by those providers, and students.
Gordon Marsden
I entirely accept what the Minister says about not wanting to have major consultations on minor changes. I do not want to prolong the exchange, but can I take it that he is going to place that in the guidance to the OFS, or possibly illustrate—although I know that illustrations can never be exhaustive—what sort of circumstances would require that sort of consultation?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, we expect to provide guidance to the OFS to give exactly those sorts of examples of the kinds of occasions on which it would be expected to consult widely on the changes to conditions required. In addition, more generally, the OFS will strongly encourage providers themselves to engage and consult with key stakeholders, including students, as a matter of good practice. Whether or not a general registration condition applies to a provider will be made clear on the OFS’s publicly available register.
Amendment 150 seeks to enable the OFS to take into account, when it thinks fit, representations from students and other stakeholders, as well as the provider itself, if the OFS decides to impose or vary a provider’s specific registration condition. The OFS does not need a power in the Bill to do this. It will always be able to listen to representations on various matters from various quarters if it thinks that doing so would add value. The effect of this amendment in reality is likely to be to give representations made by other stakeholders and students an elevated status above representations made by any other party that may have a legitimate interest. That is because students and staff representations would be the only ones mentioned in the clause.
I am clear that, in certain circumstances, it will be in students’ interests that they are informed of a particular change to a provider’s registration conditions, and why that change has happened. The OFS already has the power, when it is appropriate, to compel a provider’s governing body to make sure that students are promptly informed about changes to a provider’s registration conditions. It is my clear expectation that the OFS will act in the interests of students, and will use its powers under clause 6 to make it a specific condition of registration that significant changes to a provider’s registration conditions are communicated promptly and accurately to students. On this basis, while I understand the intentions here, and fully agree with the need to promote these important issues, I do not believe the amendments are necessary as the Bill already makes relevant provisions for them. I therefore ask hon. Members to consider withdrawing their amendments.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister again for his constructive approach to outlining some of the circumstances in which access to broader areas would be made available. The truth of the matter is that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The OFS is not yet constituted. In its first few months and years, people will watch carefully as to how things proceed. If the general duty proves not to be working as it should—there are sometimes high-profile cases that illustrate faults in legislation that no one had thought of—the Government of the time may wish to return to it, and there are mechanisms for doing that. For the moment, on the basis of what the Minister has said and based on the fact that clear guidance will be given to the OFS, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Proportionate conditions
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned clause 13. We will reach that clause in approximately six clauses’ time, so I would be grateful if the Minister refrained from commenting on those issues, otherwise we will digress from amendment 151.
Joseph Johnson
I again thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful amendment on which we will reflect. I will begin start by saying that risk-based proportionate regulation is at the heart of how the OFS will operate. As I have said, we need a single regulatory system appropriate for all providers, and we must stop treating institutions differently based on incumbency and corporate form. Instead, we should ensure that regulation is tailored to fit their individual needs and demands.
Clause 7 specifies:
“The OfS must ensure that the initial registration conditions…and its ongoing registration conditions are proportionate to the OfS’s assessment of the regulatory risk posed by the institution.”
The OFS will also have a duty to keep the initial and ongoing conditions of registration that it applies to institutions under review. That means that, where and when the OFS considers it appropriate, it will adjust the level of regulation to which a provider is subject to reflect the level of risk it presents at a given time.
Accordingly, where the OFS considers that a provider is particularly low risk, the effect of the clause should be that the OFS will make appropriate changes to its conditions to reflect that and ease the burden of regulation. Similarly, where the OFS considers that a provider, through its performance and behaviour, starts to present a greater degree of risk, the clause should ensure that the OFS will increase the extent of regulation.
That approach will enable and incentivise high-performing, stable and reliable providers to start and grow, increasing student choice in high-quality higher education. It will mean that institutions that pose little risk to students or to the public purse can spend more time focusing on what they do best. Equally, institutions that present a higher risk will undergo more scrutiny and be subject to more measures to protect students, the public purse and English higher education.
Amendment 151 would place a duty on the OFS to take into account a provider’s size, structure, history and track record when determining registration conditions, costs and monetary penalties. It will certainly be the case that track record and perhaps size will be determining factors for the OFS to consider when it imposes registration conditions, but only insofar as those factors might help to determine the size of risk to the taxpayer and students.
The Bill is built on the principle of risk-based regulation in all its forms, and it is unhelpful to identify a list of factors that might substitute for risk in its wider sense. Over time, it is likely that the OFS will adapt and change its approach to identifying and controlling risk as the higher education market evolves. For example, the OFS may identify particular risks that relate to the delivery of particular qualifications and awarding bodies, or courses delivered in particular locations, as with the rapid expansion of higher national courses in business in 2013-14 from approximately 20 London-based providers, which caused real concern about quality and value for money. It is important not to constrain the OFS’s ability to react by weighing some risk factors above others.
On the subject of cost, it is worth noting that in the White Paper we committed to consulting the sector on the detail of the planned registration fees and charges. We will do that this autumn. Regulations will be laid before Parliament setting out the matters that the OFS must take into account when exercising its power to impose a monetary penalty.
Gordon Marsden
I hear what the Minister says, but I will make my response at the end of the debate. In connection with provision on “consulting the sector”, there is a sense, which might be entirely unreasonable, in the FE sector, in particular those supplying HE institutions, that they are often an afterthought in the consultation process, so I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that as a group they will be treated equally with the traditional university sector.
Joseph Johnson
I am happy to give that assurance. We value exceptionally highly the contribution that FE providers make to the HE sector, as we discussed in a previous sitting. There are 159,000 HE students in FE colleges, which do a terrific job.
The registration fees consultation will seek the views of the entire sector on what would be seen as a proportionate approach to the setting of fees. We want to hear from FE colleges as important institutions delivering HE. On that basis, while I understand the intentions in Committee and fully agree with the need to promote such important issues, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary, because what they propose is already covered by provisions in the Bill. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Blackpool South to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister, first, for all the detail and explanation of the consultation and, secondly, for his general mood music, if I may put it that way. We have had a tussle over some things, but to put something in the Bill does not automatically, even in law, mean that other factors will be excluded. However, as I said, I am content with the broad thrust of his assurances and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have a few questions for the Minister and am seeking some reassurances from him. One possible reading of the clause is that it could lead to dumbing down of the higher education sector by allowing a lesser form of regulation for colleges of a particular type, whether a small FE college, a private provider or a small university.
Given what the Minister said earlier, I am sure that he wants to uphold the excellent reputation of the sector, so he will not want to put in place a regulatory system that could expose the sector to accusations of the quality not being uniform across all the players. I cannot see anything in the clause as drafted that will guarantee an equally rigorous approach across all the different types of institution, regardless of their track record. For example, a college might be good for a couple of years, but then have a poor principal or adverse market conditions, resulting in it being not such a good provider. I am not exactly sure how, if we are going on a particular track record in a particular period of time in terms of the regulatory system, that is going to be captured. These are really a series of questions that I am posing to the Minister. Perhaps some of the detail in the regulations will help us to understand better what the clause will do in practice, but I have huge anxieties about it as drafted. I hope that the Minister is able to address those and help me to feel better.
Joseph Johnson
Let me try to explain clause 7 and provide some of the clarity that the hon. Lady seeks. As we have said, risk-based, proportionate regulation is at the heart of how the OFS will operate. The particular characteristics of the higher education sector mean that proportionate regulation is needed to protect the interests of students, employers and taxpayers. We need a single regulatory system that is appropriate for all providers, and to stop treating institutions differently based on incumbency—how long they have been around—and corporate form, and instead ensure that the regulation is tailored to fit their individual needs and demands.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister is talking about risk-based regulation, but we heard in our evidence sessions—forgive me, I cannot remember where the point came from—that if we always look at the bad, and if regulators do not look at the good, we will not be familiar with what good looks like. Is the Minister satisfied that the risk-based regulation means that that will be identified?
Joseph Johnson
Yes—helping to spread best practice throughout the sector will be at the heart of the OFS. That is why this system of proportionate regulation will enable all institutions to see the advantages that come from being a high-quality provider and the diminished regulatory burden that high-quality providers live with, and see all the advantages of moving up and enhancing the quality of their provision.
This clause underpins clauses 5 and 6, ensuring that the OFS operates a fair and flexible regulatory system. It specifies that the OFS must ensure that the initial and ongoing conditions of registration are proportionate to the OFS’s assessment of the regulatory risk posed by the provider. The OFS will also have a duty to keep under review the initial and ongoing conditions of registration that it applies to institutions. That means that where and when the OFS considers it appropriate, it will adjust the level of regulation to which a provider is subject, to reflect the level of risk it presents at a given point in time. Accordingly, where the OFS considers that a provider is of particularly low risk, the effect of the clause should be that the OFS will make appropriate changes to their conditions to reflect that and to ease the burden of regulation. Similarly, where the OFS considers that a provider, through its performance and behaviour, starts to present a greater degree of risk, the clause should ensure that the OFS will increase the extent of regulation.
This approach will enable and incentivise high-performing, stable and reliable providers to start and grow, increasing student choice of high-quality higher education. It will mean that institutions that pose little risk to students or the public purse can spend more time focusing on doing what they do best. Equally, institutions that present a higher risk will undergo more scrutiny and be subject to more measures to protect students, the public purse and English higher education. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not sure that I am entirely reassured by the Minister, but I suspect that we will return to this particular issue.
Joseph Johnson
May I draw to the hon. Lady’s attention, in case it has escaped her notice, the fact that I recently published a technical note that set out in some detail how quality will be built into the regulatory system at every stage, from the way we regulate new entrants to how we deal with poor-quality provision. It was quite a comprehensive note, to assist the Committee, and if she has not had a chance to read it I shall happily provide her with a copy later.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I think when we get to the detail of that technical matter it will be helpful. However, the issue is one that we will return to at a later stage in Committee and I will leave it there for the moment.
Wes Streeting
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“() a condition that requires the governing body of a provider to develop, publish and adhere to a Code of Practice on Student Information that must include, but shall not be restricted to, information across different academic departments relating to—
(i) the number of hours of contact time that students should expect on a weekly basis,
(ii) the processes and practices regarding marking and assessments, and
(iii) the learning facilities that are available to all students.
() a condition that requires the governing body of a provider to monitor performance against the expectations set by the Code of Practice on Student Information and publish an annual report on its findings.”
This amendment would place a duty on governing bodies of all registered providers to develop, publish and adhere to a Code of Practice on Student Information and monitor and report on progress against expectations set by that Code of Practice.
With this and subsequent amendments to the clause I shall return to the theme of trying to make the Bill into a bill of rights for students, so I hope that the Committee will indulge me for a moment as I set out some of the general context. I will then deal with the specifics.
It has been my concern, as I said early in the Committee’s sittings, that for the past decade or more the burden placed on individual students and graduates to pay for a large proportion of their own higher education has substantially increased. However, there have not been rights and protections to go with that. My amendments are intended to address that key imbalance.
There are a number of reasons for our having reached the point at which students get a relatively raw deal, in spite of their making a significant investment. One is that for students, student unions and the National Union of Students, there has always been a tension between on the one hand a system increasingly driven by markets and competition, which has the potential to change the relationship between students and institutions from one of co-producers to one of consumers, and on the other hand the desire for students to be afforded better rights and protections.
It will come as no surprise to members of the Committee that student representatives—this was so during my time in the NUS but I think it is also fair to say it today—have concerns about a direction of travel towards students being seen as consumers rather than co-producers, and about putting market forces at the heart of the higher education system. That has led over the years to students not being nearly demanding enough about the degree of rights and protections that they should be afforded, and about to what degree they should be able to exercise greater muscle, whether as consumers or co-producers.
That is what is happening with the debate about the Government’s current higher education reforms. It is a terrible mistake that delegates at the NUS conference decided that the best response to the teaching excellence framework and, in particular, its relationship to the fees regime, would be not to engage with the process. The only outcome of that decision is that students’ voices are not heard. The Minister will not change his mind because the NUS does not have a seat at the table. He is more likely to engage and listen, as is Parliament, if students make their voice heard.
Similarly, the decision to try to sabotage the national student survey has no effect other than further to diminish the voice of students in the higher education system. Whether students see themselves as consumers or as co-producers, they should have the same goal—making sure that their voices are heard, that they are afforded basic rights and protections, and that they get the experience they sign up for.
Many members of the Committee will know that one of the key architects of the higher education funding system that we have today is Professor Nick Barr. I have had many arguments with Nick over the years about higher education funding. I have not changed my mind, he has not changed his, but I agree with him about the essential role that robust quality assurance, information and rights and protections have to play if competition is at the heart of the system. That is where we increasingly find ourselves. On the one hand, we could have more robust and intensive quality assurance, more inspections and more detailed inspections, but that hits two buffers, really. The first is the cost of the intensity of such an inspections regime, and the second is the threat to institutional autonomy. The alternative, which is what my amendments look for, is making sure that we have well informed students, consumers or co-producers—it really does not matter which term we choose.
Information is crucial in ensuring that we have informed applicants matching themselves to the right course for their interests and ambitions. It is also important to make sure that students know, from the point of application, what they will get in return for their fee and for their time at university. Amendment 1 to clause 8 would place a duty on governing bodies of all registered providers
“to develop, publish and adhere to a Code of Practice”
on student information and to monitor and report on progress against expectations set out by that code of practice.
My amendment suggests a number of areas that the code of practice on student information would contain. The list is by no means exhaustive, because I tend to agree with the Minister that legislation should not be overly prescriptive, but I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that when a student applies to a course they should have some degree of understanding of what their contact time will be, of what they should expect every week, of the marking and assessment regime and of the kind of feedback they might expect from their assessment, as well as who might be in front of them—because universities can tend to put the star names in the prospectus and the PhD and masters students in the front of the lecture theatre. That would ensure that the students would understand the learning facilities that were available to all students, and would ensure that those expectations were not only well understood by students but well understood and adhered to by the institution.
I think that this could be a very powerful tool to make sure that students are not only well informed but can hold their institutions to account. That is the primary intention of the amendment and it is a theme I will refer to later. I hope that if the Minister cannot agree to the specific wording of this amendment he will at least agree with the principle, as well as to my assessment that there is much further to travel to ensure that students are well informed when they apply and when they are on their courses, and that they are better able to hold their institution to account, which will surely help to drive up standards for everyone across the system.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s vision for student information. I agree that the information set out in his amendment is important to students. The Government are committed to improving information and making it freely available to enable students to make informed choices on the best study option for them and their future employment opportunities. This will help students to fulfil their potential, regardless of their background. It is central to our aim to give students more informed choice and help ensure that their experience meets the expectations set out by their higher education institution. This was a strong theme in our White Paper and it runs throughout our reforms, which have received the support of important consumer bodies, such as Which?
I bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention a comment on our reforms from Alex Neill, director of policy and campaigns at Which?, who said:
“Our research has shown that students struggle to obtain the information they need to make informed decisions about university choices. We welcome measures to give students more insight into student experience, teaching standards and value for money. These proposals could not only drive up standards but could also empower students ahead of one of the biggest financial decision of their lives”.
The need for such reforms was also made clear by Emran Mian, director of the Social Market Foundation and another expert commentator on the sector, who observed:
“Higher education is too much like a club where the rules are made for the benefit of universities. These reforms will begin to change that. Students will have access to more information when they’re making application choices; and universities will be under more pressure to improve the quality of teaching.”
Information has been a consistent theme in the Government’s policy for several years. We introduced the key information set in September 2012 to ensure that students have information about the courses available, satisfaction ratings, and salary and employment outcomes, which students consistently tell us are the most important factors to them when choosing a course.
However, we are not complacent, and through the Bill and other measures we will put more comparable information in students’ hands than ever before—information not just on institutions and courses but on teaching quality—through the teaching excellence framework, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Information on application, offer and acceptance rates, broken down by gender, ethnicity and disadvantage as a result of the transparency duty, will play an important part in that, as will robust information on employment and earnings from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as a result of the Government’s wider reforms. Through those measures, together with the national student survey information on student satisfaction and information on institutions and their courses as well as improvements to the detailed course delivery information held on institutions’ websites, we are putting more information in students’ hands than ever before.
However, we do not think that a multitude of codes of practice is the best way to achieve that aim. We expect the office for students to develop guidance setting out the information that students should receive. That will incorporate existing Competition and Markets Authority guidance, so will help institutions to comply with consumer law. The Bill gives the OFS overall responsibility for determining what information needs to be published, when—it will be published at least annually—and in what form. The Bill asks the OFS to consider what information would be most helpful for prospective and current students and higher education providers, and consult periodically with interested parties—students, higher education providers and graduate employers—to ensure that the approach to information still meets their needs.
The hon. Gentleman and the Government essentially want the same thing: better information for students. The Bill already contains a duty to publish and consult on the information that students need. The OFS may issue guidance on that to institutions to ensure consistency of data collection, and consistent and comparable publication, among institutions. That guidance will likely follow advice from the CMA on what information should be made available to students, including on course delivery and assessment and facilities. That will help institutions to comply with their obligations under consumer law.
The amendment would require each and every higher education institution to develop and deliver its own code of practice on student information. That would create disparate and unequal information for students—exactly what we are trying to avoid. It would mean that students would find that levels of information differed from one institution to another, making it harder to compare courses and institutions, and areas of information could be closed down if an institution’s code deemed that to be appropriate. The amendment would also increase the burden on institutions to monitor and report on such codes.
We therefore do not think that it is necessary for each higher education institution to develop and run its own code of practice. The OFS will be better placed to consider and consult on the information that HE providers must provide for the benefit of students. That will ensure consistency and reduce the burden on HEIs. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his considered reply to the issues teased out by amendment 1. I will say a couple of things in response. First, he is right that the availability and transparency of information for applicants has been improving, and the Government are clearly determined to ensure that that information continues to improve and remains relevant to the key factors that will determine applicants’ choices. I welcome that policy direction.
Secondly, I welcome what the Minister said about guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority, but I think there is further to go in ensuring that once students are signed up to a course, they have the power and muscle through different means effectively to hold institutions to account to ensure that they deliver against the expectations set out on application.
There are various means and routes for students to follow when things go wrong, such as course representation systems, students’ unions and the office of the independent adjudicator for higher education, whose remit is relatively narrowly defined. However, I do not think that the representative structures are necessarily as good as they could be to give students a powerful voice. In that context, I hope that the Minister will reflect on our earlier discussions about representation and the OFS, where I think the composition will be crucial. With great respect to board members of HEFCE, which has played a great role over many years, if the new office for students is just the great and the good of the higher education sector and a range of vice-chancellors sat around the table, I do not think it will achieve the objectives he has set out. The composition, the consumer voice, consumer rights champions and the student voice will be really important to achieving that.
The Minister also needs to think about representation in the sector and in institutions, which we will address shortly in other amendments. Finally, he is right to point out the shortcomings of the amendment’s wording and challenges that that might throw up. It was a probing amendment. I am glad to see the Minister is considering the issues and hope we will be able to make further progress, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Wes Streeting
Picking up the theme of student representation that I just alluded to, the amendment would require the governing body of any registered provider to include at least two student representatives on the board of its governing body. That is important. The Minister has talked about protecting the student interest, which he seeks to do primarily through the office for students. However, I am sure he would hope that all institutions are engaged in that through their governing bodies’ decisions. I would like to challenge him on the difference between protecting the student interest and ensuring that students have a voice.
The problem with the Bill as it stands is that it sets up many people around different tables to act as ventriloquists for students, to consider what they believe to be in students’ best interests. There is no substitute for complementing those members of a university governing body, who I hope will always have a concern for students’ interests, with students and their representatives.
There are countless examples from across the higher education sector where students on governing bodies have made a really important contribution not just to the development of institutional policy in relation to students, but often to higher education policy more generally. Indeed, many of the policy teams of higher education institutions and sector bodies are populated with people who were, once upon a time, student representatives. I think I speak for many of that pedigree of former student representatives when I say that higher education is an incredibly interesting area of policy, where expertise is developed. There is therefore a mutual benefit. In the evidence session it was striking that many of the university representatives and leaders welcomed and embraced student representation. That should be in the Bill.
I am keen that the amendment should find its way into the Bill for two reasons. First, student representation on the boards of governing bodies has previously been part of the code of practice issued by the Committee of University Chairs, but I think that code has been retired. It would be helpful to see that principle maintained through legislation. Secondly, with the prevalence of new providers, any provider, whether the most established ancient university or the newest private provider, should place the student voice at the heart of their governing bodies.
Finally, the Minister may wonder why I have been so prescriptive in the amendment as to include “at least two” student representatives. There are sometimes challenges in placing students—rather than students union officers on sabbatical—on a governing body where they are surrounded by people who often have a great deal more expertise in different areas and experience of sitting on governing bodies. Having more than one representative might mean that there is a better sense of support, and that people feel more confident to contribute and play an active role. I should flag up to the Minister the fact that although the amendment has been phrased very specifically, if he is not happy with the wording, there is nothing to prevent the Government from tabling their own amendment to ensure the same principle: that every institution should have students on its governing body.
Finally, new clause 1 sets out the principle of a duty to consult. The idea is not new in deliberations in this place. When he was the Higher Education Minister, Bill Rammell introduced a similar clause, which placed a duty on governing bodies in the further education sector to actively listen to and consult students. That is a good principle. I was sorry to see that legislation disappear under the previous Government, but there is no reason why we should not bring it back for the higher education sector. It would set the right direction and be a positive duty that institutions would surely want to embrace.
Joseph Johnson
The amendment and new clause both seek to establish a world in which the governing bodies of registered suppliers are required to involve and engage students. As I have said, students are at the heart of our reforms, and for the first time student interests are being represented through statute, but student representation in decision making and on boards is not the only way to ensure that students’ voices are heard. Many providers have excellent student engagement practices that involve engaging with more than one or two specified individuals. Were we to legislate for precisely how providers operate their student engagement strategies, that would risk reducing their flexibility to engage students in a range of ways.
On amendment 5, the governing bodies of HE providers will also have criteria for recruiting members with the most appropriate range of relevant skills and breadth of experience to help them deliver and make decisions. We should not prescribe how they achieve that; otherwise, we risk limiting the opportunity to bring in a wide scope of relevant experience that will benefit students, employers and providers.
On new clause 1, I see the OFS taking a leading role in highlighting and promoting innovative ways in which students and institutions work together. I trust that providers will want to continue and improve their student engagement. That is a more effective way of embedding the student voice in the sector’s structures and practices.
The hon. Gentleman and the Government are not at odds. Engaging students and listening to what matters to them is absolutely important to us. Holding providers’ governing bodies to account, which is clause 2’s intention, can be achieved administratively without such prescription. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I am still struggling to understand his reluctance to enshrine student representation in legislation and to guarantee students or their representatives a voice at the table. As he goes around speaking to institutions throughout the sector, as I know he does, he really should spend more time popping in to see the students union and talking to the elected officers and the professional staff. He should also talk to higher education sector leaders about their experience of student representation and the difference it can make.
I was a member of the governing body of the University of Cambridge. I was elected to that governing council separately from my role as president of the students union. During the year when I was a member, I would say that there were three key areas in which, as a student representative, I made a demonstrable impact, to the benefit both of students and of the institution more broadly. First, I helped with the design of the university’s bursary scheme following the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004. We were able to target student support in the most effective way and, as part of that, think about some of the students who were being left behind by the national Government-funded student support system. That was an obvious area of student interest.
Secondly, there was an area of tension with the institution. Primarily for financial reasons and because of a fall in the research assessment exercise, the university proposed to close the architecture department which, although it had taken a knock in the RAE, happened to be, and remains today, one of the world’s leading departments for the teaching of architecture. Thanks to the student voice on the governing council and the academic board and a very active student campaign—world renowned architects writing to The Guardian also helped—the university had second thoughts. Years later when I sat in my office in NUS, I received a bumper book from the university marketing and alumni department promoting its fantastic architecture department, outlining how wonderfully it was doing in its research and teaching. The department is still there today and that would not be the case without the active engagement of students.
In another example, the university had a very thorny debate about intellectual property in which one of the world’s leading security experts argued that the university’s intellectual property policy would be to the detriment of academics such as him. On that occasion student representatives were able to act as honest brokers, again making a demonstrable impact on the policy. Ultimately, they sided with the university’s leadership over academics who perhaps had legitimate, or ill-founded, depending on your perspective, concerns. Student representatives can make a positive impact and I do not understand the Minister’s reluctance to accept the principle.
I will not press these amendments to a vote. They may well appear at a later stage of the Bill’s passage, but I implore the Minister to consider the tangible difference that student representation is making in institutions today and ask himself why that experience at the majority of institutions should not be enjoyed by students at all institutions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Wes Streeting
I will therefore come back on the quality code. At the moment there is a national quality code that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education holds. That code serves a very important function well, but I have a concern, and this is really a probing amendment to get the Minister’s thoughts and ascertain whether he sees the potential problem that I foresee. As it stands, the Quality Assurance Agency continues to be the designated quality provider and serves that function, but that will not necessarily always be the case. Were the Quality Assurance Agency to lose its contract as the designated quality provider, who would own the quality code? Would it be the Quality Assurance Agency, which would have every reason to pick up its bat and ball and its quality code and go somewhere else saying, to put it crudely, “Okay, fine. You do not want our business, so good luck developing a new quality code.” Or is there a broader ownership of the sector? The amendments would provide ownership outwith the Quality Assurance Agency so that there is a principle that, whoever the designated quality provider is, there is a nationally agreed quality code that applies across the United Kingdom.
It is a shame that our colleagues from the Scottish National party are not here this afternoon because there are cross-border issues in relation to higher education, not just in England and Wales but in Scotland. It is disappointing that the voice of Scotland is not heard here this afternoon. I hope that the Minister can address that concern and provide some reassurance. If not, I hope he might think about how we can, in the Bill, mitigate the risks that I have described.
Joseph Johnson
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments. I completely understand why he wants to recognise and ensure the importance of quality in higher education. Our HE system is internationally renowned, as Members have commented today. Underpinning this reputation is our internationally recognised system of quality assurance and assessment, which we are updating to meet future needs in an increasingly diverse HE system.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to discuss what I think is an important issue of principle. The Minister mentioned equal treatment of different institutions, whether they are new providers or long-established institutions.
Before I do so, I want to put this in the context of clause 8, which touches on the issues of mandatory ongoing registration conditions. The University and College Union has drawn attention to the fact that the Bill seeks to “subsume” the Office for Fair Access into the OFS. I hope that that will not be the process. The Office for Fair Access should play an equal part in widening participation access and social mobility. We have discussed that already and I have no doubt we will return to it in some shape or form later.
The reality is that
“The current access agreements will be replaced by access and participation plans as a condition of registration for providers wishing to charge tuition fees higher than the basic cap.”
The Government are consulting on accelerated courses and enabling switching between different courses and degrees. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has tabled amendment 177 on that matter, although we may not reach it today.
In principle—and it is in principle—this is a straightforward proposal. If the sector is to expand significantly, whether via existing institutions—I have talked a lot about FE colleges and HE this afternoon—or via new providers, in principle, all those providers should produce an access and participation plan condition, as defined in clause 12.
We cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we want to have two sorts of institutions, one being the long-established institutions, which are nice and big and crusty, if I can put it that way, and obviously have to be stimulated to activate their access and participation plans—that may be a distortion of that sector, but nevertheless that is the view that is sometimes expressed by bold free marketeers. On the other hand, as the Minister has been saying, we want everybody to operate on a relatively level playing field. I and I think most rational people, if we stopped them on the street and managed to engage them in some of the complexities of the issue, would say that everyone should be treated the same. Therefore, it is important to include in the Bill the principle that an access and participation plan will be mandatory for all higher education providers. If we do not do that, we will be providing discriminatory conditions for different providers. We will be offering a free hit to a minority—I stress that it might be a minority—of would-be new providers that thought that they could enter the system without having to deal with issues such as access and participation plans. Of course, that would undermine much of the Government’s thrust in the Bill.
The Government have lots of angles on the Bill, but two that are continually repeated are about competition and consumer rights. Competition has to go hand in hand with consumer rights. If a competitive market is going to be set up, with different groups jostling for HE status, they should all be judged by the same mechanism. I am anxious to increase the pool of new providers, but I am also anxious to ensure that, as we do so, providers bring to the table a proper sense of the responsibilities that they will have to meet. It is important that that is at the heart of the mission of the OFS.
There is the possibility of expansion and of acquiring degree status at different parts of the process. We will have some interesting conversations during later scrutiny of the Bill about the protections—or otherwise—that the Government have built into the new provider process in terms of degree awarding powers, so I am not going to touch on that now, but if the Government really want new providers to have some fairly radical abilities to operate in a quasi-university set-up from day one, it is important that they take on board some of the responsibilities in respect of access and participation.
This is not a non-binary option, to use a fashionable phrase. Providers need to accept responsibilities along with the new challenges and opportunities. That is why we are strongly proposing this amendment, which would ensure that all higher education providers have to engage with access and participation plans.
Joseph Johnson
Amendments 166 and 167 seek to require all providers on the register to have an access and participation plan, as the hon. Gentleman has said. It may be helpful if I set out our thinking and policy in this area. Our clear intention is that fee-capped providers on the OFS register that are able to charge above the basic level of fees should be required to agree an access and participation plan with the director for fair access and participation, as he will be in the new world. That must be in place before they can charge fees at the higher level. It is consistent with the current approach to access plans, which has worked well since 2004.
In 2017-18, through access plans, universities expect to spend £833.5 million on measures to improve access and success for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is up significantly from £404 million in 2009. It is an increase of more than 10% in cash terms, compared with 2016-17 access agreements.
The amendments seek to require all providers, whether or not their students are accessing student support funding or they are charging fees at the higher level, to produce access and participation plans. That does not seem appropriate. We are introducing a regulatory framework that will ask providers to meet certain requirements based on how they participate in the HE system. It is right that the burden we place on providers should be proportionate. This would go too far, given that not all these providers want—or would be able—to charge fees at the higher level. We expect providers to devote a proportion of the higher-level fees towards access and participation in their plans.
Gordon Marsden
As always, the Minister is giving an accurate description of the situation. The point is that we are supposed to be entering a new era. We are supposed to be entering a settlement that is going to last 20 to 25 years, I would think. That is how long it is since the last major HE Bill. It is useful to explore the fundamental underlying principles. Does he assume that, simply because an organisation is small—there was some discussion of this with the new providers that came before the Committee and I am not sure we took the same view of their answers—a small provider should be able to duck out of access and participation?
Joseph Johnson
Let me develop our thinking a bit further. I have not quite reached the end of the explanation of how the system will work with respect to all providers. As I was saying, we expect providers to devote a proportion of the higher-level fees towards access and participation in their plans. It is worth noting that currently designated alternative providers whose students qualify for student support funding but that do not themselves receive HEFCE grant funding, on the whole have a good record in attracting students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not a binary situation, we intend to go further than the current arrangements in our reforms. For the first time, we are proposing that those providers that want their students to be able to access tuition fee loans up to the basic level of £6,000 should have to set out how they intend to promote widening access and participation in a public statement.
Our plans stop short of there being a requirement for these providers to agree a plan with the director for fair access and participation. That is entirely sensible in my view. We think there should be light-touch arrangements for these providers. Their students will only be eligible for student support at the basic fee limit.
Gordon Marsden
It is important to get some clarification. Essentially, the Minister is proposing—forgive me if I have missed this, but this is news to me today—a compromise between the status quo and the full-fat version that we suggest in our amendment. He mentioned that the director of OFFA would not be involved in that. Has there been consultation with the director and what is his view on that?
Joseph Johnson
This should not be news to the hon. Gentleman; it featured prominently in our White Paper and has been a central feature of our approach to widening participation in the system. We have discussed the entirety of our widening participation and access reforms with the director of fair access, Leslie Ebdon.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister will recognise that the director of fair access said in his evidence to us that his ability to sign off loans was a critical transformative element. Given our welcome of the impact he has had, is it not inconsistent of us to not give him the same power in relation to providers, who will, through the student support mechanism, be able to access substantial public funds?
Joseph Johnson
No, the intention is that these are statements that the providers accessing the basic amount of fee loans support for their students put up on their own initiative. They will be required to have them, but they will not be signed off by the director for fair access and participation. We do not think that that would be a proportionate requirement.
Through our planned transparency duty, we intend that these providers will, through these statements, be required to publish data on student application, offer and drop-out rates. These statements are to be broken down by the ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background of the student bodies. The publication of more data will help the sector to support everybody in fulfilling their potential, regardless of their background. It is our intention that the OFS will look at requiring this access and participation statement as part of the conditions of registration.
I expect the OFS to consult when it determines for the first time what the initial and ongoing conditions should be, and a wide range of interested parties representing the interests of students and providers is to have the opportunity to feed in their views through this consultation. This would include details of the various conditions that providers would have to meet, including on access and participation. Widening access and participation are central to our reforms, and I believe that the requirements we are laying on providers in that respect, including the innovation of access and participation statements, are balanced and fair. I ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to consider withdrawing amendment 166.
Gordon Marsden
I have listened carefully and some of what the Minister said is very welcome, but it still does not address the fundamental question that I put at the beginning. We are entering a new era, and signalling that some people do not have the same responsibilities as others is not a satisfactory outcome. For those reasons, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, that the amendment be made.
Paul Blomfield
Amendment 176, which stands in my name, seeks granular information to assist the Government’s own ambitions in relation to the achievement of both applicants and those who are at different stages of the process through higher education. In the past, so much of our debate has been focused simply on getting people to university. The Government are right, in their ambitions for widening participation, to be looking not only at that but at how people achieve and are supported through their time at university. In that context we are looking for a requirement to publish further information, not just on those who have accepted offers, but those who accepted an offer and then did not begin their course; accepted an offer but did not complete their course; or accepted an offer and completed their course but with different levels of attainment. I expect the Minister agrees that that sort of information will be help the pursuit of our shared objectives in relation to widening participation, so I hope he feels able to accept the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
This Government are serious about social mobility and improving the life chances of the most disadvantaged. We want a country that works for everyone. Following our decision to remove student number caps, we have seen entry rates for BME students at record levels, with participation rates up across all groups, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Universities are already playing their part and they are expected to spend £833 million on access agreements in the 2017-18 academic year, as I have mentioned, but we recognise that there is more to do, which is why we have a transparency duty in the Bill. We believe that transparency is one of the best tools we have at our disposal. Institutions will be expected to publish application, offer and drop-out rates for students broken down by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. The duty will allow us to shine a spotlight on institutions that need to go further.
Amendment 19 would require the publication of contextual data. It is not easy to set out what weight is attached to that sort of information against a personal statement or an interview, in what are typically holistic assessments of an individual’s application. Amendment 21 relates to the transparency condition applying to all registered providers. Throughout the Bill we have tried to take a proportionate approach. We think that the condition should apply only to providers whose students benefit from access to public funds. We know that diversity in admissions is largely an issue at the most selective institutions. The requirement is already captured by the condition in the Bill that applies to providers whose students can claim tuition fees.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Why can the Minister not ask institutions to forward the data to UCAS, which would make it much easier for it to then collate and publish them?
Joseph Johnson
We can certainly consider that, but as things stand we could not rely on UCAS publishing the information, which is why we are requiring universities to do so.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and the assurance that he will consider the issues raised more fully, both in the context of the Bill and of broader Government policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Mandatory transparency condition for certain providers
Wes Streeting
That is an interesting thought. Perhaps the Government might consider arrangements that would make it easy to set up a students union. My understanding is that the definition of a students union in the 1994 Act is so broad that it favours students. Simply coming together and having some degree of representative function or, indeed, an institution setting up a representative function might constitute a students union as defined by the Act. It is not clear, however, whether that provision would extend to private providers.
For example, if a new university of Ilford North were set up—it would have to pick the right bit of Ilford North, so that it did not find itself in a different constituency—and I enrolled as a student, I might want to join a students union and find that there was not one. I then approach the institution to set one up, but the answer is fairly negative. Perhaps the new provider does not want to provide a block grant for a students union or the time and space in the governing body agenda to constitute a students union. There could be myriad reasons why providers might object.
I think that students unions are part and parcel of the higher education student experience. That is not just the stereotypical student experience of full-time undergraduate students of a certain age; there are many examples of student representative bodies that have constituted themselves and played an effective role through a range of modes of delivery. The Open University Students Association, for example, is not a traditional students union in the sense of a campus, because the Open University is not a traditional university in that sense, but it has an active and effective students union that is able to represent and advocate for its members. Other part-time institutions, such as Birkbeck, are in the same position.
I would like to ensure that students unions, which are a central part of the student experience, are a central part of every student experience at every institution. They benefit not only individual students, but institutions. We should celebrate the role of students unions and enshrine them in the private part of the higher education sector through the mechanism of this amendment.
Joseph Johnson
Amendment 6 would mean that private higher education providers must have a students union to remain on the OFS register. There is nothing in the Bill or current legislation to prevent an HE provider, private or otherwise, from having a students union, and no higher education provider is currently required to have a students union.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, students unions provide valuable welfare services to their members, but a students union, as defined in the Education Act 1994, is not the only way in which students can be supported by their higher education institution or be engaged in decision making. Alex Proudfoot of Independent Higher Education, formerly Study UK, told the Committee during the evidence sessions:
“Students at alternative providers tend not to engage in formal students unions; they tend often to be professionals or mature students or to have responsibilities outside their studies. For that reason, it is difficult to require representation, but it should be encouraged.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 7, Q2.]
Paul Blomfield
Does the Minister agree that Mr Proudfoot’s description of the sort of students who are likely to be attracted to alternative providers describes exactly students at the Open University? Does he agree that the Open University Students Association enriches the experience of its students and the work of the Open University?
Joseph Johnson
Students at the Open University have, over time, made the choice to form a students union that represents their interests, but it is horses for courses. We want the current system, which is liberal and permissive, to continue because it is working well. Where students unions can organise themselves and demonstrate that they are adding value to student body, by all means they should come into existence. The current legal framework allows them easily to do so.
Gordon Marsden
I do not think that all Opposition members of the Committee would accept the Minister’s claim that it is usually working well. There are lots of smaller institutions where students feel very excluded from the policies and practices of the providers.
Joseph Johnson
For that reason, where there are issues, students will welcome the provisions in the Bill which put their interests at the heart of the system and make sure that their voices are better represented in all the system’s structures.
Although these representative structures often do not mean or necessarily entail a formally constituted union, they reflect the different culture and constituents in different student bodies. For example, it may be a group of representatives from across different classes and courses led or chaired by a student president.
The “Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers)” is the QAA’s principal review method for alternative providers. As part of the higher education review, an independent provider must provide evidence of how it is meeting the QAA’s expectations on student engagement. The UK quality code focuses specifically on student engagement, so the provider must evidence how it is meeting the QAA’s expectations in that respect. The code states that through the “Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers)” process, higher education providers must demonstrate how they
“take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience.”
Providers must also work with students to produce an action plan on how to respond to HER recommendations. QAA-reviewed independent providers will have student representatives on their various committees, including some, but not all, at board level.
The amendment would impose a mandatory condition on private providers. The Bill does not impose a similar mandatory registration condition on institutions receiving public funding. The amendment would not only impose a new regulatory burden on alternative providers but would run contrary to our aim of levelling the playing field between traditional institutions and alternative providers.
Wes Streeting
If the Minister’s objection is that the amendment is too prescriptive, would he be inclined to support a more permissive amendment that simply extends the definitions and provisions of the Education Act 1994 to private providers, namely that students organise themselves as defined under the 1994 Act and that a students union would need to be constituted?
Joseph Johnson
As I said earlier, there is nothing in this Bill or current legislation to prevent a higher education provider, private or otherwise, from having a students union. We want this to be voluntary, not mandated by diktat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said.
I welcome the eagerness of the hon. Member for Ilford North to ensure that all students unions are covered by the governance and transparency arrangements set out in the Education Act 1994. I welcome the positive, important role that students unions can play, but I reassure him that the power already exists in the 1994 Act to extend the provisions to students unions in private providers and I therefore urge him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Wes Streeting
I have listened to what the Minister has said but I am not minded to withdraw the amendment. I think that this is an important principle and while I have some sympathy with his point about prescription, the Education Act 1994 gives any student the ability to opt out of a students union, so it would not be compulsory for individual students to be members of a students union. I think he underestimates the difficulty facing any group of students in establishing a students union from scratch in circumstances where the institution is not minded to host a students union. I think the prejudices of private providers were demonstrated by Mr Proudfoot’s evidence to the Committee and the assumption that because people have jobs, because they are mature students or because they have caring responsibilities, they would therefore not be interested in being involved in a students union, but if we look at institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University that has not been the case.
Students with a full-time job who are studying around their work or who have caring responsibilities are often among the most demanding, or most in need of higher education institutions delivering what they say they do, and would benefit from effective student representation. I am not minded to withdraw the amendment and I think that the Government should think about introducing a more permissive amendment to make it easy to extend to private providers the principles and the practice of students unions, and the responsibilities on students unions that come with the Education Act 1994.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Fifth sitting)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone ExcerptsTuesday 13th September 2016
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 September 2016 - (13 Sep 2016)
Gordon Marsden
It is indeed a sunny morning, Sir Edward; it is also a rather airless one, so I am happy to see that the window is open. That leads me, reasonably effortlessly, on to the subject of transparency, covered by the amendments.
Without straying outside the narrow confines of the amendments I would just pause to reflect that when any new organisation is set up in government, it should reflect the mores of the time. The mores of our time are those of transparency. Transparency is an interesting word. When I was growing up it had a slightly different meaning. If someone was said to be transparent it meant they were trying to conceal something—or one might say “His arguments are transparent.” Now the English language takes it to mean, “Let a thousand flowers of information bloom.” That is an interesting development in the language.
Today the specific focus is on the office for students as a new organisation. We now conduct our proceedings in this place with transparency, and we believe in public transparency in the matter of remuneration, allowances and expenses. I do not need to remind you, Sir Edward, that we had our own trenchant discussions of transparency in Members’ expenses some time ago. That revealed much about what the general public thought about the lack of transparency on those issues in this place. I do not see why new Government bodies should be exempt, and I think transparency would strengthen the image of the OFS.
Similarly, with respect to amendment 132, there should be transparency on compensation. The other day we had a debate about the reasons why the Secretary of State might think it reasonable to discharge a member of the OFS. There are perfectly reasonable circumstances in which people might leave or settlements might be reached, or in which there might be no particular reason for the Secretary of State to have a person continue in their post. In those circumstances, subject to the civil service code, among other things, it might be perfectly reasonable for some forms of compensation to be made available. However, again, the same principle should apply: subject, obviously, to there not being undue private intrusion, the details of the compensation and what it is for should be made publicly available.
That is an important principle for the Minister to effect. If he agrees with the amendments but considers them defective and tells us that he will present something later, we will accept that. If not, we would like to hear some strong reasons—other than the usual “Well, it is inconvenient”—why there should not be transparency in the two key areas I have outlined for a newly appointed public body.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is indeed a beautiful day. However, it is tinged with some poignancy and sadness because the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), was a great supporter of transparency in everything he did in his last role. He was also a great supporter of this Bill. It was presented by the then Secretary of State and supported by the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister, reflecting the commitment across the two Administrations that have followed the general election to push forward these reforms and to transparency as a great driver of quality and choice in our higher education system.
Amendments 131 and 132 relate to the disclosure of the remuneration and compensation of OFS board members. I welcome transparency, which is a vital element in the effective functioning of the sector, and the Bill champions transparency from universities by requiring them to publish information on their records. Although we do not oppose the intention behind the amendments, we do not accept them on the grounds that such specification is unnecessary in the Bill.
I can confirm to the hon. Member for Blackpool South that once they are appointed, and in the usual way, the OFS chair and chief executive’s salary will be included on a list of senior civil servants and senior officials in Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies that is made publicly available on an annual basis.
On the transparency of expenses, allowances and compensation, ultimately the chair and chief executive will be responsible for accounting for OFS expenditure and the finer details of their approach to transparency will be for them to determine. However, the Government are committed to greater transparency, and we expect that, in their annual reporting, NDPBs will publish data on board member remuneration, allowances, expenses and other payments, such as compensation, in line with guidance in the Treasury’s financial reporting manual. I fully expect that the OFS will follow this practice.
Therefore, as the amendments refer to approaches to transparency that are already common practice among NDPBs through successful delivery of the Government’s transparency agenda, the provisions are unnecessary and would restrict future flexibility. If legislation starts to stipulate specific provisions of this type for public bodies, they will inevitably soon become out of date as the transparency agenda progresses. That may then require further primary legislation to deal with any inconsistencies or anomalies that arise. The Government therefore do not propose to accept the amendment and I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for responding in the spirit of the amendment, even if he did not feel able to respond in the letter. It is a pity that we cannot have the provision in the Bill to send out the message I have talked about, but I accept the Minister’s points. It is important that agreements in the terms of the chief executive and chair are made public in a public fashion, if I can put it that way, and not just tucked away at the end of a list of things that might not attract the attention of Members of Parliament on an off day. I accept the Minister’s assurance.
When I hear Ministers or civil servants talking about flexibility, I sometimes feel that I should reach for my reach for my revolver, because flexibility can cover a multitude of sins. On this occasion, not least because the Minister has made it very clear on the record—that will obviously form part of these proceedings—and because I welcome and respect his commitment to transparency, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for allowing me this opportunity to explain further how the office for students and UK Research and Innovation will work together on a range of issues relating to their respective remits. Clause 103 proposes safeguards to ensure joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information between the OFS and UKRI, which reflects the Government’s commitment to the continued integration of teaching and research within the HE system, and the clause goes far beyond the image that the hon. Member for Blackpool South conjures up of two or three meaningful lunches between the high-ups, agreeable though that sounds in some respects—I hope I might receive an invitation to one of them.
Both organisations also have a statutory duty to use their resources in an efficient and effective way, which means that they will look for all opportunities to collaborate and share information. As the new organisations are created, we will develop appropriate governance arrangements that embed joint working principles and practice in the framework documents for both organisations and in the informal agreements between them, such as a memorandum of understanding. Those framework documents will provide the hon. Member for Blackpool South with the clarity that he is looking for and will set out the working arrangements between the two bodies, which are highly likely to include regular senior level meetings that could be akin to a committee.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his response thus far, which is encouraging. On the subject of the framework documents, we know that the process of merging HEFCE into the OFS, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and so on will be a complex one that will probably take two or three years. Where does the Minister envisage those framework documents coming in that process, as that will be crucial? It would be helpful if he could give us some timeframe for that.
Joseph Johnson
We envisage publishing the framework documents once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but I intend to write to the Committee to provide more detail about the co-operation arrangements that we envisage coming into existence as a result of the co-operation and information-sharing provisions in clause 103. For that reason, I believe it is undesirable and unnecessary to be prescriptive in the Bill. As I have said in relation to other amendments, the legislation must remain sufficiently flexible for the Government and organisations to be able to respond to the circumstances of the time. We would not want to restrict the areas in which the OFS and UKRI should work together, and the list proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham of the important areas raised by the community is not actually comprehensive now, and nor is it likely to be at points in the future.
Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members, the first of which was about postgraduate students. As now, the councils, through UKRI, will fund doctoral students, while the OFS will be the funder for masters courses, providing, for example, top-up teaching grant for high-cost subjects only. The OFS will be the regulator for all students, including all postgraduate students. As I have said, the Bill proposes safeguards to protect joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information between those two bodies, reflecting the integration of teaching and research at all levels.
Each organisation will be required to produce an annual report detailing its activities that will be laid before Parliament. To ask them to produce an additional annual report would, I believe, be duplicative and unnecessary. The Secretary of State also has powers to request any further information from those organisations if such reporting does become necessary.
Let me turn to the changes to the organisation of HEFCE and to the machinery of government. The OFS and UKRI will have distinct missions and it would not be workable to create one large body responsible for all the regulatory functions, as well as a specific focus on the student interest, while simultaneously acting as a funding body for the full range of research funding. The research funding role that HEFCE played now sits better with UKRI, a body explicitly tasked with bringing a coherent approach to funding research, than it would with the OFS, an economic regulator for the student interest.
Higher education and research policies are no strangers to changes in the machinery of government. Prior to 2007 they were also in separate Departments, with higher education in the Department for Education and Skills and research and science in the Department of Trade and Industry. Our partner organisations are already adept at working across departmental boundaries. For example, HEFCE has effective relationships with the Department for Education’s own National College for Teaching and Leadership and Health Education England as well as with the devolved Administrations. The OFS and UKRI will be no different.
Turning to the devolved Administrations, the White Paper is clear that it is our policy intent to ensure that Research England, as part of UKRI, can work jointly with devolved funders. That will mirror the effective working relationship HEFCE currently has in respect of the operation of the research excellence framework, for example, which it runs on behalf of the devolved funding bodies.
Research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate throughout the UK. We will work closely with the devolved nations as UKRI is established to ensure that the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. I welcome the opportunity to provide assurances on joint working. I will write to the Committee to provide further detail ahead of the publication of the important framework documents that will formally govern those relationships. In advance of that, I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his response. I would point out that clause 103 states that the OFS and UKRI “may co-operate”; it does not actually direct them to do so. I heard what the Minister said about providing the Committee with more information about the nature of the framework and what might underpin an MOU.
There is one other point that I want to make to the Minister. I do not see any reason why UKRI or the OFS cannot work together to produce a single report that would really help the sector at large to understand what is happening across the whole of it. It would be helpful if he could consider that when putting the framework together. On the basis of what I have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 133, in schedule 1, page 66, leave out lines 9 and 10.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State’s representative from taking part in any deliberations of meetings of the OfS or any of its committees.
I have already spoken this morning about setting out guidelines and principles for the OFS. I know that the Minister is keen for the OFS to be seen as having independence under broad direction from the Secretary of State. If it is to function effectively and correctly, it is extremely important that it is seen as independent—after all, it is an arm’s length body. It is worth looking at this in context, because there is a section on procedure on page 66. It states:
“A representative of the Secretary of State is entitled...to attend any meeting of the OfS or of any OfS committee”.
The practicalities of that and how it would work out are obviously a matter for the parties concerned, so I have no problem with someone attending a meeting.
However, parts of meetings fall into different categories, as they do in Select Committees when we have a public session and a private session. I am not sure about the representative of the Secretary of State taking part in OFS deliberations, even though there will be a veto over the decision. I do not know whether this Government are fans of nudge theory—we have not heard the new Prime Minister pronounce upon it yet—but the previous Government and the coalition Government were greatly in favour of the principle of nudge. They believed that people should be nudged towards things rather than legislating on matters. I have observed on occasions that there is nudge and nudge, and sometimes there is iron nudge.
I would not want it to appear, either for the Secretary of State’s reputation or for the subsequent independence of the OFS, that a functionary of a Secretary of State—if I may be so crude as to put it that way—sitting there quietly in the best traditions of Whitehall and observing the deliberations of the committee might cast aspersions on its ability to make judgments independently. I am genuinely curious to know why the Minister feels it would be necessary for a representative of the Secretary of State to take part in deliberations. I think that it would be wholly otiose and that it would send out the wrong signals. Therefore, in the spirit of transparency that we talked about earlier, and the need not to apply undue pressure to the new body, I hope that he will be able to give us a favourable response.
Joseph Johnson
The amendment seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State’s representative to take part in OFS board meetings. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure—
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but this needs clarification. We have not sought to stop either the deliberations of the board or having the representative at a board meeting. We have said—this applies to other committees and organisations—that when the board is deliberating on things as opposed to receiving reports and so on, the Secretary of State’s representative should not be present. I beg the Minister not to misinterpret or to allow officials to misinterpret the situation and set up a straw man by saying that we do not expect the representative to be in any shape or form at the board meeting. That is not the case.
Joseph Johnson
I understand that difference, although it does not change the substance of what I am saying. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure the independence of the OFS board, I do not believe that his amendment, well intentioned though it is, is the right way to achieve that, because it would effectively make the representative a silent observer of the deliberations. It takes us a step back from the arrangements that have worked successfully for the HEFCE board for more than a quarter of a century and it risks the OFS not having access to the Government’s latest policy thinking when it considers how it should act.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 135, in schedule 1, page 67, leave out line 31.
This amendment would prevent the OfS from accepting gifts of money, land or other property.
I move from a part of the schedule that caused me some bafflement to one that causes me substantial bafflement. The Minister was talking about good lunches earlier, so in that vein I was surprised to see on page 67, line 31, the list of things the OFS may do. It may do anything except borrow money, but, slightly curiously in that context, we are told that it can acquire and dispose of land and other property, enter into contracts and invest sums. I assume that the Minister will elaborate on some of those examples so that we can be clear that the OFS will not go into offshore investments or anything similar. The serious provision concerns the acceptance of
“gifts of money, land or other property.”
I am by training a historian. We talk about Henry VIII clauses in this place, and when I read this I had an idea of the Tudor way of doing things and of getting things done. The idea that the OFS, which is supposed to be a reputable and even-handed body, would be accepting
“gifts of money, land or other property”
without some aspersions—or nasturtiums, to use the old phrase—being cast on the motives for those acceptances is one that I fail to understand. I look to the Minister to reassure me as to why paragraph 15(2)(d) is included. What sort of gifts of money, land or other property is it envisaged would be accepted? Is he concerned that they would inhibit or influence future decisions, which at that stage the OFS might not be able to foresee, involving the people who had given the gifts? I will simply conclude—going back to our lunch analogy earlier—by reminding the Minister of the saying “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”, or in this case, free
“gifts of money, land or other property”
and I look forward to his further explanation.
Joseph Johnson
I am very happy to explain the provision. The amendment would remove the OFS’s ability to receive
“gifts of money, land or property”.
Although I think I understand the motivation behind it and even though we can sympathise to some extent with the hon. Gentleman’s underlying concern, we will resist the amendment. In practice, it would remove from the OFS an ability HEFCE has always had—an ability that would allow the OFS to manage any issues raised by the public ownership of some of the land and property of some existing HE institutions if those institutions merged or ceased to operate, and to ensure that the assets were managed effectively. I accept that it may seem odd for any public body—particularly an independent regulator—to be empowered to accept gifts, but there is a specific reason for the existence of this ability in the current legislative framework, and for why we need the OFS to continue to have it.
HEFCE was created at a time when a Conservative Government were implementing substantial reform to the HE sector. Central to that was allowing our polytechnics to become full universities—the single biggest institutional expansion of the sector ever. Before this, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, polytechnics had been owned by local education authorities. Some of the property and land used by some of these institutions was owned by the local authority, meaning that it was public property, so the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gave HEFCE powers to accept this public property to ensure that if any of the institutions failed or merged into new forms, then HEFCE would have the powers to manage these changes effectively.
As we now know, the former polytechnics have thrived as universities and made a huge contribution to our sector as a whole over the intervening decades, and no one is suggesting that any of them are at any sort of risk of collapsing or even merging, but the fact remains that the public retains some ownership rights of some of the land and property that these institutions use, and no responsible Government can simply give those rights away—indeed, Government need to retain the ability to manage these assets effectively should that ever prove necessary, and the most effective way to do this is to give the OFS the power to accept those assets on behalf of Government.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for his explanation, which I assume he has not concluded. I entirely understand the context of HEFCE and the 1992 legislation. We could have an interesting discussion about whether HEFCE and the OFS are ultimately the same sort of beast, but I do not intend to pursue that argument. I merely say that I do not think that the analogy between what HEFCE did and what the OFS will do is entirely accurate. The OFS will be doing all sorts of things that HEFCE did not do, but we will let that pass.
If I heard the Minister correctly, this is essentially what one might describe as a reserved power, to be exercised in the limited circumstances that he has described—and he described them very accurately in the context of what needed to be there post-1992. I understand the context of making the provision, but I remain concerned that the terms of reference are extraordinarily wide. If I am not to press the amendment I would therefore urge the Minister to put his explanation in writing to all the members of the Committee, so that everybody—not just those here today—can clearly understand the circumstances in which the Department intends that the OFS should use this power, so that there is no doubt that it could not be used for, for the sake of argument, a group of people who wanted to set up a new organisation—
Gordon Marsden
It is very long, Sir Edward, and I will shut up at this point.
Joseph Johnson
I got the gist of the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would like to provide him with some additional reassurance on one of the other aspects of his earlier remarks in relation to individuals within the OFS taking gifts or money, and that sort of concern. This power only enables the OFS as an organisation to accept gifts. It will obviously be for the OFS to set the terms and conditions of employment for its staff, but we see absolutely no reason why these would not include the standard public sector rules on gifts and hospitality, which set out that a public servant may only accept gifts or hospitality of a purely nominal value. I hope that that provides some reassurance about the seemingly wide scope of this provision. Of course I am happy to set out in writing many of the points I have just made if that would provide reassurance, and I commit to doing that now.
To sum up, in these respects the Bill replicates the arrangements in the existing legislative framework for precisely the same reasons as those arrangements were first put in place. As I said, the amendment would unpick those arrangements. If at some point in the future, for example, one of the former polytechnics were to want to merge, or if it faced a collapse—obviously we hope that would not happen—the OFS would be unable to accept any part of the assets that the institution held over which the public had any ownership rights. This is a failsafe power. We do not anticipate that it will be used frequently, if ever, but it is an important power because in its absence there is a risk of loss to the public purse. For that reason we resist this amendment, and I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gordon Marsden
On the basis of the Minister’s extended explanation of the circumstances and his promise to put this in writing for the members of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
General duties
Joseph Johnson
I will happily do so, Sir Edward.
These amendments recognise the importance of widening choice and opportunities to students from all backgrounds and all parts of the country. The Government wholeheartedly support that ambition, but it is crucial that we ensure that those choices are made alongside the available technical and vocational options. There will be opportunity to discuss that in more detail as we take forward both this Bill and the skills plan. However, the OFS’s duties to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and competition already give it the responsibility to focus on those issues.
On amendment 15, widening access to higher education is a priority for the Government. Good progress has been made, and record numbers of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are going into HE: the proportion has risen from 13.6% in 2009-10 to 18.5% in 2015-16, and provisional figures for 2016 indicate an entry rate of 19%. The hon. Member for Blackpool South acknowledged that the alarmist warnings about the impact of the tuition fee increases have not been borne out by events, and that the pips have not squeaked, at least in the traditional sector. We share his concerns about part-time study, and I will address in greater detail later exactly what we have done and will do to support it.
Gordon Marsden
For clarification, my remarks about the pips not squeaking in the traditional sector referred to the period up to 2010. After then, as the Minister is well aware, the tripling of tuition fees in 2011-12 had a dramatic effect on the traditional cohort—we can never demonstrate how many people were deterred from going forward in that process—and there was a dramatic fall in part-time and mature students, which can be closely correlated with the tripling of tuition fees.
Joseph Johnson
The office for students brings together the responsibilities of the Director of Fair Access and HEFCE for widening access and promoting the success of disadvantaged students. The Bill will rationalise those activities and ensure they are a key part of the OFS’s remit. Placing a requirement in legislation to publish a strategy is restrictive and unnecessary, and setting a rigid three-year timetable in legislation may in fact limit, rather than encourage, regular review, as the focus would be on the timescale, rather than on when such a strategy might most be needed. Under clause 2, the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the OFS, and the OFS must have regard to the guidance. Such guidance, which provides greater flexibility, is a more appropriate vehicle for setting out expectations with regard to the broader strategy in connection with access and participation.
We are not complacent. We want to do more to continue opening up higher education to those from all backgrounds and ensure that they have successful outcomes, including by ensuring that those who go to university stay to complete their qualification.
On amendment 20, we too want to see an increase in apprenticeships, which are a powerful motor of social mobility and productivity growth. Our ambition is to reach 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Higher and degree apprenticeships are widening access to skilled trades and professions, and are providing the higher level technical skills employers need to improve productivity, while giving young people a career route as equally valid as going to university.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the join-up between our HE and FE reforms. We are carrying out two reform programmes—in HE and technical education—at the same time. That gives us the best opportunity to ensure that they are complementary and that learners benefit from the changes as soon as possible. The reforms are not about diverting people from academic HE into technical education or vice versa. We want everyone who can benefit from the education they choose to have the chance to do so. Our reforms are focused on strengthening the whole education system, based on a common set of core principles improving the quality and value of learning and its relevance to learners’ future choices; enabling learners to make well informed decisions about the value of their learning options; ensuring learners have the opportunity to move between academic and technical education if they feel their original choice no longer suits them; and giving learners the opportunities and choices that will help them to achieve their potential.
Gordon Marsden
No disrespect, but the Minister is reading out the boilerplate of the Government’s aspirations for co-operation in this area, which we fully share. The question is: what is actually happening on the ground? Without diverting too much, what is happening on the ground is that there are major concerns about apprenticeship levels, the numbers of apprenticeships, and the ability to deliver all this in the next 12 months.
I know apprenticeships are not the subject of the Bill, but with the Government saying that degree apprenticeships are so crucial, the Minister has a vested interest in the success of the apprenticeship programme. So far today, he has not given us any indication of the practical integration of discussions on these clauses by officials from his Department and the Institute of Apprenticeships. Nor has he given any indication of conversations he may have had with the Minister of State, Department for Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow, though I know the latter is relatively new in post.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman asked about degree apprenticeships. I point him towards provisional figures, released in June, that show a dramatic increase in the number of people starting higher apprenticeships. The official figures show that there were more than 37,000 people participating in a higher apprenticeship between August 2015 and April 2016. The figures also show that there are more young people starting apprenticeships, with more than 108,000 starts by under-19s between 2015 and 2016.
We do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his points about funding. The spending review was a good settlement for the skills and FE sector. We will double spending on apprenticeships by 2019-20 from 2010-11 cash terms, including through the new levy, and will protect the £1.5 billion funding for the core adult skills participation budget, in cash terms.
The combination of the levy, the protection of the adult education budget, the extension of loans and the introduction of the youth obligation mean that by the end of the Parliament, the cash value of core adult technical education funding to support participation will be at its highest ever. The total spending power of the FE sector to support participation will be £3.41 billion by 2019-20, which is a cash-terms increase of 40% compared with 2015-16, and 30% in real terms. The area review programme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned aims to put the FE college sector on a strong financial footing, so that it is better able to meet the educational and economic needs of local areas, including at higher levels.
To finish my comments about the links with the FE reforms under way elsewhere in the Department, led by my able colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, with whom I have regular conversations, even though he is new to his post, I remind the hon. Member for Blackpool South of the support for the entirety of our package of reforms from the Association of Colleges, which said:
“Choice, access and quality are the welcome watchwords of the Government’s long-awaited plans to open up higher education and to allow more colleges to award HE qualifications. This step change away from the country’s traditional university system will empower more people than ever before to access HE in their local area through a college. It will also provide a wider choice of courses that are linked to employment.”
In response to the higher education White Paper, the AOC said:
“We welcome much of the Bill’s content, as it has been one of AoC’s key long-standing policy objectives to make it easier and quicker for high performing institutions, including colleges, to achieve their own awarding powers.”
Joseph Johnson
To carry on, we are supporting growth in degree apprenticeships, including by making available an £8 million development fund. That will build on the rapid progress that we have been making over the past year. It will help universities and partners build capability and capacity among HE providers to meet employer demand.
I support the good intentions behind the amendment, and it will, of course, be essential for the OFS to work collaboratively with the Institute for Apprenticeships to increase the number, range and choice of degree-level apprenticeships on offer to students. However, the amendment is unnecessary to accomplish the hon. Gentleman’s entirely laudable aim. There are already powers in the Bill that enable collaboration between the OFS and other bodies. Clause 58 empowers the OFS to collaborate, where appropriate, for the efficient performance of its functions, and requires it to do so if directed by the Secretary of State. The OFS can use that power to collaborate and share information with other organisations, such as the IFA.
The Secretary of State will also be able to ask the OFS to work with the IFA through guidance and, in doing so, will be able to set out which areas of activity should be prioritised at any given time. That is a more useful and flexible tool for delivering the kind of increase in degree apprenticeships that we all want. That will enable the OFS to respond to the changing needs of prospective students and the labour market. The amendment would lead to an overly prescriptive approach, and would limit the flexibility that we need to ensure that our education system remains responsive to changes in the labour market and the needs of our economy.
Finally, I turn to amendment 28. I again welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of the geographical distribution of higher education provision. HE providers play a significant role in their local economies by supporting and enabling local growth. Access to HE acts as a social mobility catalyst that can improve the life chances of young people in disadvantaged areas or help retrain people later in life. It is important that all areas of the country should be able to benefit from that. HE provision tends to be clustered in cities, with less provision in rural or coastal areas. HEFCE has undertaken valuable work in recent years on the issue of cold spots. I assure the Committee that it is our intention that the OFS should continue doing that important work. However, the amendment is not needed to enable that; it would risk forcing the OFS to take an over-prescriptive and interventionist approach.
The Bill already gives the OFS a duty to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students. That is a broad duty that includes matters such as students having a choice about where to study. That means that the OFS will have a remit to be aware of cold spots, and to take action if necessary.
The amendment would also risk creating the expectation that the OFS would continually monitor the distribution of supply and demand for HE, perhaps in a bureaucratic and costly way. The OFS should be free to determine the extent of the monitoring needed, based on its market intelligence. The amendment would impose a legal requirement on the OFS to take action whenever there was unmet demand. I would be concerned about that, as it would be an over-interventionist approach for the regulator to take in every instance. In many cases, incidences of unmet demand could be addressed by the local area without any direct OFS action. The duty could therefore be inconsistent with the principle of taking regulatory action only when it is needed.
We have an active HE market that is well equipped to identify and respond to student demand with innovative and targeted provision. Our view is that local institutions and authorities are best placed to decide what is needed in their areas; that is in line with the spirit of institutional autonomy. For example, nearby providers and the local community can put plans in place for additional HE provision, perhaps through FE colleges or satellite campuses. The OFS can encourage and support that if necessary, but the decision should be for local areas, reflecting the principles of local devolution.
Our reforms will also support new institutions opening in cold spots where there is unmet demand. It will be quicker and easier for new high-quality HE providers to establish themselves. New universities can be agile and nimble, can respond to what students and the economy demand, and can equip students with the skills needed for the jobs of the future. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their contributions. The Minister made a reasonable point about amendment 15 in relation to the prescription that the OFS should publish and review its strategy at least every three years. I agree with his general point that, where possible, legislation should not be unnecessarily prescriptive, and I am content to withdraw the amendment.
On amendments 20 and 28, I am not sure that I entirely follow the Minister’s argument. In the Bill, there is a whole range of instances of the OFS being given specific duties that might otherwise have been captured under the much broader, sweeping clauses. This is a matter of consistency. We are talking about two key areas that the Minister has acknowledged are important. The provision of higher-level and degree-level apprenticeships is important, and there really ought to be a statutory duty on the office for students to co-operate with the Institute for Apprenticeships, and vice versa. The shadow Minister made a compelling case for making sure that the higher education and skills strategies are joined up, and amendment 20 would facilitate that.
On the issue of HE cold spots and amendment 28, I am not sure that my reading of the amendment is the same as the Minister’s. He paints a picture of a bureaucratic nightmare in which the office for students is constantly monitoring supply and demand and frequently having to tinker with institutions and courses. The amendment is clear:
“The OfS must monitor the geographical distribution of higher education provision”.
We hope that it would do that, but there is no harm in making sure that it does. The amendment states that the OFS should
“introduce measures to encourage provision where the OfS considers there to be a shortfall in relation to local demand.”
There are two variables. One is the issue of measures, and it would be for the office for students to determine what, if any, measures are appropriate. Secondly, the OFS has discretion to determine where it
“considers there to be a shortfall in relation to local demand.”
That is important in ensuring fair access to higher education, particularly given that, as I described earlier, many people, particularly from backgrounds where there is less of a tradition of participation in higher education, choose to study locally. It is an area that the OFS needs to keep its eye on, so there is no harm in putting this measure in the Bill and making sure that OFS minds are concentrated on this challenge. I am therefore not minded to withdraw amendments 20 and 28; I wish to press them to a vote. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joseph Johnson
Clause 2 sets out a series of important duties for the OFS, including
“the need to promote quality, and greater choice and opportunities for students…to encourage competition between English higher education providers…to promote value for money…to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation in higher education”,
and to use
“resources in an efficient, effective and economic way”.
Amendment 137, the first amendment in the group, would require the OFS to have regard to all of those statutory duties equally. While the Bill does not place any particular weighting on the general duties, I believe that the amendment would seriously inhibit the ability of the OFS to make effective decisions, so I resist it. In practice, it is akin to telling the organisation to give equal priority to all of its priorities. That does not reflect how any organisation operates in reality. In the design of the OFS, there are a series of matters which it needs to take into account when carrying out its functions. We are also giving it statutory independence to act impartially and objectively in delivering those statutory duties in the light of the relevant circumstances of the time. For us, that has the distinct advantage of giving the independent OFS clear statutory responsibility for deciding what is most important at any one time.
In its day-to-day operations, the OFS will need regularly to manage its different competing priorities, some of which will need to take greater importance than others depending on the issue at stake. The amendment would restrict that independence. If everything were equal and equally important, the OFS would be unable to make judgments about relative importance—the kind of judgment that HEFCE currently has to make every day.
Gordon Marsden
Again, the Minister is deliberately setting up a straw man. We are not suggesting that the OFS board, to put it at its crudest, would have to divide its time at a meeting between x, y and z. Anyone in any organisation with any sense whatsoever will prioritise one thing at one time and others at other times. Macmillan’s “Events, dear boy, events” only makes that more important. The idea that we are suggesting that that should be reflected in a day-to-day mathematical formula is ludicrous. We are looking for some indication from the Government that they do not regard competition as the be-all and end-all of the OFS’s duties.
Joseph Johnson
They are all important duties, which is why they are all on the face of the Bill. As I said, we would not want to give them on the face of the Bill an equal weighting, because that would restrict the flexibility of the OFS board to take into account the different circumstances it might face at any particular point in time.
Before I get into the detail of the amendments on competition duty, I want to touch on collaboration, which hon. Members have raised. We will talk about it more when we come to the next group of amendments, but we may as well start now. Members are concerned about the scope of the competition duty in part because they worry it might stifle collaboration. I want to make it clear that I see promoting collaboration as an important part of the OFS’s role. I do not see competition and collaboration as being inherently in tension with each other. Competition between businesses that are also competitors is common practice in other sectors when there are mutual benefits to be gained from it. I want the OFS to support such collaboration where it is in the interest of students. The OFS will recognise the importance of collaboration between providers, especially, for example, where it might enable efficiencies.
The Bill does not prevent collaboration. The OFS does not need a separate duty on collaboration, as it has a general duty already to have regard to the student interest, and such collaboration would be in the student interest. Collaboration can take many forms, and we do not want to be prescriptive about what it should look like or create an expectation that the OFS should formally regulate this type of activity. That would be unnecessary. It is, however, part of the general overview of the sector and of the role of providers that we would expect the OFS to have, and we can make that clear in our guidance to the OFS.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to question the Minister a bit more about everything being in the interest of students. Ultimately, everything universities do will eventually help students, but they often act in the interests of a local community, wider society, the wider economy and how Britain is viewed internationally. It seems a bit strange that nothing in the general duties acknowledges the wider context in which decisions are made. Of course, we have something in the Bill about encouraging competition, but there is nothing at all in this clause about working in collaboration or acting in the public interest.
Joseph Johnson
We absolutely recognise the important role that universities play in society. As the hon. Lady says, as well as often being large local employers, HE providers need to be well connected with their local business community and other education providers. They often provide additional services and facilities that are important to local communities, but we do not want to be prescriptive about what that wider role should look like or create an expectation that the OFS should formally regulate this type of activity. That is unnecessary. It is part of the general overview of the sector and of the role of providers that we would expect the OFS to have, but we will make that clear in our guidance, if that is of any comfort to the hon. Lady.
The OFS’s general duty to have regard to encouraging competition recognises that higher education is a market and needs a regulator suited to dealing with that reality. The Competition and Markets Authority concluded in its report on competition in HE that aspects of the current system could be holding back competition among providers and needed to be addressed. Currently, as we heard in the evidence sittings, the sole option for providers new to the UK sector, or too small or specialist to gain their own degree-awarding powers, is to have their degree validated by an incumbent provider. Not only does that appear to frustrate competition, it stifles innovation and results in the entrenchment of the same model of higher education.
Gordon Marsden
I must challenge that statement, which has been repeated by the Minister. It was said in the evidence sessions, and has been said outside this place—and I have some sympathy with the view—that if, given the multitude of choices for validation from existing higher education institutions, those new providers cannot get anyone to validate them, they must be in a bad way. Only this week the Open University put itself forward, as the Minister will be well aware, as a potential validator of many new institutions and, indeed, some of the FE institutions that seek degree status. So let us have no more of the straw man—the argument that those poor small new institutions cannot be validated because there is a vested interest out there blocking them. If there was such a situation, it is rapidly being addressed, and what the Minister is arguing for is not needed.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman should have listened more closely to the evidence that we heard last week from the likes of Alex Proudfoot, the chief executive of Independent Higher Education, formerly Study UK. He spoke powerfully about the flaws in the current system that we are seeking to address through our reforms. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who appears to have forgotten, that he said:
“Unfortunately, we find that, quite rightly within their own autonomous priorities and strategies, some institutions draw back from validation, leaving institutions and students high and dry. We see institutions blocking new courses from being validated because they compete with one of their own courses or, indeed, one of their own partner’s courses. Unfortunately, we see a very high cost and very limited transparency in the process across the sector––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 14, Q13.]
Gordon Marsden
I am sorry to come back at the Minister on that, but if he is going to trade quotes from the evidence sitting, Mr Proudfoot’s statements were entirely general. I think that the evidence will bear me out: he did not say anything in detail about numbers of organisations. Of course there will always be individual organisations that do as he said, but the general position is very clear. There is a host of institutions that can do validation and, as I have said, the Open University is now added to their numbers.
Joseph Johnson
Again, there was ample evidence in the sittings, with specific institutions that offer high-quality HE provision pointing to their problems in being validated. We heard, for example, from Angela Jones of Condé Nast College:
“We have just been through the whole process of finding a validating partner for our degree, and it was really difficult…For us, the idea of an office for students in a central place to go and be supported through that process is very helpful.”
Professor Philip Wilson said:
“We have seen a number of institutions pull the ladder up from colleges on validation powers with pretty much no notice, which has caused a number of issues—it filters down to the students and causes disruption.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 49, Q74.]
We could also point to the evidence from Paul Kirkham, chief executive of the Institute of Contemporary Music Performance, who told the Committee:
“There are significant risks to student and taxpayer of a very static, non-changing universe of providers and way too much emphasis on the three-year, on-campus degree.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 13, Q13.]
By placing a general duty on the office for students to have regard to encouraging competition between English HE providers we will foster a more competitive system and level the playing field for new providers, ensuring that regulation does not block new entrants from competing and providing the innovation the sector needs. The sector supports that ambition. As Roxanne Stockwell, the principal of Pearson College, put it:
“It is clear that the dominance of the one-size-fits-all model of university education is over. Fee rises have transformed students into more critical consumers and the government is right to recognise this in their reform package. Students are calling out for pioneering institutions offering alternative education models and an increased focus on skills that will prepare them for the careers of the future - with the mind-set and agility to fulfil roles that may not even exist yet. The government’s plans address this demand by making it easier for credible new organisations to enter to sector should be welcomed by all.”
Making it easier for high-quality providers to enter and expand will help to drive up teaching standards overall, enhance the life chances of students and drive economic growth, and will become a catalyst for social mobility.
The Bill makes explicit the fact that there is a general duty to encourage competition
“where that competition is in the interests of students and employers”.
In doing so, it emphasises that the student interest is at the heart of the OFS and recognises the wider public benefits associated with maximising choice and competition in the HE sector. Requiring the OFS to have regard to competition only where it is “shown to be” in the interests of students, employers and the wider public would be burdensome and inflexible. Amendment 139 appears to suggest that the OFS would in some way have to demonstrate that those various interests were met, placing an unnecessary evidential burden on the new regulator.
On the question of whether the OFS should have regard to encouraging competition where it is in the public interest as well as in the interests of students and employers, operating in the public interest is implicit in the role of the OFS. It will be a public body that is accountable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. Moreover, there are general duties on the OFS to promote value for money, equality of opportunity and to operate
“in an efficient, effective and economic way.”
There are also significant assurances built into the Bill to safeguard the public interest, including a requirement that the OFS, through the Secretary of State, provides an annual report to Parliament on the performance of its functions and finances. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Members who tabled the amendments not to press them.
Gordon Marsden
Because of the lateness of our proceedings I do not intend to respond in great detail, but I profoundly disagree with the Minister’s cavalier interpretation of what one needs to do on validation. We can talk about bad examples across the board, but this will go from one situation to another. Individual organisations, whether Condé Nast or any other, will have to go through a proper process—that is the whole point of the thing. As we come to other aspects of the Bill we will see why the Government’s attitude toward new providers risks creating many problems for students. On this occasion, because the hour is late and we are about to conclude the session, I do not intend to press our amendments to a vote, but I assure the Minister we will return to the issue in some detail elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered¸ That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)