Higher Education and Research Bill
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joseph Johnson
We can certainly say that visa applications have risen by around 10% since 2011, although there might be fluctuations from year to year. That has been the case for many periods in the history of international students coming to study in this country. There has not been a story of continued growth; there have been ups and downs. Since 2010, which is a longer timeframe, we have seen applications up by around 10%.
Lords amendment 156 could do real damage. For example, it would prevent international students being treated as long-term migrants. The internationally recognised definition of a long-term migrant is anyone moving countries for a period of more than a year. If we were not able to apply to international students the key features of our work immigration regime, such as the need to obtain a time-limited visa that specifies the terms on which the migrant can come and a requirement to return home upon expiry of the visa, that could undermine our whole student migration system. I cannot advise the House to agree to that amendment.
Secondly, the Lords amendment would prohibit any change to the future student migration regime that could be interpreted as more restrictive than that in force when the Bill is passed. Any future changes—even minor technical changes—would require fresh primary legislation rather than being made by immigration rules laid before Parliament. I do not believe that that would be sensible or helpful, particularly given how crowded the forthcoming legislative programme is likely to be.
That said, I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue, so I am pleased to ask the House to support amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 156. The Bill already creates for the first time a requirement for information on higher education providers to be published. It also puts in place a statutory duty to consider what would be helpful to students on higher education courses here, prospective students and higher education providers. Our amendments expressly extend that important new duty to cover what information would be useful to current or prospective international students in higher education and to the providers that recruit them or are thinking of doing so. They will also specifically require a consideration of the publication of international student numbers. All this is designed to help to ensure that as much information as possible is available about the UK’s offer to international students. We have a good story to tell and the Government are keen to ensure that it is told.
The Bill is long overdue. It will streamline the higher education system’s regulatory architecture. It will give students more choice and opportunity. It will strengthen our world-class research and innovation capabilities, and it will enhance the competitiveness and productivity of our economy. I thank all Members for their constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak on these amendments this afternoon. I join the Minister in thanking the various teams of drafters and Clerks for all the work they have done. He and I have had some intense discussions in the past three to four days, and they must have put great pressure on the Clerks to produce the substantial amendments that are before us today. I want to give special thanks to the Public Bill Office. Most people who have been in opposition, of whatever party, know that it is very much, in terms of resources, a David and Goliath process and we are enormously grateful for the professional work of the Public Bill Office in assisting us.
I want to place on record, because we are talking about Lords amendments, my gratitude and that of many in the House for the robust exercise by the House of Lords of its historic privilege, which is to revise, to remind and to warn. It has done all three things with this raft of amendments, which, combined with the intense pressure that was applied across the sector by numerous groups, the work that we have put in and the Minister’s co-operation in recent days, has brought us to where we are today.
I am sorry that the Minister, in his measured presentation, did not find time to talk about the contribution of the people who work in universities. Their contribution is just as important as that of students and teachers, because without them we would not have universities or other higher education institutions. I place on the record also my thanks to the various sector groups who have assisted us: the National Union of Students, which delivered thoughtful and trenchant critiques that helped us get to where we are today, as did the other unions involved—the University and College Union and Unison—and the Council for British Universities, as well as the whole range of universities, modern and traditional. I must not forget the submissions from the further education sector and the Association of Colleges, because as I frequently remind the Minister, 12% and rising of higher education in this country is provided by further education colleges.
This process has been about the dialogue with university vice-chancellors and junior lecturers. We are in a much better place because of the specialist critique and the Lords amendments that the Minister has accepted on UK Research and Innovation, and on research. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is in the Chamber, I pay tribute to her and her team for the points they made about the importance of the devolved Administrations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. I agree that it is good that the Government have recognised the challenge to university reputation that could come from the extension of university title without safeguards in place. Does he agree that the Government’s proposals are a watering down of Lords amendment 1 and that it will be necessary to look carefully at the guidance in due course to ensure that it adequately protects university title?
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend, the esteemed chair of the all-party parliamentary university group, is absolutely right. She makes precisely the same point that so many people want to make to the Government. Edmund Burke famously said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Well, the price of extracting these concessions from the Government today—if, by any chance, they get back into office after 8 June—will be at least very severe, if not eternal, scrutiny. Whatever the situation is, not just in the House but outside it, that scrutiny has to happen.
The agreed process is not a tick-box one, but one where there must be a big conversation. My hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and all sorts of other people have made this point. I pay tribute to Baroness Brown for pursuing the matter. I hope that the penny has finally dropped for the Government. As MillionPlus said,
“strong safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that any body that is awarded degree awarding powers…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.”
That is why it is so important that the Government commit to that full and wide-ranging consultation.
I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed, as we discussed, that the consultation will look at international examples, such as Australia, in granting university title. It is crucial that the Government look at the range the Minister talked about: excellent teaching, sustained scholarship, cohesive academic community, learning infrastructure, knowledge exchange and—often forgotten—pastoral care, with universities actually supporting students to learn and not simply be part of some vague online community. As Research Fortnight said last year,
“the title of university needs to be seen as a privilege…not an automatic entitlement”.
That is why this consultation and the subsequent guidance are so important, with the market being open to new entrants, and that is why we will continue to press Ministers on this issue.
Let me move on to the granting of degree-awarding powers. As we have said from the beginning of proceedings on the Bill, that is at its heart significantly about trust, or the lack of it, and that was nobly elaborated and strengthened by the amendment tabled in the other place by Baroness Wolf, who is a fantastic advocate for the HE and FE sectors and who knows of what she speaks, which is why the Government have had to move on this issue. We have said right from the beginning that the Government need to make things very clear to allay some of the concerns that we, along with a number of people across the sector and the noble Baroness and others in the other House, have had about the principle of independence. Giving providers the option from day one to build up degree-awarding powers is potentially dangerous, and we are potentially taking a gamble on probationary degrees from probationary providers.
I do not want to reopen the debate we had on this in Committee, and I want to say very strongly that we are not against private providers or new providers as such, but the premise must be to strengthen the public sector and to ensure that new providers can demonstrate that they provide high-quality education—including robust governance that maintains academic quality, protects the student interest and has a demonstrable track record of delivering higher-quality education—before they are granted degree-awarding powers.
We know only too well from the issues that have arisen in the United States with private providers, from the criticisms Baroness Wolf has levelled at a similar process in Australia and from the issues involving BPP and the Apollo group three or four years ago why the safeguards being put into the Bill are entirely necessary. The Council for the Defence of British Universities said exactly that in its submissions.
We are therefore pleased that a significant degree of scrutiny will now be put in place and that, when granting, varying or revoking degree-awarding powers, the OFS must be advised by the independent designated quality body—the Government have conceded that—on a provider’s ability to provide and maintain HE provision of an appropriate quality and standard. It is crucial that there is a traffic light, if I can dare to use that expression, saying “Caution” and providing a guarantee of the process. It is important that the OFS is advised in the way I have described; after all, in the first few years of its existence, it will—whether we take the term neutrally or not—be a creature of the Government, but one that is on probation and on trial.
There are known quantities in this process, which is why I was pleased to hear the Minister praise the QAA for what it has done, but, as he said, things change with time. That is why we had to press the Government so hard to come forward with a new mechanism if the QAA were no longer to be the appropriate body. That is reiterated in the concession of an automatic review by the designated quality body if there is a change of ownership or a merger at a university. We know what can happen, just as people in the sector know—the people employed there and the people being taught in inferior conditions because of what has happened in the past. We therefore need these steps, alongside a consultation and guidance on university title, to protect our brand of HE providers.
This is about not just the letter but the spirit of these proposals, and that is reiterated by the automatic review, which will prevent university title and degree-awarding powers being purchased without the protections of quality assurance. We remain concerned that, should no independent designated quality body exist, the OFS must set up an independent specific committee. We were determined to encourage the Government to take that fall-back position. Their concession of an independent specific committee with a majority of members with no previous involvement with the OFS is crucial. It is also crucial that this body remains independent of Government and of the OFS, for the reasons that I have described.
I want to move on to the teaching excellence framework, and Lords amendment 23 and the amendments that the Government have tabled in lieu. The Minister said that the importance of teaching excellence was accepted across the House. Indeed, who would be against teaching excellence? However, the devil is always in the detail. In this case, the detail is that it took nearly six years to take through the research excellence framework process. We are therefore wise to think and to pause, particularly on the potential to differentiate fee levels at higher education institutions, which has been a major concern for many across the sector. We have expressed serious fears from the start, not least in the context of the ridiculously titled “gold, silver and bronze” scheme, which was no doubt dreamed up in the Minister’s office by someone in a post-Olympics euphoria back in the autumn.
People are concerned that any sort of link is bound to affect student decision making adversely, particularly in deterring students from low-income families from applying. Those concerns have been expressed right across the sector, from unions such as the UCU and Unison to a number of other groups. The Minister quotes somewhat selectively on occasion the groups that he wishes to quote, but I can assure him that a number of universities and university groups, including some of our most revered and aged, remain concerned about this. That is why it is crucial that the Government put in place a legislative commitment to a full independent review before the TEF could be used to differentiate fees and why it is right that that has been accepted and aided by the work that the Lords has put in. It gives us a different direction of travel from the rubber-stamping technocracy the Government previously had in mind for us.
The Government’s agenda on higher education has consistently hit students hard, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As we have always said, we will do everything in our power to resist the TEF being used as a Trojan horse for the escalation of fees. We know from the Sutton Trust and from the various surveys about the daunting mountain of debt that is being imposed on students as a result of how this Government and their predecessor have gone forward on this: what an impediment to their hopes and dreams. Now that inflation is leaping, post-Brexit, to the sorts of levels that will bring in increases in future, we are right to be concerned that there should be a proper process in how we take this forward.
Along with the unions involved and many others in the sector, we feel very strongly about any sort of link that affects student decision making adversely—particularly, as I say, with regard to low-income families. The NUS and the UCU have strong concerns that the TEF would create a high-stakes, multi-tiered system and increase pressures on teachers, as well as incentivising universities to cut teaching in subjects that score less well. Sally Hunt, the general secretary of UCU, said last December:
“If the Government really wants to improve teaching quality, it”
also
“needs to think…about whether staff are supported”
enough
“to deliver their best teaching.”
It is therefore vital that the Government have now finally, on the back of the strength of the concerns of our colleagues and the people who really know what is going on in the sector, found the courage to put in place a legislative commitment to a full independent review before the TEF could be used for differentiating fees.
I was grateful to the Minister for spelling out so clearly the chronology of that process, because it is not simply about the extra year, but about the process itself. We would have preferred—and we will still campaign for—the link between the TEF and the fees to be removed altogether, but we know that we have entered a process where we have to do the best we can with this Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Does my hon. Friend agree that the review is welcome but that it would have been really good to hear the Minister say this afternoon that he would definitely want to act on its outcome, not simply ignore it, which could happen in the future?
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot be responsible for the Minister’s mood music. I can only respond to what he has committed to do in the Bill, and its commitment to an independent review is very important. A whole raft of people, not just the Lords, are concerned. The combined efforts of an outside challenge, the wisdom of the Lords, who constrained the Minister by inserting the original amendment, and our determination have resulted in welcome concessions.
Joseph Johnson
To reiterate what I said in my speech, I am happy to confirm that the Secretary of State will take account of the review and, if he or she considers it appropriate, will provide guidance to the OFS accordingly, including on any changes to the scheme that the review suggests are needed, whether they be in relation to the metrics or any of the other items that the review will look at.
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification. It is also important that all fee regulations under the Bill that were previously subject to negative procedure will now be subject to affirmative procedure. That puts daylight on issues related to rocketing fees, and I believe that it will be entirely possible that the Secretary of State, whoever it will be, will have to listen to a dogged independent statutory review that says, “This ain’t working. Either it won’t ever work, or it certainly won’t work for the time being.” It is in all of our interests to make sure that that statutory review is as potent as we wish it to be.
I welcome the Government’s electoral registration amendment, which strengthens the current position to some extent. We would have preferred a full commitment to ensuring block registration, but nevertheless we wholeheartedly welcome anything that will facilitate greater student interest in and awareness of political affairs. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and to the pilot work undertaken at the University of Sheffield and the University of Bath. I also praise my fellow member of the Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), all of whom have concerns about students and feel very strongly about the matter. It is important to note that we are not just relying on nudges. The Minister was kind enough to refer to the involvement of the Cabinet Office in this regard, and there will be specific powers to impose an electoral registration commitment to deal with HE providers not doing enough.
Finally, let me turn to the amendments on international students. I praise and welcome the doggedness with which Lord Hannay pursued this matter with the coalition that worked across Parliament to insert the original amendment. I hoped and thought that the strength of that coalition might have moved the Government, but unfortunately it is not a question of the warm words, values and welcomes which the Minister talked about and to which, I am sure, he signs up—he was a dedicated remainer before the election. Unfortunately, he has a Prime Minister who has been at best curmudgeonly and at worst obstructive on this issue. The sharp questions from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the contribution of the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), show where we are on this matter.
At a time when Brexit is throwing up fresh problems for the higher education sector, the Government’s stance is threatening both the sector and our reputation worldwide. Those new issues are about whether we will be able to stay in Erasmus or get funding for beyond Horizon 2020, and about European structural funding, but the university and HE sector has enough to contend with without having a Prime Minister who appears to wrinkle her nose and, sometimes, attach manacles to her colleagues in Cabinet every time they suggest a different path.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
My hon. Friend is making compelling points. In Northern Ireland there are two universities, Queen’s University, Belfast and the Ulster University. They both rely on Erasmus and European social funds to develop cross-border educational research programmes with higher education institutions in the Republic of Ireland. The impact of Brexit in the context of this debate is therefore particularly important to us; does he agree with me on that?
Gordon Marsden
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes a further point about the Government’s still having a long way to go in understanding and realising what that international sector is all about. That is why it is so disappointing that the Minister will not go further—in fact, the truth is that he cannot go further. He and his colleagues have been sat on from a great height by No. 10 and by the Home Office. That is the reality. The Tory party and its members are split down the middle on this issue. It is an unedifying shambles that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is retiring, presciently commented on in The Times today. It is a shambles that Labour, in government, would have no part in.
During this election campaign, we will continue to press for the removal of students from net migration statistics for public policy purposes, and although I genuinely welcome the new designated body that the Minister has talked about, the truth is exactly as the hon. Member for Bedford said: it leaves the Minister without a visible means of support in delivering the objective that he will no doubt fervently wish could be delivered under that process.
The problems and weaknesses of the Bill have been substantial, not least as regards the wilful obtuseness of the Government to do anything to make a pre-Brexit Bill—conceived when the Minister and the Government at the time assumed that Brexit would fall—fit for a post-Brexit world. They could have put it out to pre-legislative scrutiny, but they did not. They could have paused it. That was quite rightly argued for by the University and College Union, the Council for the Defence of British Universities and others, including distinguished figures across the sector and in this House, not least the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—but they did not.
It has been left to us—by us, I mean not just the Labour party, but the other opposition parties in this House and in the House of Lords—to make the arguments in this place. A concerted effort has been made by cross-Benchers, Lib Dem peers, the noble Lord Hannay and the small but important group of Conservative peers, including Lord Patten, who have wrinkled their noses at, and fought ferociously against, the technocratic complexities and central dictation in the Bill. Those things risk blunting the creativity and dynamism of our HE sector, whether delivered at an old university such as Oxford or Cambridge, at the many dynamic new universities which MillionPlus celebrated at its 25th anniversary last night, or in the further education sector. I pay tribute to the Government for extending HE awarding powers to the FE sector, not least because my college, Blackpool Fylde College, will be one of the first to benefit.
The Americans have a saying that goes something like, “When you get lemons, you have to try to make lemonade,” and that is what we have all tried to do. We have tried to make a flawed Bill better fit for purpose, and to help, not hinder, the dynamism that I have talked about. We have had a decent thrash at it; without that decent thrash and the work of the House of Lords, I think it would have been a very poor Bill indeed.
Ben Howlett
You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my remarks in this debate will be short. I think all hon. Members have something else to do right now.
I have championed universities for the last six years, and I have debated with many different Members from across the House. In the last two years, it has been a great privilege to be vice-chair of the all-party group on students, together with my friend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I wish him every success, and I hope to be able to join him in continuing to represent students in Parliament after 8 June. I have 23,000 students in my constituency, spread across two universities: Bath Spa University and the University of Bath. Both universities have a large complement of international students, who are absolutely vital. We have had debates in this place for years about how much they contribute to our local and national economies.
I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced. The student community and the higher education sector as a whole have called for such legislation since 2011, when Lord Willetts introduced new law in this area, and I hope that this Bill will receive Royal Assent later today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for all his work on the Bill. He has been a great champion of the higher education sector and international students, and the Bill is testament to all his work.
I turn quickly to Lords amendment 156 and Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu. As has been said, it is incredibly welcome that the Minister and the Department for Education have listened to a campaign group of MPs and placed on the Higher Education Statistics Agency, or the designated body, a duty to report on the number of international students. That makes a massive difference, and it represents a significant change in the Government’s tone. I thank the Minister for listening to us and delivering that amendment.
I want to give a bit of a shout-out to Members who have made a big contribution to the campaign, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). They are great champions for their student communities and for international students. I pay tribute to Opposition colleagues who have also championed that case.
I am delighted that the Department for Education has produced the amendment. If the outcome of the election on 8 June is favourable, I guarantee not only to the Government but to my constituents that I will continue—in collaboration with Universities UK, the Russell Group and MillionPlus—to make the case for taking international students out of the overall immigration figures. It is very peculiar that they are still included. If I am around after 8 June, as I hope to be, I will make such representations along with colleagues. I hope that they will all be re-elected, too, so that we can make this final carve-out in the interests of my constituents, students, international students and the UK’s reputation overseas. I wish everybody a huge amount of luck in the forthcoming general election.
Joseph Johnson
With the leave of the House, I wish to say a few words of thanks to Members and others for their contribution to the development of the Bill and, most pertinently for this afternoon’s purposes, for the insightful points made during this debate. We have heard agreement that the Bill is an important one that has been carefully developed through dialogue on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in the other place, as well as through the extensive consultations dating back to the initial Green Paper in November 2015. It has benefited tremendously from thoughtful input from experts, reviews and independent reports. It was introduced right at the beginning of this parliamentary Session—perhaps even on its very first day—and it will still be going strong on its last day, so it is fair to say that no opportunity to scrutinise it has been missed. I am pleased that both sides of the House recognise that today’s amendments will strengthen the legislation still further.
I shall address briefly some of the questions asked during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about the role of the independent review with respect to the TEF. The independent reviewer will consider the devolved Administration providers as part of the review. The Bill will allow the devolved Administrations to continue to decide whether they wish to allow their providers to participate. She also asked about UKRI’s executive committee. As UKRI is established, we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. I can confirm that we amended the Bill on Report to require the Secretary of State to have regard to experience of working in the devolved Administrations when appointing the UKRI board. The executive committee is, though, an internal management committee for UKRI.
The hon. Lady also asked about post-study work for international students, a subject on which many Members focused. I reiterate that there is no limit to the number of international students graduating from UK universities who can move into skilled jobs in the UK. They do not count against the tier-2 limit and, actually, numbers have been rising year on year for the past three years.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked about the transfer of ownership of degree-awarding powers. The answer is that, yes, should a provider with no track record buy a provider with degree-awarding powers, a full review of the provider’s continuing eligibility for degree-awarding powers would be undertaken.
I thank the Members who have given such time and so much energy during the many hours of debate we have had. I particularly thank the members of the public Bill Committee, which sat in the autumn, and pay tribute to the Opposition Members involved, especially the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden).
Gordon Marsden
The Minister will recognise that on such occasions certain things have to be said, and said forcefully, but I put on record how courteous he has been to me and the rest of our team.
Joseph Johnson
I am grateful for that. It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, including the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I also pay tribute to the devolved Administrations who have played a full part in the scrutiny of this Bill, especially the members of the Scottish National party, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North West who has been tireless in her scrutiny of the measures.
The other place has excelled itself, with extensive and very thoughtful debate on this legislation. I thank all those who have given their time and energy to this Bill, including the very large number of highly distinguished academics, former Ministers and those who have extensive experience of the university and research sectors in the other place. Their passion for the sector has been clear to all those who have followed these proceedings.
I also add my thanks to those more widely in the sector, including the two main representative bodies, Universities UK and GuildHE, which have given their time in abundance to ensure that the sector’s views have been fully heard and understood and reflected in this legislation. That explains why they have repeatedly expressed their support for passing this Bill into legislation.
There is absolute agreement on the importance of our world class HE sector and our globally leading research. I am pleased that we in this House have agreed a Bill that finally fits this important sector for the 21st century, putting students, choice, value for money and global competitiveness centre stage.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (d) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendments 2 to 11 agreed to.
Lords amendments 12, 209 and 210 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (g) made in lieu of Lords amendments 12, 209 and 210.
Lords amendments 13 and 14 agreed to.
Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 15.
Lords amendments 16 to 22 agreed to.
Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 23.
Lords amendments 24 to 70 agreed to.
Lords amendment 71 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 71.
Lords amendments 72 to 77 agreed to.
Lords amendments 78 and 106 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (h) made in lieu of Lords amendments 78 and 106.
Lords amendments 79 to 105 and 107 to 155 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 138 and 139.
Lords amendment 156 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 156.
Lords amendments 157 to 182 agreed to.
Lords amendments 183 to 185 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 186 to 208 and 211 to 244 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 183 to 185.
That Jo Churchill, Chris Heaton-Harris, Joseph Johnson, Gordon Marsden, Carol Monaghan, Wendy Morton and Karl Turner be members of the Committee.
That Joseph Johnson be the Chair of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Gordon Marsden ExcerptsMonday 21st November 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 November 2016 - (21 Nov 2016)
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I apologise to members of the Public Bill Committee: I did not make the cut, so they have the advantage over me, but I assure them that I read the entire transcript, cover to cover, in one fell swoop—and riveting reading it was.
New clauses 9 and 12 deal with overseas students. The Minister tried to suggest that they would widen the scope of the Bill, but the new clauses, like Labour’s amendments, are in order, and we get very few opportunities to talk about this issue. The key point is that overseas students are very much part of the viability of the university sector, and if the Bill is about anything, it is about the viability of the university sector. We are in a brave new world, post-Brexit, and universities clearly wanted a very different outcome. I have been to many events where the Minister has tried, valiantly, to reassure a traumatised sector. It is easy to see why the sector needs reassuring: the loss of good students; the loss of opportunities for UK students; and the severe outcomes for the research sector. I recently polled a range of vice-chancellors and found that 86% of them thought that the impact of Brexit on their research programmes would be severe. The impacts are financial, cultural and academic—in the sense that it could lead to the collapse of undergraduate courses—and the impact on the research conducted by universities will be profound.
Some things are certainly true—the Minister repeats them from time to time—and nothing changes in the short term. As other Ministers have said to me, we had international students before we were ever in the EU and when Erasmus was thought to be a Dutch humanist, rather than an EU programme, but EU membership makes it a whole lot easier for British universities, and there has been a big increase in their number for as long as we have been in the EU. There is a case for following the numbers, therefore, and that is all new clause 9 endeavours to do. Numbers affect viability, and if the OFS does not do it on an independent basis, who will?
New clause 12 deals with something equally worrying, and something alluded to by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield): nonsensically, we include student numbers in net immigration stats, but the Government—certainly in the form of the Minister—welcome international students. I have heard him on many occasions, at many events, say how welcoming we are supposed to be to international students. As has been established through polling, the public also welcome international students, even when worried, at the same time, about immigration in general. Including them in the net immigration statistics, therefore, is clearly a nonsense.
What really worries the Government is when higher education is used as a stepping stone to employment and residence. This clearly bothers the Home Office. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central has already talked about the Home Secretary’s comments, which I found worrying, but also worrying is the suggestion from the Prime Minister’s senior adviser—regarded as her brain—that the Government’s post-qualification leave to remain should depend on whether someone qualified at a Russell Group university. This is obviously silly because the Russell Group is essentially a self-selecting group and slightly snobbish.
Another way of doing it, as suggested in last week’s Westminster Hall debate, is to depend on the teaching excellence framework of a student’s institution. In my view, that would be sillier, because the teaching excellence framework is in its infancy and not suited to the task, because not all universities buy into it anyway and because an individual’s ability and utility cannot be predicated simply on the institution he or she attends. Few of us would like to be judged by the quality of the teaching we have received. Actually, surviving poor teaching is a considerable and entirely marketable skill; it is slightly easier to profit from good teaching. There are good and valuable courses in institutions that may well pan out with a poor teaching excellence framework in general. This will clearly affect the ability of some institutions to attract overseas students, and valuable courses will collapse as a result—certainly many valuable courses in the capital. Further, if overseas applicants concentrate their applications on universities with good TEFs, it could make it more difficult for UK students to access them. Universities might, in despair, simply shun the TEF if it is used for those purposes.
The list goes on. Welding together Home Office policy and education policy seldom works, but we should clear this up. The Minister has an opportunity to do so from the Dispatch Box later, but so far the Government view and the Government take on this issue has been less than clear. That is certainly the case when it comes to the Home Office. Last week in Westminster Hall, the Home Office had an opportunity to say, “Categorically, this is not going to happen,” but we do not know categorically whether it will or not.
I may not get support for my amendment, and I would be happy to support other amendments that travel in the same direction. This issue, however, will not go away because it is important to the sector.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I rise to speak to our amendments, but also to comment on others, including the Minister’s new clause 1. Let me start with that and the Minister’s other remarks to make a general observation.
Of course we welcome the move to include a student representative on the body, as has been described. I have to say, however, that it is relatively thin gruel by comparison with the range of positive amendments that would involve employees and students in respect of some of the key issues that the OFS will have to face, some of which we debated in Committee. If the Government want to calm suspicions about the OFS, they need to do more to ensure that as a body, it has sufficient powers directly defined in the Bill. I have always said that we have to work on the assumption that we will have the worst and the naughtiest Secretaries of State, not necessarily the best ones and not necessarily the best Minister with responsibility for universities. That means that we need to build things directly on the face of the Bill. We have not had the ability to do that, and it is not helpful that the ability to tease out these issues should be confined to one day’s discussion of 113 clauses and 12 schedules. Other Members who might have been able to attend today know perfectly well that many of the issues that need to be discussed will have to be dealt with in the other place.
Let me begin by speaking briefly to our amendments, particularly those relating to staff and student involvement. Amendment 37 deals with consultation regarding ongoing registration conditions. It might sound very techy, and I know that there is some consultation with bodies or informal groups representing HE staff and students at the moment. Some of the new providers that the Minister wants to see coming into the marketplace may be relatively small, and may have relatively informal groupings, so it is important that the position of their staff and students is taken into account.
Let me move on to amendments 36 and 48. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has already mentioned the latter. The Government must get into the right mind-set with HE and realise that it is not all simply about vice-chancellors, however excellent they are. It is not simply about business managers either, however excellent they are. It is about the support staff, who live in the local communities where the universities are situated; and it is also about excellent teaching, social mobility and student choice. Sometimes cleaning staff can be the first point of contact for live-in students who face isolation and need someone to talk to. The Government need a cultural step-change in the way they address these issues, and should not put some of these groups in as an afterthought. We believe that these modest amendments would take us down that route.
In Committee, we talked a great deal about the whole issue of social mobility. The Minister waxed lyrical on the subject—genuinely, I believe—but those who want to walk the walk must do something about putting the beef on to the talk. That is why we tabled amendment 38, which
“would make access and participation plans mandatory for all higher education providers.”
The Government have plenty of angles on the Bill, but two that are raised continually are competition and consumers’ rights. In fact, competition must go hand in hand with consumers’ rights. I am perfectly happy for the pool of new providers to be expanded—I spent 20 years working for an organisation, the Open University, which was once a new provider—but I am anxious to ensure that, if there is to be a competitive market, providers bring to the table a proper sense of the responsibilities that they will have to meet. That is why it is so important to ensure that an access and participation plan is at the heart of what the new providers do. There may be circumstances in which the numbers that that produces are relatively modest, but if the Government want the process to go ahead, providers must accept those responsibilities.
It is in the same spirit of inclusion that we tabled amendment 39, which
“would include the number of people with disabilities and care leavers, as well as the age of applicants, in the published number of applications.”
A number of Members have emphasised the importance of the issue of mature and older students, and indeed part-time students, about which I shall say more when I talk about new clause 15. Amendment 39 demonstrates that emphasis. If we want to have realistic expectations of where those groups are going and know what the Government need to do—and this has already been raised by several Members in the context of international students—we must have that evidence, and the amendment stresses the need to broaden the parameters.
New clause 4, which would establish a “Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title”, is actually modelled on provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which we want to passport into this Bill. The Government, rather curiously, do not want such a committee, although one might have thought that they would welcome a backstop. After all, we know that Ministers are bedding down, inevitably slowly, in a new Department with further and higher education responsibilities. Again, the Government cannot be surprised if people think that they want as little outside scrutiny of the new providers as possible.
New clause 4—which, I might point out to the Minister, is supported by all the university groups that have spoken to us—was tabled because, as the Bill stands, the OFS could revoke degree-awarding powers or university title without consulting a committee. The current arrangements for conferring degree-awarding powers require HEFCE to seek the advice of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education—the Minister made great play of that—but it is vital for the OFS to seek advice from a designated quality body prior to any conferring of degree-awarding powers and/or university title.
Amendments 40 and 41 are designed to underline points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) in a hugely important intervention about her own amendment 58. We need to shine a light on and distinguish between broad-based new providers and those that could go for opportunist, fast-buck courses, or those that are inefficiently structured or financed to do the things that my hon. Friend talked about. As she and others have said, there is huge concern in the HE sector about single-course universities. What has not been mentioned much—we talked about it in Committee—is the huge amount of public money that will go into those new providers, providing they jump through the hoops that the Government are putting in front of them. We contend that those hoops are inadequate. Because of that, we want to press the matter further. Amendment 40 requires the OFS to be assured about the maintenance of standards, students and the public interest before issuing authorisation to grant a degree. That is important. I give notice that we will press amendment 40 to a vote. Whatever the outcome, I assure the Minister that the issue is unlikely to go away and that he and his team will face further questions on it after the matter goes to the other place.
Gordon Marsden
I entirely accept the Minister’s bona fides and commitments on this issue, but is it true that Home Office officials accompanying the Prime Minister on her visit to India were openly talking to people about using the bronze element of the TEF as a way of reducing the migration numbers for students?
Joseph Johnson
The visit to India, which I was honoured to be part of, was a big success in that it gave us numerous opportunities to reiterate our strong message that we welcome genuine students. There is no limit on the number of genuine students who can come and study at our world-class institutions, and there is no better place than the UK to receive a higher education. We want to see more such students coming to study here.
Joseph Johnson
I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the consultation document. She will be able to assess the Government’s proposals in due course when the Home Office is ready to publish them.
Amendments 46 and 47 would require greater parliamentary scrutiny of the TEF, but I do not believe that the content of the amendments is either necessary or proportionate. As I have said, the development of the TEF has been, and will continue to be, an iterative process—as the research excellence framework was before it. Requiring Parliament to agree each and every change to the framework would stifle its healthy development. The REF scheme is not subject to that level of oversight by Parliament, and nor should it be.
Hon. Members have talked about the “gold”, “silver” and “bronze” descriptors as though they were new inventions from this Government. They are in fact familiar to the sector through their use in other areas. Such terminology is already used, for example, in the Athena SWAN awards and by Investors in People in many universities. In every case, bronze is still recognised as a high-quality award, while gold is reserved for the highest quality.
Amendment 49 would not add any value to the TEF framework that we have developed. Changing the TEF ratings would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students from being able to determine which providers were offering the best teaching and achieving the best outcomes. It would simply allow for a pass/fail assessment. The teaching excellence framework assesses excellence over and above a baseline assessment of quality, and our proposed descriptors will allow students, parents, schools and employers to distinguish clearly between providers. We have consulted on the proposed metrics and considered the evidence, and we still feel that these metrics represent the best measurements for assessing teaching. They are widely used across the sector.
Turning to amendment 50, we have consulted extensively on the metrics, as I have said, and made significant improvements. Setting out the requirement to consult in legislation would be unnecessarily burdensome. We have taken, and will continue to take, a reasoned approach to the metrics. Given the co-regulatory approach I have described, we would expect the OFS to take a similar approach.
I shall now address the points made on degree-awarding powers and university title. Let me be clear that only those providers that can prove they can meet the high standards associated with the values and reputation of the English HE system can obtain degree awarding powers. If a higher education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier for them to start awarding their own degrees, rather than needing to have the degrees for their courses awarded by a competing incumbent. Maddalaine Ansell, the chief executive of the University Alliance, has said:
“These plans strike a healthy balance between protecting the quality and global reputation of our country’s universities, whilst also encouraging innovation.”
Gordon Marsden
The Minister might wish to comment specifically on new clause 4, but will he tell us why the Government are so reluctant to allow a process that has served the HE sector well since 1992 to be read across into the new arrangements for the OFS? I refer to the degree-awarding powers committee proposed in the new clause.
Joseph Johnson
We plan to put out guidance in the coming months. The hon. Lady will be the first to receive it when it is ready.
Turning to amendment 58, we are absolutely committed to protecting the quality and reputation of our universities. We are not changing the core concept of what a university is and are not planning any wide-ranging changes to the criteria for university title. As now, we want only those providers with full degree-awarding powers to be eligible. Students make the choice where to study based on many factors—not only the qualification they will receive, but the cultural and social opportunities—and one size does not fit all. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education providers are best placed to decide what experiences they want to offer to students and the local community. Like now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title in guidance, not in legislation. We plan to consult on the detail prior to publication.
Several interesting points have been made in the debate on this group of amendments. Let me conclude by thanking hon. Members for their responses to the amendments that we have brought forward to enshrine the OFS’s duty to monitor and report on financial sustainability, to ensure there is always an OFS board member to represent or promote the student interest, to promote institutional autonomy further, and to compel providers to publish student protection plans.
Gordon Marsden
I think the Minister is coming to his peroration, so I just wondered whether he will be able to make any comment on new clause 15 and lifelong learning.
Joseph Johnson
I touched on that at the start of my remarks. The Opposition proposed a commission for lifelong learning in new clause 15. The Government are obviously strongly committed to lifelong education, in which the Secretary of State and I have taken a close interest. Studying part-time and later in life brings enormous benefits for individuals, employers and the general economy. Alongside our higher education reforms, we are reforming further education, including implementing the skills plan that was published earlier this year and through the recent introduction of the Technical and Further Education Bill, which had its Second Reading last week.
As the hon. Member for Blackpool South is well aware, the Government committed in the last Budget to review the gaps and support for lifetime learning, including part-time flexible study. That review is ongoing. Higher education already offers flexible options for the thousands of mature students who want to study each year. In addition, much work is under way to expand access to lifelong learning through a variety of routes to suit learners. I am confident that those reforms, like others in the Bill, will continue to have a positive impact on learning—lifelong or otherwise.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Student support: restricted modification of repayment terms
“(1) Section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (power to give financial support to students) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In subsection (2)(g) at the beginning insert ‘Subject to subsections (3)(A) and (3)(B),’.
(3) In subsection (2)(g) leave out from ‘section’ to the end of subsection (2)(g).
(4) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Other than in accordance with subsection (3B), no provision may be made under subsection (2)(g) relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section once the parties to that loan (including the borrower) have agreed the terms and conditions of repayment, including during—
(a) the period of enrolment on a course specified under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), and
(b) the period of repayment.
(3B) Any modification to any requirement or other provision relating to the repayment of a loan made available under this section and during the periods specified in subsection (3A) shall only be made if approved by an independent panel.
(3C) The independent panel shall approve modifications under subsection (3B) if such modifications meet conditions to be determined by the panel.
(3D) The approval conditions under subsection (3C) must include that—
(a) the modification is subject to consultation with representatives of the borrowers,
(b) the majority of the representative group consider the modification to be favourable to the majority of students and graduates who have entered loans, and
(c) there is evidence that those on low incomes will be protected.
(3E) The independent panel shall consist of three people appointed by the Secretary of State, who (between them) must have experience of—
(a) consumer protection,
(b) loan modification and mediation,
(c) the higher education sector, and
(d) student finance.’”—(Wes Streeting.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Pugh
I rise to add a brief footnote to new clause 10, which is in my name, and to say things that other people in the room possibly cannot say.
Liberal Democrats hesitate, for some reason, to talk about university fees. I have no particular embarrassment—I voted against top-up fees under Labour, and I voted against the increases under the coalition. In both cases, though, I made dire predictions about take-up, which certainly were not fulfilled, and take-up in both cases carried on. Unfortunately, I was right in my predictions about the political consequences of breaking our contract with the electorate. I believe we were tricked into that by a very clever Chancellor, and there was very little saving in the end to the Exchequer, contrary to what some of my colleagues supposed at the time.
It was a painful process, and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who introduced this section of the debate, pointed out that it involved a certain number of 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; there has been a one-sided redefinition of the terms of the loan. In any other context, as Martin Lewis quite correctly said, that 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, very small indeed.
New clause 10 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—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this briefly—the lack of trust, which is absolutely crucial. That, surely, is the way to go.
Gordon Marsden
I rise to speak to Labour’s new clause 5, which would revoke the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which moved support for students from a system of maintenance grants to loans. I also rise to speak to Labour’s new clause 6, which follows on from the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on new clauses 2 and 3.
At a time when the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission reported only last week that our nation is facing a crisis in social mobility, it is a travesty that I have to stand here today to talk about the problems caused by scrapping maintenance grants and replacing them with a further loan, disproportionately affecting students who come from a low-income background. As this House knows, students in the UK already face the highest levels of student debt in any European country. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that the average student in the UK will leave university saddled with £44,000-worth of debt, and the Sutton Trust has suggested that the figure could go even higher. This figure is only the average; for students from low-income backgrounds, it will be much higher, and these changes will make it higher still.
Labour Members have pledged to bring back the maintenance grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in the Bill Committee and recently at the Labour party’s north-west conference, gave powerful testimony as to why that is. It is not just because we cannot afford to lose these people from our economic process, or just because it will help to aid social mobility generally; it is because by doing so we will empower hundreds of thousands of people who will otherwise lose their life chances, or be in danger of that, under this process. There were half a million students in the last year before the Government scrapped the grant, many of whom were in higher education in further education colleges. If a significant number of those students do not take out loans because, for a variety of reasons, they do not wish to do so or are unable to do so, we will increase still further the progressive weakening that this Government have put on to the higher education and FE sector, which is currently servicing some 34,000 students who got the grant in the last year before the Government scrapped it, including a significant number of people in my own constituency pursuing higher education at the excellent Blackpool and The Fylde College.
The Government—I give credit to them for it—have put into the Bill the ability for FE colleges to have their own degree-awarding powers, and Blackpool and The Fylde College is one of those, but it is rather perverse then to introduce something that will weaken the support for such colleges. The Government seem not to think in holistic terms about further education. Taking people in higher education in further education colleges out of the equation will weaken the economic and social base of those colleges. The Government do not give anywhere near enough attention to that.
Jo Churchill
Will the hon. Gentleman allude to how Labour intends to pay for all these benefits, because I think I am right in saying that it was to be via corporation tax?
Gordon Marsden
The hon. Lady must be a mind reader because I am just coming to on that issue.
Bringing back the maintenance grant would help to enable over half a million students from low and middle-income backgrounds to go on to higher education. Rumour has it that in the autumn statement this coming Wednesday, the Chancellor is set to announce a further cut in corporation tax, helping only those at the top. We are asking the Government to reconsider this position. Our policy, which has been costed, of bringing back grants would be the equivalent of a rise of less than 1% in corporation tax. Do the Government not believe that this rise would be more beneficial to our nation as a whole—
Gordon Marsden
No, I will not—the hon. Lady has had one go. Let me proceed because we do not have a lot of time.
Do the Government not believe that that rise would be more beneficial to our nation as a whole than pushing ahead with a policy that benefits only a relatively small number of large corporations, and not even a big range? If the Government are serious about supporting social mobility, they need to do something about it. The Minister, in a rather Panglossian way, went on about all the terrible things that were predicted when loans were introduced not having come to pass, but that is actually not true, or certainly not true across the board. We have seen what a disaster the introduction of advanced learning loans for level 3 was for over-24-year-olds. Only 50% of the £300 million that was allocated for them was taken up, and that money has been sent straight back to the Treasury. Now, unabashed, the Government want to serve up the same recipe to 19 to 24-year-olds.
“Nudge” has been a fashionable word in the Conservative party in recent years—indeed, Lord Willetts wrote quite a lot about it—but it is possible to nudge people away from things as well as towards them. As the Minister well knows, the quality impact assessment on grants and loans let the cat out of the bag on the difficulties that would be faced by all the groups who desperately need access to higher education, such as women, disabled people, people from the black and minority ethnic communities, and care leavers. No wonder Ministers were so keen to bury this issue in a Delegated Legislation Committee. It took our efforts in bringing it to an Opposition day debate at the beginning of the year to have a decent debate on it.
The Government need to think again on this. I give notice that we will press our new clause 5 to a vote.
Jo Churchill
How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that covering the figure of £12 billion would mean a rise in corporation tax of between 4% and 5% rather than the 1% that he stated? Surely we need business and industry to be making money in order to create the jobs and opportunities for students once they leave education.
Gordon Marsden
That was a hell of a lot more than two seconds, but I forgive the hon. Lady. We need to look at this issue in the context of our proposal, to which I have already alluded.
New clause 6 deals with yet another regressive policy that has been highlighted during the passage of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North spoke about some of the significant issues in this regard. The students affected will end up having to pay more than they were loaned as a greater proportion of their income. To those who have, more will be given, because they can pay their loans back more speedily; from those who have not, more will be taken. The Government seem to have been disregarding in their education policy the fact that there is a regional and demographic dimension to this as well. Constituents of mine taking up a graduate job in the past 12 months will have had a more reasonable ability to hit a threshold that was supposed to be uprated on a regular basis. Students in parts of the country where starting incomes for graduates are much lower than in London and the south-east will be particularly badly hit by this proposal.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation he describes particularly hits students in places like Northern Ireland where starting salaries are much lower? Does he also accept that the Minister’s point about the affordability of this is a red herring, because when the loans were sold to students, surely the cost of raising the thresholds was taken into consideration? The Government cannot now go back and say, “We want to rewrite the rules.”
Gordon Marsden
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he is to make that point about the situation for students in Northern Ireland. When we discussed this matter in the Opposition day debate and again in Committee, we made the point that students in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—the students of all of the devolved Administrations—would be affected by this process. It is nonsense for the Government to say that this will not make any difference. The Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) that the RAB charge was now okay, but as my hon. Friend said, it is only okay because this Government—the Minister and the rest of his colleagues—have created a Frankenstein’s monster that is going to cause problems for so many thousands of students.
Joseph Johnson
We as a Government can only reiterate that we fully appreciate and value their presence in our institutions. We welcome them and think their work crucial, and we want them to stay and to continue doing that work. We cannot be more categorical than that.
On amendments 43, 44, 45, 57 and 59, I absolutely agree that co-operation between the OFS and UKRI is critical. Clauses 105 and 106 provide for this. It is counterproductive, however, either to restrict the areas or to be too prescriptive about how and where UKRI and the OFS should work together through legislation as required by these amendments. We have recently set out in a factsheet published on 15 November further details of where we expect both bodies to work together. One key area explained in the factsheet where we believe that the OFS and UKRI should work in close co-operation is in the assessment of applications for research degree awarding powers. The provisions in the Bill will facilitate this.
Another important area of joint working between UKRI and the OFS is postgraduate training. In turning, therefore, to amendment 17, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for raising this important issue in Committee. While the functions of UKRI, as drafted in the Bill, do enable this, the Government have tabled the amendment to provide absolute clarity that UKRI will continue to support postgraduate training. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has proposed an amendment to our amendment to ensure that it includes “social sciences”. I can assure her that this is already the case, because clause 104 ensures that all references to science or the humanities include social science and the arts. Our support for postgraduate training will be across the spectrum of disciplines. The OFS will be responsible for protecting the interests of all students, including all postgraduate students. The two bodies will work together and share understanding to support their respective functions, and the Bill makes clear provision for this.
I hope that hon. Members recognise the considerable progress made in ensuring that the Bill meets the needs of the research and innovation communities. I believe that UKRI will catalyse a more strategic, agile and interdisciplinary approach to addressing global challenges and developing the UK’s research and innovation capability. This is fundamental to strengthening UK competitiveness as part of the new industrial strategy. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Gordon Marsden
Our amendments 43 to 45 are on collaboration between the OFS and UKRI. I will come to those and the Minister’s comments on them in a moment, but shall start with amendment 42.
Amendment 42 would allow Research England to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. Labour considers this an important principle to establish in the Bill. The Committee did not include members from Wales or, obviously, from Northern Ireland, yet, in both Wales and Northern Ireland, universities and higher education institutions will be significantly affected by the process. They will also be affected if the process with the new bodies is not universally seen, at this important time for our university system, to be fair in sharing out its attentions. Not to consider including such provisions in the Bill is a great mistake. Surely we should consider those interests when setting up a new research body.
This is highly relevant to the future of those research bodies. The Minister will be well aware that research bodies are generally still not entirely mollified by the various blandishments and reassurances given, particularly on the role of research councils. I am sure he will hear more about that when the Bill goes to the other place. While we have not pressed further any of the amendments that were proposed in Committee, because of time pressures, I assure him that our noble Friends in another place will want to scrutinise in detail what he has said and what he is planning to do.
These are not arcane arguments about technical details. One of the problems the Government face is that they have overlooked a vital factor. There is little sense of what the knock-on effects of all this will be on the importance of what I describe as the brand UK plc in HE—particularly so, in view of the further uncertainties that have arisen since the advent of Brexit. I am not the only person to make that observation; other commentators and academics have also done so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On the subject of Northern Ireland, the Minister will know that Queen’s University Belfast has an extensive partnership with companies and other universities across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we are all proud to be British in relation to that. With that in mind, I am wondering what consideration the hon. Gentleman feels this Government should give to Queen’s University, particularly for its innovative medical investigations to find new cures for cancer, diabetes, chest, heart and stroke illnesses and such like?
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It would, of course, be invidious for me to single out Queen’s University over and above others—if I did, my postbag would no doubt be full—but he is absolutely right to champion what it is doing. There is an important point, which I am not sure the Government have entirely grasped. The research done at Queen’s and other universities and HE institutions under the devolved Administrations does not depend only on whether the Government get a good Brexit settlement with the European Union; it depends on maintaining the trust and support of those EU nations that we will rely on to get that sort of investment for clinical trials. For example, a lot of charities—the Minister will be aware of this because they made representations to his Department—particularly those relating to heart disease and cancer, are concerned that if we do not get a decent settlement, the problems of getting field trials in Francophone Africa or Lusophone South America will become more and more complicated because we rely on those researchers and the good offices of our EU counterparts in those countries. I do not think that the Government are taking anywhere near enough notice of that particular issue.
As I said, the architecture is complex, and it is crucial to get it right. Although the Minister may think that some of these amendments are nit-picking and do not need to be on the face of the Bill, as I said to him throughout our discussions in Committee, I think he neglects the importance of sending a signal to the devolved Administrations and others that their interests are going to be represented. That is why these amendments were tabled.
Our amendments 43, 44 and 45 would ensure that there is co-operation and information sharing between the OFS and UKRI. The Minister obviously knows that UKRI and Innovate UK have historically done different things. Again, he is at pains to try to reassure us that all we will get under the new structure is the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, we sometimes end up getting the worst of both worlds. I was struck, particularly during evidence sessions in Committee, by the fact that certain concerns remain—amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), is also relevant here. The chief executive of Innovate UK outlined his concerns in Committee about whether Innovate UK and the Department that supports it will be sufficiently fleet of foot to do the sort of innovative things in finance and everything else that they have so far been very good at. This is not to say that the architecture cannot work; it is just saying that the Minister and his officials need to think rather harder about the how the process will go forward.
There is also, of course, the broader issue in part 3 that the process of separating teaching and research—and in this context, the Research England body is relevant—will mean that issues and activities at the interface of teaching and research, such as the health of disciplines, the awarding of research degrees, post-grad training and sharing of facilities, might not be effectively identified and supported.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will appreciate that a number of institutions are concerned—I suspect he was about to make this point—about this gap between teaching and research. I was quite surprised when my University of Cambridge told me that 89% of people who are involved in teaching at the university are also involved in research. That integration between the two is absolutely essential, yet it seems to be what is missing in some people’s eyes from the Bill. I believe that this is the force of the amendment that my hon. Friend is proposing.
Gordon Marsden
I was going to say that my hon. Friend, as the MP for Cambridge, is at the cutting-edge, or certainly at the coal face, of this particular issue. I know it is important to Cambridge University and indeed to Oxford University, whose vice-chancellor has expressed similar concerns. This is not the Minister’s fault, but it is unfortunate that at the time this comes through, we will have had the machinery of government changes in terms of the Department for Education and the new expanded Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Time alone will tell what the benefits of that are—I think there might be a number of them—but there could be problems in the short term. With the best will in the world, that bedding-down process between the two Departments—I know the Minister has a foot in both camps, so I hope he will be able to help—is going to be a real concern.
We have talked about the OFS and UKRI co-operating on the health of disciplines and so on. Our amendment proposes a mechanism by which this collaboration could be achieved. The Royal Society, as I am sure the Minister is aware, has suggested that a committee on teaching and research should be established. The Wellcome institute, with which I am sure Members are familiar, has also offered its thoughts. Teaching and research are intrinsically linked, but that intrinsic link would be lost from higher education if the bond between them were broken.
Clause 105 sets out the interactions between the OFS and UKRI, but we wanted to strengthen that co-operation by replacing the word “may”—no disrespect to the Prime Minister—with “must”. In parliamentary and governmental terms, “must” is a great deal more useful than “may”. The Royal Society of Chemistry has said:
“In many HE Institutions we see positive interactions between teaching and research responsibilities…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.”
No one is suggesting that that would be done deliberately, but it could happen. The society has also said:
“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 fellow members of the Committee, to make similar points.
The Minister referred to the guidance paper that he has issued. I thank him for that paper, which provides some further clarity, but it has come very late in the day. I wonder whether it was issued with an eye to the passing interest in the other place, to which the Bill is shortly to be committed, rather than with the aim of keeping us happy down here, but it is useful nevertheless. At the end of the day, however, it still does not establish an obligation or mechanism for co-operation; that is left to the whim of an individual Secretary of State or universities Minister.
As I have said, the issue is made more pressing by the new machinery of government structure and the responsibilities shared by the two Departments. Who knows what will happen in the future? The Minister may be looking forward to a long period as the universities Minister, but at some point, no doubt, he will go onward and upward, and there is no guarantee that his successor, in this or any future Government, will also share responsibilities with BEIS.
For all those reasons, we are suggesting that the Bill be amended to provide that the OFS and UKRI must co-operate without having to be required to do so by the Secretary of State. If SNP Members choose to press their amendments, we will support them.
Gordon Marsden
I associate myself with the Minister’s thanks to all who have contributed to the Bill, most especially to my hon. Friends who served in such a sterling fashion on the Public Bill Committee. We have also had a huge number of responses, as the Minister said, from the university sector and indeed other sectors, which underlines the importance of getting a Bill such as this one right.
The Minister said, no doubt feeling released from the scrutiny of this House, that we were escaping a bygone era, but more than once during the previous course of the Bill and again this afternoon, I got a sense of 20th-century déjà vu in respect of a naive belief in unproven and unregulated competition. It seemed that nothing had changed since 23 June, whereas of course, everything has changed.
The aspect that we criticised most as the Bill was taken forward is that we have seen no sense of adjusting to the realities of Brexit, and no indication that it might have been sensible to have paused and reflected on what structural change, particularly regarding the new providers, might do for our higher education sector—not just in England, but across the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Government could have given pre-legislative scrutiny to this Bill; but they did not. They could have conceded, frankly, far more than they did in Committee. SNP Members as well as Labour Members put forward positive suggestions, but very few of them were taken into account. I welcome what the Minister said about students, but to be honest, I have to say to the Minister that this is a pretty poor start at this stage.
What is happening? The Government are not looking beyond Horizon 2020; they are not looking beyond the European structural and investment funding, and the £2 million that the Minister trumpeted today for the industrial strategy will not go too far in dealing with the immense problems we are going to have to face out of Brexit. Too often, when the Government had the opportunity to reach out in Committee, we got civil service boilerplate.
I went back and looked at what I said on Second Reading, and to be honest, I cannot see much of a need to change what I said then. I said:
“Instead of looking at urgently needed and constructive ways of reducing the financial fees burden on our students, the Government have produced mechanisms which dodge Parliament’s ability to judge and regulate them.”
We have talked about that again today. I continued:
“Instead of strengthening and shoring up our universities and higher and further education at a most critical time, they risk seriously undermining them by obsessively pursuing a market ideology. Instead of presenting analysis in the wake of Brexit, offering relief, assurances and strategies to safeguard both research excellence in our traditional and modern universities and the involvement of higher education in the local communities and economies that they serve, the Government have presented no answers to the urgent threats”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 728.]
As a result, as I indicated this afternoon, the Government have managed to alienate diverse groups of people. In the process, they have treated lightly in the Bill issues such as academic autonomy. They have missed opportunities to be forward thinking.
I have already mentioned the throwback to the 20th century in the naive way in which the Minister seemed to believe in terms such as competition. If I did not know the Minister better, I might have thought that he was a disciple of Ayn Rand and wanted to go back to the 1950s. Nowhere in the Bill are there adequate protections for students or for existing institutions. The Bill does nothing to support them in that way. In the process, as I have said, the Government have tried to do everything to avoid scrutiny of their new institutions by the House in the future. That will come back to bite them when the first of these innovations goes wrong.
We did manage to prise one thing out of the Minister in Committee. We expressed concern about rogue providers, and asked who would bear the costs of the OFS. We obtained some snapshots from a technical paper which showed that, increasingly, the costs would be covered by higher education providers; and who will provide the money for the HE providers? The students: the same students who have been double-crossed over the threshold by the Government—the same Government who have jeopardised the life chances of tens of thousands of young people by scrapping maintenance grants and replacing them with loans which they may or may not take up, and the same Government who have moved too slowly, too feebly, to address issues of reskilling and higher education which affect people throughout their lives and which we have done our best to bring to the fore in this Bill.
The Government have done too little, too late. I would have genuinely liked to come to the House today and say that we were satisfied with what the Minister had said and with the changes that he had made, but I am afraid that we cannot be satisfied at this stage. The Government have left an enormous number of question marks for the other place, which must carry out due diligence. I believe that the other place will do that, but the Bill, as it stands, represents a lost opportunity. It has failed in its overarching aims for social mobility, and that is why, with regret, we cannot support it and will vote against Third Reading tonight.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 334, in clause 103, page 59, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI.
Amendment 333, in clause 103, page 59, line 12, after “functions” insert—
“(1A) The OfS and UKRI must cooperate with one another on—
(a) the health of disciplines,
(b) awarding of research degrees,
(c) post-graduate training,
(d) shared facilities,
(e) knowledge exchange and
(f) skills development”.
This amendment sets out where UKRI and the OfS must cooperate on issues at the interface between teaching and research.
Amendment 335, in clause 103, page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between OfS and UKRI.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 332, in schedule 9, page 97, line 1, leave out
“except with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
This amendment seeks to understand how UKRI will work with the private sector.
This is, again, a probing amendment. We are genuinely trying, along with people in the scientific community and associated areas, to understand the extent to which UKRI will work with the private sector. The Minister is keen on the private sector. We are keen on the private sector and believe it has a very important role to play. The way in which research councils can currently enter into contracts to conduct spin-out activity and form companies—MRC Technology is one example that has been cited—is extremely valuable to research and innovation.
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
I beg to move amendment 314, in clause 84, page 51, line 39, after “Secretary of State” insert “following consultation”.
This amendment would ensure there will be a process of consultation before any changes are made to the Councils of UKRI.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 323, in clause 87, page 53, line 36, after “State” insert “following consultation”.
This amendment would ensure there was a process of consultation before any changes are made to 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.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for introducing that reflection. I agree with him. We are not saying that UKRI is likely to be an impediment to that process. For what it is worth, I entirely agree with the points the Minister has made; my concern—shared by the Royal Society and others—is that the Bill will need both to stand the test of time and to work well in its first years because of the post-Brexit complications and because there is a need for UKRI to be established as a strong, independent and credible force. With due respect, I do not see that the point that the Minister has made deflects or undercuts the points made by others, including the Royal Society.
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?
Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
Roger Mullin
What a pleasure it is to see you, Mr Hanson —my favourite Chair—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—for a Tuesday afternoon.
The Minister is such a reasonable person that I am sure he is keen to accept amendments 180 to 185. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State that in giving direction to UK Research and Innovation regarding research priorities, it is incumbent upon UKRI and the Government to ensure that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are met and to consult with Ministers in all the devolved jurisdictions.
The Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Governments must have a formal role in providing input to the UK Government. Too often, the needs of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are forgotten. Allow me to give two examples related to the Bill—neither of which, I hasten to add, arose out of malice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I noticed a few days before oral evidence sessions were due to start that every major institution in Scotland had been omitted from the list of those being called to give evidence. I know the Minister, and I know the Whip. They are reasonable people. I know they did not exclude us out of malice, but that omission demonstrated that we were an afterthought in a Bill Committee where they knew there would be representation from Scotland. For Scotland to be treated as a mere afterthought shows the need at times to put into legislation the right to be consulted. Being an afterthought is just not good enough.
Let me give another example. Later today, we will discuss an amendment relating to post-study work visas—a matter that has been raised many times by Scottish Members in this House and by the Scottish Government as it is of great concern to us and of great importance to our economy and our universities. What happened a few short weeks ago? Suddenly, the UK Government announced a pilot that involves no university in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, nor any consultation with the Governments in the devolved Administrations. That is another example of us not being treated with any respect whatsoever. The amendment calls for formal recognition in the Bill that we will not be consigned to the role of a mere afterthought at the whim of this or any other Government.
The Scottish research sector has different priorities from much of the rest of the UK, and there is a concern that those priorities will be missed within the new UK-wide research body. For example, Scottish higher education institutions have been pioneers in research collaboration since the establishment of the first research pools in 2004. One of the key principles behind research pools was that they should support research excellence “wherever it is found”, which is sometimes in relatively small research groups in less research-intensive institutions. We are concerned that initiatives to encourage collaboration between mere institutions can sometimes exclude such pockets of excellence through, for instance, threshold criteria dependent on scale. Scotland’s higher education sector, as the Minister will know, is worth more than £6 billion to our economy, and we must ensure that that continues. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to harm Scotland’s world-renowned research.
The Minister and his Government need to ensure that devolved Administrations have an equal say and that their voices are heard within UKRI to ensure that this Bill will be of no detriment to any part of the United Kingdom. It is also critical to be able to take account of the different economic and social priorities of devolved Administrations. Mention was made of Brexit this morning—by the Minister, if memory serves me correctly—and it immediately brought to mind not the example of Scotland but that of Northern Ireland, where there are going to be particular challenges, not least in how cross-border trade, cross-border research collaboration and the movement of people will be handled. That presents a context in Northern Ireland that is not present in any other part of the United Kingdom. Its voice needs to be heard as well. Not to have proper input on these and other matters would potentially be not only disrespectful, but damaging. In Scotland our drive for innovation and growth and our highly distinct social agenda need to be factored in. I have no confidence that that will be possible without ensuring that a statutory duty is placed in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to move the amendment.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I wish to elaborate on my Scottish colleague’s comments, first by saying that you are my favourite Chair of all time, Mr Hanson, and not just for Tuesday—at least until someone else comes along and makes me a better offer.
Amendment 326 would allow Research England to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. I am very much in tune with the sentiments just expressed by the hon. Gentleman: nobody likes to be treated as an afterthought, though sometimes people are pleased just to be noticed. In these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman has put forward a powerful case. It is not a question of omission by design, we hope, but it is certainly omission by amnesia, to put it kindly. Rightly, he did not just put the case for Scotland, which he is bound to do, but referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. Those of us who can just about remember back to that steamy day of Second Reading, before the summer recess, will remember that there were representations from Northern Ireland Members on the Bill, not just about issues such as the teaching excellence framework and the future for Northern Irish students, but on some of the border issues. Since then those issues have come further to the fore.
It is a question of looking back as well as looking forward. The reality is that Research England will be inheriting, and will be challenged to perform on, the existing system. At the moment, the UK’s dual support system underpins an excellent research base. As Committee members probably know, it consists of two complementary streams: one targets specific discipline areas; the other is a block grant to institutions. Currently the former is disbursed by the seven research councils and the latter through the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its devolved counterparts, the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
As we heard this morning from the Minister, the proposed reforms will bring the seven research councils and the England-only research functions of HEFCE in the form of Research England—if the Committee has not been lost by this point, it will be shortly—into UKRI. The Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland will remain sitting outside UKRI. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath rightly pointed out, it would be helpful to probe how UKRI will work with institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in providing strategic oversight of UK research.
I say gently to the Minister that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has made it fairly clear—I support his view, and if I was a Member from one of the devolved Administrations, I would feel the same—that on this occasion simply rehearsing the line that we can be assured that UKRI will take such things into account is not going to be adequate, either practically or symbolically. If the Minister is in any doubt, since we have mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am now going to mention Wales and quote the written evidence that the Committee received from Universities Wales about three or four days ago. I refer to the section about UKRI governance and operation. Very much in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Universities Wales says:
“In the past the legislation has relied heavily on the Secretary of State and the Research Councils to act in the interests of the UK as a whole. With the increased divergence as a result of devolution, however, we question whether this will continue to be effective in appropriately reflecting devolved policy and interests. We welcome the UK Government’s proposed amendment”—
that is referred to as new clause 3, which we will come to—
“to enable joint working between relevant authorities where this is more efficient or effective. We would like the legislative framework to be strengthened, however, so that it not only facilitates joint working but ensures”—
I think there is a difference—
“that interests of devolved nations are catered for appropriately. In particular we agree with Universities Scotland that the legislation as a minimum must ensure there is appropriate representation on UKRI’s Council and on the Councils’ boards. The legislation must also include appropriate duties for UKRI and the Secretary of State not only to consult with devolved administrations but also to have due regard to devolved policy.”
That is the nub of it, and that is what we have tried to embody in amendment 326, which would give Research England the facility to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. That is the basis on which we have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
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 am grateful to the Minister for running through those scenarios in some detail, and particularly for expanding on the potential financial instruments. It is fair to say that there is nothing more that he can do at this stage. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and of course the proof of the pudding will perhaps also be demonstrated by the nature of the board that is eventually set up. With that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Exercise of functions by Research England
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.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 328, in clause 94, page 56, line 24, leave out “directions” and insert “recommendations”.
This amendment would ensure this legislation is consistent with the Haldane Principle.
The amendment would address the basis on which the Secretary of State gives directions to UKRI. The suggestion of replacing “directions” with “recommendations” has come from other parties, but we are entirely happy with it. Our intention in tabling the amendment is to tease out whether the legislation is consistent with the so-called Haldane principle. Members will be familiar with the way in which, in Parliament, revered things that have a name attached to them are constantly prayed in aid. If anyone was going to ask “Who was Haldane?”, I will tell them.
The report on which the Haldane principle is based was published in the last year of the first world war. Richard, Viscount Haldane, had a distinguished career: he was Secretary of State for War, a politician, lawyer and philosopher. Eventually he did the right thing and moved over from being a radical Liberal to being the first Lord Chancellor in the first Labour Government—we must praise him for that if for nothing else. The Haldane principle is one of those arks of the covenant in academia: it is often cited, but we need to fillet it a little, because otherwise it might just become like the so-called Schleswig-Holstein question, about which I think it was Bismarck who said that only two people understood it and one of them was dead and the other had gone mad. [Interruption.] Three people—that probably included Bismarck, of course.
Whatever the Haldane principle is, it has been understood as the principle that the Government should not interfere in decisions about the allocation of expenditure for grants. The reasons for that are fairly simple and can perhaps be seen from diverse Administrations in other parts of the world where the pork barrel principle sometimes holds sway. It is welcome that the Government have considered the Haldane principle when drafting the Bill, but it is also important that we get a little more definition. There is considerable concern outside this place, particularly because of the phraseology. The Council for the Defence of British Universities, among others, has expressed particular concerns about clauses 93 and 94:
“There is serious concern that the understanding of the Haldane Principle among Government Ministers and their advisers has been narrowed in recent years, and that this is endangering the scope for academics to exercise their own judgement as to what kinds of research should be pursued.”
It expresses further concern about clause 87’s requirement for research councils to
“have regard to the desirability of…(a) contributing to economic growth in the United Kingdom, and (b) improving quality of life”.
We have debated that and I do not intend to go into again now, but the CDBU makes the point that:
“The protection for academic freedom…that was written into the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 took the form of prohibiting the Secretary of State from placing terms and conditions on grants to HEFCE with reference to particular programmes of research—but HEFCE is about to be abolished under the new Bill. It is also unclear whether the wording in clauses 93 (2) and 94 (2) of the Bill, which is taken over from section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992…provides adequate protection for academic freedom from the effects of directions issued by the Secretary of State.”
The CDBU regards that as a reasonable basis for raising concerns.
The same is true of the Royal Society. Concerns have been expressed in the media and the society is keen to make the point that it is seeking clarification from the Government of how the Secretary of State’s proposed powers are consistent with the Haldane principle, and how the Government intend that to operate. Again, the factsheet says:
“Government is fully committed to the principle that funding decisions should be taken by experts in their relevant areas and we have ensured this is reflected in the design of UKRI.”
Our understanding is that the power to give direction is rarely invoked, but it is frequently included in legislation to allow the Government to take control in exceptional circumstances.
I have mentioned the nudge principle more than once during the passage of the Bill. We all know that the power that Governments exert over legislatures and over academics are not necessarily powers that they either have to execute or would have to execute, but the uncertainty around powers that they might have to execute often concentrates the mind of those people against, shall we say, strong, independent action, rather than towards it, so it is an important principle to tease out.
In the run-up to the passage of Bill and subsequently, there have been a number of important commentaries on that. Nick Hillman, who is the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, has already expressed concerns that the Government’s
“desire to reduce the number of arms-length bodies is being put above the importance of maintaining the independence of our research funding structures.”
The then chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who is now a ministerial colleague of the Minister in another Department, said:
“I…welcome the restatement of the Haldane principle and the Government’s intention to enshrine the dual support system into law, but bringing all funding into UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—will require a separation in practice as well as in principle if we are to preserve the excellence-based allocation on which our world-leading system is founded…We have to ensure that the structures we set in place safeguard the autonomy and the strong voices of our existing research councils while achieving the stated goal of better interdisciplinary working.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 580.]
There are voices who welcome the Government saying they will abide by the Haldane principle but who want a lot more detail at some point—hopefully we might get some today—as to how the Minister envisages that operating.
I will leave it there. I am glad to have enlightened people as to who Lord Haldane was. I hope his shade—who knows; it might be in one of the paintings down the corridor somewhere—will be looking on benignly but with a curious eye on the Minister as he attempts to explain the principle.
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.
Roger Mullin
I beg to move amendment 285, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
‘(1A) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall give a direction to UKRI to commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (1B) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before the House of Commons.
(1B) The evaluation under subsection (1A) shall consider—
(a) the effect of the absence of post study work visas for persons graduating from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom to be granted leave to remain in the UK on completion of their studies to work for up to two years for an employer on—
(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and
(ii) the UK economy, and
(b) how post study work visa arrangements, applying either broadly or to classes of students, disciplines and institutions, could operate in the UK and their effect of each on—
(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and
(ii) the UK economy.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post study work visas and how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.
I could easily spend the next two hours discussing this subject [Hon. Members: “Oh no!”]—but perhaps I will not. This is a probing amendment, but it is important none the less, particularly for Scottish representatives. It would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post-study work visas, how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.
If ever there were an issue before this Parliament that demonstrates the completely different economic and social priorities of Scotland and the rest of the UK, this is it. Historically, Scotland’s problem has been not immigration but emigration. In my own family, both my brother and sister emigrated many years ago. My brother could not find a job after graduating in the early 1960s, but by the age of 30 was secretary of the Science Council of Canada and went on to be vice-president of the International Development and Research Corporation. He wrote the first science and technology paper for the free Government in South Africa after meeting Nelson Mandela but could not find a job in his own land. He was only one of thousands of people over many generations who had to emigrate.
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
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 329, in clause 95, page 57, line 4, leave out “reasonable”.
This amendment seeks to establish what a reasonable balance between Quality Related funding and project-specific funding is and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by this legislation.
The amendment might seem perverse, but it is a mechanism to explore with the Government what a reasonable balance is between quality-related funding and project-specific funding, and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by the legislation. Again, as with the Haldane principle, which we just discussed, the Bill seeks to enshrine dual support in legislation for the first time. This is welcome; it has been welcomed by many people in the sector. This is a probing amendment to clarify how it will be protected by the legislation or, in other words, to invite the Minister to comment on what he, his officials and any others who he would expect to make judgments would expect a reasonable balance actually to look like.
The dual support system underpins our excellent research base, and I will not go into all the ways in which it is disbursed—we have dealt with that previously—but it would be helpful to understand what would be a reasonable balance between the two funding streams.
As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has asked, how will the principle operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Government’s October paper on UKRI says:
“The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider the balance between these two funding streams ensuring that the dynamic balance that stakeholders have supported is protected and preserved.”
That is an interesting phrase, “the dynamic balance”. I am not sure what I think it means, but I know that concerns have been expressed not about the enshrining of the duty in the Bill but about precisely what teeth the enshrinement will have.
Chris Hale, the director of policy at Universities UK, wrote “The Higher Education White Paper—all you need to know” in May 2016, in which he said:
“At face value we will see for the first time dual support enshrined in a legislative arrangement (to date dual support has been largely a matter of convention), but the critical question is does this go far enough? While the Secretary of State may have to consider the balance under this new duty, this provision does not necessarily secure the health and dynamism”—
that interesting phrase again—
“of dual support. This is one to watch carefully and there may be scope to strengthen this in the Bill.”
Similarly, the Council for the Defence of British Universities has said that
“while the White Paper contained an undertaking…the requirement in clause 95 of the Bill that the Secretary of State should ‘have regard to…the balanced funding principle’ appears vague”.
The CDBU refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—both Oxford constituencies are getting a mention today—and his excellent speech on Second Reading, in which he aired some of the concerns of his constituents and, if memory serves, although I stand to be corrected, the University of Oxford on how the principle will be enacted.
The Minister referred to the Stern review earlier, and the CDBU says:
“An approach to strengthening the wording in the Bill is suggested by a passage in the Stern Review of the REF…which states that, in addition to competitive grant funding, the capacity of universities to sustain excellent research depends on ‘a long-term, stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research in ways which foster its future development’. If all funding streams are administered through one body (i.e. UKRI), as currently proposed, this endangers the separate purposes of the two funding streams.”
The Minister may or may not wish to dissent from that view, which is put another way by the Royal Society in its commentary. It says:
“The ‘balanced funding principle’ is the principle that it is necessary to ensure that a reasonable balance, suitable for maintaining the long-term excellence and efficiency of the UK research base, and preserving the values, customs, partnerships and practices that have underpinned these, including allocation based on both retrospective and prospective assessment is achieved in the allocation of funding…However, we are not convinced that the ‘balanced funding principle’ as currently defined in the Bill includes sufficient content to fully embody the dual support system. The ‘balanced funding principle’ should be defined to make it clear that it entails substantial portions of research funding being allocated both via the block grant and via Research Councils. We would suggest the definition of the principle of balanced funding should be strengthened to make explicit reference to maintaining the values and customs of the research base, including a balance of retrospective and prospective assessments.”
Those sentiments and that terminology are not far away from the concerns that the CDBU expressed or, indeed, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East mentioned on Second Reading.
I would be grateful if the Minister could muse—if that is the right word—on the appropriateness of the word “reasonable” and on what it means, and give us a bit more chapter and verse on how he envisages the dual support being carried out in practice through legislation, as opposed to the statement of good intent, which we welcome.
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.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not talking about very many people at all. It is a tiny number, but the opportunity to rebuild their lives after the tragedies they have lived through is extremely important to them.
Gordon Marsden
I place on record the Opposition’s support for my hon. Friend’s proposal and for the measured and dignified way in which he introduced it. I have no doubt that he could have cited a number of other harrowing stories. Does he share my distress at the Minister simply repeating what he said about leaving people in limbo, potentially for three years? Have the Minister and his officials nothing else to suggest to assist these young people to continue their education?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. This limbo situation serves nobody. I would be happy to withdraw the new clause if the Minister could show us a different way forward that would address our concerns, but I am disappointed to hear the Government say simply that that limbo—that three-year delay, that position imposed on people simply because they have been given a technical classification of humanitarian protection rather than refugee status—is acceptable. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to suggest any movement on the issue.
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.
The Chair
On behalf of Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Christopher Chope and myself, I thank colleagues for their good humour during the Committee. I particularly thank the Clerks who have supported the Committee, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
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
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 300, in clause 67, page 40, line 44, at end insert—
“(c) bodies representing the interests of higher education staff, and”.
This amendment would ensure consultation with bodies representing higher education staff.
The amendment is a continuation of the theme on which we have previously pressed the Minister and, indeed, that we have just touched on in the much broader context of academic freedom: representing the interests of higher education staff at all levels. Regulatory frameworks may appear dry and all the rest of it, but they set the tone for how the new office for students will deal with possibly challenging, difficult and controversial situations that arise in higher education institutions—situations such as conflicts within the workforce; conflicts between the workforce and, if I may use an old-fashioned term, the management; or any one of a variety of other circumstances.
The Bill says that
“the OfS must consult…bodies representing the interests of…higher education providers”
and
“bodies representing the interests of students on higher education courses provided by…higher education providers”.
However, the Bill does not contain any requirement, in any shape or form, to consult the staff. I think that is an omission. I share the Minister’s reticence to put everything in black and white on the face of the Bill. This Bill, if I may be positive about it for a moment, is quite useful in moving away from some of the box Bills we have had in the past which conferred Henry VIII-type powers on various Ministers at various stages in the future.
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.
The Chair
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West has now returned, I should say that, after taking advice on the point of order she made, I confirm and make clear that all hon. Members can speak and vote on any part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Secretary of State’s power to give directions
Amendment made: 106, in clause 69, page 41, line 40, leave out “or” and insert “and”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, 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.
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.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I started off being a little bit concerned about this, and now I am getting quite anxious. We all want better use of data. We want the best use possible to be made of UCAS data to inform any policies on social mobility or widening access to universities and to understand what leads students to apply to one institution and not another. That is all very useful information. As the Minister said, it might also help us understand the economic benefit attached to a higher education experience. However, all the examples that he gave were easily understandable as being in the public interest, so I cannot understand why the Government will not make that more explicit on the face of the Bill. That would give a lot of reassurance to people who are very concerned about how the data might be used and for what purposes.
I do not think anybody is against more flexible use of the data or them being passed over to researchers more frequently than annually, but the point UCAS has made is that it is not resourced to do this. Its primary function is to get students admitted to university and the course they want to study. This is an add-on. If we keep adding things to the information that UCAS has to pass on, there will be a resource issue. The Government have to address that, one way or another.
The other point I would like the Minister to concentrate on is that there is already a body that covers people wanting to use these sorts of data: the Administrative Data Research Network. People have to sign up to be a member of that network and agree to protocols. I suppose my question is, why not just make it a requirement? If he does not want researchers to have to join that network, at least we would be clear about the sorts of protocols to which people would have to sign up to ensure that they use the data correctly and that there will be a clear public benefit.
We are moving to a world of greater marketisation of higher education and there is no longer any guarantee that people might request that information simply for the public benefit. In fact, it is likely that a number of bodies will want it for a whole variety of commercial reasons that might not be in the student interest at all and that might not sufficiently protect individual data and individual information. I hope the Minister will take this away and have another look to see whether sufficient safeguards are in place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I rise to speak because I think that we have a chance to right a wrong. I hope that the whole Committee will indulge me and vote for our new clauses. I will speak to new clauses 8 and 15, and support new clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14, in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Ilford North, who will I am sure speak with their usual expertise and eloquence in due course.
New clause 8 would revoke the regulations that made the change from maintenance grants to maintenance loans, and would ensure that students from low and middle-income backgrounds can receive the maintenance grant again. The policy was first announced in the autumn statement by the then Chancellor, and was pushed through in a statutory instrument without the proper scrutiny of the whole House. It is right that we have the chance to scrutinise it here today. The power is in the Committee’s hands.
Far too many students feel that they have been ripped off by this Government—a feeling that, sadly, this Bill seems unlikely to change in its current form. First, the coalition Government trebled tuition fees, leaving students with some of the highest levels of debt in the developed world. They then froze the threshold at which students repay those debts, meaning that those on lower incomes will lose out yet again. Then, in one of the former Chancellor’s last great failures before leaving office, he abolished maintenance grants, replacing them with yet more loans and burdening young people with even more debt.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend states our case strongly. Does she share my sense of regret that, despite the inadequate consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and despite our request that the Government bring the matter to the Floor of the House, it took an Opposition day motion to have the change debated? The Government’s majority in that Opposition day debate—from memory, I believe it was 16—was one of the lowest they had in that Parliament.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister and his hon. Friends have an opportunity to right that wrong today, so I hope they are all listening and are willing to work collaboratively with us.
New clause 15 would introduce much-needed restrictions on the Government’s ability retrospectively to change the terms of student loan agreements. It would make such a change subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, which is exactly how things should be conducted in this place. Although the practical steps we propose are slightly different, new clause 15 has much the same goals as new clauses 13 and 14, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Ilford North. Either approach would have our full support.
When we talk about students feeling ripped off by the Government, there can be no better example than the retrospective changes made to student loan agreements. The decision to freeze the repayment threshold so that graduates begin to repay their loans when they earn £21,000 a year, instead of allowing it to rise with inflation as initially promised, shows a brazen disrespect for students and destroyed any remaining trust they had in the Government. Fortunately for the Minister, he has the chance to restore that trust today by supporting new clause 15.
I am sure the Minister agrees that the Government have a great deal of work to do to ensure that all students, regardless of background, can access the education they need. After all, he was the one who said that the fall in the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at our elite universities showed
“a worrying lack of progress”
towards widening participation. We agree; that is why we tabled the new clause. He also said that our top universities must
“redouble their efforts…to boost social mobility”.
Our new clause gives him the chance to do that.
I know these Committee debates can feel a little dry, but if the Minister and his party vote with us, we can all leave this Committee Room knowing that we have done something exciting and worthwhile to boost social mobility. I, for one, would love to go back to my constituency tonight and sing it from the rooftops. It would be such a progressive step, but if the Minister cannot accept it, perhaps he can tell us what new steps the Government will take in the Bill to reverse the worrying free fall in the number of state-educated students going on to university.
More than half a million students were able to benefit from the maintenance grants policy and receive the support they needed to meet their living costs. The Government have said that the Bill
“will support the Government’s mission to boost social mobility, life chances and opportunity for all”,
but the Committee has spent a long time scrutinising it and the Government have come forward with no substantive proposals for doing any of those things; if anything, they have made them less likely to occur. Instead, they have offered us an office for students with no students in it, and access and participation plans that will take no substantive steps to improve either access or participation. Although the Government claim that their goal is to increase social mobility, there appears to be nothing in the Bill that shows that they are taking that challenge seriously.
Our new clauses give the Government an excellent chance to meet the goals that they have set themselves in the Bill. The Government have said that they want to boost social mobility. They can do just that by voting for new clause 8 and offering much-needed support to students from low and middle-income backgrounds. The Government have said that they want to improve life chances. What better way of doing that than by giving everyone the opportunity to access higher education if they want to? The Government have said that they want to improve opportunity for all. The Minister will be able to do just that by accepting the new clause. Is he willing to walk the walk of improving social mobility, or is he just talking the talk?
I understand that we are asking the Minister to carry out the dreaded U-turn. After all, he previously said that the abolition of the maintenance grant and the introduction of a new loan helps to balance the need to ensure that affordability is not a barrier to higher education with ensuring that higher education is funded in a fair and sustainable way. It is clear, however, that that will not be the case. After all, figures from his own Department show that since the trebling of tuition fees, there has been a sharp and continuous fall in the number of state-educated students going on to higher education. Perhaps he can tell us today how increasing the burden of debt on students by replacing maintenance grants with loans will improve matters.
The changes that the Government made retrospectively have made the problem even worse, but fundamentally this is not just about the principle of retrospective action; it is about trust. The Government having the power to change loans retrospectively means that every single student in further and higher education will be writing a blank cheque to the Government and, worse than that, they will be writing a blank cheque to a Government that they know they cannot trust—a Government that have already retrospectively changed the terms of their loans once, which, as the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, will cost the average student £6,000.
The Minister said that the funding for student finance would be fair and sustainable, but this is nothing more than a trick of accounting. The change from maintenance grants to loans appears to reduce the spending on universities, but all it really does is defer the cost. As has been shown by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—an institution set up by his party’s Government—the change from maintenance grants to maintenance loans will, over the medium term, increase public sector debt by more than 2% of GDP. That is the result of the Government making loans when they know that most students will not be able to repay them. Moving to loans may be a good accountant’s trick to reduce the deficit, but it does nothing for our public finance or for the wellbeing of those students carrying that personal burden. It simply means that it will be the next generation left picking up the tab. We all know that this generation will be the first to be worse off than their parents. Do we really, as a nation, want to make a habit of that? The tab that maintenance loans will leave them with is more than 2% of GDP. That is more than our entire defence budget, more than £34 billion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how leaving that debt for the next generation is, in his words, “fair and sustainable”.
The Government have made it clear that they want us to use the Bill to improve opportunity for all. We know that the maintenance grant is the way to do that. We saw under the last Labour Government how it was central to helping record numbers of children from disadvantaged backgrounds into universities—a proud record, I might add. The Government plan to scrap the maintenance grant. To simply impose an additional debt on students is a regressive step. Having already burdened students with additional debt, taking the power retrospectively to increase their debt burden again and again will create a dangerous disincentive, as students will not enter further and higher education for fear of what the Government will do to their loans. The Minister may feel that new clause 15 is unnecessary because his Government would never renege on their promises to students and never retrospectively change the terms of a loan agreement, but his Government have already done that once. We know that the Government have not only the power but the inclination, so it is no wonder that students are worried they will do it again.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I think this is the first opportunity I have had in this sitting to say what a delight it is to contribute with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I will speak on new clauses 10 and 11 and say a few words on some of the other new clauses in the group.
We are in agreement on the objective of widening participation and new clause 10 seeks to strengthen the Government’s intention in driving forward widening participation by ensuring that changes that may be made in funding arrangements do not have consequences that cut against the drive of that policy. It requires the OFS to review the impact of any changes that have been made recently or that will be made in the future subsequent to the Bill. For example, on maintenance grants for poorer students, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke powerfully, the Government will no doubt come up with a defence but there is a need to do some serious work looking at the impact of those changes.
I remember, as will other Members here, when the 2012 funding changes were introduced. In previous sittings the Minister has spoken about how they did not have the anticipated impact on widening participation, but he will also remember how his predecessor David Willetts and other Ministers said on occasion after occasion that one of the principles they could be proud of in the proposals was having maintenance grants for poorer students. Indeed, the Minister is willing to parade the numbers of students from disadvantaged homes participating in higher education, but if I were to accept the argument his predecessor made at face value, maintenance grants for poorer students must have played a significant part in achieving those numbers.
It is important that we carry out some serious research and put a responsibility on the office for students to carry out research on that change and on other changes to see how far they might pull the rug from under the feet of the Government’s intentions on widening participation. Another example is on disabled students allowance and the changes due in that area.
The Minister has spoken previously of the introduction of maintenance loans for part-time students. I think that is a measure people would uniformly welcome, but we need to be sure those changes are sufficient to achieve the objectives of reversing the cliff-edge fall in part-time student numbers that followed the Government’s changes in 2012. It is absolutely clear from the way those numbers can be tracked that it was those funding changes that had that impact. I hope the proposals the Government are now bringing will reverse those changes, but we need to look at them, assess them and then put that responsibility on the office for students.
The introduction of sharia-compliant loans is a welcome move. We should also evaluate and make sure we got that right, and if we did not, we should change that policy. The amendment embeds looking at all of those sort of issues as they arise, evaluating them properly and making proper recommendations to Government into the responsibilities of the office for students, to ensure we achieve the objectives we all want to achieve on widening participation.
New clause 11 is really an extension of the arguments I made in an earlier debate about credit accumulation and transfer, which I know the Minister is supportive of in principle and which the Government are encouraging. Again, it tries to address the concerns over the fall-off in part-time student numbers. As I said a moment ago, we know that fall-off was heavily influenced by the changes in the funding arrangements. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it was then, commissioned YouGov last September to do some work entitled, “Perceptions of Part-Time Higher Education”. As the Minister knows, that work concluded that one of the leading barriers to engaging in part-time education for 33% of the people YouGov spoke to was financial issues relating to funding and fees. That affected those from socioeconomic groups C2, D and E much more so than those from the A, B and C1 groups, so it absolutely cuts across the Government’s objectives on widening participation.
Gordon Marsden
I am delighted my hon. Friend is pursuing the broad principle he outlined when speaking to previous amendments and on which we had a significant debate under clause 36. Does he agree with me, and pursuant to YouGov’s findings, that one of the things people need, particularly older people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have never had any exposure to higher education before, is to be able to go one step at a time and so be able to juggle their financial and personal and family needs? With the right safeguards and guarantees, that is exactly what a greater focus on modular funding would achieve.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. The Open University is clearly a hugely valuable reference point in this given its world-leading success in part-time education. Its assessment of the collapse in part-time student numbers and evaluation of the 2012 reforms was:
“Since the reforms, prospective part-time students in England are giving greater consideration to the whole learning pathway they are going to take. They must now consider the end qualification they are aiming for at the very outset of their HE learning journey if they want a loan (given loans are only an option for those with a stated intention to study for a degree or other HE qualification). Prior to the reforms, part-time students were more likely to try out higher education and perhaps study on a module-by-module basis, and at a lower intensity, without committing to a degree or other HE qualification.”
Gordon Marsden
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my Back-Bench colleagues on the strong, forceful and continuous way we are pressing the Government on these issues. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made, but I want to offer a couple of observations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked about the effect this will have on thousands of students’ loan agreements. She and I both represent north-west constituencies, and one thing comes across powerfully when we look at the impact of these changes. I am not suggesting that they are simply restricted to affecting adversely a particular part or region of the country. Nevertheless, if we look at average earnings for graduates in the north-west, the east midlands or other parts of the country outside the south-east and London—graduates who have sweated hard and laboured to get their degrees and taken out loans—those are the people who thus far have been shielded from the effects of this change because they have had only modest salaries in the first two or three years of their employment. This change has a disproportionate impact on graduates on modest incomes. It is not only a socially regressive move but a geographically regressive one.
On freezing the threshold as a principle, there is little more one can say to shame the Government over this process, except to remind them of one thing. I have sat on many Bill Committees over the years, but I have never seen a witness speak truth to power with quite so much force as when Martin Lewis came before us and comprehensively condemned the Government on this. It is not often we hear such strong comments from witnesses, so it is worth repeating what he said:
“Looking at students as consumers, if they had borrowed money from a commercial lender, the Financial Conduct Authority would have struck out in a second the idea that, five years after announcing that the repayment threshold would go up from £21,000 in April 2017 with average earnings, that would be frozen.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 38, Q55.]
That is the point. I do not want to get outwith the narrow clause, but Martin Lewis also said that this is not only a question of trust of a particular group of people; it is a question for our democracy. The students we are talking about are people we want particularly—I am not saying exclusively—to play a strong part in our democracy and electoral process in the future. If they come away feeling they are being treated by the Government of today with less consideration than that of a fabled second-hand car salesman, we cannot be surprised that the turnout in certain elections is not exactly what all of us would wish. Those are fundamental and central points that should be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, with great passion and eloquence, dealt with virtually all of the reasons why we believe it is so important to bring forward the reversal of the Government’s decision to replace maintenance grants with loans. I have only one further point: as the Government’s own impact assessment showed, it is precisely those disadvantaged groups of young people who will suffer the most from this policy. If the Government are concerned not only about the social justice and social mobility that would be improved by restoring maintenance grants, but about our economic performance, particularly in those parts of the country they are still waxing so lyrical about devolving powers to, they really must take this argument sensibly. It does not make sense economically or socially to replace maintenance grants with loans.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I rise to support new clauses 13 and 14, tabled in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends. I begin with a broad point. I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education on the Government’s decision to abolish student grants. Whatever we think about how the Government went about making that decision, it is appalling, as I said on Second Reading, that they are proceeding with a policy that will leave the poorest students graduating with the highest levels of debt. That will be the consequence of replacing student grants with increased student loans.
In itself, that is deeply regressive, but it is also the latest step in dismantling the compromise that was reached over successive Parliaments and under Governments of different political colours. It was agreed that we would mitigate the risks posed to fair access and widening participation by higher university tuition fees and ensure, as successive Ministers have argued, that the new system would be progressive in terms of the distributional impact of Government decisions on student finance and funding. By abolishing student grants, the Government have not only undone the promise and commitment that was made to students and their representatives back then, but they have left the poorest students graduating with the highest levels of debt. That completely undermines any case the Government want to make about the inherent fairness of the system.
I am glad to see the amendments tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, which would undo the damage, and also to see the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, who quite rightly calls for a Government review of the impact on fair access and participation in higher education of the changes to the student finance terms and conditions. In the debate about student finance we should not overlook the fact that it is about ensuring not only that people get through the door at the point of application, but that students from the poorest backgrounds are able to participate in higher education in the fullest sense because they have the financial means to do so.
Whether the lack of money in students’ pockets means that they cannot access the right resources or participate fully in student activities, or that they are turning to pulling pints and stacking shelves for hours that no one could reasonably consider to be part time, there is an opportunity cost as well. If we are serious about social mobility, we need to ensure that those from the most disadvantaged and poorest backgrounds are able to play the fullest part in the higher education student experience. As the Committee will know, when employers make decisions about graduates, they are looking at not only the degree classification but the rounded student experience.
I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central on access to student finance for refugees. In a previous life, I was chief executive of the Helena Kennedy Foundation, a small national educational charity focused on widening access to higher education for the most disadvantaged students from further education. The foundation had, and still has, a project aimed particularly at supporting refugees to access higher education.
Many of us will know from our casework that there are bureaucratic problems—forget policy for a moment—with the Home Office and the Border Agency. I think I have just understated the situation by describing them as bureaucratic problems. For many of those people stuck in the system, it is an absolute nightmare. Among those people are refugees who have fled some of the most indescribable and unspeakable situations and want to build a new life in the United Kingdom. Because they are left in limbo, they cannot play a full and active part in employment. They can go through school, but then they reach the barrier of access to higher education because they cannot afford international student fees. The Government ought to look at that issue very seriously, and should commend the universities that have already taken the initiative by offering generous scholarships and bursaries to refugees who find themselves in that position.
New clauses 13 and 14 are what I have dubbed the “Martin Lewis amendments”. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South—Martin Lewis’s testimony was some of the most powerful that the Committee heard and one of the most powerful pieces of testimony that I have heard in any Committee in my short time in Parliament. He absolutely nailed the injustice and inequity of what the Government have done by making retrospective changes to student finance, which, as the Minister knows, is something that he and I both feel very strongly about.
In 2011, Martin agreed to head up an independent taskforce on student finance information at the instigation of the then higher education Minister, now Lord Willetts. He asked me to be his deputy head as I had recently finished at the National Union of Students. Our commitment was that—whatever our concerns about the system—it was absolutely critical that students should be well informed to make the right decisions about higher education and whether it was right for them, based on the facts, not fear. We worked with schools, colleges, universities, the private sector, the voluntary sector and the Government, trying to convey the facts of the system in an impartial way, not least because Martin Lewis was and still is one of the most trusted voices and a consumer champion respected by members of the public. We were conveying what we believed in good faith to be facts about the system, and find now that those promises are being undone. I agree with the adviser who wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central—I feel a sense of betrayal, not just of the commitment that Martin Lewis and I had faithfully signed up to, but of those students who were inadvertently ill-advised because we could not have imagined that a Government would retrospectively change the terms of repayment for existing students and graduates.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and excellent case for the new clauses, which illustrates the strong convictions that he has held throughout this process. On the subject of why any Government would make this change to student loans, there is a saying that desperate times require desperate measures. Does he share my concern that this is a fundamental unravelling of the settlement that the Government thought would lead them to the promised land, but has left them with potential deficits and black holes for years to come?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree. The only justification for the move is financial. It is a Treasury-driven decision to save some change in the Treasury coffers at the expense of existing students and graduates and, as I shall argue, at a greater cost, which is to the trust and faith in promises made by Government.
Turning to the reasons why the Minister should agree to the new clauses, I do not think that anyone in this room could, hand on heart, disagree with the principle that when a contract is signed, both sides should keep to it. If a lender advertises a loan, they should be held to the terms and conditions that it was sold under. In fact, not only is that a principle that we would all sign up to, it is a principle enshrined in law. Thankfully in this country we have laws and regulations that apply to financial products, but with, it seems, one exception: student loans.
As a result of the decision taken by this Government, albeit under the last Administration, from next April the Government will breach a promise they made to millions of students who started university since 2012. In doing so, they will hike up the costs of those students’ loans by thousands of pounds. The Minister knows how the repayment system was sold: people were told that they repay 9% of everything earned above £21,000 per year. Government repeatedly promised that the £21,000 figure would be uprated each year from April 2017 in line with average earnings. I know that the Minister will stand up shortly and make a very important point about sticking to terms and conditions, and he will say that I am mistaken because the terms and conditions allow for this sort of flexibility.
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.
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.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman says “nonsense”, suggesting he does not believe in—
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.
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.
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 (Eleventh sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
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.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Cooperation and information sharing by OfS
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 298, in clause 60, page 36, line 12, leave out “body” and insert “bodies”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 292.
Gordon Marsden
These two proposed amendments to the clause are part of a series we have tabled at the instigation of organisations who are concerned that the Bill’s framework should allow for the option of more than one information or data provider in the future. As I have said, we want in every way possible to future-proof the Bill and we believe that changing the word “body” to “bodies” in clauses 59 and 60 would give that necessary flexibility.
As I understand it, institutions that substantially deal with part-time students—the Open University would be one example, but this would also affect other universities that have a substantial amount of part-time learning—are not currently covered by UCAS. It might be that organisations other than UCAS are better qualified to be the information or data provider for such institutions and potentially others. The Minister can be reassured that these are probing amendments, but we thought it important to raise the issue, because if we are serious about expanding part-time education and the number of institutions that provide it—I think we are—that may become more significant than it has been up to now.
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
I beg to move amendment 293, in clause 59, page 35, line 23, after “when” insert “,where”.
This amendment would ensure the OfS must consider where it is publishing information on higher education courses provided in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 294, in clause 59, page 35, line 28, before “people” insert “all”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 295.
Amendment 295, in clause 59, page 35, line 28, after “people” insert “,whatever their age or individual circumstances,”.
This amendment would include prospective adult students, as well as those leaving school, in the distribution of information.
Amendment 296, in clause 59, page 35, line 29, at end insert—
‘( ) existing and potential higher education staff.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to publish English higher education information includes information that is useful to existing and potential higher education staff.
Amendment 297, in clause 59, page 35, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff, and”.
This amendment would ensure consultation with bodies representing higher education staff.
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.
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
I beg to move amendment 239, in clause 64, page 38, line 43, at end insert—
“(6) Any fees or costs that arise from the activities of any one institution are only liable to be paid by that institution.”
This amendment will ensure that where a Higher Education Institution incurs fees or costs only that Institution is liable to meet the obligations incurred.
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.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The Minister is trying to reassure her by saying it will be all right on the night. The truth is that we are looking at something the Minister wants; he keeps telling us we need it. We are looking at having a very large number of new providers. I make no comment on whether that is good, bad or indifferent. The fact is that we are looking to get a very large number of new providers. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is probably unreasonable to expect the new providers to bear some of the increased operational costs of the OFS for that? The likelihood is that the amount of operational costs that existing providers will be expected to bear under the process the Minister describes will increase significantly.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I want to come back to saying to the Minister that there is acceptance in the sector of the broad direction of activity establishing the OFS. There has been some consultation with them but it is the view of many that, if the Government want to move to this particular regulation and quality assessment and research regime, they must substantially pay for it, and not put the costs on to a group of people who are already having to pay a substantial amount. I accept that it is a loan but they will ultimately have to pay substantially for the whole of the sector, and we have to put a brake on that somewhere. For me, the brake is here. 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
I was not clear whether the Minister would speak to proposed new clause 2 before we had the clause stand part debate. However, since you have asked me to speak, Sir Edward, I will do so.
It seems to me that the Minister has got himself into a complete tangle over the business of fees. He will remember the Micawber principle that the difference between income and expenditure is the difference between happiness and misery. The Minister seems to be in some misery on this matter at the moment because he is unable to declare what amount the happiness will be.
I want to probe a little further on two or three specific points. The document that supports the case for the creation of the OFS, which is subtitled “a new public body in place of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office for Fair Access”, was published in June 2016. That was before the referendum and all the consequences that flow from it. My question to the Minister is a technical one. Has that document been revised in any shape or form since?
Very little information has been given by the Government today. I accept that these matters cannot go in the Bill, but the paucity of information from the Minister when he says, “This will happen or we will have this, that or the other,” on something as crucial as establishing a new financial institution as well as a new non-departmental body, is pretty poor.
The Minister’s response to the comments of my hon. Friends about cost-sharing were very vague. I know myself from having spent a number of years in the private sector, working with a number of private institutions, how difficult and corrosive the issues of cost-sharing can sometimes be within companies, let alone between organisations. I really do not think that the Minister has given a satisfactory answer in that area.
I refer the Minister to the comment he made earlier: “We are looking at this and we will produce information in due course.” In fact, the Government did produce information in due course. The information is contained in a document I have, and very revealing it is too. On page 22 of the “Case for creation of the Office for Students”, there are two tables. One talks about the operating costs of the OFS over the period 2018 to 2027. I found it very interesting that in 2018-19, the first year of operation, the operating cost will be £30.9 million. In 2019-20, it will be £32.5 million, and it will be £34.1 million in 2020-21. If my maths does not fail me, that is a fairly modest increase between 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, whereas in my experience of the private sector—I accept that this is not a private sector body, but it is in a situation of quasi operating as a private sector body—operating costs for the first two or three years of an organisation are always substantially higher in years 2 and 3 than they are in the first year. The Minister might want to elaborate on the basis on which those operating costs were dealt with.
However, perhaps more revealing is the stuff referred to in table 2, which gives the estimated split between the costs covered by the sector and those covered by the Government. In 2018-19, we have a figure of £14.9 million for total Government support, as opposed to £16 million for total registration fees. Then there are separate and much smaller figures: £1.9 million for new provider support and £4.8 million for activities with wider economic or societal benefits. There is also transition funding, to which the Minister referred, of £8.2 million. In that context, depending on how we want to do the maths, the balance between Government support and support from the university sector—as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and others have made clear, substantially that means money coming from students —is 50:50.
When we go to the figures for 2019-20 and 2020-21, we are told that Government support will drop from £14.9 million to £8 million and the total registration fees income will be £24.4 million. I have checked, and that balance is retained during the subsequent years of the Department’s forecast. That means that the Government are bearing a load that is 25% of the operating costs of the office for students and the university sector and the students who fund it are being asked to cough up 75%.
If the Minister wants to say that those figures are inaccurate, he may do so, but he might find it rather embarrassing, given that his own Department produced this document in June. Really and truly, I do not think we have had very good or accurate explanations from the Minister today. If he were before the Select Committee, it might have some interesting questions for him.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that it is hardly co-funding for the student body to be carrying such a weight of the costs of the OFS and the Government so little, and that that is why we are so exercised about this measure—because it is unduly burdensome on students?
Gordon Marsden
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree and I will repeat what I said earlier. This is a double-whammy in terms of the costing structure that the Department is suggesting for the university providers, and by implication. This is the reason why I raise Brexit. In an uncertain world, it will pile more problems on them in the first two or three years. It is a whammy on the students. It is also a whammy on the new providers, which will be entrepreneurial in many cases and will not be able to bear more than is suggested in the Bill. If the OFS begins to crumble financially because of the incompetence of the costings produced by the Government, where will that leave the ability of the OFS to supervise and protect new providers? It is a dog’s breakfast, and the Minister has done nothing to unscramble it.
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.
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.
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.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 299, in clause 66, page 39, line 26, after “have” insert “particular”.
This amendment would strengthen the regard for academic freedom requirements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 301, in clause 69, page 41, line 36, after “have” insert “particular”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 299.
Amendment 162, in clause 77, page 46, line 5, at end insert—
“academic freedom’ has the same meaning as is given in section 43 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986”.
The 1986 Act provides a robust definition which should be referenced in the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has done sterling work so far in trying to persuade the Government of the need to say more serious things in the Bill about the nature of academic freedom. The Government included various references to academic freedom in the Bill, but academic freedom is not simply a matter of transporting clauses and regulations from preceding information into the Bill and assuming that that will be adequate for the future. New Bills ought to be an opportunity to reflect on whether the definitions and priorities that Government have previously given have stood the test of time. Our argument, and that of many who have criticised the Bill, is that that is not the case. There have been major changes in these areas since we last had significant legislation of this sort and, therefore, we ought to have more thought and discussion about it. We have already debated retaining or otherwise the right of the Privy Council and university title. The most common institutional form of pre-1992 universities is incorporation by royal charter.
I want to quote the comments on that process from the alternative White Paper entitled, “In Defence of Public Higher Education: Knowledge for a Successful Society”, published by the Convention for Higher Education.
“These have a charter and statutes that cannot be changed except by Privy Council. The White Paper proposes to abolish this protection—a move that will allow increasing managerial influence over academic activity in the name of market flexibility and will significantly undermine academic freedom.”
The definition of academic freedom is an important issue, as it goes on to say:
“Academic freedom is found in two main instruments of these institutions. The first is protection against arbitrary dismissal. If a university researcher publishes evidence that a car manufacturer’s published nitrogen oxide readings are inconsistent with lab testing, then she or he risks losing funding from this manufacturer. The university itself may face retaliatory action.”
That is why that protection is there. That is also why, at an earlier stage, I pressed the Minister on adding a clause in the part on academic freedom, which would refer specifically to academics not being negatively affected by things that they might say about Government or other public institutions.
The document continues:
“Similarly, if a scientist in an advisory position to government reports that government drugs policy is inconsistent with risks of injury to the public, then she or he may lose their position of influence in government circles, but also become persona non grata among funding agencies. In either case, the institution as employer may well consider it expedient to dismiss the unfortunate scientist rather than protect her or him from the consequences of adhering to their scientific duty.”
Academic freedom is a central part of what we should be defending in the Bill, for all sorts of new institutions as well as the existing ones. As the document says:
“Academic freedom protections do not exist to privilege academics but to protect academic and scientific independence and authority.”
The practical effects, if we do not strengthen those procedures in the Bill, will be to accelerate a process that arguably means that we need more and not less protection. The document refers specifically to a process of “corporate intrusion” into academic judgment. It expresses a controversial view that might not be accepted by everybody in the room but should be heard:
“Academic Boards are dominated by those occupying managerial positions, and carrying budget responsibilities for cost centres, and have only minority representation from the professoriate, from other academic staff, from non-academic staff and from students. Those committees or boards that do remain largely composed of academic members of staff simply receive, ‘for information’, decisions that have been arrived at elsewhere—determined by the senior management groups in conjunction with Boards of Governors.”
The Convention for Higher Education does not consider that a satisfactory situation, and neither do I.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David Evennett.)
Higher Education and Research Bill (Ninth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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 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.
Gordon Marsden
I begin by apologising for not having said earlier that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I needed to get my breath back. Perhaps I need to get my breath back even more now, given the breathtaking complacency the Minister has just demonstrated towards my colleague’s amendment.
That amendment, blocked by the full weight of the silent Government Back Benchers, would have done nothing but put into effect what the Government claim they wish to do with the TEF. Let me take the Committee to the wording of the clause, because words matter and the way in which clauses are drafted matters. It is remarkable that the teaching excellence framework clause is literally the clause that dare not speak its name. It states:
“The OfS may make arrangements”—
it might just think about it when it is at it, sometime—
“for a scheme to give ratings to English higher education providers regarding the quality of, and standards applied to, the higher education that they provide where they apply for such a rating”.
The Government are signalling right in the middle of the clause that they do not want debate on the Floor of the House or in any meaningful measure about the nature of the teaching excellence framework. Persistently, in the Bill and in their comments, the Government have made that very clear.
During the recess, on 29 September, the Government published their ratings plans for year 2. You were not in the Chair, Mr Chope, but before the conference recess, Opposition Members complained that documents that should have been made available to the Committee were not made available proactively, but simply put on the Government’s website. The Minister responded very positively on that occasion and various papers have been submitted to the Committee, and we have had papers for part 3. However, I have checked with my colleagues and I have to say that their ability to get hold of the information depended on going to the website and reading the papers from that day, because this was brought out during the recess.
If I sound sceptical and sometimes rather cynical about the Minister’s assurances, it is because at every stage and every turn so far, the Government have done their best to hide the TEF’s merits under a bushel, as far as parliamentary process and scrutiny are concerned. The wording that has been chosen is interesting because it is almost as if the Minister and the people who drafted the clause know that they are trying to dodge the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore the words that dare not be spoken—teaching excellence framework—are not included in the clause.
We are not going to make a formal complaint that the paper was not circulated to all members of the Committee, but I hope the Minister will bear in mind his good intentions before the conference recess and ensure that, in the limited time left to us, when new documents are published that are germane to the Committee, they are circulated to all members of the Committee and not simply put on an obscure part of the website where people have to look for them.
I think it is fair to say that the announcement on 29 September essentially gave universities and higher education providers an extra year to try to get their situation right before the details of the TEF came into effect in terms of properly analysing and judging the merits or demerits of universities. I do not want the Minister to stand up and say, “Oh, Labour don’t believe in the TEF,” as he did before the conference recess. I emphasise that we do believe in the importance of teaching excellence; we do believe in the importance of teaching excellence framework. What we are concerned about is that the merits of that teaching excellence framework need to be properly and fully explored before it becomes tainted by being regarded simply as an automatic mechanism to increase fees year on year.
This is highly germane, Mr Chope, to the approach the Government have chosen to adopt. They responded to various providers’ comments on the initial draft that the intended wording was not sensible. The Government came up with a new formula: in year 2, HE providers would be judged according to three categories—bronze, silver and gold. Perhaps, as one or two commentators said, the heady achievements of our Olympic and Paralympic teams in Rio swayed some bored official in an office who was trying to think up new phrases to describe this thing that had been comprehensively criticised for its terminology by the university sector. I am not particularly opposed to the idea of gold, silver and bronze in its own right, but the fact of the matter is, as a number of commentators have noted, it is selling a pig in a poke.
I refer the Minister to an interesting article that appeared on the Wonkhe website, which I am sure he is familiar with as he has appeared on it from time to time. The article went into some detail—probably more detail, Mr Chope, than you or I would necessarily want to do other than for the purposes of scrutinising the Bill—about the associated papers that went with the Bill. I will quote from the article because it is relevant to the way in which the Government are getting the whole process of the TEF wrong. In the article by Mr Bagshaw, he writes:
“In the government’s response to the consultation it is rightly noted that the original judgements”—
the original judgments were “meet expectations”, “excellence” and “outstanding”—
“were hopelessly indistinguishable…. Perhaps this is a case of grade deflation… Passing one’s QAA review was supposed to be something of a ‘gold standard’ in international higher education. Yet just meeting that gold standard will now only merit a lowly Bronze award, which virtually everyone will receive by default—at least.
The medal system might satisfy an ‘all must have prizes’ mentality, but it risks forcing what is actually a fine-grained judgement into three uneasy buckets: will the sector really bear the idea that…half of its ‘excellence’ is merely Silver? That’s the anticipated distribution, with 20% Bronze, 50-60% Silver and 20-30% Gold.”
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Evennett)
An expert!
Gordon Marsden
Not necessarily an expert, but someone who might have actually read all the details of what has come about. If the Government Whip wants to do his usual noises off, I will refer him to a number of other people that he might have heard of.
That is one element of what has been said. Despite what the Minister has tried to make out, it is not the case that all universities are throwing their hats up in the air at what has been arranged for TEF year 2. Vice-chancellor and chair of MillionPlus Dave Phoenix said in the context of the announcement about part 2:
“The decision to include additional benchmarking criteria such as socio-economic background and disability is a step in the right direction.”
However, we remain concerned about the timetable for implementation and the link with fees. The chief executive of the University Alliance mission group said that
“the merits of a highly skilled employment metric and the medal-style ratings system will need to be tested. The trial year will be vital to getting this right.”
However, while they are getting it right—or otherwise—in the second year, they will all be allowed to increase their tuition fees by the rate of inflation or whatever mechanism the Government decide they need to employ at that time. I thought that one of the principles of the Olympics was to go “higher, faster and stronger” but it seems to me that the result of the way in which the Government has shoehorned this TEF and linked it in is that the fees are the only thing that will be going higher.
Knowing what is going on in the financial markets today and given Mervyn King’s remarks about rises in the rate of inflation, it is a reasonable guesstimate that fees may well be 3.5% or even 4.5% higher by the time year 2 starts. Nobody knows—not me, not the Minister—but the Government are cheerfully imposing this linkage without any extra demonstration of quality of the sort that they say is essential to the process of the teaching excellence framework. How is that a good recommendation for the TEF? To the criticisms that were levelled when the announcement was made, the Government spokesperson replied:
“Universities will not be able to increase their fees unless they pass rigorous quality standards.”
I have already made the point that these are not going to be “rigorous quality standards” in year 2; at best, they will be a move in that direction. They are certainly not going to be quality standards if a provider can achieve a bronze standard and apparently be regarded as not entirely satisfactory, and still be able to apply for the full whack. If the Minister has evidence to the contrary, I look forward to hearing it.
That will do nothing at all to satisfy the concerns of institutions, the concerns and fears of students who are already laden with huge debt, or the wishes and concerns of all those in this place who believe that essential issues about the fee increases and their linkage to the TEF should be properly debated in this House. If the Minister follows the form he took before the summer recess—if he is still in place—the announcement will be smuggled out with about 20 others at the end of term, when it could have been discussed two days earlier, during the Bill’s consideration. That is one reason why we are so sceptical about how the Minister and the Government are proceeding.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is keen on quoting certain people, so let me quote someone who is an expert on quality assurance and see what he thinks. The chief executive of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, who I consider to be an expert in the area, has said:
“The government has struck a balance between encouraging competition and rigorous protection of UK higher education’s world-class reputation”.
There is clear evidence that the Bill produces high-quality, rigorous quality assurance. What I hear from the hon. Gentleman is completely contrary to what the experts say. Listen to the experts.
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.
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.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 231, in Schedule 4, page 75, line 20, at end insert
“(da) a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff”.
This amendment and amendment 230 would ensure that before recommending the designation of a body to perform assessment functions the OfS consults with bodies representing higher education staff.
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.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 232, in schedule 4, page 74, line 30, at end insert “and students”.
This amendment and amendment 233 would ensure that the OfS consults students before body suitable to carry out assessment functions is designated.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Tenth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 56, in schedule 4, page 75, line 1, after “include” insert “the”.
This amendment clarifies that when the Secretary of State provides a notice all of the reasons for the decision are given.
Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 75, line 6, leave out “and standards of” and insert
“of, and the standards applied to,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 46.
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 75, line 30, leave out “an assessment function” and insert “the assessment functions”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 75, line 33, leave out “designated function” and insert “assessment functions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 60, in schedule 4, page 75, line 37, leave out “designated function” and insert “assessment functions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 61, in schedule 4, page 76, line 4, leave out second “designated” and insert “assessment”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 62, in schedule 4, page 76, line 25, at end insert—
“Power of the OfS to give directions
9A (1) The OfS may give the designated body general directions about the performance of any of the assessment functions.
(2) In giving such directions, the OfS must have regard to the need to protect the expertise of the designated body.
(3) Such directions must relate to—
(a) English higher education providers or registered higher education providers generally, or
(b) a description of such providers.
(4) The designated body must comply with any directions given under this paragraph.”
This amendment allows the OfS to give the designated body directions regarding the exercise of the assessment functions. In using this power, the OfS must have regard to the need to protect the expertise of the body.
Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 76, line 29, leave out “designated function” and insert “assessment functions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 64, in schedule 4, page 76, line 30, leave out “that function” and insert “those functions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 65, in schedule 4, page 76, line 40, after “provided” insert “in England”.
This amendment clarifies that in Schedule 4 a “graduate” means a graduate of a higher education course provided in England.
Amendment 66, in schedule 4, page 77, line 1, leave out “an assessment function” and insert “the assessment functions”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 44.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27
Power of designated body to charge fees
Amendments made: 67, in clause 27, page 16, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 68, in clause 27, page 16, line 20, leave out “or (3)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 69, in clause 27, page 16, line 21, leave out from “provider” to “by reference to” in line 22 and insert “—
(a) may be calculated,”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 70, in clause 27, page 16, line 25, leave out from “functions;” to “may” in line 29 and insert “and
(b) ”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 71, in clause 27, page 16, line 32, leave out “or (3)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 72, in clause 27, page 16, line 34, leave out
“in the case of subsection (2)(a),”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 73, in clause 27, page 16, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Power to approve an access and participation plan
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 200, in clause 28, page 17, line 12, at end insert?
“(1A) The OfS must appoint an independent Director for Fair Access and Participation responsible for approving access and participation plans.”
This amendment would strengthen the powers of the proposed Director for Fair Access and Participation in line with the current powers of the Director and those proposed in the Higher Education Green Paper.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 201, in clause 28, page 17, line 14, leave out “OfS may, if it” and insert
“Director for Fair Access and Participation may, if the Director”.
This amendment and amendment 204 would ensure that decisions on the approval or rejection of participation plans rest with the Director, not the head of the Office for Students.
Amendment 202, in clause 28, page 17, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) The Director for Fair Access and Participation may make recommendations to the OfS on the matters to which the OfS should include in guidance that the Director will have regard in deciding whether to approve plans.”
This amendment would ensure that the Director can make recommendations to the OfS on the matters to be included in guidance that the Director will have regard in deciding whether to approve plans.
Amendment 203, in clause 28, page 17, line 15, after first “OfS” insert
“having considered any recommendations made by the Director for Fair Access and Participation and having consulted the Director,”.
This amendment would ensure that the OfS considered any recommendations made by the Director for Fair Access and Participation and where a matter was not covered by a recommendation the OfS consulted the Director.
Amendment 204, in clause 28, page 17, line 15, leave out second “OfS” and insert
“the Director for Fair Access and Participation”.
See amendment 201.
Amendment 205, in clause 28, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) Where the Director for Fair Access and Participation considers that there is significant risk to widening participation or that access targets will not be achieved, the Director may issue to a provider or class of providers, which have similar and identifiable characteristics affecting the satisfying of an access and participation plan condition—
(a) guidance setting out additional matters to have regard to in connection to approving the plan; and
(b) a warning.”
This amendment would ensure that the Director could issue formal guidance and warnings to certain providers that are not widening access or meeting access targets.
Amendment 206, in clause 28, page 17, line 19, leave out “OfS” and insert
“Director for Fair Access and Participation”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers specifying the matters to be taken into account in determining whether or not a plan is to be approved apply to the Director for Fair Access and Participation not the head of the Office for Students.
Gordon Marsden
I hope that you had a restorative recess, Mr Hanson. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to speak to this group of amendments, which are in my name and that of my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, and are all about the Office for Fair Access. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I will speak not to each amendment but to the broad thrust of them all.
We have discussed OFFA previously, but these amendments focus specifically on the powers to approve an access and participation plan. We will hear more about access and participation plans later this afternoon when we debate further amendments, but as far as we are concerned, at the heart of such plans is what the Office for Fair Access was set up for and what the director of fair access is tasked with doing. I know that the Minister and I have a high opinion of the current holder of that office, and nothing that I will say refers to a particular individual. As I have said previously, we are legislating for a period of up to 15 or 20 years, so we have to consider the evolution of the office for students and the nature of the different individuals who might occupy that office. I therefore think it reasonable to try to bring the relationships involving the director for fair access and participation in line with the current powers and those proposed in the higher education Green Paper.
The Minister clearly thinks that has been done, and he has perfectly reasonably prayed in aid various comments from the current director. But there is a continuing nagging concern—not just with us, but with many people in the HE sector—that under these reforms the director could be seen as subordinate to the head of the office for students. That body will have significant funding from universities—we wait to hear further how much that will be, although some figures have already been put out—which might make the OFS less inclined to challenge institutions on access. Even if it does not, the Minister will be familiar with the phrase, “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.” I am not correlating Les Ebdon with Caesar’s wife, but the Minister will understand my point: there is a danger, if that is the position institutionally, in what people might think.
The report that lays out the business case for the office for students states that
“day to day responsibility for operations and decisions relating to the OfS’ Access and Participation functions”
should sit with the director, but that is not currently underpinned in the Bill. The Sutton Trust and various other organisations have concerns about that point, as does the director of fair access himself, as I believe he said when he gave evidence to the Committee.
It is crucial that the director for fair access and participation has the independence to challenge universities robustly, so that universities that dislike access rulings designed to help able young people from low-income homes are not able to appeal to the head of the OFS. That is why we believe that the Bill should be amended—so that it is clear that the director has a direct line into the Secretary of State and is not simply reporting to the members of the OFS board and the OFS chief executive, although he may want to consult them quite substantially.
In various responses to the White Paper, the director of fair access identified at least two possible areas where the Bill could be strengthened, one of which was this one. He was told that the power to approve access and participation plans will sit with the OFS corporately, not with the new director. Nothing in the Bill requires the OFS to exercise those powers through the director, although that would be sensible in the light of schedule 1. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 merely requires the director to report on the exercise of functions, which is a narrative exercise. He or she is not even accountable for the exercise of those functions. The director will fulfil that obligation by delivering an accurate report, and whether that report describes a good or bad situation will not be his or her concern under the provisions in the Bill. At present, whether the director will have the functions required will depend on the scheme of delegation adopted by the OFS.
The purpose of the amendments is to put flesh on the bones of those intentions. Those bones include the power to negotiate with institutions and ultimately to approve or refuse an access and participation plan. The amendments would both strengthen that position and ensure that the director had the ability to do so.
In case people think that these issues are hypothetical, dry or technical, it might be worth reflecting on what happened during the 2016-17 access agreements, which were a positive thing for both the Government and the director. The director’s negotiations led to improved targets at 94 institutions, and 28 of those increased their predicted spend. That secured an estimated additional £11.4 million for fair access and participation.
If the director for fair access and participation could be bypassed or overruled by the OFS chief executive or the board, that could undermine his or her ability to negotiate directly with vice-chancellors and to offer robust challenge. That in turn would be likely to lead to a significant scaling down of ambition by some institutions. We need the powers in question to be clearly stated on the face of the Bill. I accept that the Minister might say that they will be intrinsic guidance, but this is what one Minister can say in 2016, and we do not know what another Minister might say in 2021 or 2022. That is why we need the amendments.
We know already that the portfolio of skills that a director of the Office for Fair Access needs to possess is complex. They need to be able to get on with Government, and they need to be well positioned to make nuanced judgements about what is reasonable and achievable in setting up access agreements. Above all, as in any negotiations, they need to have flexibility—if I can put it this way, they need to have a few other cards up their sleeve. Far from being a distraction or causing problems within the OFS, making those points clear in the framework set out in the Bill would improve and settle the relationship—that is not to say that it would bad in the first place—between the office for students, its members, its board and the director. The issue would not have to be teased out over a period of what might be creative tension over various issues. I have sat in enough Select Committee meetings to know that problems in one particular area can throw up conceptual difficulties in relationships between offices, and that the amendments are therefore advisable. If the director does not have responsibility for access agreements, it risks sending a message to the sector that fair access and participation have been deprioritised.
The Government are keen to meet their goal of doubling the rate of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education by 2020. In order for them to do that—this is not a criticism, just an observation—there will need to be some acceleration of progress. If the director does not retain the authority to approve or refuse an access and participation plan, or if that power can be delegated to others and decisions can be overturned, that could a significant period of to-ing and fro-ing within the OFS in which the Secretary of State or the Minister would have to intervene. That would not help anybody, and there is a real risk that the position of the director would be seen as being weakened. That could send a message that fair access had been deprioritised and would likely lead to a scaling down of ambition by institutions. Such a message could also be seen as contrary to the Government’s fair life chances and social mobility agenda. All of us in the House, whatever position we take on a particular aspect of the Bill, fervently want to see that social mobility. I again urge the Minister to think hard about some of the nuances I have talked about. Let us see what he has to say.
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.
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.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 207, in clause 31, page 18, line 43, at end insert?
“(g) for details of individual Higher Education providers, their policies for part-time and mature students.”
This amendment would require universities and other higher education providers to include a policy in regard to part-time and mature students in their access and participation plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 287, in clause 36, page 20, line 15, at end insert
“to include access to and participation in part-time study”
This amendment requires the OfS to report on access to and participation in part-time study in its report(s) to the Secretary of State.
Gordon Marsden
Amendment 207 picks up on a theme that we discussed earlier, which is the essential need to strengthen the access and participation of part-time and mature students, particularly given the decline in their numbers in recent years.
The amendment requires universities and other higher education providers to include a policy for part-time and mature students in their access and participation plan. It would also require the office for students to consider appointing a director for part-time and mature students to its board. The amendment was suggested by the Sutton Trust, but a large body of opinion in the lifelong learning area believes that it is important—as we have said in relation to other groups—that when the office for students is established, the importance of part-time and mature students is recognised, particularly in access and participation plans.
The discussions that we have had so far have included many references to the Open University. That is not surprising: the Open University is a huge success story for the UK; it is an international institution based in Britain and it has the largest number of adult students and so on. But several other institutions, of greater longevity than the Open University, also have concerns in these areas. For example, Birkbeck College of the University of London has made a couple of points about this. When the Minister was talking about cockney universities, I cannot remember if Birkbeck was one of them, but it is of the same vintage. It was founded in 1823 as the London Mechanics’ Institute with the express remit to open up higher and university education to working people.
Birkbeck has a teaching model with a flexible course structure, allowing students to complete a degree in the same length of time as regular students studying in the daytime at other universities. Some Members here may even have members of their staff who have done exactly that sort of thing at Birkbeck. It is a very broad-based and world class research-intensive institution and has very good statistics in that respect. But Birkbeck is concerned about a number of issues in the Bill, not in terms of commission but of omission. It says:
“The vast majority of our students are aged over 21, most choose evening study because they work full-time or have family commitments during the daytime. Provision for part-time and mature learners is important for social mobility. Part-time study is frequently the route into higher education for most non-traditional and mature students. Part-time study is also, by definition, local. In 2015-16 one in five undergraduate entrants in England from low participation neighbourhoods chose or have no option but to study part-time, while 38% of all undergraduate students from disadvantaged groups are mature. Part-time study also cannot be ignored if we want to see economic growth. In 2011-12, there were nearly half a million people in the UK studying part-time at undergraduate level, but the decision to withdraw funding from universities in England and introduce a student loans system led to the tuition fee increase that we know about and to the very significant and dramatic downturn in part-time student numbers.”
The Minister will no doubt be relieved to know that I do not intend to bash the Government over the head any further on the matter at this point in time, but merely to make the observation that whatever the circumstances, we are where we are with those numbers. The Government have taken a number of relatively modest steps to try to address the issue, but that will not happen overnight. That strengthens the need to include the emphasis on the issue as part of the remit of the OFS on the face of the Bill. That is why Birkbeck and others believe that it is important that the duties of the proposed office for students are expanded explicitly to promote adult, part-time and lifelong learning. They have already said that they would like to see a clearer commitment to part-time provision through a requirement—not a “hope” or a “we’ll see about it”—that the OFS board includes expertise in part-time learning among its members, and to think also about the diversity of the UK student body as a whole.
The Minister will be familiar with this argument because he has employed it himself. If we are to succeed and prosper economically and socially, and if we are to fulfil people’s life chances, we are going to need to focus more and more on mature students, many of whom will be part time. The reasons for that are clear and demographic, and are repeated in the Government’s White Paper. I do not intend to repeat them further today, but they sharpen the focus on why we need this provision in the Bill.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak to my amendment 287 with you in the chair, Mr Hanson. The amendment complements the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South by adding a responsibility on the OFS to report on access to and participation in part-time study.
I echo some of my hon. Friend’s points. One of the many things that distinguishes our great higher education system in this country is the large number of part-time students, which is something like 40% at postgraduate level and 20% at undergraduate level. Many of them are of course studying in the Open University, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention as a great success story of British higher education.
We need to focus on the issue of part-time students in the context of the Government’s ambition for higher education and for social mobility within higher education. I think the Government’s own vision is that we need to move away from conventional models of higher education, and that is partly behind some of the thinking—that the Opposition do not fully agree with—on some of the new sorts of providers that the Government have in mind.
The vision of a higher education system that moves beyond the conventional route of leave school, go to university, study full time for a number of years, come out with a degree and then leave it behind, is no longer relevant in the challenges that people face in today’s economy. We need to talk confidently about a system of lifelong learning in which part-time study has an increasingly important role, which will not simply be provided for by the new providers that the Minister has spoken of in the past. We should be deeply concerned that, following the introduction of the new fees structure through to 2014, part-time student numbers dropped by 50%. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission described that as
“an astonishing and deeply worrying trend”.
It is one that we should really look to address.
In the case of part-time study, funding is key. The Minister spoke eloquently earlier about the number of students still applying to higher education from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite the funding changes, and I accept those figures, although the changes have had an impact on choice in higher education and work is needed on how some students from disadvantaged backgrounds have limited their choices by going to universities closer to home to keep their costs down. Nevertheless, we know that for part-time students, funding is key and we know that partly because the Labour Government made mistakes on that. The introduction of equivalent or lower qualifications, and limiting options for people to take second and subsequent degrees based on earlier qualifications, led to a significant reduction in part-time students in the past. I welcome the fact that the Government have learned from those lessons and are changing their position on ELQs.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, indeed, for the work we do together on the all-party parliamentary group on students. That is a fair point. I was concentrating on some of the funding factors. For older students, the fact that they have mortgages and families, or that they are at albeit modest salary levels that trigger immediate repayment, are apparent disincentives. Matching the introduction of the new funding regime and the cliff-edge drop in the numbers of part-time students would suggest that there is a relationship. He is absolutely right that we should be looking at all the data and doing research properly to understand what is happening. I agree with him, and that is at the heart of my amendment: the OFS should have the responsibility to think deeply about part-time participation and draw up recommendations to address that.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for his amendment. Does he—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Bath—agree that we do have indications of how the process affects older people in particular, though it is not exactly anecdotal? We have those indications from what has happened with the take-up at 24-plus of advanced learning loans, which are designed for students at level 3 and above. That was presaged, in my mind, by the discussions I had on that process; I talked to many women who said that they would not have progressed if they had had to take out loans at that juncture rather than having grants.
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
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.
Paul Blomfield
Equally, I welcome the statement made by the Minister, particularly in relation to his expectations of the OFS, and specifically in relation to part-time study and I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 74, in clause 31, page 19, line 7, after “include” insert
“education provided by means of”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment makes the language used in clause 31(5)(b) (the definition of references to “higher education” in that clause) consistent with that used in the definition of “higher education” in clause 75(1).
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Advice on good practice
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
I will not resile from what I said about people using the word “may” rather than “should”, but I do not intend to dance on the head of a pin over it. I therefore beg to ask leave withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Power of Secretary of State to require a report
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 210, in clause 36, page 20, line 10, leave out
“Secretary of State may, by direction, require the OfS to”
and insert “OfS must”.
This amendment would ensure the OfS must report to the Secretary of State its annual report, or special reports, on matters relating to equality of opportunity.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 211, in clause 36, page 20, line 11, at end insert
“and to the relevant select committee (or committees) of the House of Commons”.
See amendment 212.
Amendment 212, in clause 36, page 20, line 19, at end insert—
“(5) “Relevant select committee” is the departmental select committee (or committees) appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government department or departments and associated public bodies with responsibilities for higher education in England.”
Amendments 211 and 212 would ensure the OfS must report to the relevant select committee(s) its annual report, or special reports, on matters relating to equality of opportunity.
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.
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move amendment 288, in clause 36, page 20, line 18, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may require a report under subsection (1) on the establishment of a national credit rating and transfer service as a means of improving access to and participation in higher education.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to require the OfS to look into establishing a national credit rating and transfer service for recognition of prior learning to encourage student mobility.
The amendment may deal with another matter on which we are very much on the same page as the Government: using the opportunity to develop more innovative approaches to both study and routes through higher education through the development of more effective systems of credit accumulation and transfer. Those in higher education have talked about doing this for many years. I remember a period about 20 years ago when many universities were restructuring the way they delivered their courses, moving away from an October to June programme to look at semesterised and modularised structures. The underlying objective of that restructuring was to facilitate more effective credit accumulation and transfer, but the development did not progress, often because of resistance on the part of some universities to recognising properly the value of taught modules in other institutions. If we are to move forward, we need a more effective strategy driven by Government.
I recognise, as I am sure the Minister is about to remind me, that the Government launched a consultation earlier this year that concluded in July. The objectives of that consultation were described in the summary:
“We’re interested in how switching university or degree course can be made easier”.
That is precisely what the amendment is about. I appreciate that the Government have not had the opportunity to consider the results of the consultation, or perhaps the Minister will surprise us by sharing some thoughts that have come out of it.
Such a system would be important at different levels. First, it would give us an opportunity to move beyond a conventional approach to pursuing a course in university. It would enable people to build up in different ways a programme of study leading to a degree. Crucially, it would give people the opportunity, which I am sure the Minister would welcome, to switch between workplace-based learning and institution-based learning and to consider a range of higher education opportunities in accumulating a degree.
The Minister cited earlier the report published last year by the Higher Education Policy Institute and the Higher Education Academy, which said—he will correct me if I have got the number wrong—that something like 30% of students currently on courses in universities would have opted for a different programme of study if they had known then what they know now. That is a hugely significant statistic. Currently, our system of higher education militates against students being able to fulfil their ambitions. A properly developed system of credit accumulation and transfer would enable them, at the point when they think, “Perhaps my study is heading in the wrong direction,” to realign it, put together a different programme of modules and move between universities.
A second reason that we ought to look at this system relates to market failure, as we discussed previously. If the Government move in the direction they wish to with the Bill, it is important to look at how we protect students from market failure. Financial compensation is only one part of that. Students who have invested time and energy and accumulated credits through study at an institution can have the rug pulled from under their feet. If we had a properly developed system of credit accumulation and transfer, it would be possible for people to use the learning they have already achieved to move to another institution—not in the way that has sometimes happened in the past, where the Government or the Higher Education Funding Council for England have had to step in to barter and negotiate between institutions, but in a recognised way. Students could then say, “I have these credits. I want to progress my learning in this way at this different institution.” There may be a way of linking that with student protection plans.
This is a probing amendment, to see where the Government are moving on this issue and to see if we cannot use the opportunity of the Bill to kick-start attempts made in the past to create a more innovative approach to people’s learning programmes through a properly recognised and organised system of credit accumulation and transfer.
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.
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
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 213, in clause 40, page 22, line 4, leave out “or research awards or both”
See amendment 214.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 214, in clause 40, page 22, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) The OfS may by order in conjunction with UKRI authorise a registered higher education provider to grant research awards.”
Amendments 213 and 214 would give the OfS the power to authorise higher education providers to grant both taught and research degrees but the OfS should be required to do this in conjunction with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
Amendment 235, in clause 40, page 23, line 21, at end insert—
‘(13) The OfS must consult with UKRI, including Research England, and the appropriate National Academies and learned societies before authorising any provider to grant research awards.”
This amendment ensures that OfS consults UKRI, including Research England, before issuing authorisation to grant research awards.
Gordon Marsden
I am pleased to move this amendment and to support the similar amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. The amendments reflect not only our concern but that of a large number of organisations and HE providers about what the relationship will be between the OFS and the new UK Research and Innovation body. Obviously, we will have far more discussion about that in the context of part 3 of the Bill. At this stage, we want to flag up the strong concerns that there should be right from the beginning, not exactly a symbiotic relationship, but a very close relationship between the OFS and UKRI. These probing amendments intend to tease out some of that discussion.
Gordon Marsden
The Minister will understand that I can speak only to the Labour Front Benchers’ two amendments. It is encouraging to hear that he has made provision for co-operation between UKRI and the OFS. He mentioned clause 103, so no doubt we will have another opportunity to discuss the issue when we examine that part of the Bill. On that basis, I will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am afraid that I am not quite so easily repleted—[Laughter.] Clause 103 states:
“The OfS and UKRI may cooperate with one another”.
I accept that subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State an ability to make them co-operate, but the clause does not really capture what we are trying to achieve with our amendments, which is to ensure that the research community is included when research degree-awarding powers are given. The provision might include UKRI, but it does not include the national academies and other learned societies.
I am sure that, having heard my point again, the Minister will want to go away and look into it. Perhaps he will give us an indication of what might be in the guidance or regulations that would assist the OFS in coming to its decisions on research degree awarding powers.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 219, in clause 40, page 22, line 6, after “grant” insert “taught awards and”.
This amendment would make clear that qualifying further education providers will have access to taught awards and foundation degrees and also be able to provide degrees, diplomas, certificates or other appropriate courses of study, as defined by the bill.
The amendment is designed to deal with a particular situation in respect of further education colleges that offer higher education courses. Hon. Members will be aware that at a number of points during the passage of the Bill—on Second Reading and in Committee—I have commented on the importance of higher education delivered by the further education sector, and on the need for the Government to focus significantly on that. The amendment deals with some practical problems that do occur. Without mentioning individuals, I can say that at least a couple of cases have been brought to my constituency advice surgery, and other hon. Members may have faced similar issues.
About 250 colleges offer higher education. Twenty of them, including my local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, have more than 1,000 HE students, and 186 have fewer than 500. The vast majority of college HE courses have been priced at under £6,000, although there has been an increase in those charging above the threshold since the trebling of the tuition fee ceiling in 2012.
The purpose of the amendment is to change the situation whereby colleges that offer foundation degrees are unable also to provide a certificate of higher education, to provide a flexible qualification option for students. Colleges with foundation degree-awarding powers can issue only one award and can consequently issue only a 240-credit foundation degree. A certificate of higher education is 120 credits; the AOC believes, and we agree, that colleges should be able to deliver that as well. Employers often want only a 120-credit certificate of higher education, rather than the full 240-credit foundation degree, because many roles require only level 4. For example, many technician jobs in manufacturing, engineering, construction and accountancy do not require degree-level entry. In addition, many higher apprenticeships include the higher national certificate, which, again, is below degree level.
If I can say so without going outwith clause 40, this issue is highly relevant to what we have said more broadly about the Government’s skills plan. The Sainsbury review particularly singled out the importance of boosting our technical skills, and the Minister and other Ministers concurred with its conclusions. The amendment offers a practical way of assisting that process.
In some cases, a one-year course is an exit destination in its own right. The Bill provides a timely opportunity to address that. The recent OECD report “Skills beyond School”, which echoes the Sainsbury review, states:
“Nearly two-thirds of overall employment growth in the European Union…is forecast to be in the ‘technicians and associate professionals’ category”.
In a 2014 report, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills—which, sadly, the Government have now withdrawn support from, but which has nevertheless produced valuable reports for the Government—found that
“questions remain about the UK’s intermediate skills base. This remains smaller than in many other advanced economies.”
It stated that
“skills shortages are acute, and persistent, in middle-skill skilled trades—declining in number, but demanding to recruit”.
Allowing colleges to offer certificates of higher education would mean that they could meet local labour market needs better, because nationally developed qualifications are often too generic. It would allow colleges to develop learning modules locally to meet specific industry and business needs. It would also prevent time loss, because the college would not have to go to a university to develop such a qualification; it would be able to work immediately with an employer to deliver the necessary training. I say to the Minister in passing that moving in that direction seems entirely appropriate and in accordance with what the Government have already done in the Bill to simplify and improve further education colleges’ ability to award their own separate degrees. Giving colleges the ability to accredit individuals with a certificate of higher education would also be a big step in the right direction towards the much-needed national higher education system that we have been discussing.
The amendment also underlines the point that, in this area at least, further education and higher education are facing and addressing the same sorts of issues. It would promote part-time learning and could allow students to reduce debt more sensibly. Given the recommendations in the skills plan, a certificate of higher education issued by colleges could help to bridge credit-bearing programmes introduced to facilitate transfer or progression between academic and technical routes.
I appreciate that there is a lot of what I might describe as “techie business” in what I have just said, and I do not necessarily expect the Minister to sign up to the amendment, but I ask him and his officials to go away and look carefully at the points I have made. They are not partisan points; the amendment would actually facilitate some of the work the Government are doing in the Bill. Also, in the context of devolution, which we have not talked about much in relation to the Bill, it would make it much easier for some of the new combined authorities, and indeed some of the mayors taking on skills powers, to deliver flexibly some of the improvements that are not just desirable but necessary if we are to boost our productivity and achieve the targets that we will need to achieve in the 2020s.
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
I beg to move amendment 216, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, at end insert
“(c) the provider operates in the interest of students and the public.”
This amendment would ensure any new provider must be operating with the public and student interests as a priority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 217, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, at end insert
“(d) the provider shows evidence of satisfactory and consistent higher education delivery for a minimum of three years, which period may be extended, as part of a partnership with a validating provider.”
This amendment would ensure a further education provider can demonstrate that it can meet the requirements to exercise degree-awarding powers.
Amendment 218, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, at end insert
“(e) there is reasonable assurance that a provider is able to maintain the required standards for the duration of whatever authorisation period is set by the OfS.”
This amendment would ensure that any provider authorised to grant degrees must be able meet the required standards set for the full period of time they are authorised for.
Amendment 234, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) the OfS is assured that the provider is able to maintain the required standards of a UK degree for the duration of the authorisation; and
(d) the OfS is assured that the provider operates in students’ and the public interests.”
This amendment requires the OfS to be assured about the maintenance of standards and about students’ and the public interest before issuing authorisation to grant degrees.
Amendment 220, in clause 40, page 23, line 9, at end insert
“(9A) In making any orders under this section, and sections 41, 42 and 43, the OfS must have due regard to the need to maintain confidence in the higher education sector, and in the awards which they collectively grant, among students, employers, and the wider public.”
This amendment would ensure that the granting and removal of degree awarding powers would be linked to a need to maintain confidence in the sector, and with a view to preserving its excellent reputation.
New clause 9—Automatic review of authorisation—
“(1) The OfS must review an authorisation given by a previous order under section 40(1) if—
(a) the ownership of the registered provider is transferred to another legal person; or
(b) the owner of the registered provider has had restrictions placed on its degree-awarding powers in another jurisdiction, or
(c) for any other reason it would be in the student or public interest to do so.
(2) In this section “review” means consider whether to vary or revoke authorisation within the meaning of section 42.”
This new Clause would ensure that a review of a provider’s degree awarding power would be triggered if the ownership of a provider changes, if the owner of the registered provider faces restrictions to its degree awarding powers in another jurisdiction or if the OfS deems a review necessary to protect students or the wider public interest.
Gordon Marsden
We come to one of the most significant and contentious elements of the Bill—the Government’s proposals to enable new providers. Clearly, the amendments cover a wide area of subjects. Often on these occasions it is difficult to know whether one is delivering a clause stand part speech as opposed to a speech on each amendment or group of amendments, but I will do my best to do the latter.
The Chair
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to any or all of the amendments in the context of the clause, I will be happy to accept that. We can determine later whether we have a clause stand part debate, depending on the level of discussion at this time.
Gordon Marsden
That is very helpful, Mr Hanson. I am grateful for your guidance.
For the convenience of the Committee, I will make clear the context in which we tabled the amendments. Amendment 216 would ensure that providers operate in the interest of students and the public, which we believe is very important. It is not simply a question of competitiveness. Amendment 217 is about providers showing evidence of satisfactory and consistent higher education delivery. I will talk more specifically about the rationale for that timeframe. Amendment 218 states that any provider authorised to grant degrees should be able to meet the required standards set for the full period of time they are authorised for. Amendment 220 states that the OFS must have due regard to the need to maintain confidence in the higher education sector and the awards they collectively grant among students, employers and the wider public.
The amendments deal with specific parts of the process of authorising the granting of degrees proposed by the Government. However, they appear in the context of our grave concerns about the mechanisms and the process that the Government are preparing to take forward. It is not only our grave concerns; most, if not all of the large university and HE provider organisations, including Universities UK and the University and College Union, have the same concerns.
We said on Second Reading that we were concerned about where the rapid expansion of what the Government call challenger institutions is taking us. I said I was concerned that giving providers the option from day one to build up that process would potentially be very dangerous, with students in effect taking a gamble on probationary degrees from probationary providers. I asked, rhetorically, who would pick up all the pieces if those things went wrong.
The amendments are designed to mitigate—I am afraid they would not entirely obliterate—the problems that might arise from the way the framework has been put forward. I want to repeat, to avoid any doubt, that we do not in principle oppose the expansion of the sector, competition in the sector or new providers. However, we believe strongly that without a strong regulatory framework that makes viable easier access for new providers to the higher education sector, we could have major crises, difficulties and scandals that would affect not only the institutions and the students—who are crucial—but this country’s whole reputation for delivering higher education provision.
If the Minister is in any doubt about that, he need only look at the some of the questions raised in the United States about the activities of private providers; at some of the criticisms that Baroness Wolf has levelled at a similar process in Australia; or, as I said on Second Reading, at the issues involving BPP and the Apollo Group some three to four years ago, which caused his predecessor to take a deep breath and pause on these areas. I am not suggesting to him that these things should be set in stone just because the Government got it wrong four years ago and were forced to retreat; I am suggesting that, as I have said previously, the rather gung-ho and raw free-market rhetoric of the White Paper should be tested against some very specific issues and safeguards, which is what we are trying to do with these amendments.
I repeat what has been said by the UCU, which
“acknowledges that private colleges and universities have been a feature of our HE system for a long time. However we are strongly of the opinion that higher education providers should be not-for-profit bodies because these pose a far lower risk to the sector. Accelerating the rate at which for-profit organisations can award degrees or become universities exposes the sector to greater risk from those motivated to move into the market predominantly for financial gain.”
The UCU also expressed concern about the issues surrounding university title, which we will address in due course.
When we consider new clause 6—this will also come up when we consider amendment 221 to clause 43—it might be worth noting that existing universities have grave concerns about the right to revoke degree-awarding powers by order. All the people who would be affected by the failure of a new provider, such as the people who clean, who maintain the buildings or who cook the food—all the people who keep higher education providers going—deserve a say and protection in this area, as well as the students and the academics who will teach at these new institutions, which is why Unison has expressed its strong concerns about the proposal.
The risks of market exit were discussed in the detailed impact assessment produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which assumed that volatility and the risk to students of course or institution closure could be managed with protection plans. Those assumptions, which I have looked at two or three times, still seem to be extremely cavalier. The impact assessment states that there is a
“risk to students attending HEPs that fall outside the scope... Internal BIS forecasts estimate that the number of providers operating outside of the system…will decrease from 655 to 460 by 2027/28.”
There will still be people outside the system.
MillionPlus has expressed similar concerns, and I will put this squarely in the Brexit context. As I said earlier, the eyes of the world will be focused on us, for good or ill, over the next two to three years. I would be surprised if anyone who has been abroad anywhere in the past couple of months has not been asked, “What do you think about Brexit?” For good or ill, that is what loads of people now think about the UK, and it shines a light on the importance of ensuring that the obvious ups and downs of the Brexit process do not cause irrevocable damage to one of this country’s most precious worldwide brands, the UK higher education brand. If we enter a process that does not have sufficient guarantees and protections, apart from the things that we should be doing on a social and a citizen basis to protect the people who work in such areas—this is a pragmatic point—we will commit an act of great folly from which, as I said this morning, we will find it difficult to recover.
Our proposals are designed to mitigate that process. Research Fortnight argued in May that
“the title of university needs to be seen as a privilege…not an automatic entitlement”.
I agree with that. One of my concerns about the Government’s approach—I said this right at the beginning, and others have said the same—is the way in which they have not rowed back on the proposal that, from almost the first day of operation, these applicant providers will have the ability to operate and recruit people for degree processes.
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.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Given the gung-ho attitude that the Minister has displayed in wanting to open up the sector to alternative providers, I am not sure I will get anywhere with amendment 234, but I will try, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has outlined, there is considerable concern across the higher education sector that not enough regulation and requirement is being put on to new institutions before they are allowed to have degree-awarding powers.
The amendment would put a few additional requirements into clause 40(4). The OFS would have to assure itself that the provider was able to maintain the required standards of a UK degree for a period of perhaps three to five years—the length of time we would expect a degree to last—to ensure that it was properly bedded in. The reason for that, as my hon. Friend outlined clearly, is to prevent students from undertaking courses and degrees with new providers that have not been adequately tested and where there are not enough safeguards in place. If a course falls, students have to transfer or be compensated in some way, so the amendment is an attempt to put a few more safeguards in the system.
The amendment asks that
“the provider operates in the interest of students and the public.”
That is important because, as my hon. Friend said, we are all genuinely worried that some providers could operate simply in the interests of their shareholders, without sufficient regard to the needs of students.
We have rehearsed a whole set of arguments, which I will not go through again, about the way in which institutions should demonstrate a public interest. They should have a civic role and be judged in exactly the same way as all other universities. The Minister has not really given us an adequate explanation as to why he has adopted a gung-ho approach with so little regulation and requirements being placed on alternative providers, and he has not mentioned what he will do if students end up losing out. The Committee has not sufficiently added requirements to the Bill to ensure that students’ interests, and indeed the public interest, are safeguarded.
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%.
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 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.
Gordon Marsden
I listened carefully to the Minister, as I have throughout our proceedings. At least he is now addressing some of the meat of the issues, rather than going off and misrepresenting Labour’s position, which I warned him not to do at the beginning because we have made our position clear.
The Minister attempts to smear the Opposition by saying that we are not in favour of for-profit institutions. We did not say that. We said that for for-profit institutions to be absorbing significant amounts of public money and support—the implication of his proposals—we need rigorous inspection and process. I do not believe that he has demonstrated that today by offering a system of, “We’ll do it this way and that way with guidance.”
Where is the evidence? The Minister has produced no evidence for the so-called stifling of all the private institutions that are just springing up. We heard evidence from private sector alternative providers, including Condé Nast. Those providers were not—dare I say—typical of the sort of providers that we will get during this great revolution that the Minister is talking about. If he looked beyond his obsession and besottedness with his competition gurus to the possible implications if his proposals went wrong, he will see that we are not crying about things that will not happen. These are real risks and it is incumbent on us as policy makers and Members of Parliament to look not just to the utopian view but to a realistic view. Public money going into this expansion needs guarantees for the students and for the people who work in the institutions. If they do not get those guarantees, not only will a great deal of public money be lost but the public reputation of our higher education system will be at risk.
It is clear that the Minister is not going to move on these amendments. We will not press the amendments to a vote at this point and will make a decision on clause 40 when we have completed the further deliberations on the clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to say briefly to the Minister that I do not think that it should be easy to get degree-awarding powers in this country. If we are really serious about upholding the quality and excellence of higher education, there should be a rigorous system and, because of the Minister’s remarks and the lack of safeguards for students and the public, I wish to press amendment 234 to a vote.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 234, in clause 40, page 22, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) the OfS is assured that the provider is able to maintain the required standards of a UK degree for the duration of the authorisation; and
(d) the OfS is assured that the provider operates in students’ and the public interests.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment requires the OfS to be assured about the maintenance of standards and about students’ and the public interest before issuing authorisation to grant degrees.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 215, in clause 40, page 23, line 11, after “instrument” insert
“approved and made by the Privy Council as an Order in Council”.
This amendment would ensure scrutiny by the Privy Council of the power to grant awards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 224, in clause 51, page 30, line 15, leave out “(instead of the Privy Council)” and insert “and the Privy Council”.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Amendment 225, in clause 52, page 31, line 7, leave out “Office for Students” and insert “Privy Council”.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Amendment 226, in clause 52, page 31, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Amendment 227, in clause 52, page 31, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 25.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Amendment 228, in clause 52, page 31, line 26, leave out “Office for Students” and insert
“the Office for Students and the Privy Council”.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Amendment 229, in clause 53, page 32, line 5, leave out “OfS” and insert
“the Office for Students and the Privy Council”.
This amendment would ensure the Privy Council retained the right of oversight for the award and revocation of university title.
Gordon Marsden
The group of amendments was tabled not in the expectation that there would be problems with the development of the office for students but in response to the concerns of a number of organisations, including universities, that there should be an existing backstop to the process. It is curious, perhaps, that we should propose to preserve an institution that the Government propose to destroy, but that is what the effect of the changes would be, with the Privy Council being removed from the entire process.
I do not want to speak in great depth or detail, except to repeat what I have said previously, which is that we are entering a period of great difficulty in how our higher education might be perceived overseas. I will not repeat the arguments I made this morning about UK plc and Brexit, but I think they are extremely valid. There is the old saying, of course: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The Minister, full of his competition zeal for all the poor providers that have been blocked out for years and years by the Privy Council and all the other archaic institutions, wants to remove them from the process. We do not suggest that the Privy Council remain the prime mover in the process. However, particularly in the first few years, when the office for students is setting itself up and finding its feet, there should be circumstances in which the powers that the Privy Council currently exercises in the oversight of the award and revocation of university title should be there as a backstop.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title—
“(1) The OfS must establish a committee called the ‘Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title’.
(2) The function of the Committee is to provide advice to the OfS on—
(a) the general exercise of its functions under sections 40, 42, 43 and 53 of this Act, and section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
(b) particular uses of its powers under section 40(1) of this Act; and
(c) particular uses of its powers under section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
(3) The OfS must seek the advice of the Committee before—
(a) authorising a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees under section 40(1) of this Act;
(b) varying any authorisation made under section 40(1) of this Act so as to authorise a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant a category of award or degree that, prior to the variation of the authorisation, it was not authorised to grant; and
(c) providing consent under section 77 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 for an education institution or body corporate to change its names so as to include the word “university” in the name of the institution or body corporate.
(4) The OfS must also seek the advice of UKRI before authorising a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant research awards under section 40(1) of this Act.
(5) The OfS does not need to seek the advice of the Committee before—
(a) revoking an authorisation to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees; or
(b) varying any authorisation to grant taught awards, research awards, or foundation degrees so as to revoke the authorisation of a registered higher education provider or qualifying further education provider to grant a category of award that, prior to the variation of the authorisation, it was authorised to grant.
(6) Subsection (4) applies whether the authorisation being revoked or varied was given—
(a) by an order made under section 40(1) of this Act;
(b) by or under any Act of Parliament, other than under section 40(1) of this Act; or
(c) by Royal Charter.
(7) In providing its advice to the OfS, the Committee must in particular consider the need for students, employers and the public to have confidence in the higher education system and the awards which are granted by it.
(8) The OfS must have regard to the advice given to it by the Committee on both the general exercise of its functions referred to in subsection 2 and any particular uses of its powers referred to in subsection 3.
(9) The majority of the members of the Committee must be individuals who appear to the OfS to have experience of providing higher education on behalf of an English higher education provider or being responsible for the provision of higher education by such a provider.
(10) In appointing members of the Committee who meet these criteria, the OfS must have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged at the time of their appointment in the provision of higher education or in being responsible for such provision.
(11) The majority of the members of the Committee must be individuals who are not members of the OfS.
(12) Schedule 1 applies to the Committee on Degree Awarding Powers and University Title as it applies to committees established under paragraph 8 of that Schedule.”
This new clause would create a committee of the OfS which fulfils much the same functions as the current Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers.
Gordon Marsden
In the interest of time, I will try to be concise. Perhaps because we are coming to the end of the afternoon, the Minister was more constructive in his last comments than he had been previously. He talked about outside inspection and I hope that is a harbinger of his looking favourably on new clause 6.
New clause 6 attempts to answer the famous question posed by Cicero, which always bedevils any Government or organisation: “Who governs the governors?” I will not quote it in Latin; I will leave that to the Minister’s brother.
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
I too will be brief on the substance of clause 40. I welcome what the Minister said about new clause 6. Again, the devil is in the detail and we wait to see that detail in due course, but he has outlined a reasonable process. Unfortunately, however, given the detail of the argument that has been put on clause 40, and in particular the response to our modest and reasonable amendments to mitigate the substantial dangers that we believe are posed by the way in which the Government are proceeding, we do not feel that the Minister has convinced us. We therefore wish to vote against clause 40.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 221, in clause 43, page 24, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert?
“(5) No order shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure the OfS’ power to vary or revoke authorisation given to an English Higher Education provider, or an English further education provider, must be scrutinised and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 222, in clause 44, page 25, line 14, after “provider” insert “and other relevant organisation”.
This amendment would ensure full representations and be made to, and considered by, the OfS before steps are taken to revoke authorisation.
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.
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.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Seventh sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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
Before we commence proceedings this morning, Let me say that I am aware that this room varies between warm and very warm. We are trying our best to find the most accommodating solution to make it cool and reasonable for all of us, but we may not succeed. In the meantime, please be aware that I am having discussions about how we can resolve that.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Hanson. In previous sittings the Minister made reference to a document that he thought members of the Committee were aware of. In fact, the colleague in question was not aware of it and nor were most of the rest of us, because the document was not placed in evidence before the Committee. It is a convention—perhaps you will guide me on this—that when Public Bill Committees are sitting, any documents, new statements or important letters that the Minister or his officials may put out in matters to do with the Bill are made available to the members of the Committee as soon as they are ready. They should also be made available at the table for the relevant Committee sittings. I know the Minister is a naturally courteous man, so I am sure this is an oversight, but could this be made clear for future reference?
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
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.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a very important and powerful point. Does he agree that the situation is becoming even more complicated because now, we understand, there will be a link between fee increases and the TEF results, but the Government are not being clear about what the uplift in fees can cover? One would assume, as there is a link between the TEF and the fee level, that it would be to support the quality of provision within institutions, but we understand that that uplift in fees might be used to fund secondary school education, requiring students to fund not only their own education but that of secondary school students.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend, indefatigable as ever, makes an excellent point. I will not dwell on the issue to which she refers. It was part of the substance of the Prime Minister’s speech, and a lot of it was in the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education the other day, so I will not go into any detail on it other than to observe that my hon. Friend is absolutely right: if universities are to take on a significant, major role—there can be lots of discussions about how that is done, the value of it and all the rest—inevitably that is another element that will call upon their resources.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I would like to try to understand where the Labour party is on this matter. If we are not allowed to build in for inflation, what do we do? For example, I believe fees have now dropped back to £8,500 in real terms. We are merely building in inflation proofing, so that universities can think about how they invest in relation to the teaching excellence framework and invest for students by delivering courses of quality. What do we hear from the Opposition? At the general election, the then Leader of the Opposition was talking about taking fees down to £6,000, and I think that the latest policy is for university education to be free. We have to pay for excellence and quality.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the hon. Lady for her extremely eloquent intervention. Perhaps it will set a trend for Government Members to speak on some of these very important clauses. I am sure that their constituents would like to know that the hours that they spend in the Committee Room, which inevitably are taken from other things, are rewarded by their saying something about the Bill. So far, we have not heard much from them.
The hon. Lady’s intervention enables me to make two points. First, I remind her gently that she is a Member of the Government party, and it is the Government who are advancing these proposals. It is not a question of what the Labour party may or may not have promised.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Evennett)
That’s a bit feeble.
Gordon Marsden
I remind the Whip that, constitutionally, the point of an Opposition is to hold the Government to account for their legislation, not simply to engage in a running commentary. Government Members have been pricked by our pointing out that the Minister is trying to introduce these measures without proper discussion.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Of course it is the Opposition’s job to oppose, but the public want to know whether they are being hypocritical while they do it. The fact is that it was Labour that enshrined the power to uprate tuition fees. This measure is about ensuring that students get value for money.
The Chair
Order. Before we continue, I remind colleagues, first, that Members are not hypocritical in any way, shape or form, and secondly that we are debating schedule 2. Within schedule 2, there are references to clause 25, but we will get to clause 25 in due course, so we should restrain our comments to the mechanisms in schedule 2. That is a gentle reminder to colleagues.
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.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the ability to increase fees based on improving excellence is a massive incentive for institutions to do exactly that, by putting on better courses?
Gordon Marsden
There we have it—the consumer-obsessed view of Government Members. That is not to say the consumer element is not an important part of the Bill—it is—but they are obsessed with the idea that consumerism and competition are the be-all and end-all of the way in which these fees will be raised and judged by university students. Actually, there is a very strong case for saying—a number of universities have already said it in their evidence—that linking the TEF with fee increases is pernicious because there is no evidence base that it will improve quality and because of its controversial nature. Certainly this year the Government have allowed an inflation-rated increase of 2.8% that is not linked in any meaningful form—this is no criticism of higher education institutions—with any major evidence of teaching quality improvement.
I think back to the general election of 1918, when Lloyd George famously issued a coupon to candidates to say that they were bona fide and to be voted for. The way in which the Government have tried to take this forward reminds me of that.
The Chair
Order. May I remind the Committee gently that we are debating schedule 2? While a range of issues are linked to it, we are debating the words on pages 68, 69 and 70 of the Bill. I would be grateful if Members could focus on schedule 2, because other issues will arise in the course of the debate on later clauses.
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.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is listening to other evidence than what we heard. He talks about evidence from the vice-chancellors, so let me quote one of the vice-chancellors who has given evidence. Ed Peck of Nottingham Trent University says:
“Linking increases in student fees to performance under the TEF is a further safeguard for students, one that has now been largely accepted by the sector.”
Is the hon. Gentleman calling the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University cynical?
Gordon Marsden
No, I am not calling any of the vice-chancellors cynical. Obviously they will welcome any mechanism that will bring forth additional fee funding. The people I am calling cynical—is cynical an appropriate parliamentary expression, Mr Hanson? I mean no disrespect.
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.]
The Chair
Order. I know these issues do raise strong passions, but we have to have a debate where only one person speaks at once and that goes for heckling on both sides. If anybody is going to heckle, it is me. In the meantime, I call the hon. Member for Blackpool South.
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
Absolutely. Who is going to argue with that? No one is arguing against that. With all due respect to the Minister, I have known Steve Smith a great deal longer than he has. I have known Steve Smith for about 15 years and he has always been a doughty defender of all of these aspects. Yet again, the quote the Minister gives is simply about the principle of the teaching excellence framework. That I think is the point my hon. Friend wishes to intervene on.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene. My intervention is sharpened by the Minister’s comments. Does my hon. Friend recognise that Professor Smith was actually saying that this gives us an opportunity to draw additional income to invest in teaching, in effect because it is the only show in town? Does he also recognise that when the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills took evidence from the university sector on the point of the TEF and the link, there was uniform opposition to the link at that stage?
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.
Gordon Marsden
I am more than happy to let the Minister intervene again when he gets his quotes right.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
With reference to the Select Committee, I want to pick up one point from its conclusions. The Select Committee said:
“We agree with the Government that no university should be allowed to increase its tuition fees without being able to demonstrate that the quality of its teaching meets minimum standards.”
Gordon Marsden
That is a perfectly reasonable and sagacious thing for the Select Committee to say, and it is to be expected. The Select Committee did not endorse this specific mechanism introduced in this specific way. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but we are going to have to disagree, though I am fairly sure that the record will bear me out on that. If the Minister wishes to demonstrate otherwise, he is able to do so.
I will move on as I am conscious of time, and we need to get some movement. I will talk about one or two other areas related to the linkage between TEF and fees. We will reserve the concerns of Cambridge and other universities about TEF for a later stage. We should also consider where this proposal will take a university’s position with regard to the students it wants to attract.
I want to quote Professor David Phoenix, chair of MillionPlus and the vice-chancellor—since we are quoting vice-chancellors this morning—of London South Bank University. When the Government’s Green Paper was produced, he rightly said:
“A focus on quality, continuous improvement and the incentivisation of excellent teaching is at the centre of every university’s ambitions for its students.”
He welcomed the Green Paper and, for the avoidance of doubt, the opportunity to highlight the many strengths and benefits of UK universities and their teaching, but he said this:
“Linking fee increases with a Teaching Excellence Framework…based on metrics that are proxies for teaching quality”—
that is the hub of the discussion, debate and aeration on the Minister’s part this morning: the automatic assumption that teaching quality equals his TEF—
“is unlikely to provide students or employers with an accurate picture of the rich and varied teaching and learning environments that universities provide. This risks damaging the reputation of the higher education sector in the UK and is why we recommend that the government defer the introduction of a multi-level TEF in 2018 until further work has been completed to determine the best way to promote teaching excellence.”
Since that Green Paper was published, there has been a lot of iteration and discussion, and I return to what I said at the beginning: I understand why the Minister has listened to the sector and not introduced the TEF in all its glory—if that is what it is to be—with the implications he wants for fees. Fees could go down, although I think it is unlikely. They are far more likely to go up, but that does not cancel out the points we have made all along.
We are not the only ones with concerns on these issues. We will talk about the cost of the teaching framework at another time, but the University and College Union, Unison and a range of other organisations oppose the Government’s plans to raise tuition fees and link variable rises to a rating system. That is precisely because they are concerned that those plans will further alienate young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and put them off going to those universities. In the process, that will affect those groups’ members. It will affect their members’ ability to have jobs, whether those are teaching jobs or all the other jobs done by the people needed to make universities work.
One of the things that depresses me most about the Government’s approach to the Bill thus far, certainly in Committee, is that they seem to have a blind spot about anything other than the mechanics of producing the legislation to do these things. Every time we table an amendment that would include students and members of the workforce, they fight shy of putting it in the Bill. I will leave that point there.
I need to touch what the situation will be if leading universities opt out of the TEF, which was the subject of an article in Times Higher Education at the beginning of September. Reference was made to various issues, including Russell Group universities perhaps not wanting to take part because:
“They fear that taking part in the TEF will become such an administratively burdensome activity that the cost of participation will become so expensive that it will outweigh the value of an inflationary increase in tuition fees.”
We should be concerned about that not only because it is causing Russell Group vice-chancellors to agonise but because it threatens both the future of the TEF—I repeat, we want to see a proper TEF succeed—and future access for the sorts of students whom every member of the Committee, no matter whether they are Government or Opposition, wants to see at university. We all want to improve access to participation.
It is extremely important that the process in this matter is not a repetition of the precedent from before the summer recess. The issues are extremely important. People are so frustrated about the teaching excellence framework not being debated on the Floor of the House and in the context of the Bill, because that will enable the Government to evade detailed scrutiny of all the issues and of that process subsequently.
We have already seen how the Government did not choose to address the 2.8% increase in fees on Second Reading. We seek an assurance that if there are any major issues related to the TEF, including what the Government wish to do or not to do on fees, it will not simply be left to ministerial guidance or, with all due respect, shuffled down to a Delegated Legislation Committee, which will not allow all Members of this House to engage with the important and potentially very beneficial development of properly recognising teaching in our universities and higher education institutions.
Paul Blomfield
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise to make some relatively brief remarks on the principle of the fees link. The Minister is understandably but deliberately confusing the issues of teaching excellence and fee increases. The inquiry by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills received a considerable amount of evidence on this issue. When the Government were still thinking about the issue, the overwhelming bulk of evidence from universities was that, while they celebrated the Government’s intention to put teaching quality at the heart of the agenda—the Minister has quoted the evidence that they did so—and welcomed the opportunity provided by a teaching excellence framework, the measure would be wrong, could have perverse outcomes and certainly would not assist the Government’s objective of linking the teaching excellence framework to fee increases.
Many Opposition Members disagree with the current funding regime in our universities and want to see different approaches that adequately fund our universities so they can continue to be among the best in the world without some of the other consequences of the current regime.
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.
The Chair
Order. On all those issues, it is helpful for the Chair if Members occasionally say the words “schedule 2”. If the Minister could focus our attention back on to the schedule that would be helpful.
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.
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.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 168, in clause 13, page 8, line 12, at end insert
“and which must include information about how students will be protected from any reasonable financial loss if an event specified by the OfS were to occur, in particular the closure of a course or a higher education provider.”
This amendment would ensure that students are protected from reasonable financial loss if their provider or course closes.
In the interests of allowing a little light as opposed to heat into the proceedings, and given the nature of the hour, I do not intend to speak at great length to the amendment, although I will raise some broader issues when we debate a subsequent one. Again, I draw on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said in the previous debate about the challenge to the Government to recognise the interests and concerns of students, which is what the amendment is designed to do. So that Members are in no doubt, clause 13 relates to initial and ongoing registration conditions, and the amendment would insert a very important additional condition.
We have heard a lot about transparency in the Bill, and about how things can be put forward and on the record, and early in Committee we had some debate about the nature of documents and all the rest of it. However, that does not relate to one of the most crucial things that students will want to know, in particular those who are attending new providers—a subject for further debate. There is nothing wrong with being new, and on Second Reading the Minister scratched very hard for precedents going back to the 1820s and 1830s and talked about cockney universities that are now world-beaters, such as University College London and King’s College London. He was right and, as an historian, I praise him for referring to historical precedent. Sometimes, however, it can be stretched a little too far, and on that occasion I think either he or his team did so.
Nevertheless, new providers have to show their bona fides and students must have confidence in them. My amendment is designed to make it easier for them to have that confidence. Student representatives are extremely concerned about the lack of detail of what would happen if things went wrong—and in life things do go wrong. Things might not go wrong in the Conservative manifesto, but they go wrong in life, and then have to be addressed. In this modest amendment, I am suggesting that the clause should include some information about how students will be protected from any reasonable loss if an event specified by the OFS were to occur, in particular the closure of a course or a higher education provider. That is the more difficult and detailed stuff, not the principle or the fine-sounding words that can roll off the Minister’s tongue.
This is a probing amendment and I am not asking for it to be included in the Bill, but we want to hear a lot more detail from the Minister throughout our deliberations if we are to be convinced that his safeguards for students are adequate.
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 (Eighth sitting)
Gordon Marsden 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)
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.
Gordon Marsden
I appreciate that there is a delicate balance to be struck in trying to set up all the details of the OFS in Committee. I welcome the Minister’s view on the importance of track records. Obviously, that will be weighed up by everybody else in considering the Bill. Does the Minister have any indication at the moment for how long a new provider should have been involved in an area of activity before making these applications?
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 (Ilford North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 14, page 8, line 27, after “documents” insert “and practices”.
This amendment is consequential to amendment 26.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 169, in clause 14, page 8, line 34, leave out “English higher education providers” and insert “Higher education providers in England”.
This amendment would ensure higher education providers which operate in other UK nations are not excluded.
The Whip returns just as I am moving an amendment that, if he did not look at it carefully, he might think was a piece of pure pedantry—
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Evennett)
Perish the thought.
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 beg to move amendment 170, in clause 14, page 8, line 40, after “law”, insert
“, including from Government and other stakeholders”.
This amendment would ensure that academic staff are not constrained on academic freedom by Government or other relevant stakeholders.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 171, in clause 14, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) relevant student bodies and/or their representatives,
( ) academic workforce and/or their representatives,”.
This amendment would ensure the OfS must consult with students/academic staff before revision of the list.
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
The Chair
I am delighted to call the Member who represents Durham University, which is where I went to university and learned everything I know—when I was concentrating, which I shall now do for the hon. Lady’s speech.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 174, in clause 17, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) specify what happens to existing students during the suspension period as documented in an institution’s student protection plan.”.
This amendment would ensure clarity as to the safeguards for students at a suspended institution.
Gordon Marsden
We return to a subject that we have already begun to touch on and will touch on further: the issue of what happens when things go wrong for whatever reason. I will deal with amendment 172 first, which is a probing amendment. As in the discussion that we had earlier on the issue of 28 days and 40 days, the figure is not entirely arbitrary, but it is a figure that could be played with.
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 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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss 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.”
This amendment would require that any students still undertaking courses at that provider are notified if the provider becomes deregistered.
Gordon Marsden
This amendment, again, is in line with transparency before Parliament, particularly transparency in serious cases. That is what it would be, in our opinion, if a provider were removed from the register. We had a run-around on this subject in another context on Tuesday. The Minister said to me then, perfectly reasonably, that the register would be done in real time, that it was an ongoing process and so on. I observed that things done on a rolling basis day by day are often things that people do not pick up on.
After all, if a provider is to be removed from the register, there must be substantial reasons for doing so, and it is in the public interest, let alone the interests of students and other stakeholders, that that should be made clear. They should not be constrained to look on a website every day to see whether their institution has not made the grade in some way. As a de minimis process, it should be the case that the OFS must submit, according to the terms of the amendment,
“any list produced under subsection (7) to the Secretary of State who shall lay it before Parliament.”
That is not onerous—indeed, one might say that stronger things could have been put into the Bill. However, it is important for the sake of transparency and confidence in the sector, particularly if we are going to be dealing with a significant number of new and alternative providers over the next 10 years, that the public and students have confidence, and that the communities in which those new providers provide higher education have confidence. That is why we tabled amendment 175 as a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will understand the difference between simply putting something on a register in real time and having a fixed period in which to lay it before Parliament.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will speak to new clause 5. The clause continues the argument set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South that in the event of deregistration, the interests of students must be paramount. In particular, students and their degrees must be protected, and they must be able to prepare and decide what to do if their institution is deregistered or their course is removed.
The purpose of new clause 5 is to ensure that something is put on the face of the Bill about how and when students will be informed that there is a problem with their institution. It will ensure that the governing body of a higher education provider informs students enrolled on one of its courses if it is notified by the OFS of its intention to suspend the registration of the institution or remove it from the register, or if it refuses to approve the new access and participation plan, which would have the effect of removing it from the register. It stresses that the governing body must notify students if a suspension or deregistration is to take place, when it will take effect, whether it is enforced or voluntary and, critically, whether there is an expiry date for any existing access and participation plan.
The new clause is straightforward: it simply seeks to set out in the Bill some basic protections for students to ensure that they are informed well in advance. Although the new clause does not say this, students should be notified before something inaccurate gets into the media that might alarm them. They should be informed well in advance of anything leaking out and be given clear information about whether there is going to be a suspension or deregulation, and when. Critically—this was the purpose of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South—students must be enabled to take relevant and appropriate action early enough to safeguard their current and future studies. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
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 thank the Minister for his response. It is clear that, if not a philosophical, there might be a slight ideological division for us on whether it should be “must”, or “considers it to be appropriate”. He will be relieved to know I will not go down that route again. I accept the thrust of his arguments and am glad that he has been induced, if I may put it that way, to speak as passionately on the subject as he has, because that will enable a much clearer steer to go to the OFS. I think that steer is important, as I have said before, with any new institution, notwithstanding the wisdom of the Secretary of State in appointing whoever she does to those particular posts. On that basis, for my own part—my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham must speak for herself—I am prepared to withdraw amendment 175.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I think that he was assuring us that the protection plan will contain clear guidance about how students are to be informed in the event of an impending deregistration or suspension. If that was indeed what the Minister was saying, that suffices for the moment and I will not press new clause 5.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Refusal to renew an access and participation plan
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly, but the Minister will be well aware that Universities UK has, in its written evidence to the Committee and, I am sure, in person with him, expressed some real concerns about how the concepts of quality and standards are being applied in this legislation.
In the written evidence, Universities UK pointed out to the Committee that the way in which standards should be assessed is not being set out clearly enough, nor has enough clarity been given to the difference between what is meant by “quality” and “standards” throughout the Bill. Universities UK states:
“The quality of higher education provided is clearly a key consideration in the regulation of the sector, although at present the bill makes the relevant condition one which may be applied rather than one which is a mandatory condition of any institution seeking to be included on the register of higher education providers.”
It points out that all the clauses subsequent to clause 13 that deal with assessing quality and standards should make the distinction between “quality” and “standards” much clearer.
On that point, clause 23(3) as drafted states:
“‘Standards’ has the same meaning as in section 13(1)(a).”
Clause 13(1)(a) states that
“a condition relating to the quality of, or the standards applied to, the higher education provided by the provider (including requiring the quality to be of a particular level or particular standards to be applied);”.
That does not seem to be a particularly helpful or clear definition.
Will the Minister, from clause 13 onwards and in clauses 23, 25 and 27, assist the Committee in its deliberations by agreeing to put more clarity in the Bill or in regulations?