Erasmus Programme

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government are very keen to ensure that we reset our relationships with the EU, but that, of course, happens across a whole range of areas. The last time I responded to questions on this issue, I said that it feels appropriate to me to carry out that negotiation across the whole range of issues, and to do so in detail and in breadth, as my right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds is doing.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, part of the reason why UK students took less advantage of the Erasmus scheme was our language skills capability, and because it was limited to Europe. The Turing scheme, which 42,000 students have taken advantage of so far—21,000 from disadvantaged backgrounds—is global. Does the Minister agree that our Turing scheme is working extremely well, and we should give it time to settle down?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the Turing scheme: that, unlike Erasmus, it extends beyond the European Union. In fact, some of the most popular destinations have been outside the EU. If we truly want people to have a global opportunity, that is an important element of it.

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and I thank her for leading this debate in such a brilliant way.

My brief comments relate to the educational needs of children born prematurely and the challenges faced by parents and children in getting the system to help them. My comments are based solely on evidence received from many parents by the House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee, which I chaired.

Approximately 45,000 pre-term births occur annually in England. For most children who survive the neonatal period, the outcome is good, but for a significant number, particularly those born between 24 and 31 weeks’ gestation, while the incidence of physical disability is low, the most common outcome is a whole spectrum of cognitive impairment that extends into adulthood. Apart from poor hearing and sight, some children also suffer from epilepsy—and we have already heard of the problems that education has with children with epilepsy. Children born prematurely show problems with memory, attention and problem-solving, and social and emotional problems, withdrawn behaviour and communication difficulties. While some will need long-term healthcare, for most it is their educational needs that need greater attention and therefore consume more resources than healthcare does.

Entering school is a stressful time for children born prematurely and their parents—a flashpoint when the cognitive, social and emotional difficulties experienced by children emerge or become exacerbated. Many parents are worried that their child is not mature enough to enter school according to the cut-off point in age to start school. Children born prematurely are more likely to have special educational needs and learning difficulties than children born at term.

Parents reported a lack of understanding and awareness of the needs of children born prematurely and, therefore, a lack of support in educational settings. While the government guidance recognises the option of deferment to school entry, we heard many parents face bureaucratic hurdles and that there is a lack of understanding on the part of local authorities and schools of the educational needs of children born prematurely. Parents asked for help to make it easier to ask for deferring school entry and for schools to be aware of the birth history of the children, for example, by including the information on the school entry form. Parents who gave evidence were pleading for a way forward that recognises the educational needs of children born pre-term and the need of support from schools to take on board the views and experiences of parents, including options to defer entry.

Our committee was unable to find a way forward, except to support the efforts of voluntary programmes, such as the Prem Aware Award scheme, to raise awareness of prematurity in schools. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the children and the parents of children born prematurely can be helped.

Higher Education Sector

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, this Minister does recognise that, which is precisely why this Government, unlike the last Government, have taken action to put universities’ finances on a more sustainable basis. It is fundamentally important that we can protect our world-leading universities sector, ensure that the staff doing such an important job there are supported and attract students, both domestic and international, to the benefit of them and of our country.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, following on from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I support, we have something like 113,000 PhD students in the country, of which 43,000 are international students. They are highly talented. They would like to stay here when they complete their studies and, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in migration policy for both students and post-docs. If they stay here, because they are talented and have completed their PhDs, they will grow our economy and innovate, so I hope the Minister will have some comments to make about how this could happen.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that it is important that the graduate route visa has been protected. It allows international students, in the case of PhD graduates, to stay for an additional three years to contribute and look for work. I think that that is appropriate, given the contribution that they make, as the noble Lord says.

Universities

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus of the University of Dundee and its previous chancellor. I have also been associated with the University of St Andrews.

I applaud the Government for recognising that a more sustainable approach to the funding of higher education and research is needed. I am pleased to see that the Government have protected the R&D budget and full funding of our association to Horizon Europe. As highlighted by the Universities UK report, brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I hope that, going forward, the Government will recognise that more will be needed to ease financial pressures on universities to support emerging blue-skies research and develop infrastructure to do so.

I will briefly mention two areas that deserve further attention—one was briefly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The bedrock of the UK ambition to remain a leader in science and technology is doctoral education in UK universities. But there are worrying signs. Although talented overseas doctoral students flock to UK universities, which are second only to the USA, domestic demand, particularly from talented students, is falling. This and the reduction in funded PhD studentships are likely the next university crisis.

Of the 113,000 PhD research students, 46,300 are from overseas. A recent report suggesting that there would be fewer funded places in the future is worrying. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council training centres will fall from 75 to 40, leading to some 1,750 fewer funded places. The Arts and Humanities Research Council is reducing its numbers of funded PhD students from 475 to 300. The Wellcome Trust, once a major funder of doctoral students, particularly in the life sciences, is to severely reduce its support following its new strategy. Universities currently provide some PhD studentships and considerable other support for doctoral education, but this will be an early casualty if universities face further financial pressures.

Doctoral researchers are a big cost centre, with low cost recovery. Universities have subsidised doctoral research from fees from overseas students, as we have heard, and from other sources, such as the QR funding. In the past, universities have done this training on the cheap, thanks to 30 years of university growth. By the way, talented overseas PhD students are keen to come to the UK and stay, innovate and help grow our economy, as was mentioned. But, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in student and post-doc migration policy, as was alluded to. We need them to be able to stay and grow our economy, like in other countries. Otherwise, it does not make sense for the UK to grow brains only for other countries to benefit.

My second point is also relevant to universities’ ability to support research. An important part of this is the QR funding, mentioned in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, so I will not go over it again. Although there has been a welcome increase in charities funding research, charity research support funding—CRSF—has not seen a commensurate increase or an increase with inflation. The cost recovery of funding related to charity-funded research is now less than 57%. If this continues, it would undermine the important partnership for research between government, charities and universities.

On successful research institutes, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said that, for institutes, the return is two to one, as opposed to three to one for universities. I might have said that it is four to one for institutes, such as the Institute of Cancer Research. This not only carries out fundamental research, particularly in cancers, but has been responsible for producing 60 drug molecules, two of which have been on the market for treating breast cancer and prostate cancer. It also trains half the number of UK oncologists. But it benefits from this research support only due to the funding it gets through the CRSF-related funding, which is not enough for it to support its doctoral students. Over the years, it has therefore supported this activity to the tune of £30 million, which it has to raise from other sources.

There is a need to look at the level of QR and CRSF funding with some urgency. With the spending review in mind, there is a need to look at a more sustained model of university research funding. I hope the Government will be sympathetic.

King’s Speech

Lord Patel Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I tease her a little when I say that it was a really apolitical maiden speech. I also extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on her appointment as Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care. I wish her well. I have no doubt that in days to come we will have many opportunities to interact and debate health issues.

In the brief time allocated to me today, I will confine my remarks mostly to issues related to health. I find myself much in support of the proposed areas of legislation that relate to health. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with powers to implement it, will deliver huge health gains. More than 80,000 people a year die of diseases related to smoking, from 18 different types of cancers to cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, pregnancy-related disease, stillbirths and pre-term births. The measures will go a long way to reducing health inequalities. Figures show that there are more than 6 million smokers in the UK today, and more than 100,000 children take up smoking each year. The Government’s aim over the years to make the UK a smoke-free country is ambitious but, in my view, worthy.

The proposals to ban the advertising and promotion of vapes are good as far as they go. We will have to wait for details in the legislation. I hope the Government will be bold enough in time to ban vapes altogether. Scientific evidence already shows their high levels of nicotine, and children are taking up vaping; 5% of children now use vapes and 20% have tried vapes. Vapes should be banned as much as tobacco smoking.

At long last, we will now have a Bill to amend mental health. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will have much to say about that. For my part I welcome it. I hope that the legislation will have robust measures to protect and help particularly children and people with learning disabilities. Importantly, I hope that the legislation will include measures to monitor the impact of the proposed legislation, possibly through the appointment of a commissioner, without us having to amend the Bill. I also hope that the legislation will address funding issues in mental health.

The Government’s wish to deliver healthcare closer to home is one that I hope they will pursue with determination, but it cannot be done without the reform of primary and community care, including a greater share of funding going to primary care and community care. This, with legislation related to the devolution of powers more locally, has to be the way forward for providing more care closer to home. We can learn much from countries such as Denmark, where locally managed primary and community health centres deliver much of the healthcare, with 99% patient satisfaction. There will be much opposition from vested interests to develop such a model. I hope the Government will be bold.

I welcome the Government’s commitment in the proposed digital and smart data Bill to allow use of data for medical research. As I have mentioned previously, the lack of legislation to allow the use of health data for scientific research has hindered us in improving the delivery of healthcare, driving innovations, conducting clinical trials, developing new treatments and much more. I hope that the Bill will remedy this.

While all that I have mentioned is positive, we do not yet have plans for the provision of social care or, apart from a promise of more GPs and midwives, a health workforce plan—particularly for the nursing workforce—for a service that by 2035 is likely to employ nearly 10% of the working-age population. Nor is there yet a sustainable funding formula for a service that may well end up costing more than £250 billion by 2035. The NHS for far too long has been a political football subjected to ideologically driven reforms not in the best interests of patients. What we need is long-term political consensus, and I hope the Government might work towards that. Securing political consensus is important given the amount of public money spent on health and adult social care, and so is accountability. Periodic reviews, commissions, parliamentary inquiries et cetera are not the answer. What we need is an independent body, such as an independent office of health and care sustainability, that will hold the Government to account for their funding, plans and long-term use of money.

Universities: Nuclear Energy Sector Skills

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. I share her appreciation for the organisations that she named. We are investing £50 million over the next two years to pilot ways in which to increase the number of apprenticeships in engineering and other key growth sectors, as well as to address barriers to entry into these professions. We will set out more detail on that in the new year, which will, I hope, go some way to addressing her concerns.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Viscount will have to forgive me; I am not familiar with the details on that, but I would be happy to write to him.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to develop nuclear technology—including fusion technology—we need many more PhD students working in postgraduate degrees, as well as more funding for those PhDs? Furthermore, as we are now not going to join Euratom and we do not have a prototype fusion reactor, what plans do the Government have to rejoin the ITER—International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—programme?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that we need more PhDs, but we need skills at every level. That is where the Government’s strategy is focusing, starting in schools and building through T-levels, then to high-quality advanced levels up to PhD. The Government are very open to exploring international co-operation in this area—less on the research side, but the AUKUS agreement was a sign of that.

Education System

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I will be able to update the House on the progress of the Schools Bill in due course, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate. The Government are very supportive of the faith sector, the schools within it and their wish to academise in the most constructive way possible.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Law Society report calling for a greater uptake of mathematics teaching to over-16s, only 15% of whom take mathematics? The same applies to science subjects, where there is poor education for over-16s. If this country has ambitions to be a science superpower, the teaching of these subjects to over-16s is important.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government are aware of the report and are committed to developing all aspects of the STEM subjects. We are doing that particularly in areas where recruitment is difficult, through the provision of significant, £27,000 tax-free bursaries and levelling-up premiums for staff working in those areas.

Social Care: Children

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Minister suggested that there would be two national children’s identification numbers. Is that correct? Can that be right?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I apologise to the House if that is the impression that I gave. I am happy to write to set out the Government’s position in detail.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the first reading of the Bill makes me ask the question: what is broken that we are trying to fix? But before I start, I will concur completely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, had to say about the Scottish dimension and the implication of the Bill for it. If he had not said it, I would certainly have done so; if he puts down amendments, I will back them; if he does not, I will put them down myself. I make that quite clear. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, has just left his place, but I was going to say to him that, having the same alma mater as him, the University of St Andrews, I am sure that he understands the need to make sure that the Scottish dimension is addressed.

I have concerns about the autonomy of the universities, the teaching excellence framework, the probationary degree-awarding powers, the Office for Students as a validator of degrees, and, in Part 3, the autonomy of the research councils. I declare my interests: I have been a member of the Medical Research Council for several years, I am the chancellor of the University of Dundee and I am associated with several other educational institutions.

I have a problem with the role of UKRI, Innovate UK and Research England, which have already been mentioned. It is imperative that the Bill does not serve to undermine institutional autonomy, which has been key to the global success of our higher education sector. Universities need to be able to take their own decisions in order to be flexible and responsive to the needs of their students and employers, and to think long term about global challenges. Research has shown that reducing autonomy is linked to lower performance. The ability of every institution to make decisions about the courses it provides—what it chooses to open or what it makes the difficult decision to close—should be made free from government interference. It is therefore very welcome that the Government amended the Bill in the other place to address this concern. However, autonomy is such a fundamental principle of the UK higher education system that the Bill ought to go further.

Central to the potential erosion of autonomy in the Bill is the Government’s approach to standards. Universities UK and others have highlighted that the Bill conflates quality and standards, which we know are two very different things when it comes to higher education. While there may be a legitimate role for the OfS in assessing quality, as defined by the quality code, standards must be the preserve of independent academic institutions. I hope that we will come back to this in Committee—I will certainly table an amendment to explore it.

For students, choosing to go to university represents a significant personal and financial investment. In that context, new providers must demonstrate that they can provide high-quality education. Surely any provider awarding its own degrees or calling itself a university must meet the same high standards. Therefore, it is a particular concern that the Bill allows for the Office for Students to grant probationary degree-awarding powers and test entry into the market. How do you test entry into the market if you do not know what the subsequent quality will be?

I also have concerns about the OfS as a validator. Clause 47 gives the sector’s regulator, the OfS, the ability to validate degrees. This appears to be a clear conflict of interest. It seems wholly inappropriate for a regulator to participate in the market that it regulates. I know of no other regulator that is empowered to act in this way.

With regard to Part 3 of the Bill, I have a greater concern about the autonomy of the research councils. Let us take as an example the Medical Research Council. It is allowed to enter into partnerships, as it does with AstraZeneca to develop drugs and with Marks & Spencer on food security. I also have a problem with how UKRI will relate to councils when those councils have their own research institutes, such as the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, where several of our Nobel prize winners have come from. If UKRI is the employer, the council must have the relationship with, and must fund, the research workers. We will have to explore that in Committee. It will be important to preserve the autonomy of the research councils.

I have concerns, too, about the Home Secretary’s proposal that different visa rules for “lower-quality” universities and courses will be awarded. What kinds of universities, which have all gone through rigorous quality testing, will be deemed as low quality? Some UK universities ranked most highly in the world may not score particularly highly in the Government’s proposed teaching excellence framework as it currently stands—so will these universities be affected by the new visa regime?

While the policy development is independent of the Bill, any strengthening of the higher education system through this legislation will be undermined if it is coupled with a punitive set of policies when it comes to international students. As other speakers have already asked, how will this affect the recruitment of international students? I think that we will have to explore many of these points in Committee, for which I hope the Government will provide enough time.

Child Exploitation in Oxfordshire

Lord Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I am very happy to give the noble Lord that assurance.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, we all agree that we have to protect vulnerable children and young people. The UK is a signatory to the Lanzarote convention. Why has it not ratified it in legislation when 38 other countries, including most European countries, have done so and have brought forward legislation?

[Lord Nash]

This is slightly beyond my brief. I will have to write to the noble Lord.