Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Secondly, we were wrong not to spend more time thinking about an independent quality assurance organisation, which could act in this way and could bring in additional help. It would also be a very good idea to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested, the Open University or some other institution as a validator of last resort. But I think that the problem that is being flagged is not a problem. The solution is not a solution. It will not provide the help that new institutions need. It will not create diversity. It will create conflicts of interest. I do not think that many students will want a degree that says it was awarded by the Office for Students. I hope the Government will go away and think again.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment for all the good reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf.

The ability for the regulator also to validate degrees, and thereby operate within the market it regulates, continues to be widely seen as wholly inappropriate for a regulator, and unnecessary. There is no evidence to support the lack of a suitable validator being a barrier to entry. We believe, furthermore, that there are no circumstances in which the proposal in Clause 47 would be appropriate or necessary, so there is no reason for the clause to remain in the Bill, even as a backstop power. The policy intent is covered by Clause 46, which allows the Office for Students to make arrangements with a higher education provider to act as a validator of last resort, and, as we discussed on Monday, the Open University could very well provide this service without any conflict of interest.

The removal of Clause 47, therefore, does not remove the policy intent of opening up the market through a wider choice of validation arrangements—as the noble Baroness has pointed out—but removes the need for the OfS, as authorised by the Secretary of State, to enter into validation arrangements with providers.

We support the option of identifying a central validation body. The current system of awarding bodies works well, though it is recognised that protectionist practices are sometimes adopted on both sides. We therefore agree that validating bodies should commit to competition, diversity and innovation, though that should not mean that all comers must be validated. Expertise in validation —as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has set out so clearly—lies in the objective and impartial appraisal of an institution’s capacity to deliver and maintain appropriate standards of quality and student experience. We acknowledge that many universities already offer validation to students whose provider institutions are in trouble and such arrangements should be allowed to continue.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no need for Clause 47.

[Lord Browne of Madingley (CB)]

My Lords, I speak for Clause 47. I have not spoken on the Bill to date but I have followed its progress closely because I was the author of the last review of higher education funding and student finance, commonly referred to as the Browne review. It looked at three pillars of the system: quality, participation and sustainability. Its recommendations were conceived as part of a holistic package. Much needed to change to secure the future of the sector. I welcome the Bill for completing many of those recommendations: by linking teaching excellence with fees charged to students; removing barriers to market entry for new providers; and creating a new regulator that is fit for purpose.

One of the principles that guided the review was diversity of institutions being essential to creating a competitive market that can provide quality teaching and satisfy student demand. Organisations offering courses validated by a provider with degree-awarding powers are critical to this diversity. However, in compiling the review, my panel and I spoke to many such organisations and found that in many instances the validation arrangements simply did not work. Highly lucrative for the established providers, they created a closed shop that stifled innovation and competition among new entrants and as a result reduced student choice. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will prompt traditional providers to recognise the benefits for all in expanding the higher education sector, promoting greater choice, greater opportunities and excellence in higher education. I hope they will respond positively to such competition.

In the rare case where that does not happen, however, it seems entirely right that the Office for Students should be able to step in as a validator of last resort. In doing so, it is essential that the regulator is independent. The OfS’s board must be populated with those with no vested interests in the sector. If it is not, the reforms proposed in this Bill will be neither sustainable nor credible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 371 urges the Government to make as much of these data open as possible. This is not really the pattern with university data at the moment. Even HESA, which is an easy organisation to deal with, none the less guards them closely so that it can charge fees for their release. I think life will be a good deal better for prospective students if that information is more widely used, available and circulated. It is a principle the Government have established in other areas such as Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry, and it has worked extremely well. I would like to push the Government in that direction so far as university data are concerned.

My second amendment is Amendment 383 and we have been here before. It should be obvious that the principal customers for these data are prospective students. They are the ones who need to know about universities. We really ought to take the views of people who look after prospective students into account in deciding how data should be made available.

I have tabled Amendment 413 because there is a tendency for bodies, once you have given them the power to charge, to start inventing things to do, because they can always get them paid for. Look at UCAS, for example; it probably does five times as much as it needs to. The central “apply” function, which everybody uses, is only about 20% of UCAS’s activity. The rest it can get paid for and it is interesting, so it does it. This body ought to be under tighter financial discipline than that.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 368, which is about the number of staff on non-permanent contracts and zero-hours contracts, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out. As we have discussed before, these sorts of metrics might be more valuable to the TEF than many of the metrics already in it, because the non-permanent staff and zero-hours staff will have a greater impact on teaching quality than many of the other things which the TEF purports to measure. On Amendments 376 and 377, it is important at all stages of the Bill to ensure that adult, mature and part-time students are included as part of the student population.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which is a very small amendment in that it asks that one word be substituted for another. But if I read out the original clause, it may be evident why this is really quite important. I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about keeping an eye on the fees that people charge.

The original Clause 61(2) reads:

“The amount of a fee payable by a registered higher education provider under this section may be calculated by reference to costs incurred, or to be incurred”—


so you do not even have to incur it yet—

“by the body in the performance by the body of any of its functions under this Act which are unconnected with the provider”.

My amendment would replace “unconnected” with “connected”. This is quite typical of a number of statements in the Bill to which amendments have been tabled already; it implies a degree of freedom for the regulator or designated body to impose fees of any sort or level, without any requirement that the necessity or even the link to the provider being charged be demonstrated.

It would be entirely possible for the Government, without losing sight of any of their major objectives, to go through the Bill and change these extraordinarily open-ended invitations to levy a charge for something that we know not what. It starts to sound something like the South Sea bubble. With a regulator or an official body, it is very important that the nature of fees, like the nature of information, be very clear, and that there is not an ambiguity in the legislation about the ability of organisations that rest on statute to be able to levy charges that are not in any sense proportionate to the activities or what is required of the individual provider. I would be very grateful if the Minister could come back to us on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, the possible proliferation of new universities is likely to include a great many offering subjects such as business and management, and far fewer offering subjects such as civil engineering, artificial intelligence and modern languages—whereas it would make sense for any new provision to arise out of shortages in disciplines and skills within the UK.

Secondly, there are parts of the country that are ill served by further and higher education. I have noble friends from Berwick-upon-Tweed who often relay the lack of local provision for local people to study. This is a cause of unfairness, not only in the north-east but in other parts of the country which are also ill served. If new provision were being set up it would make a lot of sense to look geographically at the parts of the country where there is less provision for people to study. Surely it would be a helpful part of the duties of the Office for Students to ensure that new providers should be established only—or mainly, perhaps—where they meet needs both of location and of provision. The amendment therefore seems a helpful addition to the Bill.

[Lord Lucas]

I too support the amendment. There are things that only Governments can do. If we want an example of creating universities, we should look at the career of our late colleague Lord Briggs and what he did, and what the status of the institutions he created is now. They are considered to be top-ranking universities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, they were just made and put in place and they ran. It can be done. Indeed, it is happening overseas: other countries are doing it.

We are proud that we have a collection of top-ranking international universities. Why do we not want another one? What would it take to make another one? It would take substantial action by the Government. Do we need a tech powerhouse on the lines of Stanford or MIT? Yes, I think we probably do. As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, there is a space for that—but it is not going to happen through little institutions founding themselves. We have seen enough of what that is like. I am involved with a couple of small institutions trying to become bigger ones, and it is a very hard path. Reputation is hard won in narrow areas, and it takes a long time. Look at how long it has taken BPP to get to its current size: it has taken my lifetime.

The Government can make things happen much faster, and if they realise that things need to be done, they can do that. For them to come to that realisation, a process of being focused on it is needed, and the committee proposed in the amendment certainly represents one way of achieving that. I would like to see, for instance, much wider availability of a proper liberal arts course in British universities. By and large, they are deciding not to offer such courses. If the Government said, “We want to see it; we will fund this provision”, and if the existing universities did not respond, we could set up a new one, in a part of the country that needed it. That would be a great thing. Equally, the idea might be taken up by existing universities. That is not going to happen through the market, because the market in this area is far too slow. But the Government can do it, and they ought to be looking to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

444: After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
“Student support: requirement to assess repayment terms
(1) The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) In section 22 (new arrangements for giving financial support to students)—(a) in subsection (3)(b), after “and” insert “, subject to subsection (3A)”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) must include a level of earnings below which a person shall not be required to make repayments of such a loan.”(3) After section 22 insert –“22A Duty to assess consumer prices in determining terms for loan repayments(1) In relation to regulations made subject to the requirement in section 22(3A), the Secretary of State must, for each tax year, review UK consumer price inflation for the period since the last review under this subsection.(2) If the review concludes that consumer prices for the previous tax year have increased, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 22(3)(b), amend the level of earnings specified in accordance with the requirement in section 22(3A) by the same percentage increase as UK consumer price inflation as determined under subsection (1).(3) If the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report explaining the reasons for arriving at that determination.(4) For the purpose of this section—“consumer prices” means the Consumer Price Index;“consumer price inflation” refers to the annual assessment made by the Office for National Statistics’ Consumer Price Inflation Statistical Bulletin.””

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, Amendment 444, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to mirror the rules around the benefits system, which require the Secretary of State to uprate benefits automatically each year in line with inflation unless he passes, as is currently the case, law to freeze them. The clause would mean that similar procedures have to be followed in uprating the starting point of £21,000 for repayment fees. Under the current tuition fees system, a graduate starts to repay their fees only if they are earning about £21,000 a year. One of the principles we agreed in coalition was that this threshold should rise in line with inflation from April 2017 so that only those earning a decent salary are repaying their fees. This is important in ensuring that only those who can truly afford to over their careers pay back the full £9,000 a year fees.

Liberal Democrats therefore strongly oppose the bad-faith decision of the previous Chancellor to freeze the repayment threshold. This effectively amounts to a change in contract terms for those with fees to repay that would be wholly unacceptable in any private business dealing. It is no wonder that Martin Lewis, who helped explain the Government’s original scheme, has sought legally to challenge this unfair retrospective action. The freeze means that people on relatively low incomes will start paying back fees, meaning those on low and middle incomes will end up paying back more while those on the top salaries, who will pay off their fees before they reach the 30-year cut-off, will be unaffected.

The issue is even more important considering rapidly increased inflation due to Brexit. Our amendment therefore seeks to provide a mechanism to ensure that the repayment level must rise with inflation. It uses rules around social security benefit increases to require the Secretary of State to consider whether prices have changed over the last 12 months—ie, inflation has taken place—and, if so, to increase the repayment threshold by a similar level. This would therefore require a new order every year to be placed before Parliament, ensuring the Government can never again unilaterally decide to freeze the point at which students start to pay.

Liberal Democrats hesitate, for good reason, to talk about university fees. We suffered the political consequences of breaking our contract with the electorate. The Chancellor was very clever, but there was very little saving in the end to the Exchequer and there were concessions to the Liberal Democrats. What we are looking at now is the elimination bit by bit, piece by piece, of those concessions, starting with grants and moving on to access, and so on. So the policy has clearly worsened, and what we have currently, with the raising of the threshold, is nothing short of a scandal. A contract has been broken and there has been a one-sided redefinition of the terms of the loan. In any other context, as Martin Lewis quite correctly said, this would lead to legal action. The only reason legal action is not possible in this case is the small print, which, as far as most undergraduates are concerned, was very small indeed.

This amendment is simply an attempt to avoid a repetition of that bad situation by defining a minimum level of earnings and a mechanism for adjusting it in a rational, open way. It would avoid partiality, exploitation, misunderstanding and lack of trust, which is absolutely crucial. That, surely, is the way to go. The Government would be doing the right thing by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, perhaps I could briefly challenge the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I do so very aware of how the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats worked together on this years ago, and I pay tribute once again to my former ministerial colleague, Sir Vince Cable, with whom it was a pleasure to work. But I think her account of the way the decision was taken is not quite correct and I do not think that her proposals for the future will work in the best interests of students or the Exchequer.

When we set the £21,000 repayment threshold in 2011, we were working on the basis of forecasts of where earnings would be by 2017. We thought we were setting the £21,000 repayment threshold at about 75% of earnings—I cannot remember the exact figure. What has happened since then is that earnings have grown by much less than was forecast, as a result of which the repayment threshold has become significantly more generous relative to earnings than we expected when we set it. With the wisdom of hindsight, I wish that we had put in brackets alongside £21,000, “that is, approximately 75% of earnings”, but what is relevant for graduates is that this is relative to their earnings and average earnings. On that basis, the purpose of the current freeze of the £21,000 threshold is to bring it back gradually towards the kind of relationship to average earnings that was envisaged when it was first proposed in 2011.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that it would be worth having some kind of mechanism for review of this threshold. I have proposed a kind of five-year review at the start of each Parliament of the right place to set the repayment threshold. I do not think some fixed relationship to the RPI is relevant. The big social decision—it is a decision—is where it should be relative to average earnings. Of course, the coalition decided it should be a significantly higher threshold than that in the old system. Although I remember working with Martin Lewis on this, I think his argument that this is some terrible breach of faith is incorrect. This is actually a relationship to earnings which has ended up much higher than was originally expected.

I also think that Amendment 449 is misconceived and would be very dangerous indeed. It proposes that these loans should be regulated as if they are commercial loans by the Financial Conduct Authority. The student loans scheme steers a very narrow course between two equal and opposite problems. One problem would be if student finance were once more counted as public expenditure, as a result of which it would be rationed and we would not see the increase in cash for universities that we have seen. Although some people think this is public spending—to my surprise, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about there being very little saving to the Exchequer—the fact is that the shift to fees and loans achieved a very significant reduction in public spending. We do not want to go back to the days of it being public spending.

However, neither do we want it to be a commercial loan scheme. It is absolutely not a commercial loan scheme. I worked very closely with Lib Dem colleagues at every opportunity to explain to prospective students that this is not a commercial loan. This is not like an overdraft or a credit card. It is a universal scheme accessible to almost all students and is in no way like taking out a loan from a bank regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. If the Student Loans Company were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, it would immediately have to go through requirements such as the “know your customer” requirement. It would have to decide: “Should we lend to young John Smith? Is he going to be able to repay? Should we lend to young Janet Smith? Is she going to be able to repay?”. That panoply of assessment of whether individuals should take out loans, which is part of the regulatory regime for commercial loans, should not apply to this provision. This is a universal scheme using taxpayer finance. Therefore, requiring it to be regulated as if it is a commercial loan would be a retrograde step and very regressive.

All three parties in this Chamber today, when faced with the dilemma of how to finance university education, have ended up with an essentially similar model: fees and loans, with a universal loan scheme. It is no accident that we have ended up with this model. It is because it steers between two equal and opposite perils. These Lib Dem amendments would destabilise that model, which is now working to the advantage of students, universities and the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am aware that this is an issue that stimulates debate and the contributions have been genuinely informed and reflective.

When the Government reformed student finance in 2011 we put in place a sustainable system designed to make higher education accessible to all. It is working well, because total funding for the sector has increased and will reach £31 billion by 2017-18. These amendments cover a number of areas of the student finance system.

I refer first to the issue of the student loan repayment threshold. The decision to freeze the repayments threshold for post-2012 loans was taken to put higher education funding on to a more sustainable footing. To do this, we had to ask those who benefit from university to meet more of the costs of their studies. I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for providing a very clear explanation of the threshold freeze and the circumstances that led to it. Freezing the threshold enabled us to abolish student number controls, lifting the cap on aspiration and enabling more people to realise their potential.

On average, graduate earnings remain much higher than those of non-graduates. Students continue to get a fair deal: the current threshold remains £3,500 higher than that for pre-2012 loans. Uprating the threshold in line with average earnings would cost around £5 billion in total by April 2021 compared to the current system. The total cost of uprating by CPI would be around £4 billion over the same period. Taxpayers—many of whom will be non-graduates earning much less than the graduates who would benefit—would have to bear that cost.

On the matter of student loan terms and conditions, I share your Lordships’ desire to ensure that students are protected. That is why the loan terms are set out in legislation. However, it is important that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Government retain the power to adjust terms and conditions. Student loans are subsidised by the taxpayer, and we must ensure that the interests of both borrowers and taxpayers continue to be protected. This amendment would also prevent the Government making any changes to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower. Finally, we believe that the Government should continue to be able to make necessary administrative amendments to the terms and conditions to ensure that the loans can continue to be collected efficiently.

With regard to the replacement of maintenance grants with loans, I reassure noble Lords that this Government remain committed to increasing access to higher education. Indeed, the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education has increased from 13.6% in 2009 to 19.5% in 2016. We have, furthermore, increased support for students on the lowest incomes by over 10%. Reinstating the system of maintenance grants would reduce the up-front support available for students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, while costing the taxpayer over £2.5 billion each year. Students recognise the value of a degree. Lifetime earnings are, on average, higher for graduates than non-graduates and it is right that students who earn more contribute towards the cost of their education. Repayments are related to the ability to pay and start only when a borrower is earning £21,000.

I turn now to the amendments relating to the regulation of student loans. I agree that it is important that students are protected. However—as my noble friend Lord Willetts set out—student loans are not like commercial loans: we must remember that. They are not for profit and are available to all, irrespective of their financial history. Repayments depend on income and the interest rate is limited by legislation. The loans are written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower. The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. This means that additional regulation is unnecessary.

Lenders regulated by the FCA are obliged to assess the creditworthiness of all their borrowers, and the affordability and suitability of the loan product for each borrower. Were the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate student loans—as Amendment 449 seeks—it could affect the ability of some students to obtain them. My noble friend Lord Willetts spoke powerfully about that.

Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills of our citizens. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords and I therefore ask that Amendment 444 be withdrawn.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I bow, of course, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. I remember working with him in coalition when I was Higher Education Minister in the Lords—heady days indeed.

In spite of his reassurances, I am still concerned that the less well-paid and less privileged students should not be disproportionately penalised or deterred by repayments. After all, they repay for longer than the better-paid students, and there are problems in that. I also support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will find that we may touch on those issues when we come to the amendments on international students. She makes, however, a very valid point that needs consideration. At this stage, however, and in the light of the Minister’s remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 444 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

By supporting these important amendments, the whole House, as well as individual Members, is being very supportive of the Government and particularly supportive of the Minister for Higher Education, who wants us to do what is in the amendments.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment; I strongly support the words that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Patten. I, too, will try to be helpful because this amendment highlights the significant impact of international students and their contribution to the success of UK universities. It builds on Amendment 127, which I spoke to earlier in Committee, so I shall curtail my remarks at this stage.

As has been said, counting international students in migration targets is a poor policy choice. It damages the reputations of UK universities. There seems to be universal agreement that it should be reversed and that other countries do not treat their students in this way. We will doubtless hear from the Government that there is no limit on the number of international students who can come into the country. The trouble is that they follow that up by saying, “But we will count them in immigration targets and we are intent on reducing immigration”. This sends very mixed and misleading messages to students who are left mystified about this but feeling generally unwelcome. It does not help now that we make them leave the country as soon as they finish their studies, rather than staying on to make some postgraduate contribution to the country.

Our messages are unwelcoming and overseas students hear those unwelcoming messages. We understand that these decisions are within the Home Office, not within the department the Minister represents, but we ask him to take back to his colleagues in the Home Office—or, indeed, to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister—how very strongly this House feels that these measures should be changed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. Everything has already been said. I would merely say that Nick Pearce is now a professor at the University of Bath—so that is good, isn’t it?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and all other noble Lords, I find it particularly bizarre that in this brave new world, where we want to be outward-facing, persuade the world to trade with us and attract people to study at our universities, we still persist in including students in the immigration figures, which, as the noble Baroness has just said, sends out bad feelings. It is perception that is important. The noble Lord may be right that we are welcoming everyone but, even if that were true—and I am not sure it is—the perception is that we are not, and that is a big problem.

In an earlier debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which unfortunately I missed although I supported his amendment, he said he was searching for ways in which,

“the university sector could organise and present itself so that the nation would be on its side and it would be equipped with the data”.—[Official Report, 11/1/17; col. 1999.]

Of course I agree with that, but I would add, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, that the public are already onside, with 57% of them saying that foreign students should not be in the immigration figures compared with 32% who thought that they should be. So as the Government are so determined to pursue a hard Brexit because a mere 52% of the population voted in favour of leaving the EU while 48% were against, why can they not now act on the 57% who say that they would be content with taking students out of the immigration figures?

We are all against bogus institutions, and we are glad that the Government have acted on that. We are all against those who overstay, but the figures on overstaying cited in the past by the Government are, at best, merely estimated and, at worst, being used for political ends. When will better data be available, and when will the consultation on the study immigration route be concluded?

I well understand the political importance of immigration and immigration figures, as well as the concerns expressed by the citizens of our country. However, bona fide students studying at bona fide institutions are not economic migrants but visitors, and that is the view of the people of this country. I hope that the Government will act accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I add my support to what has already been said. Amendment 463 builds directly on the discussion that we had on the previous group.

Amendment 464 complements Amendment 490, which we have tabled and which will be discussed on Monday. Amendment 464 would ensure that members of staff from other countries were not in future subjected to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force on the day this Act was passed. Both amendments point to the concern that restrictions on freedom of movement following Brexit will have very serious consequences for universities—both for students and for academics. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about the difficulties that academics currently face in planning their future, thinking ahead and considering what they will do about their families, with young academics in particular wondering where their future lies. Like a lot of people planning their lives, they want a bit of security.

Recently I spoke at a conference of modern foreign language academics, who were asked how many of them were EU citizens. There were about 80 people there and over half put up their hands. They were all wondering what the future held. Some were having difficulties becoming UK citizens. Even those who had lived all their lives in the country were being put through hoops. They had never lived anywhere else, but getting a British passport was suddenly proving to be incredibly difficult for them. They play an absolutely essential part in the provision of modern foreign languages in our universities. We heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about the important role that they also play in engineering. However, I assure noble Lords that those working in modern languages departments are really concerned about how they are going to continue their provision if EU academics feel unwelcome.

Therefore, this is a personal issue for a lot of valuable and skilled people, some of whom are already facing—unbelievable though this is—incredible hate crime and racial discrimination from universities where they have previously been seen as valued contributors. Of course, if they go, some of our courses simply will not take place. We need these people—the students and the academics—and our university life will certainly be the poorer without them.

This proposed new clause would help to remedy the very unfortunate situation that we now find ourselves in, and I hope that we can move forward in making life better for the EU citizens who make our universities much better places.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, in at least one of the universities in which I am involved, I know of a specific example where a very able and impressive member of staff was offered, and encouraged to take, a promotion in the department but turned it down because he and his family had come to the conclusion that the UK was not a place where they saw their future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, again, my noble friend Lord Dubs is not able to be present because he is attending another event, which I mentioned earlier. I am also aware that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, nor the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, can be here today, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, will make some remarks that will at least encompass those of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.

The amendment would disapply the statutory Prevent duty set in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in so far as it applies to higher education institutions. The reason for that is that we place a strong accent on—and we will discuss in a later group of amendments —the question of how and in what circumstances we can make higher education institutions, and in particular universities, centres in which the practice of freedom of speech and the prevention of unlawful speech are routine and built into their very fabric and operations.

When Parliament discussed the then Counter-Terrorism and Security Act Bill in 2015, there was considerable doubt about whether it should extend to universities because it imposed a duty on universities to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. It created a structure involving monitoring and enforcement of the Prevent duty and further mandated the co-operation of academic staff in the Channel referral process.

Accompanying government guidance has exacerbated concerns. While universities are not the only institutions affected by the statutory Prevent duty, the regulation of lawful speech and assembly in these institutions carries particular concern. Our higher education institutions, as I have said, should provide a space for the free and frank exchange of ideas. These ideas should be challenged through robust argument and not suppressed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded, as part of its legislative scrutiny of the 2015 Act, that, because of the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of university education, the entire framework that rests on the new Prevent duty is simply not appropriate for application to universities.

Having said that, university staff are bound by the law, including the requirement to disclose information to the police when they know or believe it could assist in the prevention of acts of terrorism. The removal of the statutory Prevent duty in universities would not remove the responsibility of staff and institutions to co-operate with police to tackle suspected criminality. The amendment would remove a heavy-handed structure designed to restrict lawful speech. Suppressing unpleasant or offensive views is not only illiberal, it is often counterproductive and risks pushing ideas into the shadows where they are less likely to be effectively challenged. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I added my name to the list, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who has overriding university commitments. He is a great expert in this area and has briefed me.

The application of Prevent to the university sector is different from its application to any other category of public body. In a university, the Prevent duty has the wholly unwanted effect of undermining an essential pillar of the very institution it is supposed to be protecting to the wider detriment of civil society. First, universities have a pre-existing statutory duty under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986,

“to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”.

Secondly, because of the foundational importance of free expression to intellectual inquiry and therefore to the central purpose of a university, which cannot function in its absence, it cannot be appropriate, in the university context, to seek to ban speech that is otherwise perfectly lawful, as the Prevent duty requires it to do.

The Prevent duty requires universities to target lawful speech by demanding that universities target non-violent extremism, defined in the Prevent guidance as,

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

If applied literally as a proscription tool in universities this definition would close down whole swathes of legitimate discourse conducted in terms that represent no breach whatever of the criminal law. It is very difficult to imagine any radicalising language that a university should appropriately ban that does not amount to criminal speech in its own right, such as an incitement to violence, or to racial or religious hatred and so on. These categories of unlawful speech should therefore be banned by university authorities to comply with pre-existing law. To do so is entirely consistent with free expression rights and academic freedom. But banning incitement speech is sufficient. Apart from anything else, it is this speech that is more genuinely “radicalising”. We do not need Prevent in universities to protect ourselves. We need just to apply the current criminal law on incitement.

In the university context, “radicalising” speech that is not otherwise criminal should be dealt with through exposure and counterargument. Universities should be places where young and not so young people can be exposed to views and ideas with which they disagree or find disturbing, unpleasant and even frightening, but be able to address them calmly, intellectually and safely. Freedom of speech should be an essential part of the university experience.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I regret that I have to challenge the view that has been put forward by Members here whose views in general I respect greatly, but I pin my remarks to a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, just moments ago. He said that students come from overseas to this country for a great education in a liberal, plural society. Unfortunately, great damage is being done to precisely that concept. In no way would I dissent from a view expressed that freedom of speech within the law must be allowed. Non-lawful speech—and there are lots of statutes, whether you like it or not, that make speech illegal—should not be allowed, but the universities are not doing their duty.

I shall give a few examples. Jihadi John was a university graduate; Michael Adebolajo—Lee Rigby’s murderer—was at the University of Greenwich; the underpants bomber, Abdulmutallab, was at UCL. There are numerous other examples of killers who were radicalised at university right here. That is because, although the Prevent duty guidance requires such speech that we disapprove of to be balanced, this is not happening. Speakers are turning up and giving speeches to audiences that are not allowed to challenge them. At best, they can only write down their questions. There are tens of such visiting speakers every year—there are organisations that keep tabs. Just over a year ago, at London South Bank University, a speaker claimed that Muslim women are not allowed to marry Kafir and that apostates should be killed. A speaker at Kingston University declared homosexuality as unnatural and harmful, and another—a student—claimed that the Government were seeking to engineer a government-sanctioned Islam and that the security services were harassing Muslims, using Jihadi John and Michael Adebolajo as examples. The problem is not only coming from that area; it is the English Defence League turning up to present its unpalatable views too.

It is incomprehensible to me that the National Union of Students opposes the Prevent policy and has an organised campaign to call it racist—a “spying” policy and an inhibitor of freedom of speech. These are the same students and lecturers—the ones who oppose Prevent—who have been supine in the face of student censorship and the visits of extremist speakers and who will not allow, for example, Germaine Greer or Peter Tatchell to speak, but sit back and do nothing when speakers turn up who say that homosexuals should be killed.

The Home Affairs Select Committee and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism have identified universities as vulnerable sectors for this sort of thing. Universities are targeted by extremist activists from Islamist and far-right groups. Very often they are preaching against women’s rights and gay people’s rights, and suggest that there is a western war on Islam. They express extreme intolerance—even death—for non-believers, and place religious law above democracy.

Some misguided student unions and the pro-terrorist lobby group CAGE are uniting to silence criticism of their illegal activities. There is no evidence of lecturers spying on students or gathering intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences. Students are conspiring to undermine the policy; they ignore its application to far-right extremists, just as to far left, if there is a difference, and spread the misunderstanding that it targets political radicalism.

The Prevent guidance is necessary, but needs to be limited to non-lawful speech, which is a very wide concept and of course includes the counterterrorism Act, but I would not suggest for a moment that now is the time to lift it, especially when in its most recent report HEFCE claimed that more and more universities —though not all of them—were getting to grips with and applying the Prevent guidance in a reasonable way. I therefore oppose the amendment.