Higher Education and Research Bill

John Pugh Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I want to make a little more progress, because it is important that I continue to inform the House of how the office for students will work, and particularly how it will regulate providers.

If a provider breaches its conditions of registration, the OFS will have access to a range of sanctions, including monetary penalties and, in extreme cases, suspending or deregistering providers, to safeguard the interests of students and taxpayers and to maintain the world-class reputation of the sector. Our proposals have the support of those who know best, with the likes of Professor Simon Gaskell, chair of a taskforce that was established to review the regulation of the sector, commenting that

“there have been a number of significant changes to the funding of higher education and to the number of providers offering courses. Regulation of the sector needs to keep pace with these developments if confidence, and our international reputation, are to be maintained.”

Indeed, only today the University Alliance described the Bill as

“a raft that can take us to calmer waters”.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has emphasised the need for collaboration. Clause 2(1)(b) mentions

“the need to encourage competition between English higher education providers…in the interests of students and employers”.

She has identified that collaboration is in the interests of students and employers, so why is she objecting to putting it in the Bill?

[Justine Greening]

I feel as though we are already delving into the Bill Committee debate that will no doubt take place on this clause. I welcome the House’s engagement with the Bill. It is important to get it right, and we will have an important debate to make sure that it is properly structured. I look forward to the Bill Committee debate when Parliament returns after the recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed you are. The words “top flight” came from the top of my head and I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. My daughters have enjoyed red brick universities, but my friends’ children have been to all manner of providers, including good further education colleges and good apprenticeship schemes. There are fewer degree apprentices at the moment, because that system has not filtered through. More than anything, people need the appropriate qualifications.

I do not want to go on about the statistics around white young men and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, because they speak for themselves. I would instead like to articulate the situation of career changers: mature members of our society who, in their 30s and 40s, when they have mortgages and children, want to change careers. That includes the nurses who want to become doctors, and the parliamentarians who want to become teachers.

[John Pugh]

Where are they?

[Jo Churchill]

Exactly. All manner of people who might want to take a different career path are precluded from doing so because they cannot get the appropriate qualifications, and we need to look at that. I was lucky when I did my MSc as a mature student, because I lived in Nottingham. The hon. Lady whom I followed; I am sorry, I cannot remember her constituency—[Hon. Members: “Walthamstow!”]. She spoke articulately about need, and made a good point about the 3% in the system being such a small number, and it is. However, when I was a mature student under the previous Labour Government, I could not access support to help me with nursery fees for my four small children or to help me with my MSc. Things have not got better, and the Bill will allow us to start to push things forward. So although I am open to criticism, I think that what the hon. Lady said was a little unfair.

Earlier in the debate, Members spoke about collaboration and the need to make collaboration mandatory for institutions, and I would like to use East Anglia as an exemplar of joined-up thinking. Next to us sits Cambridge University, which has the most money for research; the University of East Anglia is a leading university in Norfolk; and the new University Campus Suffolk, which has just been granted the ability to award degrees, is a community university. That blend offers people choice. That university in Suffolk, which has a campus in my constituency, has a member of the LEP and the local authority on the board. We need to encourage that sort of thing rather than making collaboration mandatory. They talked to further education providers, schools and businesses about how to fill the gaps in IT and engineering and to boost productivity, looking at nuclear power, farming, health and care. That is what I want the Bill to support.

Higher Education and Research Bill

John Pugh Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only is this a waste for the individual, but we as a society are cutting off our nose to spite our face. It is a waste of potential for all of us, when we could benefit from that person’s higher education.

New clause 8 is not about creating special circumstances for refugees—the Minister falsely contrasted the position on refugees, humanitarian protection and UK students—and others who have arrived in the UK seeking asylum. Instead, it is about removing the existing barriers preventing young people who came to the UK seeking protection, and who are capable of attending university, from fulfilling their potential, so I urge him to think again.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[John Pugh]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 40, page 24, line 13, at end insert—

“(13) Before authorising any provider to grant research awards, the OfS must consult with—

(a) UKRI, including Research England,

(b) the appropriate National Academies and learned societies, and

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

Amendment 53, in clause 85, page 54, leave out line 19.

This amendment, together with amendment 54, would keep Innovate UK as a separate organisation to UK Research and Innovation.

Government amendment 17, in clause 86, page 55, line 3, at end insert—

“( ) The functions conferred by subsection (1)(a) to (e) include, in particular, power to encourage and support the provision of postgraduate training in science, technology, humanities and new ideas.”

This amendment makes clear that the functions of UKRI under clause 86(1)(a) to (e) include the power to encourage and support the provision of postgraduate training in science, technology, humanities and new ideas.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment 17, after “humanities” insert “, social sciences”.

Amendment 54, page 56, line 30, leave out clause 89.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 52.

Amendment 42, in clause 90, page 57, line 21, after “appropriate” insert

“including relevant bodies in the devolved administrations”.

This amendment allows Research England to coordinate with its devolved counterparts.

Amendment 55, in clause 94, page 58, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) In making grants to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must specify the separate allocation of funding to be made by UKRI to—

(a) functions exercisable by the Councils mentioned in section 88(1) pursuant to arrangements under that section,

(b) functions exercisable by Innovate UK pursuant to arrangements under section 89, and

(c) functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 90.

(1B) No variation may be made to the allocation of funding specified by the Secretary of State in subsection (1A) unless each House of Parliament has passed a resolution approving any such variation and has the consent of the devolved administrations.”

This amendment would ensure there would be separate financial allocations to the Research Councils (collectively), Innovate UK, and Research England.

Amendment 56, in clause 95, page 59, line 45, at end insert—

“(6) In giving direction to UKRI, the Secretary of State must act in the best interests of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and, before giving such direction, must consult on research and innovation policies and their priorities with the following—

(a) the Scottish Government,

(b) the Welsh Government, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Executive.

(7) Before giving any direction to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek agreement to the terms of that direction from—

(a) the Scottish Government,

(b) the Welsh Government, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Executive.”

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State such that before giving directions to the UKRI in regards to research priorities, the Secretary of State must consult the devolved administrations.

Amendment 43, in clause 105, page 63, line 23, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between the OfS and UKRI.

Amendment 44, page 63, line 24, 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 45, page 63, line 25, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment would ensure cooperation and information sharing between the OfS and UKRI.

Government amendment 35.

Amendment 59, in schedule 9, page 101, line 20, at end insert—

“(9) A joint committee is to be established by UKRI and OfS, which must—

(a) consist of representatives of both UKRI and OfS, and

(b) produce an annual report on the health of the higher education sector.

(10) The report must make an assessment of—

(a) the strength of the sector,

(b) work undertaken to improve equality of opportunity,

(c) the strength of separate disciplines,

(d) the availability of research funding,

(e) the awarding of research degrees,

(f) the quality of post-graduate training,

(g) access to shared facilities,

(h) the effectiveness of knowledge exchange,

(i) skills development, and

(j) measures taken to act in the public interest.”

[John Pugh]

It might be helpful if I refreshed hon. Members’ memories about what new clause 11 contains, so that we know what we are talking about. It states:

“Within six months of section 84 of this Act coming into force, and every year thereafter, UKRI shall report to the Secretary of State on—

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

(b) non-EU

specialist employees employed by UKRI and English higher education providers.”

It contains the critical subsection (3), which states:

“Should any report made under subsection (1) identify a decrease in the number of international specialist employees since the previous report was produced, the Secretary of State must make an assessment of the impact of such a reduction on UKRI’s ability to deliver its functions under section 86 of this Act.”

We all accept that universities have major anxiety about research funding post Brexit, simply because while we are in the EU there is a huge net benefit to the UK, in cash and personnel terms—in all terms—in key subjects such as science and medicine in particular. The Government are doing their best to pour oil on troubled waters with various reassuring mantras. They say that there is no change yet—well, we know that—and that there will be vigilance about what the EU is up to so that it does not cut us out of projects we ought to be involved in; there are vague promises of future largesse, with hopes of continuity, and statements that there are always prospects beyond the EU.

Sadly, none of that is working particularly well. Anxiety in the university sector is as emphatic as it was to begin with. We are not simply talking about money; we are talking about people. That is what new clause 11 is principally about. In some universities the number of foreign nationals working as lecturers and specialist employees is as high as 30%. That contrasts markedly with French universities and many other continental universities. It is a feature of the British university scene that makes it very different and very desirable.

Recognising that universities were worried about this issue, we asked vice-chancellors through a survey exactly what their views were and how concerned they were. I am happy to share the full results of that survey with any Member who expresses an interest. One question we asked was:

“Are you worried that the uncertainty regarding research grants and the future of EU academics could have a negative impact on standards at UK universities?”

Some 73% said yes. We also asked:

“Do you agree that it is necessary to maintain freedom of movement between the UK and the EU to protect research funding, the right to reside and work of EU academic staff and the right of all UK and EU students to study anywhere in the EU?”

It was a slightly inelegant question, but Members get the gist. The answer was that 83% said that yes, freedom of movement was crucial.

In the process of conducting the survey, I got a phone call from a vice-chancellor who spoke with a more anecdotal and personal view about his own university. He told me of the difficulties academics were currently facing in planning their future, thinking ahead, considering what they would do about their families—young academics, in particular—and wondering where their future lay. Like a lot of people planning their lives, they wanted a bit of certainty and security. Towards the end of the conversation he made what I thought was a very shocking confession. I had conducted the conversation on the assumption—my assumption, from his impeccable English —that he himself was English. I have probably given the game away, but it turned out that he was Belgian, and shared all the concerns that he was voicing on behalf of his colleagues.

This is a personal issue for a lot of valuable and skilled people, some of whom are already facing, unbelievable though this is, an increase in prejudice and, sadly, something that amounts at times to hate crime on their university campuses. If those skilled contributors go, some courses simply will not happen, because we need those people—that is why we got them in the first place—and some will worsen; university life will itself worsen.

The Minister is a very civilised man, who I am sure wants a diverse university sector and wants the best of EU talent to stay here, and to continue to come here. He would not welcome an exodus. He speaks fluent French, so has a true continental mindset, although it may not be encouraging to describe him as having that at this stage in the Government’s deliberations. I am sure he would welcome an early warning of any kind of exodus, and any kind of problem with or diminution of the involvement of international lecturers in our universities. The new clause would simply give him that.

[Carol Monaghan]

I will speak to amendments 55 and 56. I will start with amendment 56, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).

The proposals in the Bill to reform the UK research councils have implications for higher education in Scotland, and we have concerns about the potential consequences for Scotland’s research base. The SNP tabled an amendment in Committee that sought to ensure representation on the UKRI board of people with relevant experience of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland higher education sectors, as well as an understanding of the research and innovation policy context and landscape across the whole of the UK. We withdrew the amendment but reserved the right to bring it back on Report. That is what we are doing now.

We are pleased that the Government listened to the Scottish National party’s concerns in Committee and have tabled their own measure on this issue, Government amendment 36. However, although we welcome their acknowledgement of the need for the board of UKRI to include experience of the devolved Administrations, it is disappointing to note that amendment 36 requires experience of only one of those Administrations. That does not allow for the proper consideration of all devolved Administrations and their policy priorities within UKRI.

UKRI must have an understanding of the whole UK research and innovation landscape and must act in the interests of all devolved Administrations. That is why we have tabled amendment 56. What we have in front of us in Government amendment 36 does not adequately address our concerns and those of stakeholders, including Universities Scotland, Universities Wales, Queen’s University Belfast, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, NUS Scotland, the University and College Union Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Our amendment is not partisan, but draws on a whole sector of university opinion throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and has the full support of the Scottish Government.

The UK Government said that they would introduce a Higher Education and Research Bill that included measures set out in Paul Nurse’s review of the research councils. Our amendment would ensure the Bill matched what Sir Paul Nurse noted in his review, that

“there is a need to solicit and respond to distinct research priorities and evidence requirements identified by the devolved administrations”.

The Bill as it stands does not meet the overarching principles of the Nurse review, as the governance of UK Research and Innovation is accountable only to the UK Government, with principally English interests. We believe that the governance of UKRI needs to reflect the priorities of each of the Governments within the UK; if it does not, there could be a lack of consideration of Government priorities and research needs in Scotland and other devolved nations among the decision-making bodies of the research councils and of Innovate UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh]

I do not propose to press my new clause to a vote.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

“Post Study Work Visa: evaluation

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

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

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

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

(ii) the UK economy, and

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

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

(ii) the UK economy.”

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.