Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill before us and welcome him back to the Dispatch Box. We are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. I declare previous interests: for 13 years, I was the secretary and academic registrar of what is now Edinburgh Napier University; my wife is a governor of a university in London; and I have two children currently studying at British universities and one who graduated two years ago.

Like many of us here today—I suspect this from looking around—I have been made to reflect by this debate on the changes since I and my brothers went to university in the 1960s. Our fees were paid and we had a full maintenance grant. I could not have gone to university without the changes made after the Robbins report and I am sure that my life would have been very different had I not had that chance. Education has been and always will be a ladder out of social disadvantage.

As we have heard, this is the first higher education Bill for a decade and it is long overdue. Since 2012, our higher education system has been transformed by regulations and orders, but not by primary legislation. The tripling of fees, the introduction of income-contingent tax liabilities—loans, in common parlance—and the ending of maintenance grants were also described as market-driven and aimed at putting students at the heart of the system. This is of course the outcome of relying on the all-too-familiar neoliberal ideology, which places faith in the unregulated free market as the most efficient allocator of resources and which has wealth creation, privatisation, deregulation and individualism as the engines of economic growth. It was interesting that the Minister stressed, rather obviously, that the Bill was a key part of the Conservative manifesto of 2015.

But has the result of these reforms been for the good? We have students leaving university with personal debts of around £50,000 and a large majority of them will not repay their loans in full. We have the most expensive undergraduate courses in the world. There has been a complete collapse in part-time provision and a reduction in home-based postgraduate students. As far as the supply-side reforms are concerned there are indeed a few, mainly London-based, new colleges—it is a very small number—and few of them attract more than a handful of students. How precisely will that raise performance and quality across the whole country?

Most worrying of all is the huge uncovered gap in public finances. According to the recent report of the Educational Policy Institute:

“The contribution of student loans to net government debt is forecast to rise from around 4 per cent of GDP today to over 11 per cent in the 2040s”.

This is no doubt why, almost unbelievably, the Government recently altered the terms of student loans with retrospective effect—a grossly unfair move that we will take up vigorously in later stages.

While we welcome the chance to debate higher education—the high number of speakers who have signed up today is a testament to the interest in the subject in your Lordships’ House—we do not welcome the main thrust of the Bill. The key to our concerns is that the main focus of the Bill is not on promoting scholarship, encouraging research or a concern for truth; rather, it has the goal of turning the UK’s higher education system into an even more competitive market-driven one, at the expense of both quality and the public interest.

Universities have multiple and complex roles in every society across the world, and we all gain from that. They are public institutions serving the knowledge economy and the knowledge society, as well as being the tools of economic progress and social mobility. They use the precious safe harbour of academic freedom to seek truth wherever it is to be found and publish it for all to see. They transmit and project values of openness, tolerance, inquiry and respect for diversity, which are the key to civilisation in an increasingly globalised world. By introducing the practices of reasoned debate, dialogue and discussion, responsible problem-solving and critical thinking, undergraduate education instils democratic habits of thought and action: what Amartya Sen calls “public reason”.

A core mission of our universities has always been to provide their students with skills which will allow them to get jobs and to prosper in business and industry. But it is equally important that universities educate their students to think critically and to engage with the knowledge that comes from scholarship. They must also help them to develop the ability to engage in lifelong learning, which will be so necessary in the labour markets of the future. The academic staff’s engagement with students has many of the attributes of gift relationships, said by Titmuss to be among the most powerful social forces that bind social groups together. It is not a market transaction to be constructed solely around the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The regulatory architecture being created by the Bill aims to simplify but it does not. The Office for Students replaces both the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Privy Council, in that it will regulate and fund the sector but also confer degree-awarding powers and university title. In certain cases it will even validate degree-awarding powers itself and, with Ministers, have the power to remove them and the university title, too.

In seeking to create a single body that is both regulator and cheerleader for the sector, the Government seem to be falling into the same problem which bedevilled the BBC Trust. We will argue that there is a case for retaining many of the elements of the current system, with separate bodies focusing on quality, regulation and access. The current system may be cumbersome but it is not broken, and if the Government argue that they would never intervene in ways that would restrict academic freedom, why do they insist on such powers?

We welcome competition, collaboration and new entrants to the sector, but we believe that the bar to entry must be high in order to protect students and the global reputation of the sector. By weakening the conditions to be met by new providers who wish to acquire degree-awarding powers and university title, the Bill risks devaluing our degrees and in turn putting off international students from applying to study here. In any case, surely any new higher education provider awarding its own degrees or calling itself a university must at least meet the same high requirements, over a reasonable period, as existing universities.

Having failed completely to establish price competition with their 2012 reforms, the Government now propose to do so through a flawed teaching excellence framework that measures only a set of proxies for the quality of teaching itself. The Bill compounds the widespread concern the TEF proposals have caused in two ways: by creating a statutory link between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching and by making it possible for the Home Office to use the TEF as a quality measure to restrict the number of tier 4 visas it will authorise.

The system of rating universities gold, silver or bronze with the TEF will jeopardise the excellent international reputation of British higher education, which does so much to attract overseas students and extend British influence and soft power abroad. Why rush to introduce an untested system that will create the impression that some universities are failing when they are not?

Finally, there is concern about the research reorganisation proposed in part 3. There should be a stronger requirement for co-operation between the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation and greater clarity around oversight of the combined education and research portfolio, including postgraduate provision. We are concerned about how Innovate UK will fit into the structure, and we also think that there is a case for stronger safeguards around dual funding and a need for greater guarantees about academic freedom and the Haldane principle.

The Bill has many weaknesses and it also has glaring omissions. Where is the section on part-time provision? Surely it is more important than ever, not least because we have witnessed a fall of some 50% in student numbers since 2010. What about degree-level apprenticeships? We were hoping to see something on credit accumulation and transfer. Where are the links to the FE sector and the new Bill currently in the other place? What about implementing in full the recommendations of the recent report by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury? What about flexible provision of degree courses? There is virtually nothing about taught higher degrees or about postgraduate training and research.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, Martin Wolf said:

“There really are very good reasons why the competitive market is a bad model for the higher education sector”.

This Bill fails to understand the purposes of higher education. If it goes ahead as drafted, it will require existing and any new HE providers to focus on providing courses which emphasise the development of the skills that will lead to employment and pecuniary gain at the expense of all other purposes. Since universities will be rewarded with fee increases and will be allowed to recruit overseas students only if they demonstrate success using inadequate proxies based on predominantly market criteria instead of meaningful measures of academic excellence, the risk is the potential eclipse of the wider social and personal purposes of a university education and a squeeze on research activity. Indeed, it may threaten the very existence of many of our great universities.

We are currently the second most successful HE system in the world, with four universities ranked in the top 10. The sector faces substantial challenges if we go ahead with a hard Brexit, and at the same time we are struggling to retain our market share of overseas students because of the Home Office’s unfounded paranoia about illegal immigration in the sector. The obsession with seeing higher education as a market has distracted Ministers from the negative effects that such an approach has caused. The Government’s 2012 market reforms have managed to deliver fewer graduates at more expense. This does not seem the right time to consider, let alone to drive through, further market-led reforms.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“UK universities: functions
(1) UK universities are autonomous institutions and must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech.(2) UK universities must ensure that they promote freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.(3) UK universities must provide an extensive range of high quality academic subjects delivered by excellent teaching, supported by scholarship and research, through courses which enhance the ability of students to learn throughout their lives.(4) UK universities must make a contribution to society through the pursuit, dissemination, and application of knowledge and expertise locally, nationally and internationally; and through partnerships with business, charitable foundations, and other organisations, including other colleges and universities.(5) UK universities must be free to act as critics of government and the conscience of society.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, happy new year, and a particular welcome to our respected guest standing at the Bar, who for those of your Lordships who were not present at Second Reading set a new record for MPs standing listening to debates. I gather he is here again to do a repeat performance. We should welcome his interest and his commitment to this issue, which I know is shared by so many Members of the House. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, for joining me and supporting Amendment 1. I look forward to hearing their comments and those of other noble Lords across the Committee who have indicated to me that they support the amendment.

I declared my interests in higher education during the excellent Second Reading debate we held in the Chamber last month. Even if I had not been to a university, never worked in the university sector or not had my children educated in UK universities, I would have wanted to engage with the Bill because our excellent university sector—currently the second most successful higher education system in the world, with four universities ranked in the top 10—faces substantial challenges in the years ahead. It could, of course, be improved and it could, of course, be more innovative, and we support both those aims, but it also needs to be supported and protected, particularly if we go ahead with a hard Brexit, as now seems inevitable.

The abiding sense I have from our Second Reading debate is that the Bill fails to understand the purposes of higher education. I suggest that without defining these important institutions, there is a danger that the new regulatory architecture, the new bodies and the revised research organisation will do real and permanent damage. Universities across the world have multiple and complex roles in society, and there is no doubt that we all gain from that. They come in all sizes, and that too is good. They are at their best when they are autonomous, independent institutions which have the freedom to develop a range of missions and practices, while at the same time being public institutions, serving the knowledge economy and the knowledge society as well as being tools of economic progress and social mobility. They use the precious safe harbour of academic freedom to seek truth wherever it is to be found and publish it for all to see and discuss. They transmit and project values of openness, tolerance, inquiry and a respect for diversity that are the key to civilisation in an increasingly globalised world.

The purpose of the amendment is simple. The Bill before us does not define a university, and we think it will be improved if it does so. Our amendment does not simply itemise some of the core functions of a university, though it does that too, but also scopes out a university’s role, with its implicit ideals of responsibility, engagement and public service. A characteristic of all these functions is the expectation that universities take the long-term view and nurture a long-term stake in their local communities and wider society; that they embed scholarship and original and independent inquiry into their activities; and that they demonstrate a sustained commitment to serving the public good through taking up a role as critic and as the conscience of society.

I am confident that there is support for this approach across the House, based on the real sense of disappointment at the lack of ambition that the Bill currently exhibits. I hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I say to the Minister that if he were minded to do so, not only would he improve the Bill but he would be signalling a willingness to listen to all the expertise, experience and wisdom that this House possesses and give us hope that he wished to use that for the benefit of this important sector and of the country as a whole. If he does not feel able to accept the amendment as it stands, perhaps he could offer to take it back and bring it back in an improved version on Report. If he did this, we would of course be very willing to work with him on how to improve the text—we have no pride of ownership.

I have to warn him, though, that if he does not want to engage as I have outlined, he will have to explain to this House what it is he cannot accept about specifying that universities have a secure and valued place in our society, and why he has difficulty in confirming that our universities should have statutory rights to institutional autonomy, academic freedom and freedom of speech. He will have to explain why he disagrees with his right honourable friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, who is standing at the Bar, who said in response to questions in Committee in the other place:

“At its most literal, a university can be described as a provider of predominantly higher education that has got degree-awarding powers and has been given the right to use the university title. That is the most limited and literal sense. If we want a broader definition, we can say that a university is also expected to be an institution that brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and self-critical academic community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people, the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of research, scholarship and professional practice. To distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a place where students are developing higher analytical capacities—critical thinking, curiosity about the world and higher levels of abstract capacity in their thinking. In brief, that is my answer to what a university is”.—[Official Report, Commons, Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, 15/09/16; col. 271.]

I confess to a little plagiarism in drafting my amendment, which I acknowledge is clearly based on that Minister’s approach, which is the correct one. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill we are debating today is an enormously important one. I declare an interest as a full-time academic at King’s College London.

The Government are creating the environment in which universities will operate and thrive or decline over many years, probably decades, and are changing it profoundly. Because a country’s universities and the nature of those universities are so central to what a country is—to its values, politics, culture, research and innovation—the Bill is truly important to the whole nation. Yet, curiously, the Bill has nothing to say about universities, as you will find if you have a quick search of the document. It says quite a lot about the university title, and at one point it refers to unauthorised degrees at,

“a university, college or other body”,

by grant, but that is it. Otherwise it refers consistently to “providers”.

Clearly, the Government do not think that the term “university” is meaningless. If it were, neither the Government nor higher education providers nor universities would be so occupied with the university title.

When I dug around a bit, I found that previous legislation also has extraordinarily little to say on the subject. The 1992 higher education Act refers simply to use of the name “university” in the title of an institution, and informs us hopefully that, if the power to change the name is exercisable with the consent of the Privy Council, it may be exercised, with that consent,

“whether or not the institution would apart from this section be a university”.

There is nothing more on what a university is. The Minister has kindly confirmed, in replies to Written Questions that the term is not defined in legislation but is a “sensitive” word under company law, which means that you need permission from the Secretary of State and a non-objection letter before you can use it in a business or company title.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask noble Lords to think carefully about the way in which this amendment would undermine and not protect institutional autonomy and, furthermore, how a large number of existing high-quality providers would be likely to fall foul of it, if it were passed. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Thank you very much to those who have contributed to this very good debate, which has been high-level and high-quality. I have particular thanks to those who signed up to my amendment. This will set us up well for the rest of Committee. We have already had more than 500 amendments tabled to the Bill and I gather that there are more to come. According to the Public Bill Office, this is the most amendments for any Bill in recent memory—although it then covered itself by saying that it had records going back only seven years, so there may be others. However, it is still quite a lot and a record.

I expected to have put myself up for an attack on my drafting and if you do that, you certainly set yourself up for it. I felt that while most people were very fair to my efforts, there was a bit of an attempt to play the man and not the ball. I also felt that a red card was due to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for grading me a lower second for offering a contribution to improve the quality of the Bill. The theme was an offer to the Government to try to work together on this issue, which has obviously caught the interest of the House. Among the 30 Back-Bench speakers and two Front-Bench speakers, I think there were only four or five who could claim to support fully where the Government are trying to get to. I am afraid that the Minister lost the House in his long and rather difficult-to-follow explanation of why he wanted to refuse our generous offer to work with him to improve a statement that would enhance the Bill. I hope that people will remember that as we go forward into other issues.

We clearly have different visions about how to proceed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and to some extent, rather surprisingly, with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the way forward is perhaps not to push this too hard at this stage because there is an opportunity to improve it later on, if the Government will play ball. But if the Government do not play ball, where are you? You are stuck. In this situation, it is therefore right that we take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury: we should take the courage of the conviction of those who spoke today, move forward with this amendment and, if necessary, amend around the Bill to improve any infelicities that there may be in the current drafting.

The major point made by the noble Viscount when he came to respond was that we would be placing burdens on universities by the form of the drafting. That point was explicitly refuted by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne of Eaton-under-Heywood, who said that it was not the case. The Minister has no argument for not accepting this proposal. As he will not, I wish to test the views of the House.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I agree that the Office for Students is a very strange name for this body. I take this opportunity to remind anybody in the House who does not already know how very opposed to much of what it is going to do most of our students are, and publicly so. Although the automatic response one gets when this is pointed out is, “Oh, they just don’t want their fees put up”, that is not the sole thing they are complaining about—not at all. I also take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the University of Warwick student union, with which I have no connection whatever, which wrote an extremely well-thought-out critique of the Bill back in June, which was the first thing to alert me to many of the things that I have become very concerned about since. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that this is not an appropriate title and it would be very good if we could come up with another—but I do not think I will be collecting his champagne.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, of course the serious side to the light-hearted comments is that the name will conceal as much as it will reveal about what is going on here. I understand entirely my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s wish to raise this in a relatively light-hearted way and I do not want to be a party pooper but we need a lot more certainty about what exactly this new architecture, which was one of the great calling cards of the Bill when it was first introduced, is actually going to do and deliver.

A number of amendments further down the list will bear on this and we may well need to return to the name once—and only once—we have decided what we are going to have. For instance, we are now told that the Office for Fair Access will have a slightly different role in government amendments due to be discussed on the next day in Committee. That will change the nature of what the OfS does because, if the government amendments are accepted, it will not be allowed to delegate powers that would normally be given to the Office for Fair Access to anybody else, and it will have to ensure that the director of the Office for Fair Access has a particular role to play in relation to access agreements that are created under that regime. In that sense, the power of the OfS as originally conceived was already diluted at the Government’s own behest. We need to think that through before we make a final decision in this area.

The question of how registration is to take place is a quasi-regulatory function. We have an elephant parading around the Bill—it is supposed to walk around in a room but perhaps we ought not to extend the metaphor too far—in the role of the CMA, to which I hope the Minister will refer. If we are talking about regulatory functions, we need to understand better and anticipate well where the CMA’s remit stops and starts. The Minister was not on the Front Bench when the consumer affairs Act was taken through Parliament last year, but that Act is the reason why the CMA now operates in this area. It is extracting information and beginning to obtain undertakings from higher education providers regarding what they will and will not do in the offers they make through prospectuses, the letters sent out under the guise of UCAS, the obligations placed thereby on the students who attend that institution and the responsibilities of the institution itself. I do not wish to go too deep into it at this stage because there will be other opportunities to do so, but until we understand better the boundaries between the Office for Students and the CMA, it will be hard to know what regulatory functions will remain with the OfS and what name it would therefore be best put under. “Office” is common to many regulators but the letters in acronyms can also be changed.

We are back to where we were on the last group: we are not yet sure what the assessment criteria and regimes will be, but perhaps we know more about the criteria than the regime. It is one thing if a committee is to be established with responsibility for assessing the fitness to be on the register and the quality of the teaching as provided. But if an independent body were established and called the quality assurance office or some such similar name, as it would be under a later amendment, it would be doing a lot of the work currently allocated to the Office for Students. I do not have answers to any of these points. I am sure that the Minister will give us some guidance but it would be helpful, when he is ready and able to do so, if he set out in a letter exactly what he thinks the architecture might look like and what the justification therefore is for the name.

The most poignant point was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden: that an Office for Students without student representation on it seems completely bonkers. I do not understand why the Government continue to move down this path. The amendment brought in on Report in the other place was one of sorts to try to move towards that. But it is a measure of the Government’s inability to grasp the issues here in a firm and convincing way that the person who is expected to occupy that place at the Office for Students, as provided for by the amendment, is somebody able to represent students. It is not necessarily a student, which seems a little perverse. I put it no more strongly than that.

Given that the current draft arrangements in the higher education sector for obtaining metrics relating to the grading of teaching quality in institutions has five students on the main committee and two or three students allocated to each of the working groups set up to look at individual institutions, there is obviously a willingness at that level to operate with and be engaged with students. Why is that not mirrored in the Office for Students? Regarding further use, it is really important that we get that nailed down. If it were a genuinely student-focused body—a provision which many governing bodies have—then the Office for Students might well be the right name for it. But until those questions are answered, I do not understand why the Committee would not accept my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s sensible suggestion.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, the Committee might be relieved to hear that my contribution will be somewhat shorter than previous contributions were. I start off, though, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his contribution to this short debate. I know how personally committed he is to ensuring that our higher education system is delivering for current and future students, and I value his insight.

This Bill sets out a series of higher education reforms which will improve quality and choice for students, encourage competition and allow for consistent and fair oversight of the sector. To keep pace with the significant change we have seen in the system over the past 25 years, where it is now students who fund their studies, we need a higher education regulator that is focused on protecting students’ interests, promoting fair access and ensuring value for money for their investment in higher education. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the creation of the Office for Students is key to these principles. The OfS will, for the first time, have a statutory duty focused on the interests of students when using the range of powers given to it by the Bill. As Professor Quintin McKellar, vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire, said in his evidence in the other place,

“the Government’s idea to have an office for students that would primarily be interested in student wellbeing and the student experience is a good thing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, 6/9/16; col. 22.]

It is our view that changing the name of the organisation to the “Office for Higher Education” rather implies that the market regulator is an organisation that will answer to higher education providers alone rather than one which is focused on the needs of students. That goes against what we are trying to achieve through these reforms. Our intention to put the student interest at the heart of our regulatory approach to higher education goes beyond just putting it in the title of the body. The Government are committed to a strong student voice on the board of the OfS, and that is why we put forward an amendment in the other place to ensure that at least one of the ordinary members must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of students.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned that she thought that students were opposed to these reforms that we are bringing forward. I would like to put a bit more balance to that, because there is a wide range of student views about the reforms. There is some strong support for elements of the reforms as well as, I admit, some more publicised criticism—for example, supporting improvement in teaching quality and introducing alternative funding products for students. As I have already mentioned, we made that change at Report stage to make sure that there is greater student representation on the OfS.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised a point about the role of the CMA. To reassure him, we will set out more detail later in Committee about the relationship between the OfS and the CMA.

As a regulator, the OfS will build some level of relationship with every registered provider, and one of its duties will be to monitor and report on the financial sustainability of certain registered providers. However, this does not change the fact that the new market regulator should have students at its heart, and we therefore believe that the name of the organisation needs to reflect that. For this reason, and with some regret in withdrawing from potentially receiving the bottle of champagne, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

4: Schedule 1, page 70, line 12, after “appointed” insert “(subject to paragraph 4(Z1))”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, rather perversely, Amendment 4 is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment 18, so I will start with the latter, which is about the important question of the structure of whatever we are going to call the OfS board, as it is currently named.

Amendment 18 brings parliamentary scrutiny into the question of who should chair this board. A very important theme, although perhaps one for another day, is that the Bill is relatively light in terms of its engagement with the parliamentary process. Although the intention is that the Bill should move away from scrutiny under the Privy Council and other similar regimes, it is not necessarily clear that the will is there on the part of Ministers to provide a different scrutiny arrangement, so we will definitely have to return to this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who is in his place, made a very powerful speech at Second Reading in which he pointed out a number of drafting infelicities in relation to statutory instruments, the use of Henry VIII powers and similar matters. I am sure that the recent report from the Delegated Powers Committee will feature in our discussions going forward and that this is another issue we might need to come back to.

However, I am interested in the Minister’s response to the particular question raised by Amendment 18, which is why the Government do not wish the appointment of members of such a key organisation as the OfS to be subject to the scrutiny now commonplace for many public appointments of this type. As discussed, under the Bill as drafted, this body will have incredible power in relation to higher education, effectively opening and closing universities and deciding who should or should not be preferred. It is inconceivable that there should be no scrutiny other than that of the Minister. It is important that we consider including in the Bill the idea that the chair of the OfS should be subject to scrutiny in the process that is now taking place.

Amendment 5 picks up the themes that I elaborated on in the previous group in relation to student representation. It is not convincing for the Minister to simply say that this area has been dealt with by ensuring that at least one of the ordinary members of the OfS board must be capable of representing students. We are all capable of representing students, but none of us present today—unless I am very much mistaken and more deluded that I normally am—can say that they are an active student and can bring that experience to the table. There are many teachers and others around who I am sure would be prepared to stand up and say they could do it, but I do not think they would want to if they were ever exposed to the full fury of the student body. It seems completely incomprehensible to us that the board should not have a student representative—indeed, there should be more than one.

Amendment 6 would ensure that the related criteria for all OfS board members are taken to be of equal importance. The worry here is that there may be vestigial elements from the current regimes, which have been alluded to in earlier discussions today. There is the sense that research takes precedence over teaching competence, that somehow older universities have more authority than newer ones, and that ones with different missions should be discriminated against. Then, there is the question, which I am sure will be raised during this debate—if not, it has been raised in previous ones—of how we make sure that the very necessary representations from our smaller institutions, conservatoires and specialist institutions are made properly.

It is one thing to have a series of representations and an equitable and appropriate way of appointing people, but quite another to be clear that this is done in practice. The amendment is drafted so that the appointment processes—one hopes they will be of an extremely high standard—ensure that broad and equal importance is given to all the elements that make up our university sector and our higher education providers, and that there should be no perception that a hierarchy exists in respect of any of them.

Amendment 7 makes the point, although I am sure this will happen anyway, that there must be current or recent experience among those appointed. I am sure that would be the assumption, but there is no reason at all to suggest that that is always going to be the case. The Schedule seems the appropriate place to put this provision, rather than in the main Bill.

Amendment 8 suggests that the experience of higher education and further education providers should also be taken into account when appointing board members. We have a tendency to speak about higher education as being exclusively in the existing university arrangements but, of course, further education institutions and other institutions such as those we have been talking about in the last few hours all have a contribution to make to higher education, and it is important that board members reflect that.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that at least some of the members of the OfS should have experience of providing vocational or professional education. I am thinking here of the University of Law or BPP University, for example, but there are also wider groups that we would need to pick up on. I am sure the noble Lord will make that point when he comes to speak.

Amendment 10 contains a theme that will run in later amendments. We will be addressing ourselves in those amendments to the suggestion that the Bill is too narrowly constructed around traditional university syllabuses in particular, and to a model whereby students arrive at university having completed their school studies at 18 and then spend three years at university before graduating and going on to do other things. The reality is that the median age of students in our British universities is 22 or 23, that many students come in with different previous experiences, and that there is value in that. There is a real sense that the opportunity to build a structure that encourages people to take alternative routes to further education—to take time out to work, or to study while they do other things—has been missed. We need to address that opportunity. Amendment 10 would ensure that widening participation and associated issues are appropriately reflected in the membership of the board.

The final amendment in the group is Amendment 12, which suggests that the Secretary of State should have regard to the experience of higher education employees and teaching and research staff when making appointments. Valued contributions are made from that sector to boards of higher education institutions. Certainly, when I worked in higher education, there was very strong representation from the non-teaching staff—technical, clerical and administrative staff— who all felt that they were participating in the process of governing and managing the university. Why is that not also the case for the regulating body?

I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 11 and 13. I am mostly interested in hearing the Minister’s views on these matters. It seems to me that it is important for a board such as that of the OfS to have experience of the main sets of people and tasks that it is going to be faced with regulating. Amendment 11 would ensure that its members had an understanding of what happens in vocational or professional education. That would be very important because some of its charges will be very much in that part of the world.

Most of all, the amendment would ensure that the OfS has representative people who understand how people end up at university. The business of advising school pupils, looking after pupils who are looking for careers, the limitations of that, the sort of information you need on how 16 and 17 year-olds are, which is very different from 19 and 20 year-old students at university—that is vital experience for a board to have. A great deal of what the OfS is doing is concerned with giving information to people who might come to university and providing structures in order that they should be well looked-after when they get there, so it needs an understanding of what pupils are like.

--- Later in debate ---

I have one reservation about one of the amendments that my noble friend has proposed—the suggestion that the chairmanship of this body should depend on a resolution of either House of Parliament. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, a distinguished constitutional expert, would make of that suggestion, but I have grave qualms about the institution of advice and consent procedures in the United States model for public appointments. The tendency of such a procedure is to politicise it rather than to get the best person. In Britain, we are working towards a better compromise on things like the Governor of the Bank of England, by making it possible for appointees or prospective appointees to be examined thoroughly by Select Committees. I would certainly support the idea that the prospective chair of this body should have to defend his or her experience and record before a Select Committee. I very much support the thrust of what my noble friend is saying, as I always do, but with that qualification on that point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Can I just confirm that that is exactly what I meant?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I add my wholehearted support to these amendments. Further education is all too often the Cinderella of the education world, yet further education colleges do an absolutely phenomenal job across a very wide range of students and subjects, so having them represented on this body is absolutely essential. I also support the adult and part-time education students, who form a critical and very important part of the student body. They have different sorts of views and needs from those who are the typical 18 year-olds going to university.

There is also the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made about vocational and professional education, which often links very closely with higher education institutions but has a different sort of ethos and different cohorts of people. All these amendments to add to the membership of the OfS board are critical, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

This legislation goes further than past legislation in setting desirability criteria but also recognises the varied experience people have in their lives. It therefore safeguards the Secretary of State’s flexibility to appoint OfS board members based on the entirety of their experience. This flexibility is critical to the success of the new body. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank those who have participated in this brief debate and I particularly thank the Minister, who has dealt with each of the amendments in some detail. I am grateful to him for that. However, there is a pattern emerging, as we saw in the other place. The Government are determined to get this Bill through and they are showing no signs at all that they are sympathetic to any of the issues raised, even those by Members of the Minister’s own side. Although I understand that, I think that my noble friend Lord Lipsey was right that it would have been helpful at least to have had some acknowledgement of the points that have been made, given the expertise, knowledge and experience represented in your Lordships’ House. It is a little sad that we are not getting a bit more purchase on some of the debates about the issues raised here. However, we will come back to these points and no doubt debate them again.

I thank those who have spoken and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a short plea for something that has not been mentioned so far. Most people have spoken about part-time students as people who want a degree, a skill, a job and so on. I do not know where further education is in all this—perhaps it is not part of this debate. Many people go into further education not necessarily to get a diploma or a degree but to educate themselves. I had enough of primary, secondary and higher education to suit me for several lifetimes, but I did go to Morley College for a family French class with my children. Children and adults studied together and it was a very pleasurable experience—I even learned some French. So I think that there may be ways of learning without actually taking a degree.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate focusing on three main strands. First, the dire state into which the current provision for mature and part-time students—particularly part-time students—has fallen as a consequence of the changes in the arrangements, was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She is right: it is the fee structure and the underlying economic approach to the provision of part-time education that has caused the trouble, but I disagree with her that the Bill may not be the right place to deal with that. We might return to this at some future point in the discussions. We regret that the current situation is not satisfactory and we should look to the Bill to see changes.

A number of speakers have pointed out that the opportunity to engage with this issue, although it is present in the Bill, has been missed. The Bill always uses the phrase “and part-time” or “and mature students”. It could be rewritten and refocused to try to make sure that the inclusiveness of which it talks and the ability to reach out to all those who wish to participate in our presently excellent higher education system are made central to the activity. It is not sufficient simply to have it there; it must be there in a way that drives the initiative. That is why these amendments, which affect the central architecture of the Bill and the formation of a new body called the OfS, are so important.

If the OfS is not made accountable for, not directed towards and not doing the work day by day—putting this classification system into practice—we will never achieve what we are trying to achieve. It needs to be central. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is right. There are already good examples across the system of work that has been done and is currently going on but they are not being brought together in the mainstream. There is no sense in which the system is open to people who wish to come in at different points in their own personal lives. There is no sense in which the Bill tries to address the idea of flexibility; of dropping in or dropping out of the higher education system, which is such a feature of institutions in other countries such as the USA. There is no sense in which an appropriate way of studying is to do a bit of work, go back into college and then go out to work again, perhaps to try practise some of the things that one is learning.

When I studied part-time at an institution, I had to do so in the evening and in my own time. I had to struggle to make the resources available. It was a tough time—almost as tough as participating in your Lordships’ House on this Bill—but I benefited from it. There is, therefore, also a third strand in this: somehow we delude ourselves if we think everybody comes to the higher education system straight from school. People should be encouraged to go in at any point, from early years right through to the age of 92, and even while you are travelling, as is possible with the new technologies. We should support that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this and I hope he will take up some of these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I think I have done that. The whole point is I want to avoid placing undue restrictions on the OfS. I hope I have formed a strong argument that, in the way we have formed a new framework for the OfS and with the make-up of the new board, the skills and expertise on the board will give due reference to not just part-time workers but all the other groups caught and spoken about this afternoon. We do not feel it is right to place undue restrictions on the OfS. To that extent, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Is the noble Viscount aware that he is committing a bit of a solecism? The Bill centres on making sure that future structures and operations of higher education are inclusive, have a place for the social mobility agenda and bring forward as many of the skills and talents of the past that they can. As he has admitted, it is based on a lack of an analytical approach to the current problems, which he regards as complex, but he is not prepared even to share the broad areas of concern that it is about. I ask him at least to write to us one of his excellent letters, one of which arrived just as I was sitting down for the debate. Will he spend a bit more time giving us a bit more of the context to this, not taking up the time of the Committee, but at least informing those who wish to be? Also, it is very rare to have someone as distinguished as a former Minister of Higher Education and a master of Birkbeck College offering herself to be on the board of the OfS and to be so discourteously refused.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I do not know about that, my Lords, but I reiterate that I take all remarks made this afternoon extremely seriously, as I do in all aspects of Committee. I will want to look very carefully at all the remarks that have been made, not least on this subject. I absolutely have listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. I will reflect on her remarks very carefully over the next few days.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

14: Schedule 1, page 71, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) The Director for Fair Access and Participation is responsible for all of the access and participation functions of the OfS.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is day 2 of our Committee proceedings. It might be interesting to reflect for a second on how we are proceeding. It seems that the Minister’s game plan is to resist with a very straight bat—a Boycottian bat—the balls, googlies and other things that we throw at him. I am not very good at sporting metaphors, so I have probably lost the plot already, but I think that we get the sense of it: we are not getting anywhere with the amendments that we are putting forward.

I put it to the Minister that there is a case for his giving us a little more to work on, otherwise I suspect that the frustration that I already sense around the Chamber about the inability even to engage with him in intellectual debate on some of these issues will cause him problems later on. I have worked with him before, and he knows that there is a way of working which allows a little more freedom than the Government are currently giving. I appeal to him to think hard about what happened on Monday and to reflect a little more on what may happen today before we get too far into the Bill, because otherwise I sense trouble.

There is of course another strategy in play, but I cannot think of a game that I would be able to use as a metaphor for it. This time, the Minister has got his retaliation in first. On the basis of a not very long but certainly important section of our debate at Second Reading, he has conceded on the powers of the Director of Fair Access. The Government have come forward with amendments, which are in this group, in relation to that. It is interesting that, although we have not had a chance to go into the detail of it, we have seen a shift of position on the part of the Minister. The Director of Fair Access is now to be given a designated space in the structure and certain powers and responsibilities are placed to him or her. I do not want to steal the noble Lord’s thunder—we all want to listen to him, do we not?—but in constructing our amendments around this we have taken into account the position now being adopted by the Government.

Although I have put my name to the amendments of a number of other noble Peers, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—whom I look forward to hearing, since she has great expertise and knowledge in this area—I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendments 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225 and 234, which effectively provide an alternative model for how the Director of Fair Access could operate. In this set of amendments, which I will not go into in detail because it probably needs to be contrasted with the general approach taken by the Government, there is a specific duty placed on the Office for Students to create a post designated as the director, which is lacking in the Bill at the moment. There is a responsibility on the OfS to make sure that that person is well resourced and supported and has access to the material he needs.

It is given to the director to have direct responsibility for dealing with institutions; it is not filtered through another body or organisation or bureaucracy; it will make sure that the Secretary of State’s regulation powers apply directly to the director and do not get dissipated by general directions to the office. It would also allow for the director to appeal a decision, because there is no one at the moment if it is necessary to do so on an issue about widening access. I will not go into these in detail—they are there for anyone to see—but they offer an alternative approach, one which preserves the status quo ante of the existing arrangements, it could be argued. That approach will become increasingly prevalent as we go through the Bill, I think.

Some provisions in the existing procedures for the organisation and structure of higher education in this country will be lost in the move to a single body which is at the same time a regulator, a validator, an assessor of quality and a provider of access—a mixture and medley of activities which would not be found in any other sector and which I put it to the Minister should not be acceptable in this process. In approaching how higher education operates, it seems important that the elements that make up the supervision and control of one of our most important and very highly regarded assets are dealt with in a way that does not cause confusion and difficulty and is not, at the same time, capable of causing damage.

I look forward to the debate that these amendments should provoke, I hope that the Minister has listened a bit to what I was saying. I am not expecting him to concede, because these are not amendments that could be taken as they are. I accept that the drafting requires to be looked at, but we would be happy to discuss further with him or his officials the arrangements currently proposed, to contrast them with those proposed by others. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 14 and 16. I thank the Minister for the amendments tabled in his name. I have a couple of questions on them, but I reiterate the importance of the role of the Director for Fair Access and Participation. I think we can say that all parties and the Cross Benches in this Committee agree that widening access is a goal that we all want. In coalition we certainly pushed that quite heavily and there was some limited success—the bursaries, scholarships and supports for students from low socioeconomic background —which sadly now looks as if it is going downhill again. However, the figures on improving access for those least likely to apply to Oxbridge and to the Russell group universities had not significantly improved, and it must remain a priority for the Government and for the Office for Students to make sure that this changes as we move into the next phase of the Bill.

That is why when the White Paper came out I was really rather encouraged by the tone and the language, which talked about,

“an OfS executive board member with responsibility for fair access, the Director for Fair Access and Participation, whose role will be enshrined in law”.

It said that this person would take on responsibility and that it would be,

“a continuation of the current approach”.

There was real concern when the Bill was published to see that this role had been significantly downgraded. I am grateful that the omission has been rectified, but I just want to rehearse the reasons why it is so important that the Director for Fair Access and Participation is a senior role enshrined in law. This person must have the power to negotiate with institutions, which would undoubtedly be compromised if he or she could not approve or refuse access and participation plans. The person recruited needs to be someone with a high profile in the sector, who will have senior-level respect within our institutions. I know from working at a college for mature students—the previous debate was about distance learning, mature access and part-time—that all the institutions need to take this on board. It should not be the specific responsibility of one or two parts of the sector. The only way that the Director for Fair Access and Participation will be taken seriously is if he or she has credibility within the sector. That comes back, absolutely clearly, to the director having the power to approve or refuse access and participation plans. That is why our amendments refer to the director being “responsible”, echoing the language of the White Paper.

My questions for the Minister are as follows. What is the difference between being responsible for and the words used in the government amendments, which talk about “overseeing the performance”? For me, there is a distinction and I wish to understand exactly why that is there. In Amendment 27, it seems sensible that any OfS annual report should report on,

“the period or periods in that year during which those functions were not delegated to the Director, and … the reasons why they were not so delegated”,

but what might those reasons be? Clearly it could be if the director were away, off on sick leave or other things, but I want to be absolutely clear that this is not a backdoor power-snatching route by the Secretary of State or the director of the OfS.

With those details satisfied, I will stop carping on about the distinction between the two but we must make it clear that the role of the Office for Students is as important in widening participation because it remains a consistent priority. Anything less than that will tell the sector that access and participation is no longer a priority of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That was a very interesting short debate but perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that this issue has been raised before by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I think we are talking about credit transfers and other means of ensuring that students who do not continue with their studies for whatever reason can be accepted at another university. The Government are looking at that very seriously and I believe that we will have a further debate on it during the course of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank those who have participated in this debate and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose comments were very helpful in getting us to the heart of the issue. I want to make two observations. First, I fully accept what the Minister has said about the willingness to engage with us. He said several times that he was taking note of what we were saying, but that was not quite what I had in mind. He also said at one point that he was taking account of the points. Perhaps he could write one of his wonderful letters to explain the nuances or the difference. It does not need to go to everybody and I will be happy to receive it at any point in the next few weeks.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Perhaps I may clarify that. It is simply that I am listening and reflecting at this stage, and I do not think we should get too involved in the semantics of particular words.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

They were the Minister’s words, not mine, but I hear what he says. I hope that he is taking account, rather than just listening, as that would give us a more satisfactory sense of what we are doing.

Secondly, I was struck by the thinking behind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and I will read Hansard very carefully. He is very wise and has thought about this issue. I came to it in a rather simplistic way, reading access and participation as effectively one word—that the participation was the access having been granted, which I think was the sense understood by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. However, in his explanation, whether wittingly or unwittingly—I am sure it was wittingly; I would never assume that he would act in any other way—he led a slightly different line of thought, which I think we may want to come back to at a later stage. Is this office about access and participation in the combined sense—following up those who have been given specific access because of a disability or a disadvantage, and making sure that they have the chance to benefit—or is it about the wider question of participation, which would be a completely different sense? I shall be happy if the noble Lord can help us on that point.

[Lord Willetts]

It is not simply about the participation of people who come from a disadvantaged background and benefit directly from an access agreement; getting into university is only the start of the journey. It is fair to say that Les Ebdon himself has sometimes felt constrained by operating within a framework which assumes that his job is to get the students in. Having got them in, we all know that there is another set of challenges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. My understanding is that the word “participation” is intended to give a wider set of responsibilities also covering the process of whomever it may be through university.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Lord. That is very helpful and extremely interesting if we are talking about giving somebody within the structure of the OfS the capacity to engender among people a much better sense of engagement with an institution once admitted, whatever their background—that is the point. The noble Lord knows what I am going to say next. Those are the ends of the policy, but where are the means by which it is going to happen? I am sure that it would involve cost because we are looking for a change from where we are, and there may be additional responsibilities. I do not see those mentioned anywhere in the Bill. We may want to come back to this point but I agree with the noble Lord that it changes the whole nature of what we are talking about, and we should reflect on that. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

19: Schedule 1, page 71, line 43, leave out “considers appropriate” and insert “must specify”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I think that I can be relatively brief in speaking to the amendments in this group. They are largely of a technical nature, relating to the administrative practices of the OfS. They are not unimportant: I hope that they will be not only listened to but taken account of. They concern the good administration of the body, which I am sure will be the case, but I will listen to what the Minister has to say about them.

However, Amendment 23 seeks to safeguard the independence of the Office for Students, and indeed of any of its committees and all of its structures, by making sure that there is no attempt by the Secretary of State to infiltrate and be part of that process. There is nothing specific in the Bill and we may be grasping at straws, but I worry that, given the responsibilities allocated to the OfS, which are substantial in relation to all aspects of higher education, there will be a loss of confidence in the structure if it is not absolutely clear that the OfS is independent and that the Secretary of State may make representations to it but does not participate. If accepted, the amendment would make it very clear that in this case the Secretary of State’s representative does not take part and therefore cannot influence directly the work of the OfS and its ancillary bodies. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Viscount for his response. I have one quick question about the costs of members that he referred to, with regard to Amendments 20 and 21. I had not picked up the link between the officials, presumably members of the board, in relation to salaries. Can he confirm or deny whether any such salaries will be subject to the current caps on salaries paid to public officials? If he does not have the information to hand, he can certainly write to me. I think there is a fairly broad limit above which people cannot be paid in the public sector and I am interested to know whether these fall within that or not.

On the matters relating to the Secretary of State’s representative, I have heard what the Minister said and will study it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

22: Schedule 1, page 73, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) A joint committee shall be established by UKRI and OfS, which must—(a) consist of representatives of both UKRI and OfS, and(b) produce an annual report containing details on—(i) the health of the higher education sector,(ii) work relating to equality of opportunity,(iii) the health of different academic disciplines,(iv) research funding,(v) the awarding of research degrees,(vi) post-graduate training,(vii) shared facilities,(viii) knowledge exchange,(ix) skills development, and(x) maintaining the public interest.( ) The report must be sent to the Secretary of State who must lay it before each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group has one amendment in my name and two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. We should focus on Amendments 508A and 509A. My Amendment 22 has been grouped with them although they come late in the operations because we are talking about the OfS and its responsibilities in general terms. It is therefore appropriate that we have some focus on that, but I am sure we will return to some of these issues when we get to that part of the Bill later on.

In relation to Amendment 22, the request here is simply for better communication and better identification. Jointly or severally, the OfS and the UKRI, in whatever form they finally come to us as part of the Bill, will be required to take responsibility—at least in the public view and within the sensibility of the sector—as the custodians of higher education in this country in its full range, from undergraduate foundation degrees right through to postgraduate work and of course the full panoply of research funding that goes through UKRI and its bodies.

It is important, and will become increasingly important, that these bodies communicate well. I am sure there will be an opportunity later on to discuss that, not just on these amendments as I said. But this particular amendment, which we will not spend time talking about, suggests that as part of that process there should be a mechanism under which the two bodies get together to produce an annual report in the hope that that will allow a growing understanding of the work between the two institutions. It will make how they work together more transparent and will be more informative to the general public about how the system, which looks a bit disjointed, has the capacity to develop and produce the efficiencies and effectiveness that are hoped for in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I support this amendment and will speak to Amendments 508A and 509A in my name. The Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation will need to work closely together on many important issues for the higher education sector. Particular examples that come to mind are: the granting of research degree awarding powers, in which many of us feel very strongly that the research community should be involved; the quality and access issues that were spoken about earlier in higher and research degrees; issues to do with the higher education innovation fund, HEIF, which I understand from discussions with the Minister’s team will be delivered through Research England and therefore under UKRI, which covers undergraduate enterprise and innovation as well as postgraduate and research issues; and the really key area of reporting on the health of the sector across the closely interrelated areas of teaching, scholarship, research, enterprise and innovation. These links are extremely important and I would urge the noble Viscount that the OfS and UKRI should have a duty to co-operate and that, indeed, there should be an element of cross-membership of each other’s boards, which is what these two amendments would deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to those Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated in this short debate. It has raised a number of issues we will need to reflect on. I am comforted by many of the points made by the Minister when he responded, but I still think there are one or two issues. The problem lies with Clause 106, maybe inadvertently. Maybe we can be reassured by the words already given, but perhaps we can come back to that. If subsections (1) to (6) all said “must” not “may”, the issue would disappear because an unequivocal duty would be placed on the two bodies to work together. The fact that they say “may” but subsection (2) has “must, if required” is the problem. In other words, we would have to wait until it was clear, possibly from the publication of an annual report for the preceding year, that the two bodies were not working as efficiently and complaints were arising from that before the Secretary of State could exercise Clause 106(2) and issue a “must” instruction.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

Does this not identify one of the central problems we face with the Bill? We have very clear and honourable assurances from the Minister and from the Minister in another place, who I am delighted to see is here with us again. I have absolutely no doubt that it is their full and open intention that there should be close co-operation and joint working between the two bodies and joint decision-making in relation to degree-awarding powers. However, the Bill does not give us that explicit assurance. One of the things we are all trying to do is to make sure that the Bill accords with Ministers’ intentions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I could not have put it better myself. I agree entirely. Having analysed it so successfully there, there is not a solution, if the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is to be followed, by saying, “It is all very well having these aspirations and brilliant ideas, but it would be quite wrong to be overly bureaucratic, so we will just take a punt on it and hope for the best”. He did not say that, but that is not far from where we might be if the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is correct. I sympathise with the problem. I hope that this is not just listened to but taken account of, because a little more work on this might solve the problem and I think we are not very far apart in what we are trying to achieve here.

My issue, and the reason for Amendment 22 in my name—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has made the point again—is that, whereas in the current structure it is relatively easy to see the differences, and where there are overlaps there are provisions that make it work, this is new and quite complicated. It is not Brexit, but it is close to those sort of issues, in that this is different from anything we have seen before in terms of what we are trying to do. We are talking about students, research activity, degrees and degree-awarding powers, all of which have to be calibrated between two new institutions that have been created ab initio. It may be that for the first couple of years it would be sensible to be more cognisant of the problems that might arise and therefore expect them to be working, rather than hoping that they will and then going back in afterwards. That is where the issue lies.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the amendment is too specific about what is required. In a sense, this is a probing amendment—it was not intended to be taken forward—and it should be left to the bodies concerned to find their own rhythms and abilities to respond, but I hope the Minister will take away this slight worry. Even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that it would be quite good to see the evidence in practice of harmonious and effective working quite quickly so that we do not have to go to Clause 106(2) to implement. We will be able to come back to this on Amendment 509, which relates specifically to research degree arrangements, and have a broader look at it. I hope that between now and two weeks’ time, when we will probably get to that, it will be possible for the noble Viscount not only to have listened but to have taken account of what we have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

29: Clause 2, page 1, line 9, after “have” insert “equal”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain that the scurrying around here is intended to provide a reassurance that this extremely long-looking group will not be taken in one bite, as it were; there will be an opportunity for other bites—ho, ho!—because we will stop at about 7.30pm when those assembled here to conduct the dinner break business commence. That makes my speech rather complicated and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Since we have been going since just after 3.30pm, I think it is reasonable to expect that we might stop at the appropriate time. It is not my job to announce that but I am having fun doing it, so that is what we are going to do.

This group of amendments counterposes those considered in the last debate. It would be better to consider it as a single group with the amendments in group 7 as they both relate to the broad understanding that we should have about the form and function of the Office for Students. Clause 2, which sets out general duties for the Office for Students, runs to six subsections. The interesting thing about them is that they swing around a bit, in the sense that three or four of them are broadly in line with what we have been saying we want the Office for Students to do: to promote,

“quality, and greater choice and opportunities for students … to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access … and participation”—

we have had a fair amount of discussion on that, and—

“so far as relevant, the principles of best regulatory practice”,

and “regulatory activities”, which I am sure we will come back to at some stage. However, interposed in those provisions in three paragraphs are rather hard-edged issues to do with competition, promoting value for money and,

“the need to use the OfS’s resources in an efficient, effective and economic way”.

It is almost as if two different hands in separate rooms drafted a set of duties for the OfS and then got together and cut and pasted them together. These two groups of amendments address that issue.

There is nothing here about serving the public interest or taking account of promoting confidence in the higher education sector. There is nothing about being forward looking, as my noble friend Lord Giddens said in relation to another amendment. Will this body have a remit to scan the economic future and think about the way the sector should develop to meet changing technologies, needs and economic requirements? These matters are not mentioned. Does that mean they will not be addressed? There is always a worry that if you have a specific set of duties—obviously, they cannot cover pages and pages but they should certainly be extensive enough to ensure that we know what we are about—and they do not mention a particular issue, it may not be addressed. As the old adage goes, what is mentioned or specified gets measured.

The other half of that problem is the question of ranking. In this list of what is to be done, is there a sense in which quality is important? If it were, that would be the most important thing, but is that at the high end of the hierarchy? In other words, does the OfS look first at quality, choice and opportunity, secondly, at competition between English higher education providers, thirdly, at,

“the need to promote value for money”,

and, fourthly, at,

“the need to promote equality of opportunity”?

From what we have been hearing in the debate so far, equality of opportunity, social mobility, access and participation are ranked quite highly in your Lordships’ thinking but that is not obvious from the way the Bill is set out. In speaking to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said that in some cases it is reassuring and important to have a Bill’s aspirations and focus set out in it. If he is right, we are missing something in that regard in this Bill.

Amendment 29 seeks to reflect my point that a ranking or hierarchy would probably be inappropriate in this case. We surely want to ensure that all aspects of what is written down in statute for the OfS are given equal prominence. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is in his mind as well, by means of a reassuring statement or other method. If it is not, he should say what the priority is and why the relevant provisions are set out in the order they are.

Amendment 42 relates to the point made earlier about the unease and scepticism the Committee feels, in that, without a specific duty to maintain the confidence of the UK higher education sector, it may be difficult for the OfS to win the hearts and minds argument and get the support it will need from the sector if it is to be successful. Would that not be a sensible provision to include somewhere in the general duties?

Amendment 43 gives us the opportunity to put some flesh on our earlier discussion about extending higher education in the mindset of those who use it across the whole range of activities within the sector, and include the provision of vocational and professional education within OfS functions. This would pick up alternative providers and the new challenger institutions. It also addresses the point made by my noble friend Lady Cohen about the work done by providers that were established by the last Labour Government to undertake more vocational and professional education, but which are now universities. If that is not listed and made clear in the general duties, does that mean it is of lesser substance? I know that my noble friend feels passionately that there should not be a two-tier system. I agree. If providers are to abide by the Bill’s provisions and offer good value for money, be effective and high quality, meet all the tests and provide what students want, we should not separate them into different classes. It is important to ensure that the Bill’s wording is correct in that regard.

Our Amendment 44 is of a slightly different character. It relates to an issue to which we will probably return: that the Office for Students has no student representatives. Thanks to government amendments that are due to be tabled, the concept will be introduced that someone should be on the board who is capable of representing students. However, as we have said, students permeate all aspects of higher education. Those of us who are young enough to remember the 1960s, and even those of us who do not remember them, know that the battles of the day were fought to get representation on academic boards and the whole edifice of higher education as it then was. We marched, stood, stamped and occupied. It was terrible; it was great. It was also very confusing. If you were young, as I was, and you were a bit confused about it all, it was just a terrific partying time. Anyway, we got there. To our considerable shock and, in some cases, dismay, we had to sit for hours in committees listening to boring stuff. I suppose I should not take up time with such anecdotes—but why not?

Having marched for the right to have student representation on the Bodleian committee at Oxford, and won it, I then attended a committee and found that I was the only student there because the rest had either not got up, forgotten about the committee meeting or had gone to the wrong place. I had to defend the argument before people who terrified me in every respect. They were crabby, difficult and wonderfully, scientifically aggressive, in a way that only very senior academics can be. The question we were asking was why the university could not arrange it so that the library was open when the students were up. The academics replied, “Don’t be ridiculous. Banks don’t open in the evening; why should libraries be open in the evening?”. And that was the end of the meeting, so it was not a very successful experience. However, we got better at it as we went on. Why did I go into that? Because I think it is good to have students on the bodies with which they will be involved. It would be sensible and possible, despite what the Minister said the other day, to find a way for students to be represented on the board of the OfS, either through the NUS or appointed by the NUS. That is what our amendment seeks to do.

I will make two minor points before I run out of time. We have talked seriously and at length earlier today and at other times about the need to disseminate a diverse provision of higher education. We are in favour of having lots of different types of institutions, from conservatoires right through to the highest-level institutions. Amendment 51 would establish that specific arrangement in the general duties. Amendment 52 plays back to an earlier discussion about credit transfer and will give the Minister the opportunity to come back on that point.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and I particularly thank the Minister for his very full response, which has gone some way down the path of trying to reassure us, although we will probably have to pick up one or two points that he made in the debate on the next group. I should like to end with my thoughts for him to take away and reflect on. I will not make the usual pun about whether they will be taken note of—although it seems that I just did.

The Minister’s argument for not putting more ambitious wording into Clause 2 seemed to be that there were already sanctions in place if, in the event, institutions did not do what was required. I find that a bit weak. I think that it would be more helpful if there were a bit more aspiration in Clause 2 and a bit less about the process, and I ask him to reflect on that.

The Minister also implied that many of the obvious day-to-day operations of the OfS and its ancillary work would clearly be in the public interest. However, you can never rely on that—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, before he left his place. The public interest is important, as has been said by a number of people around the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I think there is a case for having the public interest mentioned in at least one of the provisions—perhaps in Clause 2(1)(b).

The whole discussion on the remit is not really about the financial health of the institutions concerned—again, there are processes in place for that—but about how to inculcate into the OfS, as it is set up, the sense of wanting to see academic vitality across the country and new institutions in the right places in the country, or a sense of innovation, which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about. Of course, he is right that the waves of change that came through were very impressive and produced a step change each time. However, in thinking about that he may want to bear in mind that we also lost a lot when some of the institutions—such as the polytechnics—set up in the shadow of the Robbins movement ceased to be polytechnics and lost some of the drive that was specific to that activity. In a sense, that is part of my worry about the clause—that it does not quite get us all the way to an all-inclusive and all-embracing style of higher education, including everything that is currently there and, without disrupting the existing arrangements, making plenty of space to bring in new people. However, the Minister has agreed that he will reflect on that and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

33: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) the need to promote collaboration between English higher education providers where it is in the public interest and the best interest of students and employers,( ) the need to promote innovation in the provision of higher education by English higher education providers where it is in the public interest and the best interest of students and employers,”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we move to the other half of the discussion on Clause 2, which is primarily about competition and collaboration, as indicated in the Marshalled List and the groupings, although there are a number of sharper amendments around them. I shall not go through them in detail: they are basically about trying to prioritise collaboration and development and to reduce the reliance on competition.

We have already had a debate in which the Minister made it clear that the various points in Clause 2 are to be taken as a whole. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no need to worry about the problems created by competition or the fact that collaboration is not given a high enough position among the priorities. Nevertheless, if people read the clause from beginning to end, they will come across some words earlier than others that will be bound to set the tone. Therefore, these amendments—others will speak to the bits that they are most interested in—are interesting in that they try to give a sense that these measures must leave the sector with a predisposition to work together and the idea that, if it does work together, there will be benefits, and through that collaboration quality will be improved. For instance, Amendment 45 would explicitly encourage collaboration and innovation. You can say that that is not necessary but, if it were included in Clause 2, it would clearly make a difference. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 35 and 37 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wolf. In doing so, I want to support the intent of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. As we have heard, universities are, by their nature, highly competitive; the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, commented on this on Monday and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, reinforced the point today. They compete for the best students, the best academic staff and research funding, and they compete particularly fiercely for positions in the large range of existing ranking and league tables, and in particular for positions in the National Student Survey.

Much of this competition benefits students. For example, the importance of doing well in the areas of the National Student Survey that concern assessment and feedback has meant, in almost every university in the country, that students now have their work marked and returned much more quickly than they used to a couple of years ago. There is now a real focus on doing that in a timely manner so that students get good feedback on modules in which they are weak so that they can use it for revision and to ensure that they are well prepared for examinations. Clearly, competition in many forms strengthens the student experience.

Collaboration between institutions is also hugely important. Let me give noble Lords some examples. When I was director of engineering for the marine business at Rolls-Royce, we made use of a modular Masters in marine engineering and technology that was developed by a group of very distinguished universities, mainly in the north-east of England. Students could register at any one of the institutions for their degree and assemble a bespoke course, with specialist modules across the institutions. It was a collaboration that worked for industry and for students.

Collaboration and the sharing of best practice in the area of efficiency and effectiveness, as reported in Professor Sir Ian Diamond’s reviews, has enabled universities to reduce back-office costs, share access to expensive teaching facilities and invest in new infrastructure in recent years. Again, this is of direct benefit to students. Birmingham City University, Aston University and the University of Birmingham—all the universities in Birmingham—continue to collaborate on a joint outreach programme into schools across the city. It is a collaboration that supports widening participation and university access for some of Birmingham’s least advantaged children.

I argue that students, employers and our economy will benefit directly from this type of collaboration—and we want to see more of it, not less. To focus on competition in the absence of collaboration could slow the rate of improvement and innovation in our higher education system. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Office for Students has regard to the need to encourage both competition and collaboration between HE providers. This will be in the interests of students, employers and our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that I fully understand the principles they seek to address here. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on the new duties for collaboration and innovation, we are wholly supportive of collaboration and innovation where it is in the interests of students. I hope I can go some way to answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Willetts on how collaboration and competition will work. I will say a little more about that later. For example, providers could share services to generate efficiencies that allow more resources to be focused on teaching, offer courses in partnership, or design new styles of degree programmes to meet differing students’ needs. These are essentially non-competitive ways to enhance the offering from both or more institutions should they decide to collaborate.

I will start by saying a little more about collaboration. The general duties of the Office for Students are absolutely consistent with the idea that providers should continue to collaborate and innovate in the new regulatory system. There should be no conflict with the OfS’s duty to have regard to encouraging competition between higher education providers where it is in the interest of students. My noble friend Lord Jopling is right in his assessment that the OfS is already required under Clause 2 to have regard to,

“the need to promote quality, and greater choice and opportunities for students”.

Such collaboration and innovation is implicitly and undoubtedly in the student interest. To pick up on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Willetts, there is nothing inherent in that “have regard to” duty that would prevent the OfS also supporting collaboration between higher education providers if it considers it is also in the interests of students, employers or the wider public—for example, by supporting the merger of two providers.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked in his thoughtful, brief intervention how the OfS would enforce collaboration. We do not wish to create an expectation that the OfS should be formally or actively regulating this type of activity. That would be unnecessary.

On innovation, we concur with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about a lack of innovation in the higher education sector. It is important for the OfS to have a focus on supporting a competitive market. That means it must regulate fairly and allow all providers to operate under the same set of rules. This will make it simpler for new high-quality providers to enter and expand, help to drive up teaching standards overall, enhance the life chances of students, drive economic growth and be a catalyst for social mobility.

Competition will incentivise providers to raise their game, fostering innovation. New providers can respond innovatively to what the economy demands and equip students with the skills needed for jobs of the future. So promoting innovation, like collaboration, does not require a separate duty. When it is in the student interest, the OfS will be fully able to support it because the student interest is at the very heart of the OfS. Requiring the OfS to have regard to encouraging competition only where it is shown to be in the interest of students, employers and the wider public would be unnecessary, burdensome and inflexible to implement. The current wording already limits the promotion of competition to where it is in the interests of students and employers. The amendment would mean that the OfS would have to demonstrate that in some way that these various interests were met, placing an unnecessary evidential burden on the regulator and, in turn, on higher education providers.

I now turn to whether the OfS should have regard to encouraging competition where this is in the interest of the public or of wider society. The Bill makes explicit the general duty to encourage competition,

“where that competition is in the interests of students and employers”.

In doing so, it emphasises that the student interest is at the heart of the OfS and recognises the wider public benefits associated with maximising choice and competition in the higher education sector.

As I set out in the previous debate, operating in the public interest or that of wider society is implicit in the role of the OfS as a public body that is accountable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, spoke of the conflict between the roles of the CMA and the OfS and asked me to provide further detail. As I said on Monday, I look forward to discussing this matter later in Committee, when we will consider the noble Baroness’s proposed new clause. I hope that she will have a little patience and that we can discuss that at more length later on in the Bill. In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who spoke at the beginning of this debate, that we have struck the right balance—and it is a balance. I hope that she will not press her amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I think that it was my amendment, but the noble Baroness may choose not to move her amendment at the appropriate time. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate. It has been a good mini-debate on the other half of the question about what Clause 2 sets out to do.

I am left with one question. I realise that it cannot be answered at this stage, but I wonder whether the Minister could write to me about it. We bandy around the word “regulator” a lot and I think that we all have slightly different versions of what it means. It would be helpful before we go to the later stages of discussing what the OfS is to have a clear definition. I am thinking in particular about the generic rules that apply to regulators; for instance, the amendment to the ERR Bill to require all regulators to have regard to growth—there were others of a similar class. As I understand it, the implication is that whatever the statute contains when this Bill becomes an Act will have to be read as if it also included an exhortation to ensure that all work was done to provide growth. There is nothing wrong with growth—we supported that—but it was aimed mainly at economic and not social regulators. There have been difficulties with applying it in the social work area, for instance, and other areas, so it would be useful and comforting if the Minister could write to us explaining exactly what the term regulator implies. That would give reassurance to some of us who have been worrying about this issue. The suggestion that we should have as the main functions of the Office for Students a set of pretty high-level statements and not a detailed list is fine, but I would like to see that list in relation to whatever else comes with the responsibility of being a regulator. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

A couple of my amendments have washed up in this group. Amendment 192 asks whether the OfS will be able to collaborate with other organisations, for instance, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, which is also involved in rating universities in this way. It seems foolish not to be able to use the work that these organisations have done or, indeed, to share intelligence with them to enable them to do their job better.

The second amendment picks up a point made by my noble friend Lord Willetts. I want the OfS to be able to prompt discussion on the system of degree classification in the UK. The class of degree that people come out with from university matters a lot to them. The line between a 2.1 and 2.2 can have a very big effect on people’s careers. It is not at all clear to me that the system really operates in students’ interests so that someone with a 2.2 should be marked down to the extent they are in terms of employment. We have to have a nationwide conversation on this. Since the universities have not prompted it, the OfS should be able to prompt it. It would be a valuable thing to do. It should not be able to impose an outcome but we ought to have a serious conversation. There are obvious disadvantages in the system we have; I am not saying that I know of a better one but we ought to review it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good and useful debate about, as everyone has said, important issues which at the moment are not as well established as they could be in the Bill, so I hope there will be an opportunity to return on Report to get them better organised. I do not think that any one of the amendments in this group, with respect to those who have tabled them, takes the trick. This also has to be interfaced back to what we will decide to do on institutional autonomy, which to some extent is the other side of the same coin.

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the two contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Warwick, gave us a real insight into the difficulties that will arise if we do not get this right. I do not want to be too critical of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is doing his best to raise a series of interesting questions, but Amendment 192 refers to making arrangements for the rating of the quality and standards of higher education. That is exactly the problem although I agree that the amendment is more subtle in some ways. If we do not approach this with real intelligence about how we use the two terms we will run into difficulty as we go further down the track. That being said, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We will probably have to come back to some of the issues that he raises at a future date.

I shall speak briefly to our Amendments 131 and 136. Amendment 131 is an attempt to try to ensure that in a particular part of the Bill, in assessing the quality of higher education providers as a whole—I am not talking about the individual quality; I am falling into my own trap here—there has to be a robust system to get people to a point at which they can be registered as higher education providers. Those systems must include a consideration that the provider has in place appropriate standards that they may apply. I apologise for the typo in the last line of the amendment which should read “providers”.

Amendment 136 tries to give a slightly more detailed interpretation of what a threshold standard is and relates it to,

“a student undertaking a higher education course provided by it, is sufficient to merit the award of a degree or other higher qualification”.

I agree with all noble Lords who have said that the breakdown here is between the sector, which is responsible for the threshold standards, and the necessary quality assessment, which should be done by an external body—it is currently done by the QAA. I also accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and others have said, that the QAA has a very important role, which we will be revisiting in relation to establishing the conditions under which a body gets on to the register, therefore becoming a higher education provider, and is eligible for access to student support.

Listening to this debate, I was struck by two things. First was the sense that we are all grouping around a particular area which needs to be unpicked. As I said, no one of these amendments does it exactly, but we know what we are looking for. Secondly, the Government need to signal—if they can—their willingness to look at this again on Report. I welcome what the noble Viscount said in his opening remarks: there will be a statement or a further chance to come in and discuss how we are going to make sure that, as it leaves this place, the Bill has appropriate wording for institutional autonomy, which is at the centre of all we are discussing.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this has been another helpful debate. I stress that I have listened carefully to the arguments made today on this issue. I reassure the House that, based on the strength of feeling expressed here, the Minister for Universities and Science and I will actively consider what more we can do to address the concerns raised about the Bill in relation to standards. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that this matter is an integral part of the Bill and I understand its significance. We may want to return to this on Report. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, too.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister has now used a third variation. I think he is trying to say that this is an issue which will come back on Report. We can do it or he can do it, but if we agree that it is something we will be discussing we do not need to hedge around it. It is clearly an issue that we will want to return to in future. If the Minister can confirm that, it will calm us all down considerably.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is amusing playing around with words. We may, indeed, want to return to this on Report: I would not want to go any further than that. However, I hope that the warmth of the words gives an indication of the direction we wish to go in. It is right that I keep my comments on this group of amendments relatively brief. In addition, I am happy to write to noble Lords on this matter to provide further clarification. I hope that noble Lords will have received quite a long letter from me today, based on the last day in Committee. I hope that all the points raised were helpful.

My noble friend Lord Lucas made some helpful comments on Amendment 192. I reassure him that the OfS can already collaborate with others as part of this assessment. HEFCE, which currently administers the TEF, has collaborated with the QAA and others without specific legislative provision allowing them to do so. HEFCE currently undertakes an important role in assessing standards as part of its quality duty. As my noble friend Lord Willetts said, standards are currently part of the QAA’s quality code. However, I acknowledge that the current lack of an explicit mention for standards has created uncertainty. That is why standards are mentioned on the face of the Bill. I hope we can all agree that it is essential that the Office for Students can ensure that providers are genuinely offering qualifications of a suitable standard to be considered higher education, even if we need to discuss precisely how we have achieved that within the current drafting.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Garden, spoke about separate quality and standards. I understand the points raised on the difference between the two. However, decoupling quality and standards is not the approach taken by the sector in the UK quality code. Any assessment of quality and standards may need to consider both in order to protect the value of a qualification. However, the OfS can apply a condition on quality or standards: it does not have to apply both. I hope this provides some helpful clarification on that front.

On degree classification and grade inflation, I agree that the sector needs to do more here. We are committed to supporting them in this: HEFCE’s work with the Higher Education Academy to implement approaches to training external examiners, and the teaching excellence framework, which will recognise providers that are genuinely stretching students and delivering good outcomes for their students, are examples of important actions in this area.

We do not want to undermine the prerogative of providers in determining standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, this is about ensuring that all providers in the system are meeting the threshold standards that are set out in a document endorsed and agreed by the sector, as she mentioned—Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications. I reassure the Committee that there is no intention to rate standards in the TEF. However, part of excellence in teaching is ensuring that students are stretched to achieve their full potential. One of the TEF criteria is, therefore, the extent to which course design, development, standards and assessment are effective in stretching students to develop independence, knowledge, understanding and skills that reflect their full potential. For this reason, we believe that the inclusion of standards is crucial to ensuring that the TEF can make a true, holistic assessment of teaching excellence.

I repeat that the standards that are regulated against should be, first and foremost, standards that are set by the sector, rather than prescribed narrowly within legislation. As I have said, I will be reflecting carefully and expect that we will return to this issue on Report. I therefore ask that Amendment 63 be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, briefly, the thought behind the amendment makes a lot of sense. Currently we have had for decades close exchange between Ministers and HEFCE; it goes both ways, and the point I tried to make earlier is that we should not regard all that as equivalent of passing a statutory instrument through Parliament. It is important that Ministers can communicate their concerns to HEFCE and its successor bodies, but it is equally important that the communication goes the other way. I hope that we may hear from Ministers that they believe it will still be possible for these communications to happen, and anything that assures us that that flow of ideas and information in both directions will continue in the new dispensation will, I think, be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the amendment. It is a good one, and although it may not be high profile it is certainly worthy of further consideration. If there is a defect in the current drafting, the Minister may wish to look at it before we get to Report. He can give one of his equivocal answers if he wishes, but of course the more clarity, the better.

I was not going to speak in particular about the amendment, although I was interested in the substantive clause to which it is applied. The current wording says:

“Guidance given by the Secretary of State to the OfS which relates to English higher education providers must apply to such providers generally”—


so far I am with the drafting—

“or to a description of such providers”.

At that point I got completely lost. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could give me a better—perhaps Scottish—interpretation of this. Clearly, the Scots are much sharper on these matters than English drafters. As I understand it—and I normally understand draft legislation relatively well—guidance must apply to the providers, which are defined as “English higher education providers”, generally. That is quite fine. I accept that. However, I do not get the next bit:

“or to a description of such providers”.

To whom or to what does that description apply?

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment, which seeks to give the OfS an independent voice in the future policy-making process. The OfS, as the principal regulator of the HE sector, will have some level of relationship with every registered provider and will gather a comprehensive set of information about the sector. Indeed, as the operator of the register, the OfS will engage closely with new market entrants, and because of its duty to monitor the financial health of the sector under Clause 62, it will have a clear and detailed understanding of how the market is operating and developing. I think that was a point of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Because of its duties to operate in the interests of students under Clause 2, it will also have a clear understanding of demand-side issues.

No sensible Government would want to make major policy decisions on the registered HE sector without engaging with the OfS, and we confidently anticipate that the OfS will be involved, where appropriate, in the policy-making process, just as HEFCE has been. There is nothing in the Bill which prohibits the OfS from giving advice to government on matters within its regulatory remit and there is no reason to suggest that it would be constrained in giving such advice or not be able to provide open and honest analysis. My noble friend Lord Willetts was concerned about whether the OfS will be able to give advice to the Secretary of State and I hope that observation reassures him. Further, there is also a specific duty in Clause 72 for the OfS to provide information and advice to the Secretary of State when it is requested.

I do not think that it is necessary to give an additional explicit statutory power in the Bill for the OfS to be able to give unsolicited advice to the Secretary of State. Nor do I think it would be wise, as I believe there could be unintended consequences of doing that. It also could lead the OfS to spread its limited resources too thinly across its core role of delivering a fair and effective regulatory system and additional role of developing policy advice. In addition, the sector is well represented by a large range of representative bodies, mission groups and other organisations, which engage in debate and dialogue with the Government about policy decisions. It is the Government’s aim that the OfS remains independent of the sector if it is to regulate providers fairly. The OfS will also in part be funded by registration fees paid by registered providers, so it will be held to account by them, and must operate as efficiently as possible.

I am confident that the provisions in this Bill will make the OfS an indispensable source of expert analysis and advice on which the Government will want to draw in the formulation of future policy. In these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a topic that came up on the first day in Committee when I was asked a question, which I was unable to answer, by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as to what the definition in that amendment would have meant in terms of incorporation, location, geographical reach, et cetera. These are issues that I think are within, although not explicit in, this amendment.

I think the genesis of this amendment, which was well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is the worry that nowhere in the text of the current Bill is there an inclusive notion about how our education is expressed. There would be some value in having one, not because of any particular concerns about status or legal position but more to ensure that in seeking competition over quality, for instance, or more innovation, we are not by accident or lack of design excluding those who might be effective in terms of that operation. It is perfectly possible, as the previous speaker clearly said, that much of the innovative work that may come out of the degree-level apprenticeships will be done outside the universities and current colleges of higher education. It may even be done outside colleges of further education or in the workplace and other areas.

We have later amendments that will attempt to introduce an alien concept into much of UK higher education—and possibly more particularly, into English higher education—by getting away from the hegemony of the three-year undergraduate degree. It is always resisted by policymakers that the concept of a university course that they have in mind is one that is entered into by people who have just reached their 18th birthday, have left school and will study perfectly for three years and then go off to have wonderful careers elsewhere while using the skills they have acquired, whereas the truth, of course, is that higher education in its widest definition is extraordinarily broad and diverse, and rightly so. Indeed, one of the problems that we all hoped would be solved by this legislation was to try to bring in some ways in which we could see a more discursive route—if that is not too much of a word—through higher education for those who wish to stop halfway through, take a job, reflect on what they have learned, go back in and perhaps do something else. All the things we see in other higher education systems—such as multiplicity of access and different routes through experience as well as academic learning, both of which are valued and built in to the solution—are not the cornerstones of what we currently see in our higher education system. There will be difficulties in applying them, problems in assessing them and extraordinary circumlocutions, I suspect, in trying to incorporate them into the present arrangements, but come they will. Even if new technology was not going to be a major player in terms of what we are doing for the future, the changes that would be necessary to accommodate young people who are starting their journey in higher education would mean that we would have to think about this again. This is a long way away from the exact wording that we are considering in Amendment 72, but that proposed new clause would at least give us an inclusive version of the current scene in our education and I can commend it for that.

The question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is important, and we would still like to hear from the Minister. If he is not prepared today to give us a response on this narrow point of where “English higher education providers” takes us in terms of provision of higher education, can he write to us as soon as possible? I think it will influence how we take forward this particular matter.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I can understand the motivation behind this amendment. At the outset, I would like to address a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, when discussing definitions. As she will know, we want to encourage innovative approaches, and the question of degree apprenticeships very much comes into that. We wholeheartedly support the need for innovative provision and I want to assure her that the Government are fully committed to degree apprenticeships—this is captured by the OfS’s duty on promoting choice. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I would be happy to further discuss this amendment outside the Chamber with her or any other speaker in today’s debate. For now, I shall keep my comments relatively brief.

I fear that this amendment inadvertently goes too far in that it seeks to extend the regulatory coverage of the OfS to all higher education providers as defined by the proposed new clause, including those not on the register. The OfS must focus its resources and regulatory activity where public money is at stake. Extending its duties in this manner—for example, in promoting quality, choice, opportunity, competition, value for money and equality of opportunity—increases the OfS’s regulatory purview and risks decreasing its ability to focus attention where it is needed most; that is, on monitoring those institutions which pass the regulatory entry requirements to the OfS register.

We discussed definitions at some length last Monday. The Bill uses “higher education providers” as a blanket term to mean any provider of a higher education course as defined by the Education Reform Act 1988, including further education colleges providing higher education. This is already defined in the Bill in Clause 77. I very much noted the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on clarification of what “English higher education provider” means. Although I have, I hope, reassured noble Lords that it is defined in Clause 77, I do feel another letter coming on to clarify to the House exactly what we mean by that. I hope that that is of some help. Therefore, we believe that introducing a new definition is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.

I understand the sprit in which this amendment has been tabled. However, the OfS’s regulatory role is defined by those providers that it registers. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

74: Clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must, after a period of consultation,”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a relatively brief group of amendments that are primarily concerned with drafting issues, although I would like to make a substantive point about consultation with respect to Amendment 428.

In moving Amendment 74, I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the subsection referenced, which is at page 3, line 9. Noble Lords may not have a copy of the Bill with them, but it is a very short subsection and I will read it out so as to not to trouble noble Lords with having to fuddle with their papers. It reads:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the information which must be contained in an institution’s entry in the register”.


The question on whether or not these regulations will be negative or affirmative needs to be resolved, and I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister when he comes to respond as to which variety we are talking about here. However, assuming that there will be regulations in a secondary legislation format, the question that then arises is: why is it a discretionary power?

All too often in your Lordships House we question whether the wording of the statute should be “may” or “must”. This subsection contains both “may” and “must”—it allows the Secretary of State to require information which “must” be contained in an institution’s entry in the register. Noble Lords will understand why that is the case; registers would be worth nothing if they did not contain, or had a discretionary amount of, information, so the register would not be complete, and in that sense it is a “must”. However, I am concerned about the wording that the Secretary of State “may” by regulations make provision. Does that mean that the Secretary of State has an opportunity not to make regulations about those provisions? I would be grateful for confirmation on the record from the Minister.

Amendment 77, which seeks to amend Clause 5(5), is again a drafting issue. Noble Lords may feel that I am obsessed by that, but every now and then it seems important to focus on the wording. This subsection says:

“Before determining or revising the conditions, the OfS must, if it appears to it appropriate to do so, consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers which appear to the OfS to be concerned”.


That is a double concession to the possibility that the OfS has discretion in these matters. Surely, it is always appropriate for the OfS, given its responsibilities, to consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers. The Minister may well say that it is inconceivable that it would not do so, but in that case why give it the discretion not to? There is a case for revising that drafting. It has a “must”, which I like—“the OfS must”—but I do not think the legislation can qualify a “must” by saying “if it appears to it appropriate to do so”. It is almost certainly always appropriate to consult before a body as important as the OfS determines or revises its conditions.

Amendment 428 proposes that, under Clause 69, the OfS must consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers, including staff and students, as well as those who appear to the OfS to be concerned. There is a discretion there, which I am not challenging to the same extent, but the question whether the providers will be sufficient to represent the staff and students’ interests which may be affected seems to me to be important. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I assure the Committee that there is a clear obligation on the OfS to consult when it first determines the initial and ongoing registration conditions and on significant subsequent changes. This will be taken forward through the consultation on the regulatory framework under which the OfS will operate. Clause 69 is clear that, before the OfS can publish its regulatory framework, it must first undertake a wide-ranging consultation.

Subject to the passage of the Bill, the consultation on the new regulatory framework will take place in autumn 2017, so the OfS can begin accepting and assessing applications from new and existing providers in 2018, in time for the 2019-20 academic year. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has taken note of this timetable. We mentioned it earlier in Committee—I think on the first day. We are deliberately taking our time over the introduction of the new regulatory framework and regime. We are not rushing into this. The OfS must have time to consult fully and take on board the views of a very wide range of stakeholders. The new regulatory approach to higher education will be very carefully introduced.

Clause 69 places a very clear duty on the OfS to take into account representations from every part of the sector. It makes provision for the OfS to consult any persons that it considers appropriate and is drafted in such a way that it gives the OfS discretion to consult higher education staff.

On the question of students, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised, we will look to the OfS strongly to encourage providers to engage and consult with students and other stakeholders as a matter of good practice. However, we do not believe that it is right to be prescriptive further than that.

The OfS register will cover all providers regulated by the OfS and will share some similarities with HEFCE’s register of providers. However, whereas HEFCE’s register is primarily a regulatory tool, the OfS register is aimed squarely at students. I reassure the Committee that, although the Bill states that the Secretary of State “may” make regulations, this is standard legislative drafting. It is not meant to imply that the Secretary of State will not do so; I can assure noble Lords that she will. I can also assure noble Lords that the Government firmly expect the OfS to consult on how it will run the register. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for his response. I notice that he did not confirm whether the regulations would be affirmative or negative. Perhaps he could write to me on that point—it is not a significant thing. I think his wording is sufficient to reassure me on the main point. I am never going to win this “may”/“must” battle, but I am not going to stop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

75: Clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Subject to subsection (1C), initial registration conditions of all providers under subsection (1)(a) must include a requirement that every provider—(a) provides all eligible students with the opportunity to opt in to be added to the electoral register through the process of enrolling with that provider, and(b) enters into a data sharing agreement with the local electoral registration officer to add eligible students to the electoral register.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—(a) a “data sharing agreement” is an agreement between the higher education provider and their local authority whereby the provider shares the—(i) name,(ii) address,(iii) nationality,(iv) date of birth, and(v) national insurance data of all eligible students enrolling or enrolled (or both) with the provider who opt in under subsection (1A)(a);(b) “eligible” means those persons who are—(i) entitled to vote in accordance with section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and (ii) a resident in the same local authority as the higher education provider.(1C) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the Open University and other distance learning institutions.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and with her consent, I shall introduce her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Lexden, all of whom are in their places, for their support.

This amendment was moved in Committee in another place by my honourable friend Paul Blomfield. It raises an issue he has been concerned about and has experience of, in that he sits for a constituency in Sheffield which is alleged to have the highest number of students who are registered to vote. The underlying issue is the move to individual electoral registration under which all of us are required to sign up individually to vote. This has had a huge impact not only on family households, where many people have dropped off the register, but on the practice which had been going on for many years in universities. The standard way in which that operated was that universities which had halls of residence, or at least organised accommodation for students, registered them en bloc. That, unfortunately, has been outlawed and there is a real danger that students will not be on an electoral register—not necessarily the one where the university is, but any one.

That has two implications. It is important that people should be registered to vote. If you do not have a chance to vote, you are not a part of the overall democratic process. That is a bad thing, particularly for students and young people, who should be brought in at the earliest opportunity—perhaps even younger than today—in order to ensure that they get into the habit of voting and participate as a result. It is a particular issue for universities, which will not have the voice of those who are participating at university in the wider democratic process. There are two sides to this.

If students are not registered in the university or higher education institution they are at, those constituencies will not only be disadvantaged in terms of the representation of people who live and operate in those places but will shrink, which will affect the size of constituencies and therefore have an impact on the way in which they are drawn up. Many issues arise from the initial proposal.

The background to the particularity of this amendment is that attempts were made to see whether universities could help and assist in this. It was found early on that universities already collect most of the data needed to register students. All that is needed is a national insurance number. This is not routinely collected by universities because students are not employed there.

Obviously there are ways in which one could pose questions to students at points in the process of being at university without being intrusive. The example I have here is from the University of Sheffield—but there are other institutions—which worked with the city’s electoral registration officer and introduced questions for students at the time they were registering or reregistering for their courses. The first question was, “Do you wish to register to vote?”. If they said no, no further action was taken; and if they said yes, they would like to register to vote, they had to provide their national insurance number. The results were amazing: 64% of students opted to register to vote within Sheffield, although there were difficulties in getting some students to find their national insurance number—a problem not confined to students; I can never remember where mine is. I have now memorised it because I got so cross about being unable to complete forms online at the time I wanted to do them. I now have it and can give it to you now, if you want it, without breaching any personal information, of course.

The Cabinet Office then made a change and issued new guidance, which meant that it did not have to have a national insurance number. This was a sensible and unexpected move in support of the process by the Cabinet Office, and I am delighted it happened. We have an opportunity to help in that process. It has a more general particularity than just this Bill, but it is an opportunity that we should take to do it.

The amendment would create an opportunity within which universities could help participation using their function, not as a public sector body but as a public body with wider interests in the public well-being, in order to achieve the good outcome of having more people registered to vote. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment for the good reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to ensure that all eligible students are provided with an opportunity to opt in to the electoral register at the location in which they are studying. Since I have been in the Chamber I have been handed a helpful briefing from the Cabinet Office on this very amendment, which points out that as part of the Government’s Every Voice Matters campaign, the Minister for the Constitution is holding a series of round tables, including with the higher and further education sector, to assess what barriers there may be to electoral registration and what the Government could do to address them, so this issue is under active discussion.

As the noble Lord has said, under the old system of block registration, universities could go quite some way in assisting their students to become enrolled, but under individual electoral registration that has ceased to exist and the focus is on individuals to register. The benefit is that this system is more resilient to fraud, has a reduced risk of a student being registered at two locations, and—which I think is rather more important—has a reduced risk of a student being able to vote at several locations. But as we know, when someone is moving house, registering to vote is a low priority and many people realise that they did not get around to registering only when it comes to election time and it is already too late. Analysis by the Electoral Commission shows that areas with a high concentration of certain demographics, including students, private renters and especially young adults, where people move on a regular basis are particularly in danger of having low registration numbers. It is therefore important that special care is taken to prevent at-risk groups failing to register and have their say at an election.

We are well aware that universities already encourage students to register and vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spelled out. Sheffield has been successful in increasing the number of students registered and many other institutions are already taking steps to encourage young people to ensure that they are on the register. Surely it is vital that the student voice should be heard in the democratic process, and that young people should get into the habit earlier rather than later of making their voices heard in elections. For all those reasons, I hope that favourable attention will be given to this amendment to try to make sure that as many students as possible are both registered to vote and then use their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am afraid I was a bit disappointed in the noble Baroness’s response to the amendment. Given the widespread support for this measure and the wider context which many noble Lords gave for that, as well as the willingness to try and spread the word and get people interested in the electoral process and all the other matters that she referred to in terms of other programmes that are going ahead, this would seem to fit in very well. In fact I felt it was rather a tawdry list. To talk about this being a deregulatory Bill is just a complete nonsense: it is a re-regulatory Bill, and indeed it gives new powers to bodies that previously have hidden in darkness. The idea that espousing this as a deregulatory Bill means that she has an excuse not to bring forward a proposal in this area is a little rich.

At the end of the day, the Minister’s figures were instructive: 60% may well register at home, but that leaves 40% who do not, and 40% of 600,000 students is a lot of people who are not going to be able to vote. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, what happened on the ground in Cambridge on 23 June. This is not satisfactory and I am sure it is something we will want to return to on Report—I can give that assurance unequivocally. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I want to further emphasise the importance of mental health support to the areas of access and progression. We appropriately attract more students who do not come from a family background where higher education is the norm, who do not have the support from home to ensure that they understand the experiences they are having and the ups and downs of their university careers. As we stress in the Bill, we want to see those students progress and succeed in their degrees. For this to be successful it is critical that universities provide mental health support to their students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a rather important measure which I hope will be reflected in the Minister’s response. On parity of esteem, one would want the same approach to mental and physical health given by professionals and those who care for others to spread into the university sector. I suspect that one of the arguments used by the Minister will be that this is something which all citizens—we should not make a special case for students—should be able to access wherever they are and therefore wherever they study. However, the point has been well made that there is something significant about the process of being at university that raises the question of whether there has to be additional provision. It may well be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, that access and progression measures are ones where this might find the most obvious hook. That issue will probably be dealt with by the Minister when he responds.

My question is slightly different. This issue of mental health support services being a requirement of the OfS to place on providers which offer students and staff positions within their institution is of a quasi-regulatory nature. Will this be something that will inevitably come to the OfS because if not, I imagine it will come to the CMA at some point? The CMA as currently configured will be the regulator under which most OfS activities will be supported, and will be there to take action presumably if the OfS does not do that. Therefore, it might well be that there is a regulatory bite on this issue which we are perhaps not seeing yet.

I mention that because later amendments—Amendment 110 onwards, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—refer to protected characteristics. How the equality legislation plays within the university sector and whether the bodies that are currently supervising and regulating it are aware of the implications will be an issue that we will pick up in some substance. It could be a game changer in terms of how universities are currently configured and how they will operate in the future as these regulations become more of the part and parcel of things. The narrow point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and supported by others who spoke in the debate, is still a very important one and should be dealt with on its merits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I will move Amendment 82 and speak briefly to Amendments 84 and 88, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. These amendments are aimed at avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, both for the Office for Students and for providers, by helping to ensure that the mandatory requirements of the OfS, set out in Clause 8, are both reasonable and proportionate. In the Bill, governing bodies must notify the OfS of any change that affects the accuracy of information in the register. We suggest that governing bodies might notify the OfS of any change that materially affects the accuracy of such information. We are sure that the OfS does not want to know about full stops and commas.

Similarly, governing bodies must provide the OfS with such information as it or one of its designated bodies “may require”, and we suggest inserting “reasonably” so it becomes information that the OfS or its designated bodies “may reasonably require”. I hope the Minister will feel able to support this reduction in potential bureaucratic load. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, these are sensible and appropriate amendments for the Minister to consider. They are there because of a feeling that the balance between what is reasonable and what is bureaucratically required may have got slightly out of proportion in the drafting. There is not much in them, but a few additional little words would make a huge difference to how institutions have to operate in the regimes within which they work. When the noble Baroness responded to an earlier amendment, she said that it was important for the OfS to be seen as independent of the institutions to which it relates. Because it is a regulator it would be inappropriate for the OfS to be engaged in too much detailed negotiation and discussion, so it would not be appropriate for it to get involved itself in assessing what type of material is done. It would therefore be quite appropriate for the drafting to reflect a sense that there is a stop in the broader flow of information to only those things which are material, important or relevant. I strongly support the amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the mandatory registration conditions placed on all providers are important and it is right that they are being debated. While I understand the reason for these amendments, existing provisions in the Bill provide sufficient protection for providers from unnecessary or unreasonable requests for information; the amendments are therefore unnecessary, but I will give some fuller explanations.

A key element of the Bill is that the OfS must act in a proportionate manner when formulating and exercising its regulatory powers. In accordance with Clause 2, the OfS must have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice including the principle that regulatory activities must be accountable and proportionate. As such, I can provide noble Lords with an assurance that any information the OfS requires for inclusion in the register will be restricted to that which is necessary for it to perform its functions or to enable students and others to make informed choices. We anticipate that a provider’s entry in the register will be factual and will include, for example, the provider’s registered name, the addresses of the governing body and the registered locations at which courses are delivered. We also anticipate that it will include the category of registration of a provider, whether that provider is subject to a fee limit and details of any quality reviews that have been undertaken. The Secretary of State will make regulations setting out the information to be contained in an institution’s entry in the register. I hope this reassures the House that the OfS will not seek excessive or unnecessary amounts of data from providers and, therefore, the requirement to notify the OfS of changes will not be frequent or onerous. Even then, the failure by a provider to notify the OfS of a change of detail would not necessarily, in itself, lead to sanctions. It would need to adopt a proportionate response taking into account the subject matter and the nature of the omission.

I turn to data that the OfS may request to perform its functions. Once again, proportionality is key here, as described in Clause 7. This stipulates that the conditions of registration, both initial and ongoing, must be proportionate to the degree of regulatory risk the provider presents. So the OfS must ensure that its requests for information are reasonable and proportionate. In respect of information that the OfS may require to enable publication of English higher education information, Clause 59 states that the OfS, or the designated body, must have regard to the desirability of reducing the burden on providers of collecting information and to the availability of data from other sources. The OfS must also consult higher education providers and persons who represent, or promote the interests of, students and employers. This is to ensure that the data being requested are of demonstrable benefit and have the support of the sector and students. This should ensure that providers will only be subject to requests for information which are judged by the sector as adding value.

That was a little bit of a lengthy explanation but I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, can agree that there are a number of important controls in place and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think we are all slightly struck dumb by the flow of information that has come out about this. I must say I had not fully appreciated, until the Minister started speaking, exactly where she was going on this. I am still slightly confused and I shall ask three questions at the end for her to come back to if she can. As I understand it, representation has been made sufficient for the Ministers to decide that a body will be created, separate from the OfS and not dissimilar to HESA, which will carry out the functions that the noble Baroness talked about and hold data in addition, as long as that is within the purview of the OfS. There is obviously a little detail missing, because I could not find in the Bill, in the short time I had to look at it, exactly where are the powers, the bodies, the functions or the establishment of HESA—or, rather, the quasi-HESA, if it is to be that body. If I have not found it by the time we get to the end of this short debate I would be grateful if the Minister could say exactly where I will find it, so that we can check it when we compare it with Hansard.

The reason for being slightly tentative about this is not that I object to the principle—I think the principle is absolutely right. Indeed, there is a bit of a trend developing whereby the functions that were previously within HEFCE, broadly, and within a set of bodies which were set up specifically for the purpose but without statutory backing, have been merged into a single body under the Office for Students. However, we are now realising, as we begin to unpick this, that separate institutions will probably be established. Certainly, I have a later amendment which proposes that the body responsible for quality assessment—the standard of the institution as it approaches and is made into a higher education provider in England and therefore eligible to be appointed to the register—will be independent of the Office for Students. That is because I take the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, that the regulator should not be too close to the other institutions. That is a point we made about the last amendment, but we should also make sure that the regulator is not also a validator or a cheerleader for the sector. It would not be possible for a body appointed as a regulator also to be responsible for carrying out the work which it is regulating. I think we need to think again about the Office for Students. I thought this debate would come a little later in the considerations of the Committee, but we now have an opportunity to pick up at least one area of that.

If I am right that that is where we are coming from, where does this take us on the journey? It is clearly vital to the long-term guidance and the policy directions we need to take in higher education to have a clearer understanding of what the statistical background and basis of that will be. It is conventional in other areas to have separate bodies responsible for information gathering and dissemination, therefore it would be slightly odd if higher education did not follow down this track. To that extent I am absolutely on all fours with Ministers on this; we are not on a good position on that. What I lack is information about how this body is to be established and how certain it will be about its future. HESA is a creature of HEFCE, as I understand it, and therefore does not have its independent funding or constitution. If this is to create that, then we need a little more information before we can tie it off. In terms of where we are coming from, of the 24 amendments that are down in the name of the noble Viscount the Minister, I think that this is a good start and I hope that it will be endorsed as we move forward.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I want to be sure that I understand. The designated body will be able to perform some of the duties which the Office for Students has, under the Bill, if that option is taken up, but the designated body will also have responsibilities which the Office for Students does not have under the Bill at the present time. Am I right in that? If so, are the extra responsibilities that the new designated body has in relation particularly to the fixing and consideration of standards?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to come back so quickly but I am prompted by the noble and learned Lord to make a point. The reference he makes to the responsibilities of the OfS is not, of course, in Part 1 of the Bill as we have considered it—I think he has picked up that point. There is a schedule which contains further information, but a quick reading, which is what I was trying to do while the noble Baroness was speaking, does not seem to pick up exactly the point he has made, so I endorse it and look forward to hearing the response.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. To answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about where all this appears in the Bill, my understanding is that Clause 59 and Schedule 6 cover the duty to publish English higher education information, as originally drafted. We are clarifying and expanding the rules and data, by the amendments to which I have just spoken, to build on what is provided for in this core clause and in Schedule 6. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised a fairly technical issue and I hesitate to give a full response at the Dispatch Box in case I get it completely wrong. With his approval, I shall write to him on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

The only people who have that information are those in UCAS and, so far as I can discover, currently they do not release it. The Bill specifies what the Government wish UCAS to make available for research and, to my mind, that should absolutely include every detail of the way that students use the site so that researchers can really get their teeth into how to do better for the segments of society that we do not think we are doing well enough for at present. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I apologise for the delay in getting to my feet, but I was just wondering whether others with more direct experience of current university arrangements wanted to comment.

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his very interesting disposition about the information needs. I could see where he was coming from on his request for research materials. That was a good point, which may well be of value in later years. If we can find out a bit more about the processes that are going on, I do not think anybody would object to that.

Obviously, there are boundaries around personal information, personal choices and other matters, but his general point was that we do not know enough about the choice matrix that students go into. Particularly as we move to a more market-based economy, that must be the right decision. I could see where he was coming from on that, and I broadly support that, although I have some reservations about some of the detail he was looking for.

I have raised this point before in Committee—and will come back to it, whether in Committee or on Report—about where the boundary is between the Office for Students and the CMA. The Competition and Markets Authority has been doing some work on universities, as I am sure the Minister is well aware. Indeed, several of the universities—including one of which she is an alumna, I think—were required to give undertakings to the CMA about the sort of information that should be available, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to provide the appropriate level of assurance about the information that is required in decision-making. As one of the staff of the CMA said, the choice to go to university is an expensive “one-off decision” for many people—£50,000 seems to be the direct cost that will be involved in going to university, and that can either be paid directly or borrowed. Clearly, that is a significant amount of money, and the consumer rights issues involved in the decision to apply and then receive an offer of a place at university need to be clear in general terms. We must also work out—and I do not see it well expressed in the Bill—where the OfS has responsibilities and where the CMA has responsibilities. Is it, for example, in the Minister’s mind that the OfS will take over from the CMA the extensive series of undertakings that are now being sought from a number of universities up and down the country? I raise that point because I think it is at the other end of the area that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was beginning to mine. I will come back to that in a moment.

I am afraid that the rest of what the noble Lord said left me a bit troubled, and I hope that the Minister will respond in the negative to them. I do not think that it is appropriate to begin to look at matters such as relationships between staff and students, even if that information were available. I am quite surprised that he thinks that way, and I think that there are a number of other things in this area which would not have really worked. However, on the other hand, there are some which might fit into either of my two categories relating to the decision points within the process of accepting a place at university, in which the CMA will have responsibility, and the issue of research.

The CMA material is really interesting. The undertakings that it has sought broadly lie in the area of information around the costs of courses and the type of engagement with staff that will be available. I have heard, although I have not been able to find it in my research in preparation for this debate, that when requirements for courses are advertised, for example in prospectuses, the student applying to that course should be able to establish, at the time of the application, which staff members are teaching the course, how many contact hours they will have and what sort of contact will be involved. Such matters have not been routinely dealt with by universities very well, although I am sure that in the round they do them well, but I do not think that many universities—certainly not the one that I worked at—would have been able to tell you, nine months before the start of term, which teachers would be teaching which courses. There would be a standard and it would be an appropriate standard, but it would not be a named person. However, the CMA seems to want institutions to name the individual who will be teaching the course. It may be right, and I am not saying that this is right or wrong; I am just saying that it is an interesting move. In a sense, that is beginning to go down the route that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has gone down. To that extent, we are at the beginning of a journey. The CMA says that it is making progress and that the change in responses from institutions between 2015 and 2016 has been quite significant, so clearly it is having an impact right now.

To go back to my earlier point, where exactly will that rest after this Bill becomes law? I would be interested to have any advice that the Minister can give on this matter. But, wherever we are, we are clearly in a different world, in terms of consumer rights and responsibilities, than we were five, or even 10, years ago. We are definitely in a situation where there are existing contractual rights and responsibilities and, as the CMA says, at the end of the day much of what it is currently doing will have to be tested in the courts, because only the courts can determine whether what is being offered is within in the law or needs to be challenged.

These are responses to the amendments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope that the Government will not give a blanket response, because there are bits in there which should be picked up and taken on board. However, there is also this underlying question of what the CMA is doing here, where its responsibilities will begin and end and who will take over the burden of the extra responsibilities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing forward these amendments, which seek to expand the scope of the transparency duty. His engagement is greatly appreciated and I wish to reassure him that we will never tire of hearing from him, as was his apprehension. These amendments have raised a number of important issues. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for a very reflective and helpful contribution to the debate.

As set out in our White Paper, the purpose of the transparency duty is to shine a spotlight on institutions that should be going further to widen access and participation. Our intention is for the duty to apply to all providers whose students can claim student support. This is in keeping with our proportionate approach to regulation. Given the number of amendments, rather than discuss each of these at length, I would like to offer a meeting with my noble friend Lord Lucas to discuss these in person. I would, however, like to touch upon some of the key points raised here.

My noble friend raised an important point about access, with his concern that in certain months a student’s chances of access are improved. I refer him to the UCAS equal consideration deadlines. UCAS states explicitly that the undergraduate admissions service uses two equal consideration deadlines: 15 October and 15 January. An equal consideration deadline means that universities will treat all applications received by that deadline with equal priority. I hope that does reassure my noble friend.

I can assure your Lordships that I share the aim of ensuring that students and prospective students can access all the information they need. That is why we are introducing the teaching excellence framework to provide students with robust, comparable information on teaching quality. From this year, institutions will be asked to provide detailed course information, including contact hours, on their websites. These links will be added to Unistats—the official website for comparing UK higher education course data. This will provide a central resource for students easily to compare different institutions.

My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the point that students need to have all the relevant information, such as contact hours and so on, and that the OfS should be given the powers to require that. I reassure him that our reforms aim to ensure that all students have all the right information in the right format and time to help them make decisions which are, in turn, right for them. Clause 59, which we have already referred to this afternoon, establishes a duty for the OfS—or, where there is one, the designated data body—to publish appropriate information about higher education providers and the courses they provide. When determining what information to publish, the OfS must consider what would be helpful for current students, prospective students and registered higher education providers. In deciding what to publish, the OfS must periodically consult with interested parties, including students, to ensure the approach for information still meets their needs.

Amendment 99 raises the question of relationships on campus. The Government are keen for universities to take their responsibilities around sexual harassment seriously. We expect every institution to put in place the right arrangements to ensure the welfare of their student body and continuously work to improve them. That is why we asked Universities UK to see what more could be done to tackle harassment on campus. We must now ensure that the task force’s work goes on to make a real difference to students.

On Amendment 100, HE providers, as autonomous bodies, are best placed to decide how to support the mental health of their student population. That said, this is a very important issue that the sector needs to grapple with. I am pleased to note that Universities UK recently established a programme of work on well-being in higher education to support and strengthen the work that universities are already doing in this area.

On Amendment 102, academic freedom is central to our higher education system. The Bill introduces new protections for academic freedom, making the Secretary of State’s powers to guide and direct the OfS, and set conditions of grant made to the OfS, subject to a general duty to protect academic freedom. It includes specific areas in which the Secretary of State may not interfere, including the content of courses and the criteria for appointing academic staff and selecting students. On Report in the Commons, the Government introduced a further protection prohibiting the Secretary of State from requiring the OfS to operate in a way that causes the opening or closure of particular courses.

In response to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s comments on predicted grades and actual grades, in terms of tariff scores Unistats publishes the percentage of entrants in each tariff band commencing on each course at each institution in the past three years. Publishing information on the median and standard deviation of tariff scores would provide less clarity than the existing data available. Information on entry requirements, course descriptions and other course data is already widely available through providers’ own websites and through UCAS. HE providers are incentivised to make those data readily available in order to attract applicants.

In summary, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a number of very important points, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, interjected a number of observations that are worthy of consideration. I intend to meet my noble friend Lord Lucas, and I hope I have reassured him that we agree in principle with the points he has raised. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 94.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could possibly come back to the question of where the OfS stops and the CMA starts. Will that be subject to further discussion and debate?

[Baroness Goldie]

I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to respond to him in greater detail by writing to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has said. I declare an interest as chair of the board of Sheffield Hallam University and the chair of Peabody. An explanation for that will follow

There is a cautionary tale here in relation to housing associations and the story around their public body status. For a long period of time they were regarded as not public bodies and therefore able to exercise borrowing and take forward proposals outside of the public sector. The effect of successive changes of regulations and controls on housing associations then led to a reclassification by the ONS as public bodies. As a consequence we are now in a process of seeking to deregulate housing associations to move them out of that situation. We do not want to go through the same process for universities. We should proceed with care on this issue.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I always proceed with care. I am not afraid of that sort of gibe. We could get ourselves in an awful tangle if we start following the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, down this route. It is a familiar theme that he runs with all the time whenever he gets close to something he does not want to do. We must all be careful not to have too many loads on us. We can worry too much about form and not enough about content and I want to challenge him on that. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is saying on this, but these bodies are, if you stand a little apart from the close intricacies of how they operate, performing a public function, a function that is valued by the public. I have said already that they are public bodies but not public sector bodies, but as the noble Lord said, there is an issue about FoI and the implications around that. We have got to find a balancing point on that.

Let us park the philosophy for a second and return to the substance of the original amendment. Our Amendment 111 is a probing amendment to try to get a little further on this, because I could not reconcile the drafting in the original Bill with what I thought would be the sorts of issues reflective of the health or otherwise of the sector and would be required as mandatory transparency conditions. The obvious point about using the existing equality legislation occurred to others who are more versed in these issues than I am. I tabled a probing amendment on those lines to try to get that out and it has revealed an interesting topic. I do not know where we go with this. I understand the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, gave us an insight into and which we will need to reflect on.

Three things occur to me. It was rightly pointed out that our Amendment 111 would delete the socioeconomic background requirement in Clause 9(3). There was a reason for our madness on that point in that it seemed a wide-ranging issue on which to request transparency. We are talking about mandatory transparency and socioeconomic background is a term of art, not a term of science, although one could get close to it from a number of directions. It is so imprecise as not to have a particular value. Moreover, ethnicity is not the same as race and the gender of individuals is a multiple, complex issue. These issues are raised within the Equality Act and we have to be much more subtle about how we approach them. I was looking more at the detail and working back from that.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I think that those in receipt of public money, with students with fees from government loans, should indeed operate on a level playing field. However, we should reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in which he asked whether we want to add more requirements or take some of them away. Having recently been a vice-chancellor, I know that universities get numerous FoI requests, many of them relatively vexatious and from local newspapers in the area wanting bits of information about vice-chancellors, staff and other things. Is it really reasonable that we should spend students’ fees on responding to this sort of trivial request?

I think that the Bill will make sure that the kind of key data that you need to know about universities—things such as progression rates—are available from registered providers, and that is very important. It is not about universities trying to hide things; the Bill requires universities to provide the sort of data that students need to know. In levelling the playing field we should follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and think about taking off some of the requirements rather than adding more on.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, having blasted off at the noble Lord, Lords Willetts, on the previous amendment but one, I cannot possibly go back on that, so I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on this amendment, although I have followed her on many others. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, I think that universities either come within the Freedom of Information Act or they do not. If they do not, we will in any case get the information in other ways, so that probably does not matter. However, it is interesting to look at the question the other way round. If a university sector of the size and prestigiousness of our institutions was not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, you would find that very strange.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have given careful consideration to the range of views expressed in response to our 2015 Green Paper in relation to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to higher education providers. Over 100 consultation responses were received on this issue and, perhaps surprisingly, opinion was divided. The underlying principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities. Although not traditionally regarded as public authorities in the wider sense, the Act does currently apply to HEFCE-funded institutions in recognition of the fact that they are in receipt of direct public funding.

In seeking to apply the Freedom of Information Act equally to all registered providers, the effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas—and I thank him for that—would either be to remove all higher education providers from the remit of the Act, or impose an additional freedom of information obligation on providers which are not already covered, irrespective of whether they receive direct public funding. This amendment would extend the scope of freedom of information obligations in this case to all registered higher education providers with courses designated for student support.

In the 2015 Green Paper, we considered the application of the Act and the regulatory costs it could impose on higher education providers, some of which may be relatively small organisations. Having considered the views expressed by a range of stakeholders, our decision was, so far as possible, to maintain the status quo by applying freedom of information obligations to those providers who, in future, are eligible to receive direct grant funding from the Office for Students—namely, approved fee-cap providers. As part of our overall principle of risk-based regulation and seeking to reduce regulatory costs and barriers to entry where appropriate, we did not consider that there was a strong case for expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act more broadly. We already believe that more higher education providers will be regulated through our reforms.

In this short debate, I wanted to address an interesting question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The gist of his question was why the Bill does not seek to provide a level playing field of regulatory obligations. I would like to expand a bit on my answer. The Bill continues a rather different approach, whereby those that receive the most significant funding directly from the public purse are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This is a targeted approach to regulation, imposing requirements on those—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

119: Clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) The OfS may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, waive the fee limit condition in respect of courses which in its view would enable a student to achieve an honours degree within two years of full time study.(1B) For courses to which subsection (1A) applies, the governing body of the provider concerned shall be required to obtain prior approval of the OfS of any fee to be charged.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, for the convenience of the Committee, I will attend to Amendments 119 and 120 together. If it is then possible for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to follow me on that, that will be helpful.

These are probing amendments, the background to which is that the Bill contains aspirations—and may be amended to contain even more aspirations—to see the current rather rigid structure for undergraduate curriculum and courses in this country changed so that there are, for example, more two-year degrees and more flexibility towards taking part courses, or “credits” as they are sometimes called, to build up an entitlement to the award of a degree. This is common in many other higher education systems and has been much talked about on all sides of the political spectrum in recent years, though progress has been quite slow. The amendments seek to probe the idea that part of the delay on this is due to of the way in which the financial regulations for higher education are structured. The finance works in sessions—there is an academic year, as defined in Clause 11, to which we are coming—but the funding for courses is done in relation to the whole course rather than any part of a course. That is the way we have done it historically and there is no particular reason why that is wrong or right. However, it will not be flexible and if a student attempts to do half a course, with a view perhaps to stopping after a bit and then coming back and doing the rest at some later date, or if a new institution was attempting to provide a different type of course, they would have to do it in years; they could not do it in part years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I wish to respond to Amendments 119, 120 and 121. The Government are committed to encouraging more accelerated degrees and other flexible provision. Indeed, we stated this in our last manifesto and I hope there will be an element of agreement between us on this.

The Bill will level the playing field for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialist and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees are a particular strength of new and alternative providers, and this will help to ensure that students can access learning in the form that suits them. For example, Buckingham, BPP, Condé Nast College of Fashion and Design and the Greenwich School of Management all offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree over two years. This means that the student incurs less debt and can enter or re-enter the workforce more quickly.

We are interested in understanding what more we can do to support flexible provision. We carried out a call for evidence in the summer seeking views from providers, students and others. This call for evidence resulted in more than 4,500 responses. A clear majority of these came from individual students and we were delighted to see this level of engagement. Many of the responding students expressed an interest in accelerated degrees, so this is clearly an important issue and the demand seems to be there.

On 20 December 2016, the Government published a summary of the call for evidence. This is a complicated policy area and we are now fully considering the evidence. Let me reassure noble Lords, however, that we are looking carefully at the options to remove barriers to accelerated degrees. While we certainly sympathise with the underlying intention of this amendment, as we continue carefully to consider the key issues, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

I move on to the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In a very similar approach, they both seek to link funding to academic credits as well as academic years. Again there is considerable sympathy with the issues that are raised here. The Government are committed to improving diversity of provision and to increasing student choice. Supporting students who wish to switch a higher education institution or a course is an important part of our reforms.

We also recognise the importance of part-time study, and this gives me another opportunity to trumpet this aspect of our reforms. There should be no doubt about our intention to promote this side. Studying part-time and later in life can bring enormous benefits for individuals, the economy and employers.

This area is also being considered as part of the call for evidence and is all part of us looking closely at the 4,500 responses. Again, it is complicated and I hope the Committee will indulge me and remember that it requires quite a bit of time to gather all the information. We will do that and return with the response in due course. Overall, the Government are already taking action to address some of the key areas of student choice as well as working to support students and their diverse needs.

I assure the Committee that we are actively considering all options in this area. I hope these warm words will be helpful. As we continue to consider the key issues as highlighted in our call for evidence, I ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. If I get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who is quite mean with his support for some of the things that come from this side of the Committee, I am obviously on a winner. We will jump over that.

I make two points. If I gave the impression that this was about only new entrants, that was a mistake. I did not want to say that. I think the Minister accepts that the interest is there from all institutions that might follow what the student demand is. If the demand is for that, courses will follow.

I am puzzled why it takes so long to process 4,500 submissions. I understand that due attention must be given to them but the Minister has about 4,500 sheets in his file and has probably read it for today’s debate. I cannot believe it will take him much longer to get through the submissions. In the course of the debate on this amendment, we have now discovered a fifth way of the Government saying that they are not quite sure whether or not they will bring this back on Report. The Minister simply says he is spending more time reviewing the evidence before him before considering how he might bring it forward. He will only have to tell us and we will happily put it down on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

As I have said, the consultation has led us to believe that this rating system is the best that we have come up with. I have explained already that various other systems have been looked at and we believe that this is the right way forward. I understand that there is some passion around what methods should be used, but we believe that this is the right way forward.

I will continue on the same theme. My noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, suggested that the TEF metrics will be gamed. We expect the assessment panels to take a holistic approach in assessing all the evidence, not just the metrics, and therefore it will not be easy to game the system. In addition, the role of the external examiners, a robust quality assessment system and the ONS review of the data sources we use are all important in tackling this issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, suggested that the TEF will mean that some students will be forced to study at bronze institutions due to their circumstances. However, as I said just now, a bronze provider is still one that has passed a high bar on the quality we expect it to offer. The TEF assesses excellence above that baseline and will, we expect, incentivise and encourage that bronze provider to offer a better quality of teaching to that student than they do at present.

Then noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked how lecturers and teachers will know how to improve their teaching on the basis of the TEF ratings. The TEF provides clear reputational and financial incentives for providers to improve teaching quality, but it is not for us to tell universities how to teach. However, all TEF provider submissions will be published and we would expect those in the sector to learn from one another and to continue to feed back to us as the TEF develops.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the issue of the impact of the TEF on social mobility, which is a very fair point. She asked what effect the Government think that the linking of fees and teaching quality will have on social mobility. Fears about only the Russell group providers doing well in the metrics are, we believe, misplaced. The metrics have benchmarks that recognise the student body characteristics of each provider, and a number of other safeguards are in place to ensure that the TEF should actually enhance the quality of teaching for disadvantaged groups. I know that Les Ebdon has made some comments on that, which will be very much known by the Committee.

In conclusion, while I recognise the concern that has been expressed around the ratings of gold, silver and bronze, we should not deceive ourselves. Both home and international students already make judgments as to the relative merits of different universities, based on all sorts of unreliable measures. The TEF will allow those judgments to be better informed, based on evidence rather than prejudice. These amendments would undermine the TEF’s ability to provide clear ratings and clear incentives to the sector to drive up teaching quality.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has requested this stand part debate, I remind noble Lords that removing this schedule in its entirety would remove any link between quality and the fees that a provider was able to charge. It would also mean that the sector would not receive the additional £16 billion of income by 2025 that we expect the TEF to deliver. I do not think that this is what we, or the noble Lord, want.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I really must challenge that. The situation, as he has already described it, is that fees have risen, substantially and then gradually, over the past period. That has been achieved perfectly straightforwardly by bringing forward statutory instruments that allow for an increase in fees relative to inflation. Although we have questioned some of the issues behind it, we have supported that. We are about to engage in a discussion in your Lordships’ House on the fee increases that are to apply from next session. Those fee increases are detached from any considerations of quality, are entirely related to inflation and are done on the basis that the House will consider and approve them. What exactly is the difference between that and what he is proposing? I do not get it.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I reiterate that the main way forward is that we want to link the issues of fees and performance. The TEF is a manifesto commitment, and I know that we are all agreed on the importance of recognising excellent teaching. As I have said very clearly to the Committee today, the Government have consulted extensively on the form of the TEF, and we will continue to listen to and engage with the sector as the TEF evolves. I say again that it is an iterative process, and that is why we do not need in primary legislation the detailed provisions that we have been discussing, as we believe they would hinder the constructive development that is already taking place. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, as the Government have set out previously in this and the other place, as well as in publications, our policy is that increases in tuition fee limits must be earned by demonstrating excellent teaching quality through participation in the teaching excellence framework.

These amendments correct a small drafting error in Schedule 2 to ensure that this policy is achieved. Under the amended wording, a sub-level amount can be set at the same level as the floor level, meaning that the Secretary of State can create a fee limit that applies specifically to providers that do not participate in TEF—either because they choose not to, or because they are ineligible—and set that limit as equal to the floor level.

Let me be clear: the floor level is the baseline, minimum fee limit, which is £6,000 for those providers without an access and participation plan and £9,000 for those with an access and participation plan. We have no plans to increase these values. Within the sphere of high-quality rating, providers who achieve a gold or silver rating will get a 100% inflationary uplift, and those who achieve a bronze rating will be recognised with a 50% inflationary uplift. Without these amendments, any sub-level amount assigned to non-participating providers would need to be greater than the floor amount. That would mean that these non-participating providers would derive benefit for no reason. That is unfair and contrary to our policy intent. That is why I am speaking to these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness reflect on the point she made as she concluded her remarks when she said that the fees would remain at £6,000 and £9,000 respectively, and gave the reasons for the two different fees and the reason for the amendment? She went on to say that the Government had no plans to increase these. She knows that is not right. A statutory instrument has already been laid—a negative instrument—which we shall debate shortly in this House which seeks to increase these figures by inflation to quite significant sums above £6,000 and £9,000. Will she confirm that that is the case?

As I am on my feet, and reflecting back on the debate we had on the first group of amendments this evening, I say that it was clear from the Minister who responded that he was making play of two reasons why he would not consider the arguments made all around the Committee on the link between the TEF and the increases in fees. One of them was simply that it was a good cause but he repeated the other several times and ended up having to defend it quite vigorously—namely, that this matter was contained in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election. The dinner break followed very shortly afterwards and I checked the Conservative Party manifesto. I am afraid that he is wrong on that point. The manifesto says:

“We will ensure that universities deliver the best possible value for money to students: we will introduce a framework to recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality; encourage universities to offer more two-year courses; and require more data to be openly available to potential students so that they can make decisions informed by the career paths of past graduates”.


It does not make a connection between the TEF and the quality of the courses, which would mean that only those with a good rating in the TEF would get increased fees. I therefore ask him to withdraw that when he next has the opportunity to do so, because he has misled the House a little on this. It does not matter in the great scheme of things—he was going to reject the amendment anyway—but we should have the right reasons for doing that, and that was not the case.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, briefly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the specific matter he raised on the values for the floor levels, I can confirm that there are no plans to increase the floor level—I want to make that clear—and the inflationary uplift will be at the higher level. I hope that that clarifies the position.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

128: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of admissions and access
The OfS must undertake or commission regular reviews, in consultation with relevant bodies, of—(a) the university admissions system, and(b) the numbers of, and range of provision available to, part-time and mature students.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will be brief. Although the phrasing of the amendment is quite broad, the intention behind it is relatively straightforward and quite narrow. In keeping with earlier debates that we have had in Committee, our feeling was that we should do all we can to make sure that those who have a commitment to extend access to higher education to as many people as possible would share the view—I think the Government also share it—that there would be value in having a more flexible system that would, in particular, include more part-time students. It therefore seemed that there was a bit of a gap, which this proposed new clause is intended to fill. With regard to access and participation, there would be a duty on the OfS to make sure that the system of admissions ensured that those who wished to apply for university were fully apprised of the fact that there were alternative models for how they pursued their higher education careers. They should think in terms of part-time or flexible courses, since that might be in some ways better than trying to do a full-time, three-year course immediately after leaving school.

I am sure that that is in the Government’s mind and that they would accept that the underlying thinking behind this is right. The amendment may not be the best way of providing this, but I thought it was worth putting it in as a probing amendment to make sure that we get on the record the Government’s commitment to this type of approach and to the idea that the architecture of regulatory and other bodies involved in the process has this as part of their thinking. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this amendment. It is only the OfS that will do these things when they need doing and keep an eye on them, and it ought to be part of what it is meant to do. It is far too easy for schools, colleges and universities to continue with their current practices and to grouse about what is happening. However, no individual or small collection of individuals ever has sufficient incentive to kick against the current system and to try to get a motion for change going. An example of that is post-qualification admission. I speak to a lot of schools, and a large number of them would like to move to post-qualification admission. Nothing will happen unless the OfS or a similar body decides to take a look at it. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that, should the OfS or the Government wish to take a look at these things, they can do so without any powers beyond those provided in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

I have always regarded the noble Lord as my friend and I shall do my best not to alienate that happy relationship. Your Lordships will be aware that this is very significant legislation— I understand that it is unprecedented in terms of amendments. Although I have no precise timings for Monday, it may help your Lordships to know that I am given to understand that we can anticipate a long sitting, but until when, I cannot be precise about.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sure that the usual channels will come up with an equitable solution for all concerned. I think it would be for the benefit of the House, and indeed for our ability to cope, if we all cut down our speeches quite a lot more than we are currently doing, but that is not a matter for debate at the moment. I will do my best to live up to my aspirations, although I am not very good at it.

I simply want to say that I agree with what the Minister said about the amendment because I did not ask for any additional burdens to be placed on the OfS or any issues to be raised about the autonomy of individuals and institutions and their admissions. What I asked for was that some regard should be given by OfS to commissioning regular reviews, in consultation with those bodies, in order that there be better information about the advantages of part-time and mature student routes and courses that would appeal more to those with more flexibility. However, I think that enough has been said on the record to make sure that this issue has been picked up. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

132: Clause 13, page 8, line 21, 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 institution”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with this amendment we move to registration conditions, and a number of issues arise in this and subsequent groups in relation to these conditions. The conditions are very important and I do not think that we should skip too quickly over them, despite what I just said about trying to move forward quickly. As well as my amendments, to which other noble Lords have very kindly added their name, this group includes an interesting amendment from the right reverend Prelate. They affect some important issues and it is worth pausing slightly on each amendment as we go through.

Amendment 132 picks up the hopefully unlikely situation that if a provider was to close—or, as does happen, a course closes—there should not be any reasonable financial loss transferred to individual students. There are one or two scare stories about how difficult it is sometimes to extricate students who have commitments, particularly when a course has an overseas engagement. The amendment is valuable in that it picks up on an area that is not covered well in the Bill. However, it may not be necessary to press it if sufficient reassurances about the processes that would be applied can be given when the noble Baroness comes to respond.

Amendment 133 was an attempt to use the registration conditions contained in the Bill to, in this particular clause, try to sketch out a bit more what was meant by saying that there is a vision of what universities are in the United Kingdom. The amendment lists a range of issues that one would hope to see in these institutions, which may or may not be attractive to the Government in trying to help with their understanding of it. It is a probing amendment and deals with something that is of interest. We will read what they say in due course and think about bringing it back, if necessary.

Amendment 134 would enable the OfS to set stricter requirements for new providers to get on to the register by looking in more detail than is perhaps given in the Bill at the moment at previous history and the forecast of future sustainability. The problem we come up against is that, in considering challenger institutions, we are often talking about very small and relatively recently formed organisations, some of which may not even have proper corporate status or, indeed, the issues related to that, which I gather have been touched on in the Minister’s recent letter about what was required of an institution intending to register as a university—that was very helpful. This plays back against a little of that because there will be concerns about small institutions. They may be unwarranted but size is a factor in what may be required to sustain an institution. We need to think about track records and these entry requirements might be worth considering in that context.

With Amendment 138 we are again back to the question of what happens in the event of the failure of a course or institution. It is more about courses and focuses on simple protection plans which would make sure that there was no disruption to the studies of existing students if a particular course was pulled out, and more generally would make sure that institutions that fail have got plans in place to ensure that the students effected are not lost to the system, for example, and that there are other arrangements.

Our attention has been drawn to the phrasing of the Technical and Further Education Bill, which contains significant recommendations in this area. They do not appear in the Higher Education and Research Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why we do not have the same degree of reassurance in this area as we will have when the Technical and Further Education Bill becomes law. There is a gap—it may just be because the two Bills are proceeding at a different pace—and if it is possible to look at that and bring back something on Report, it would be a good thing.

Amendment 149 relates to a technical question about what happens to students in any suspension period. At the moment the regulations are clear in general terms but they are not specific about what would happen in terms of notifying students. The student protection plan agreement should be revisited to make sure that that is covered.

Amendment 224 would ensure that when higher education providers produce an access and participation plan there is a consultation process with the students—and it gives a definition of the students who would be consulted. I beg to move.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 138, to which I am a signatory.

I made the point at Second Reading that a shell provision for student protection plans is not sufficient to reassure students that, in the event of institutional failure, they will be able to continue their education. I chair the Higher Education Commission and in our report, Regulating Higher Education, we stressed the need to have a strategy in place that allowed for an institution to exit the market in an orderly manner with the right level of protection in place for students.

Institutional failure would create obvious problems for students, not least in terms of disrupting their education and potentially leaving them adrift, at significant financial cost. As we argued, good governance and proper scrutiny should reduce the chances of failure, but there needs to be greater attention given to what happens when an institution does fail.

On the recommendation of HEFCE, we looked at the travel insurance industry, which participates in a sector-wide scheme to protect air passengers. We argued that this model could be applied to the HE sector, with a requirement for institutions to sign up and pay a sum per student into a fund which would cover costs in the event of failure. Our recommendation was:

“Institutions need to be better prepared for the possibility of a failure in the sector. Given the potential damage this could inflict on students and the sector as a whole, a ‘protection’ or ‘insurance’ scheme coordinated by the lead regulator should be put in place”.


I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the need to have some student protection plan in place, but merely placing a duty on the OfS to ensure that such plans are in place is inadequate, in my view, for the purpose of providing the reassurance to students before they embark on a course of higher education that they will be able to complete it. The more new entrants come in to HE and the more a market exists, the greater the risk becomes. However, it is not the new entrants causing the potential problem; that already exists. It just exacerbates the potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble friend for raising significant points. Let me try to put his mind at rest. I hope he will accept that the whole thrust of the Bill is to create not just new territory for the way in which we deal with the provision of higher education in England but a set of new relationships, not the least of which is putting the student right at the core of higher education provision—perhaps doing so in a way which we have not seen before. That is to be applauded. The constitution and creation of the OfS develop a body which is not just a paper tiger. This body is given significant, meaningful and tangible powers in the Bill—powers that it will be required to deploy and use if difficult situations arise.

My noble friend posed the specific question of what will happen to students if a higher education institution goes bust. First, it is intended that the OfS will monitor the financial health of institutions and require student protection plans to be implemented if a provider is at risk of being unable to deliver a course. The OfS will not be operating in some silo or vacuum. It will actually be a hands-on and in-touch body, with its finger on the pulse to know what is happening. It will have an early indication if there are reasons for concern.

For example, if in the unlikely and very unhappy event that a higher education institution goes bust, existing students might be taught out for the remainder of their course or academic year, with provision to transfer to another institution having banked their existing credits. It would entirely depend on the terms of the student protection plan but that is indicative of how these plans have to be broad, far-reaching and flexible. The core of all this is that at the end of the day, they must provide that underpinning protection to which students are entitled.

It is currently the case with HEFCE that the Office of Students may be able to support an institution while it implements a student protection plan. It might, for example, reprofile loan repayments or provide short-term emergency support. This is very much a nuclear option because instances of a provider suddenly and without warning exiting the market completely are likely to remain extremely rare. We would expect student protection plans to be implemented as far as possible—for example, measures to financially compensate students—and the OfS to support students in transferring to alternative institutions. There is a variety of solutions, remedies and initiatives which could be deployed, and it is very clear that the powers that will be available to the OfS will make such deployment perfectly practical, reasonable and manageable. I hope that reassures my noble friend on the issues which he raised.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I have to say to the Minister, who cannot see behind her, that her noble friend was not looking that reassured.

[Lord Lucas]

No, I do not find myself reassured. I very much hope my noble friend may be able to write to us. The sort of protection plan she is talking about is starting to look extremely expensive. Are they going to hold a year’s fees in reserve? If we do not have some kind of mutual arrangement, each course will have to look out for itself; that is going to be extremely expensive and make new initiatives very difficult to finance. I would really appreciate a properly worked example of what happens when a university ceases to trade at relatively short notice.

[Baroness Goldie]

I am very happy to undertake to write to my noble friend. I have so much of interest to tell him that it will be a long letter.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

As I was saying, I do not think the Minister quite got to the heart of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about what the Minister does when this letter arrives on the desk. I think the noble Baroness managed to avoid mentioning Ministers at all. We take on board what the Minister is saying about the role of student protection plans and the institution in this. She is right to say that this has to be settled long in advance and we have to know what we are doing, but there is the question of realpolitik. When these matters arrive courtesy of the Daily Mail and land on the Minister’s desk, she is going to have to have a better answer than that. I suspect that the answer is that the power to direct the OfS will remain in the armoury given to the Minister. Although we have some reservations about that, in exceptional circumstances that will obviously be the right thing to do. I was pleased to hear that, like us, the Government accept that if the student is at the heart of this new reformed plan for higher education, the student has to have some rights and responsibilities, and they have to be real and exercisable. The letter should try to cover that journey in these extreme situations.

I am, however, left with Amendment 138 and its drafting. I think the Minister said that it is not necessary to bring it into the current Bill from the Technical and Further Education Bill because the institutions are different. These institutions will probably be offering a similar number of courses around degree apprenticeships, and higher education is often provided in further education situations, so I do not think that argument sustains itself. Will the Minister write to us about the reasons for not including these rather well-worked-through arrangements, which seem to answer all the questions she has been asked, as they exist in legislation which we are about to consider and could, with very little effort, be copied into the current Bill? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 132 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

139: Clause 14, page 8, line 43, leave out “English higher education providers” and insert “higher education providers in England”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with the agreement of the Committee, and in the hope that we can get through a bit more business, I was going to suggest that we move very quickly through this group of amendments, which are largely in my name—although there is also one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—in order to get one more group of amendments in before we finish. We shall see how we get on.

The reason for my saying that is that although at the core of this group is the question of academic freedom, which I know the noble Baroness wants to speak about—I ask her to do so as soon as I sit down—the other amendments are about a list of principles in the Bill, and play to questions of institutional autonomy, academic freedom and the practice of what universities are about. Much of that was covered in the debate on Amendment 1 on the first day in Committee, so it is not necessary to make these arguments in detail, and I ask the Minister not to spend much time on them; indeed, they will come up again later. I will give way to the noble Baroness if she wants to make some remarks, because she has a taxi waiting.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords I appreciate the kindness of the House in allowing me to speak to my Amendment 166, which is a little different from the others in the group. I make no apology for returning to the issue of academic freedom. When it was discussed in relation to Amendment 65 on the first day of Committee, the Government’s response was that academic freedom is already enshrined in Clause 14 as one of the principles that must be in the governing documents of a university. The amendment before us goes further in that it extends the principle of academic freedom to every person and body under the Bill, including the OfS and its satellite bodies. Moreover, it will apply directly to the university in its everyday operations, not just in its governance documents. There will be nothing to stop a future Secretary of State removing that principle rather than, as in the past, finding that power only in the Privy Council.

There is also concern that the new Clause 1, which was passed by this House, which mentions academic freedom, might not survive Commons scrutiny. All our freedoms, including those in the convention on human rights, are circumscribed by law, which changes from time to time, so academic freedom—limited here to academic staff, not visiting lecturers, students or auxiliary staff—is subject to the criminal law. There is a lot of law circumscribing academic freedom and freedom of speech, including terrorism, equality and discrimination law. Academic staff are free to hold conferences at the university, but will not have protection —rightly so—if that conference promotes racial hatred or gender discrimination. I have often wondered about the example of a medical lecturer teaching students how to perform female genital mutilation, as opposed to how to how to discover it or take remedial action.

The extent of the teaching excellence framework also risks infringing on academic freedom if it goes as far as to tell a lecturer what, or perhaps how, to teach his or her class. We remain in dangerous water and the amendment is sorely needed. It is also a safeguard for lecturers against students’ censoriousness in this age of safe spaces and snowflake undergraduates. A lecturer must be able to lecture, despite the disapproval of his colleagues and students. I instance an LSE lecturer, Dr Perkins, whose well-researched views on benefits and their recipients were not welcome. The amendment would also incorporate the human rights of freedom of expression, assembly, thought and belief. It is sadly necessary that this be repeated as a direct responsibility on each university.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, in the interests of brevity I shall write a full letter addressing the main amendments in this clause. Just before I conclude, I want to say that the issue focuses on the provider which carries on some of its activities outside England. The only proviso is that it must carry out most of its activities in England. We are focusing on the English higher education provider.

The amendments, particularly Amendments 140 and 164, go to the important principle of academic freedom that we all agree underpins the success of our higher education sector. I believe that there is no difference of view on that matter. As I said earlier this week, the Minister in the other place and I are reflecting on this issue, taking account of the views that we have heard in this place. I listened carefully to the comments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and, as a result of the letter that she received today, the very best thing to suggest is that I will meet her to take her points further and/or write to her.

While I understand and sympathise with the intention behind all these amendments—I promise that I will follow up with a full letter and the new clause—I do not think they are necessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Just before I conclude, I want to clarify one point and to address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who asked me to clarify my position on the linking of the TEF fees. I have also had time to check the Conservative manifesto. I agree that the manifesto commitment was to introduce a TEF, and I want to make this quite clear to the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am sure that we will return to the issue on a more substantive basis in the future.

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for raising that question. I almost did a little riff at the beginning because I wanted to explain why my amendment looks like nonsense; the world of Alice in Wonderland came to mind. It was precisely because of my frustration because I could not get my mind round what was meant by an English higher education provider, and whether that was different from a higher education provider in England, and what did it all mean anyway? I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write again about that because, like the noble Baroness, I have read the letter, but only briefly, and I do not think that it clarifies exactly where we need the clarification, which is: what is the constitutional position and where could these places be sued since it is all now on a contractual basis? Until we know how they are constituted and where they are, we will not be able to do that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 139 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 166A and the allied Amendments 168A and 173 propose that the body that is to judge the quality of the teaching and the standard of assessment in universities should be independent of the Office for Students. Amendment 173 declares that no members of the body should also be members of the Office for Students.

These amendments are overshadowed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s amendments that give a detailed remit to a proposed independent office of quality assurance. No doubt he will speak persuasively to those amendments with his customary wit and wisdom, but in effect, they propose re-establishing the existing Quality Assurance Agency, or the QAA, under another name and on a different constitutional basis. This raises the question of why the role of the independent QAA should not be perpetuated. This is not a rhetorical question; it is a genuine request for a response from the Government.

However, I will not hesitate to suggest that, as it stands, the Bill will allow the quality assurance regime to become subject to much closer oversight and control from the Secretary of State than has been the case hitherto. If that were to be the case, I am bound to say that it would be likely to have very deleterious consequences. I should be honest at this point about declaring that, notwithstanding the respect that it has acquired, the effect of the existing QAA regime has been deleterious.

I can imagine that when it was first established, there was thought to be a need for a formal centralised system of quality control. This I would like to dispute. Despite many impressions that may have been fostered by the campus novels of the 1960s and the 1970s, universities were well regulated as regards both the quality of their teaching and their standards of assessment. As I mentioned at Second Reading, this was achieved largely through the system of external examining, whereby universities appoint persons from other institutions to monitor their examination procedures and to assess their methods of teaching.

The detailed findings of the external examiners were private to the institutions concerned, albeit that any lapses in standards would quickly become common knowledge throughout the university sector as a whole. The system of external examining not only served to keep the teaching within academic departments up to the mark, but also ensured a degree of uniformity in the standards within particular academic disciplines throughout the sector. With the advent of the formal quality assurance regime and with the duty to publish the findings of external examiners, a great pressure arose to ensure that any publicity would be good publicity. The quality assurance officers within individual institutions worked assiduously to this end and they often imposed upon the external examiners, asking them to amend any comments that seemed to be critical. Thus the purpose of the regimes of external examining has been utterly subverted. This is only one of the many ill effects of a formalised centralised quality assurance regime that I can instance; there are many others.

In view of these experiences, I have some misgivings regarding the prescriptions of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Nevertheless I am bound to support them on the grounds that they emphasise the need for academic independence and that they tend to remove matters of quality assurance from the direct influence of the Secretary of State. I hope that in replacing the existing Quality Assurance Agency by a newly founded system there will be some regard to its failures and some recognition of the qualities of the pre-existing system that I have described. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a significant number of amendments in this group. I thought that for the convenience of the House, I should introduce them at this stage so that the debate can be as full as it can be. I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. He is right in describing where my amendments would take us. I do not specifically say that I would rule out the continuation of the existing QAA. Indeed, this group is wide enough to allow a number of different interpretations and some of the amendments do concern the status quo ante. However, the amendment at the heart of this group would create a new independent body. This would probably be best achieved by transmogrifying the QAA but it does not require that.

The new clause in Amendment 170A sets up a body called the Quality Assurance Office, which has come largely from discussions and debates around the sector. It has gained considerably by comments made by the Council for the Defence of British Universities, an organisation that has attracted a lot of attention from Members of your Lordships’ House and more widely in the sector. I am grateful to it not only for its ideas and discussion but also for some of the drafting in these amendments.

Amendment 170A therefore sets up a new body. Amendment 201A sets out the functions of that body. It is a key point that it would be independent of the Office for Students and of the Secretary of State, with a focus on responsibility for qualities and standards. Amendment 213A inserts a revised schedule setting out the detail of QAO which replaces that which appears in the Bill for a committee to deal with standards. Amendment 217A sets out how the QAO will be funded. We are thus presenting a complete package. It would be relatively easy for the Minister to respond by saying that he accepts every word of it. I am sure that as I sit down I shall hear him say exactly that.

To be serious, the reasons for these amendments are in two groups. The first group is about the creation, in the Office for Students, of what I think is primarily a regulator. I say that partly because that is how it has been described by the Minister, although in his recent letter he tries to backtrack a little from that in saying that it is not a regulator as one would understand the term “regulator” since it will not acquire with its establishment any of the functions currently given by the code of regulators. This is neither one answer nor another. We shall have to come back to this problem. What we know is that the regulatory structure in higher education is becoming more complex because of the requirements in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which made the CMA responsible—although there were powers before that—for obtaining undertakings from universities and higher education providers in order to ensure that they were operating with the proper integrity required of bodies offering services to those consumers who wished to take them up.

So we have a rather complicated field. The letter from the Minister dealt in part with this, but it does not quite answer all the questions. I hope we will get some more information from him during this debate. Either today, or at some future date, we will know that the Office for Students is indeed a regulator. However, in the Bill as currently drafted, it has responsibility for setting up committees or, in some cases, direct functions relating to quality assessment and fair access; the statistical underpinning of these areas and validation. Indeed, it is appointed as validator of last resort. This would be a situation which is unparalleled in the regulatory framework: a body which is not only responsible for the health, existence and support of the bodies which it is regulating, but also has the power to deregister them and shut them down. At heart, it is an all-singing, all-dancing model which has been tried in other areas and just does not work. Such a body is not right in principle and will not work in practice. That is the first strand—what the Bill is trying to set up is not the most efficient and effective way of operating in this sector.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

174: Clause 24, page 15, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) At least one member of the Committee must, at the time of their appointment, be engaged in the representation or promotion of the interests of individual students, or students generally, on higher education courses provided by higher education providers.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a further development about quality assessment—this time, focusing on the committee. First, picking up on the remarks made at the conclusion of the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Hanworth, I agree with him that some issues remain in the mind after the Minister responded to that debate. I suggest to the Minister that it might be helpful if we could have a little more detail, when he has had time to reflect on the debate, on how “independent” is defined. If he is correct in saying that the OfS has the responsibility for assessment of standards, but that an independent committee of the OfS is set up in order to maintain the threshold standards in the institutions and the quality of the teaching that is provided in those institutions, it needs to be clearer than it is to me—and I think to many people—how exactly that independence is to be guaranteed. In conventional terms, if you are a member of a committee of a body, you are subject to the rules and regulations of that body. It seems to me on that basic analysis that the independent committee is not independent but a creature of the OfS operating in an independent way but not totally independent. These matters are perhaps too abstruse to debate today. I would be grateful if the Minister might focus on this in a letter, and I look forward to receiving that from him.

Moving to Amendment 174—and to Amendment 203, which is primary in this group—I will not speak to the clauses stand part because the issues raised there are reflective of the earlier debate and the clauses would have had to be removed, I think, had those amendments been accepted. The focus of this group is the familiar issue that if we are having an independent body within the OfS, but separate in some magical way from it, it should have its own focus and functions. We suggest in Amendment 174 that at least one member of the quality assessment committee should be representing the interests of students. We also think that the interests of staff, and higher education staff more generally, should be engaged as well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his contribution. This debate is on clauses that lay the foundations for a risk-based, co-regulatory approach to quality assessment. That is important, as the noble Lord has rightly conceded. As set out in the higher education White Paper, we believe in the principle of co-regulation, which the BIS Select Committee also endorsed strongly in its report earlier this year, saying:

“We believe it essential that the quality assurance of universities should remain administratively and visibly independent from Government or the new regulator”.


Turning to the amendments, I thank noble Lords for raising the importance of having staff interests fully represented in the quality system. That does matter. I turn first to the amendments concerning student representation on the OfS quality assessment committee. First, I reassure noble Lords that students are at the heart of our reforms. The OfS will bring together the regulatory levers that will enable us to improve quality and allow students to make informed decisions. For that reason, we listened to points raised in the other place and amended Schedule 1 to the Bill to ensure that at least one member of the OfS board must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students or students generally.

The quality assessment committee will play a similar role to the current quality, accountability and regulation strategic advisory committee, established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which advises HEFCE about the way it undertakes its quality assessment functions. HEFCE’s committee currently includes direct student representation. Students are also represented on the QAA’s board of directors, the QAA has a student advisory board, and students are included in review and scrutiny processes for DAPs. I assure your Lordships that we see no reason why such student representation would not continue in future. We would not want to reduce the future flexibility of the OfS or the designated quality body to respond to future changes in the nature of the sector. It is better to allow the OfS discretion over the membership of the quality assessment committee. To be clear, we would expect this to include people who can represent students, unless there are some very strong arguments for not doing that.

On the amendments to Schedule 4 regarding the views of higher education staff, again, I hope I can reassure your Lordships that, given the way the sector currently engages its staff, we would absolutely expect higher education staff to be involved in consultation. These amendments would introduce unnecessary additional complexity. I realise that that is possibly not the consequence of the changes but I will try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We would expect higher education staff to be actively engaged through their provider or by directly engaging with the OfS in any consultation. Of course, the OfS is not precluded from adding to the list of people it consults.

Amendments 204 and 205 return to the theme of standards, on which we have already had a thought-provoking debate. Noble Lords will recall that the Government have set out that this is an issue on which we are actively considering the views that have been raised in this House. I will therefore be brief in summarising that under no circumstances do we want to undermine the prerogative of providers in determining standards, but we want providers to meet the standards that are set out in a document endorsed and agreed by the sector, currently embodied by the frameworks for higher education qualifications.

The standards should be those that are set with the sector, rather than prescribed narrowly within legislation. The amendment limits the standards to be embraced in the consideration of whether a quality body is appropriate to be designated, so that rather than referring to standards applied to higher education in general, it refers to the standards of higher education provided for the purposes of registration—a narrower definition. Our legislation is deliberately not this narrow because of other important functions the designated quality body would undertake under Clause 23, such as baseline checks for degree-awarding powers. Amendment 205 seeks to amend Schedule 4 to clarify that the definition of standards that applies is that within Clause 13. I reassure the noble Baroness that this is already the case under Part 3 of Schedule 4. For these reasons, I ask that Amendment 174 be withdrawn.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments and for engaging so fully with these issues. I look forward to reading exactly what she said in Hansard. That is not because I could not understand her—she was very clear—I just want to reflect on how she made them and the way they came across.

It strikes me as ironic that a set of reforms aimed at putting students at the heart of the system is still struggling to try to keep students away from the points at which they can have the most impact on the key bodies and committees that will run the whole system. I am sure that this is more “small p” political than something that will in any sense organisationally be defendable, but it is wrong. The same approach applies to the question of whether the interests of staff should be involved. It is fine to consult people, but if they are intimately involved and care about it, seeing themselves at the centre, you will get much more out of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 174 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate. The metaphor of holding up a mirror to current practice and making sure that what is reflected is not a distortion of what is happening on the ground is very powerful. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has done excellent work in this area and is an inspiration to us in insisting that we look at these points and think harder about how policies are going to be developed and how monitoring and training will support them. We owe him a great debt of thanks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, took the argument away from the specific question of what is happening in the Office for Students and how things should be done, and looked at it in the context of our responsibilities under the UN convention. That is very important. In reading out her quotation, she pointed out that the UN does not have a problem with “must”. Our parliamentary draftsmen shy away from “must” and always insist on “may”. The convention clearly says “must”, so there are is no way of ducking this responsibility. The Government are responsible for policy, monitoring, training, funding and development; for ensuring that the project is capable of reflecting correctly what we do; for ensuring that there are none of the perverse incentives to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred; and for ensuring that we can operate in an appropriate way for a civilised society, caring for all students and making sure that access is available to all.

Our Amendment 236 is of the “change ‘may’ to ‘must’” type. I thought that, as I was not getting very far with “must”, I should try “should”, but the intention is exactly the same. This is something the OfS should—that is, must—do. It should not just identify; it should also give advice on good practice. If we do not work together, we will never achieve this aim.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising important issues relating to access and participation plans and disability. This Government are deeply committed to equality of opportunity, and I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. That is why Clause 2 introduces a duty on the OfS to consider equality of opportunity in connection with access and participation in higher education. This applies to all groups of students. No such duty applied to HEFCE.

In order to be approved, access and participation plans will need to contain provisions to promote equality of opportunity. This makes clear our commitment to this important consideration. Questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about where we are on guidance on disabilities. I hope noble Lords have read my letter of 18 January, but I confirm, as I confirmed in that letter, that I expect this guidance, for which noble Lords have been waiting for some time, to be published imminently. I also reiterate my offer to meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue further.

Amendment 226, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to specify that governing bodies of institutions may take advice from bodies nominated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in developing the content of their access and participation plans. I support the intention here. We expect higher education providers to consult to help ensure that their access and participation plans are robust. I listened carefully to the sobering anecdote about a student experience from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. This is the very issue for which we are seeking solutions. We are in agreement about that. Indeed, OFFA currently sets out its expectation that universities consult students in preparing access agreements, and we anticipate that this will continue for access and participation plans. Given the autonomy of institutions and the wide-ranging support already available—for example, the Equality Challenge Unit supports the sector to advance equality and diversity for staff and students—I believe it is unnecessary to place this requirement in the Bill.

Amendment 228, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to include providing training for staff in awareness and understanding of all commonly occurring disabilities. Ensuring a fair environment and complying with the law are matters which providers need to address in meeting their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. This amendment would mean including a level of detail not consistent with the other, broader provisions and may overlook other underrepresented groups. For these reasons, I believe this amendment is unnecessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, proposed Amendment 229, which would mean that provisions requiring institutions to specify the support and advice they provide for students with disabilities may be contained in regulations about the content of an access and participation plan. We absolutely agree with the principle behind this amendment. The Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons, which includes an expectation to consider anticipatory adjustments. In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a supporting role in providing advice and guidance, publishing information and undertaking research. Given the wider context, this amendment would introduce a level of detail into the Bill that is inconsistent with the other broader measures. It may also risk being seen to overlook other underrepresented and disadvantaged groups.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would require the OfS every two years to commission a review of the support for students with disabilities or specific cultural needs. This is an interesting proposal, and I remind the noble Lord and noble Baroness that the Bill will require the OfS to produce an annual report covering its delivery against all its functions. Critically, this includes the duty regarding equality of opportunity set out in Clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

230: Clause 31, page 19, line 43, at end insert—
“( ) requiring the governing body of an institution to take, or secure the taking of, measures to enable students to undertake courses on a part-time basis where appropriate.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think we can be brief on this one. It is a continuation of the debate that started two or three days ago to try to put flesh on the bones of the ideal which the Government say they have—and we certainly share—which is that higher education in future should be less regimented and less dominated by the three-year traditional degree taken full-time by students who come straight from school. We should try to open up the provision that is available in higher education, and made by higher education providers, to ensure that equal parity is given to those who wish to study part time, and in particular mature students who very often need to be more flexible in what they do. At the moment, they are disappearing too fast from the statistics, and we need to try and get them back.

This issue has been raised before in terms of the hierarchy of government policy in relation to the Office for Students, and is now down at the level of access and participation plans. The amendments seek to ensure that the governing bodies of institutions can and will take measures to enable flexible provision and allow students to undertake part-time courses, particularly to suit those who may be mature. I beg leave to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 237 in this group, which complements the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. With the collapse in part-time student numbers, this would ensure that the Office for Students has a duty to ensure that equality of opportunity is not neglected for those whose only opportunity to study is via part-time provision and at a later stage in life. It would also provide an assessment as to whether the Government’s new initiatives, such as the extension of maintenance loans to part-time students, are having the desired effect of boosting current numbers.

We remain concerned throughout the Bill that the opportunities for mature and part-time students should not be neglected. Putting them in the Bill will ensure that their contribution to higher education is fully considered.

--- Later in debate ---

Currently, the Secretary of State issues guidance to the Director of Fair Access on widening participation. In the latest guidance, issued in February 2016, we asked the director to provide a renewed focus on part-time study, for example by including good practice on this in his guidance to institutions. In future, the Secretary of State will be able, through Clause 2 of the Bill, to issue guidance to the OfS. We would envisage that the Secretary of State will continue to issue guidance on priorities in the area of widening participation. This approach through guidance is more flexible and ensures that the OfS can respond to emerging issues and priorities. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister—I am sorry she is struggling to get through. It calls, I think, for an early night. We should make sure that she gets tucked up in bed with a good scotch—I perhaps should not say these things—in order that she recovers and comes back on Wednesday in good form. I listened to her very carefully and think she has reached out to us on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 230 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I am speaking to Amendment 243 in this group. We welcome the government amendments. I agree very much that there needs to be clarity. There is a need to ensure that certain procedures within the Bill are applied fairly and proportionately and accommodate smaller providers of higher education such as further education colleges. It is also the case that the recently published BEIS post-16 skills plan includes proposals for colleges to make their own technical education awards, and it is important that there is joined-up thinking in this area. Unlike universities, colleges that offer foundation degrees are currently unable to provide both a foundation degree and a certificate of higher education to provide a flexible level 4 qualification option for students. The amendment would remedy this.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his raft of amendments. He is right that on the area we are talking about we meet in the middle. I am glad that his amendments, which outnumber ours by about 100 to one, were tabled, because what we had tabled would certainly not have been sufficient to achieve what he has outlined.

It is good that this is being done in pursuit of a vision of higher education provision that is inclusive rather than exclusive and which is open to many institutions to offer the various types of degrees and qualifications that they think is appropriate, with the aim, as picked up today in earlier amendments, that other modes of study, such as full-time and block release, are not excluded in any tally. With that will come the responsibility to ensure an effective credit accumulation system that allows those who have credits banked in the various styles and approaches that different institutions have to cash them in, as it were, against other higher education provision, to ensure that they arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with the degree that they have been studying for through this flexible route.

I have three worries that I wonder if the Minister could respond to in the short time available before we must break for the dinner business. Maybe this will mean that yet another letter will emerge from this process, and I have no objection to that. The first is that we have heard announcements today about various different types of institution that will focus on technology and technological achievement. These are to be welcomed, but it is not clear that provision has been made for that in the Bill. The Minister may not have been able to adapt the thinking announced today into the mode that would apply to the Bill, but I would be grateful if he could confirm whether or not it is the Government’s intention to try to bring forward anything that might be a consequence of the proposals made today. I agree that we are in a three-month consultation period but the Bill will last a lot longer, and there may not be another higher education or even further education Bill along in the next year or two. It would be a pity to miss the bus, as it were, on this occasion, so some clarification at least about the thinking would be helpful. We would certainly wish to work with the Minister if there were some suggestions about changing the framework here, although maybe he will be able to confirm that that is not the case.

Secondly, the question about who has what powers to do what is confusing. I want to assert what I think is the intention behind this term, and if the Minister is able to confirm it then so much the better. I also have a question embedded in this, which is where I will end. The intention of these amendments, as it was in our proposals as discussed in Amendments 242 and 256A, is twofold. First, it is to remove any doubt that institutions in the FE sector can apply the powers to grant taught and research degrees in addition to foundation degrees, as in the current system. Secondly, it is also to remove any doubt that institutions that are not in the FE sector, and which have been granted degree-awarding powers, can also award foundation degrees—in other words, institutions can provide the whole suite of qualifications.

However, it also seems to be the case that the Government are trying to say that only an institution in the FE sector can apply for the powers to award just foundation degrees, which seems perverse. If the Government accept my opening premise that we are trying to open up the system to make it more flexible, why is it only in the FE sector that you can find these foundation degrees? Is there something special about them that restricts Oxford University, Edinburgh or anyone else with the ambition and the wish to try to make as seamless a proposal for students wishing to enter university as possible to be prohibited from offering a foundation degree because they are not in the FE sector? That seems odd and slightly against what the Minister was saying as he introduced the amendment.

There seems to be a proposition buried in the amendments: that we are opening up everyone to offer the sort of courses that allow any student—full-time, part-time or mature, of any persuasion, type or arrangement—who wishes to come forward for degrees to be able to do so in the way that has the fewest institutional barriers. This particular restriction, that only FE providers can offer foundation degrees if that is all they want to offer, seems to go against that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I am beginning to feel like a broken record but I am still very unclear on what an “English higher education provider” is. I understand that it is meant to be an inclusive category, and that may have its merits. I have now read the Introduction to the Higher Education Market Entry Reforms—which I find a slightly angled title, let us say—and the factsheet on degree-awarding powers.

To put it very simply, I am still not clear what there is to prevent entryism into this market by institutions that we would not normally think of as higher education providers or teachers. I shall give some examples. I have hesitated to do so far thus far because one does not wish to spoil the cheerfulness that attends the thought of new providers. However, let us imagine that a large-scale publisher—this is not at all an implausible way of expanding—sets up a wholly-owned subsidiary that offers degrees in England. I do not mean degrees in publishing but, rather, degrees of various sorts, as is profitable. Are they able to become an English higher education provider by that route?

Let us be a little more far-fetched. Suppose the Communist Party of China thought, “A bilingual university in London to which we can send people and where we will have very good access for our highly intelligent and well-trained academics would be an extremely good thing”. It too would then be providing higher education in England. Because in each case the institution is a wholly owned subsidiary, its students would qualify to receive tuition grants. However, I am not clear whether, if such institutions go bankrupt and the parent company is outwith the jurisdiction, there is any chance of recovering the assets of the one-time university.

Finally, let us imagine that it is neither of the above, but so-called Islamic State that seeks to set up a university. That might rather appeal to it. What is to prevent that? We need to know about the governance of these institutions. The fact that they are providing education in England just tells us that this is one of their markets; it does not tell us about the standard of governance.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The noble Baroness is campaigning vigorously and with her usual persistence on a very interesting point. The letter dated 23 January that was delivered just as we were sitting down to enjoy ourselves this afternoon—I think we are going to have to start numbering them so we can keep track of which letter is which—has a little section on this, to which I think she was referring. Can the Minister possibly explain what this means?

“It is the Government’s policy that a provider that has a physical presence in England, and that is delivering courses in England, can be an English higher education provider even if it is delivering other courses in another country, provided that its activities are principally carried on in England. There has never been an agreed measure for identifying where the majority of a provider’s activity might be. But there are a number of sensible measures (or combinations of sensible measures) that should make it reasonably clear, including the number of students studying courses in each country, and/or where the provider has its administrative centre(s)”.


With the greatest respect to the Minister, this is just throwing more marbles on to the road for our poor horses to trip up and fall over on. I am not going to quote the stuff about massive open online courses, which has been raised by the noble Baroness and is an issue, because that is completely bonkers.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I appreciate the contributions from noble Lords in the very short debate after I introduced the government amendments. As we are now proposing that a foundation degree award is covered by the definition of a taught award in Clause 40(3), this puts holders of foundation degree-awarding powers in the same position as holders of taught degree-awarding powers—which I assume was the intent behind noble Lords’ amendments. In addition, we plan to set out in guidance the relationship between degree-awarding powers and powers to award other higher education awards such as certificates of higher education. I hope that this will help to further clarify the position for providers. We anticipate that this guidance will be subject to consultation. I do not wish to dwell on Amendment 256A any further, as we have covered the argument in our discussions on the previous group, where I trust that my noble friend Lady Goldie offered some reassurance.

However, I will address a small number of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised some issues about the post-16 skills plan and how this joins up with our proposed reforms. I confirm that we are carrying out two reform programmes, in higher education and technical education at the same time, which he is probably aware of and which gives us the best opportunity to ensure that they are complementary and for young people to benefit from the changes as soon as possible. This is not about diverting people from academic education into technical education or vice versa; we simply want everyone who can benefit from a tertiary education—whatever that might be and whatever their talents lead them to—to have the chance to do so.

I will address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. One point focused on the clarifications of our framework in relation to these amendments, while another was on the responsibility of powers. I think it is best to write a letter on that. I was interested in the points raised about entryism by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, particularly on the position of overseas providers who might want to come in. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has received the letter I have just written, in which I thought that we had addressed those issues, but I suggest that we have a meeting with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and indeed any other noble Lord who might wish to join in, to offer full and final clarification.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Norton’s amendment, which would be the ideal. Certainly, we have to move away from where we are in this. I do not find the idea of validation by the OfS satisfactory, with all its conflicts of interest, but universities which set and mark their own degrees are used to that sort of conflict. This sector seems plagued with such conflicts, but I would rather do without them. We have to get to a point where universities acting as validators are not permitted and are in some way controlled by the OfS—if we do not have the arrangement that my noble friend proposes—so that they do not indulge in competitive behaviour in the way that they have in the past. It is an extremely unsatisfactory process at the moment. Validation can last for three years only. That is not in the interests of students. They must have longer-term arrangements with the universities and the universities must be held to them, if that is what we are to go on with.

One can look at examples such as the London College of International Business Studies—a 150 year-old institution, one way and another—which has its degrees validated in Switzerland. It has gone to the altar three times with UK universities, each time being left in the lurch, although it got a QAA pass in the course of one of them. It is now engaged to the Open University and has high hopes of it. I wish it good fortune, but that is not a fair way of asking an organisation to get degree-awarding powers. There has to be good behaviour and consistent behaviour on behalf of the universities.

We also need to solve the problem facing Cordon Bleu. It is an institution operating in 20 countries, awarding degrees in most of them, and extremely highly respected. It cannot come to the UK because, under the validation arrangements currently in place, the validating institution gets a complete licence to use the validatee’s IP to do whatever it wants. Indeed, we have seen one of Cordon Bleu’s competitors pillaged in that way by a UK university. All its IP was taken and used to run that university’s own degrees. That cannot be permitted as a relationship between someone seeking validation and someone offering it.

Whatever we do, we must improve where we are. I am not particularly impressed by what is in the Bill at the moment, but I very much hope that between us we can reach something that will support the entrance of good organisations to degree-awarding in this country in a way that takes account of their quality and the good reasons that they have for thinking they might be allowed to award degrees. However, as others have said, the legislation must absolutely protect the reputation of degrees in this country. We cannot have a situation where substandard organisations get to award degrees.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. It has shone a light in strange places that I did not think we would ever get to. As a not very good Scottish Calvinist, I am probably the least able to contribute to the debates that were organised by my noble friend Lord Murphy and the right reverend Prelate. However, they make good points and I hope the Minister will be able to help to move that debate forward.

I do not like the idea that my noble friend Lord Murphy’s institutions have to act illegally but be forgiven in the courts when they are finally taken account of. We should get ahead of the game and try to sort this out.

We started with the question of how research awards needed to be done jointly between UKRI and the OfS, if that is the body. This is something we will come back to, so it is no disrespect to say that we need not spend too much time on it now, particularly as the principal proposers of Amendment 509 are missing, in one case because of fog and in the other, I think, because of Cambridge. I cannot remember which is which—your Lordships can probably guess. It is therefore probably better if we pick that up when we come back.

That leaves the central issue posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, which is how we can find a structure in a system that has institutions of the highest quality by all accounts that can provide the assurance, support and effective answers to any of the questions raised by new challenger institutions, without those challenger institutions feeling that their operations and ways of working will be squished in some sort of force majeure that will be offered by the established club.

The amendments are very interesting. The words that have been used to attack the concept of probationary degrees need nothing further from me; I think that is right. That is not the way the Government should go on this. We are looking at a way of making sure that the quality assessment—the ability to come to an enduring decision about an institution that wishes to seek degree-awarding powers—is done in a way that reflects its ability to fulfil the necessary requirements in terms of capacity, financial security, academic capacity and the rest, but does not interpose somebody else’s view about what the institution should be doing on top of that.

The right reverend Prelate suggested that some of the stuff he was talking about had been going on since 1533. That puts in perspective people’s worries about a four-year period during which tests are made of whether institutions coming into the system are able to cope. Certainly, my discussions, which were mentioned by others, suggested that people who had been through that process found it valuable, so it would be very stupid to throw it away without further consideration.

I went down memory lane with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, because I started my career in academic administration with CNAA. It was bureaucratic and a little heavy-handed but it worked very effectively. It is interesting that the final vestiges of CNAA still exist in the Open University. Maybe that is where we might want to look, as a future amendment suggests, before we start trying to create something that will not stand the test of time or advance higher education in the UK, and may indeed cause problems, many of which have been raised in this short debate.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords for the opportunity to speak to this important group of amendments. Once again, I acknowledge the experience of noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, including my noble friend Lord Norton, who has chaired the Higher Education Commission.

It is vital that the OfS and UKRI are empowered to work together. Hence, Clause 106 ensures that the two organisations can co-operate and share information in relation to any of their functions, including granting research degree-awarding powers. UKRI will play a key role in developing research degree-awarding powers’ criteria and guidance, including for postgraduate research degrees, and it will work closely with the OfS to design the process for assessing applications and in its operation. We will make this explicit in the published government guidance on degree-awarding powers. The Secretary of State will also have powers to require this co-operation to take place if the OfS and UKRI do not do so of their own accord. UKRI will be responsible for all research funding, including postgraduate research. It will support postgraduate training and doctorates, as the research councils do now.

I do not agree that legislation is the right route to formalise the detail, due to the risk of unintended consequences. Instead, a memorandum of understanding between the OfS and UKRI will be produced. This will provide detail on how oversight of the sector’s interests as a whole will be maintained, including how the two bodies will work together in respect of postgraduates.

Turning to the amendments relating to the OfS granting time-limited or probationary degree-awarding powers, the current system has protected quality successfully and, as I hope I made clear in my earlier remarks, we are not proposing a complete overhaul. Reference has been made to factsheets, and we have set this out in more detail on a factsheet specifically on degree-awarding powers and university title, which we published last week. I hope noble Lords have found it helpful.

However, I make it clear that this does not mean we should be satisfied with the status quo. Under the current regime, new and innovative providers have to wait until they have developed a track record before operating as degree-awarding bodies in their own right, no matter how good their offer is or how much academic expertise they have. To develop that track record, they are usually reliant on finding another institution to validate their provision and must negotiate a validation agreement, which can be one-sided and sometimes prohibitively expensive. My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about validation arrangements. I agree with his points about the problems with validation. We will come to that in more detail in a later debate, so I hope he has some patience for that.

We strongly believe that the sector needs to have at its heart informed student choice and competition among high-quality institutions. This incentivises institutions to raise their game, with the potential to offer students a greater choice of more innovative and better-quality courses. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, claimed that the shift to full-time undergraduate degrees was not due to validation and a lack of innovation. I quote to him Paul Kirkham, who he may know is vice-chair of Independent Higher Education:

“I can see essentially only one ‘product’ in the higher education world that has real currency—the three year, full-time, on-campus undergraduate university degree, almost exclusively priced at a single point. This is a high cost and inflexible approach that, with in excess of 50% of the population wishing to engage, cannot be the only solution”.


Our plans for probationary degree-awarding powers mean that high-quality providers do not need to rely on incumbents and can be permitted to award degrees in their own name from the start—subject to close supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

276: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Automatic review of authorisation
(1) The OfS must consider whether to vary or revoke an authorisation given under section 40(1)—(a) if the ownership of the registered provider is transferred,(b) if the owner of the registered provider has restrictions placed on its degree-awarding powers in relation to another registered provider under its control or ownership, or(c) for any other reason considered to be in the interest of students enrolled at the institution or the public.(2) A decision taken under subsection (1) to vary or revoke an authorisation shall be carried out in accordance with section 43.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I can be quite brief. This is a bit of a fishing expedition—I am sorry, I should recall that: it is a probing amendment. The point of it is that we have to anticipate how new providers will enter the market and what sort of form and format they will take. This is not an acknowledgement going back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about what these bodies are and how they are constituted, but it raises the same issues. We already have at least one relatively new provider, whose ownership is quite clearly based outside the UK, and the question arises whether the change of ownership could raise any questions about previous decisions taken by the regulator or other body in respect of the degree-awarding powers or the register to which this institution might be attached. We do not know the answer to that yet, because the situation has not yet emerged, but it raises issues about probity and the ability of an institution to survive, if the ownership places new restrictions on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I shall be brief as well. It remains our policy that degree-awarding powers cannot be transferred or sold. As now, if a holder of degree-awarding powers was involved in a change of ownership, it would be expected to inform the OfS and demonstrate that it remained the same cohesive academic community that had been awarded those powers originally. We need to maintain flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, so it is appropriate that these matters are covered through guidance, in the same way that the process operates currently. I hope that with that extremely short explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That was a little briefer than I had anticipated, but I will look at it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 276 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, when I talked earlier about the need to give the OfS some axis in making sure that validation arrangements work well, this was what I meant. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is the second speediest moving of an amendment I have heard so far in Committee. I will be almost as brief, since we have alluded to the fact, if we have not specifically mentioned it, that the answer to a lot of our problems about the validations issue, which will come up in both this and the following group, where there is a clause stand part, and the power of validation of last resort being given to the Office for Students is to pick up the fact that the CNAA, of blessed memory, still exists, in rump form, in the Open University. That is where all its functions and assets were transferred—not that it had very many assets, I am sure—at the time of its dissolution, around the time that the polytechnics were given their degree-awarding powers and we abolished the binary line, effectively. So we have a situation in which it would be possible, I think, to obtain a validator of last resort at very little cost and certainly at no considerable worry in terms of new structures or arrangements. It would certainly resolve one of the issues that is devilling the question of the powers of the OfS, and I very much hope that this amendment will be considered very carefully.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I will speak to Amendment 311, in her name and mine. We support the option of identifying a central validation body. The current system of awarding bodies works well, although it is recognised that protectionist practices are sometimes adopted on both sides. We therefore agree that validating bodies should commit to competition, diversity and innovation, although that should not mean that all comers must be validated. Expertise in validation lies in the objective and impartial appraisal of an institution’s capacity to deliver and maintain appropriate standards of quality and student experience.

While the precise terms of such an arrangement will be decided between the provider and the OfS, the amendment would require any such arrangement to make specific provision for the national validating body to be able to refuse to validate a qualification if it has concerns about the quality of higher education provided. There is much merit in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for using the Open University as a validator of last resort. It is a body with very wide-ranging expertise and would be a respected body for the task—much more appropriate than the Office for Students itself.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to speak early in this debate, but the intervention by the Lord Speaker, with his new approach to managing business, saved your Lordships from that—although I did have a wonderful anecdote that I was going to share and a few jokes that I thought might get us off at a good speed to what will be a very long session. However, we have all benefited from the two excellent speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Garden, against the clause standing part. It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in his place. His report continues to send waves through this area, and it is good to hear, in his voice, what he would have done had he been in a position to deliver the rest of the recommendations in it.

These issues were raised on the last amendment on the previous day in Committee, but we are still left with some questions that need to be answered before we can make progress in this area. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made it clear that the evidence that has been provided is only anecdotal, there may be problems in this area and it may be that we need a new validating system involving an independent validator like the OfS, which was set up to take away any hint that there might be some competitive pressures or any other issues that might interfere with innovation and challenger institutions of a new type coming into the system. However, again, I am not sure that that answers the problem of how the Office for Students, if it is the regulator, combines its responsibilities for validation with its responsibilities for overseeing standards, publishing statistics and overseeing fair access. The more we think about the OfS as some sort of Gilbertian character, reflective of all the various issues for which it is responsible and which are needed in the higher education sector, the more we lose touch with the reality of how that system will work. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is quite right to ask how we got into this mess and whether this is really the right solution to get us out of it.

The issue that needs to be sorted out is whether the validation that is required in the system can be provided from within that system or whether it has to be provided from outside. If it is outside, surely it should be independent and available on the basis that it is not responsible for those who might benefit from any decision or other action that is part of it. But we have others that could do this job. The professional bodies all have a stake in the success or otherwise of the institutions and students for which they are responsible. Professional bodies do a lot of validation of institutions and courses, and their expertise could be used and harnessed. As we discussed on a previous amendment, and again today, the CNAA is still, in a vestigial form, present in the Open University, and maybe that would be a way forward. Alternatively, it may need to be a body completely independent of the system currently set up for the purpose. Whatever it is, I do not think Clause 47 has taken the trick that needs to be taken. It will not sort out the problem that we have and it should be taken back by the Government and reviewed.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support that final point, because we have to get at the principle of whether it is appropriate for a regulator to participate in the market it is regulating. That is the key issue. Based on the very effective arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I urge the Government to think very carefully about this. There was an enormous amount of consultation on the Bill prior to it coming to the Commons and to this House, and yet, although there are lots of other areas where there could have been conflict rather than simple disagreement with the sector, this is the one area where the whole of the sector seems to have come together to suggest that the Government really need to think again.

As the former chair of a regulator, and having worked with other regulators, I cannot think of any regulator which is empowered to act in this way. This seems the key issue that the Government need to address. The current validation process seems to have worked pretty well, but if private providers are having problems, we should address those problems and, if necessary, have an independent validator—possibly more than one if we are going to give the range of processes that might be needed, as described by other speakers, for different courses, for example. We really need to think very carefully about that principle and address it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

339: Clause 51, page 32, line 6, leave out “(instead of the Privy Council) consents” and insert “and the Privy Council consent”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with whether and on what basis the powers of the OfS should be strengthened to ensure that it takes over responsibility for many areas which are currently the responsibility of the Privy Council. I should like to make it clear that I have no particular brief for the Privy Council. I am not a member of it; I have never aspired to it, and I do not know how it operates, although I know it operates in relative secrecy. Having experienced some of the debates around the BBC charter renewal and press standards, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing for the Privy Council. It is probably sufficiently devalued—in the public mind at least—and fallen from grace so as not to be considered the way forward in future. I am arguing in this group of amendments for some level of scrutiny and oversight, reflective of what the Privy Council does at present, to be reinserted into this Bill.

Amendments 339, 340 and 341 reinsert the words “Privy Council” where they have been deleted. In Amendments 342 and 343 and in the whole of Clause 52, there are issues that need to be addressed by the Government in promoting the Bill further on this basis and which I hope will be picked up in debate and discussed.

The correspondence on this matter has been flowing. An issue raised by the Constitution Committee resulted in a letter being sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on 6 January. It raised questions, the response to which I assume is still in preparation. I have not seen a reply, although the noble Viscount may be able to tell us when he responds to this debate. It asked why a number of powers have been transferred from the Privy Council to the Office for Students. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also expressed concern about this and the degree to which the exercise of these powers will, or will not, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, we have discussed these thanks to the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and other noble Lords on a number of occasions, and there are more to come.

Common to all who have commented on this issue is how removing powers from the Privy Council will, in effect, remove them from the oversight of a body that is independent of and separate from Parliament. In some senses, it can be regarded as being cross-party. It behoves those who wish to support the line of argument that I am taking to make suggestions as to how this might be resolved. It seems that the Office for Students is to be the all-singing, all-dancing regulator, both validator and remover of degrees—as we have just discussed—guardian of the flame and operator of all the functions relating to higher education. If this is so, it must not be given responsibilities which cannot be checked and covered if decisions are taken which are not appropriate. There must be some sort of appeals system. Its advice to the sector and to Ministers should, on occasion—and this will be relatively slight—be subject to the will of Parliament. The question is how.

The Privy Council stands as a surrogate for a process which requires Ministers and their advisers—in this case, the Office for Students—to defend the decisions they take in a way which at least opens them to wider scrutiny. I do not see—and it will be for the Minister to convince us if this is wrong—any position within the arrangements currently laid out in the Bill which will satisfy the high standard that the Privy Council is intended to confer on this mode of scrutiny. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, let me first reassure your Lordships that we absolutely agree that a university title is valuable and prestigious, and that a university’s reputation needs to be protected. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out how we want to do this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for raising some genuinely interesting points which I shall try to address.

As regards Clauses 51 and 52, currently there are three main legislative routes for English higher education providers to obtain university title. Two of these require consent of the Privy Council. The other requires consent of the Secretary of State under the Companies Act to the use of the word “university” in a company or business name. While the criteria are the same for all routes, in general publicly-funded higher education providers obtain university title from the Privy Council. Alternative providers can currently use only the Companies Act route. This creates a slightly complex and certainly inconsistent situation. The Government want to achieve the position whereby the OfS is able to grant university title to all providers. Clauses 51 and 52 achieve this by making changes to the two Privy Council routes by transferring the responsibility for consenting to the use of university title to the Office for Students. This transfer to the OfS will not lower standards. We believe the reforms will continue to ensure that only the highest-quality providers can call themselves a university. That is because we are not anticipating wide-ranging changes to the criteria. As now, we want any institution that wants to call itself a university to demonstrate that it has a cohesive academic community and a critical mass of HE students. This means that there will continue to be a distinction between universities and other degree- awarding bodies. That is not changing.

I endeavour to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: we envisage that providers will be eligible for university title only if they are registered in either the approved or the approved fee cap category, and have undergone strict financial sustainability and quality checks; have over 55% of full-time equivalent students studying HE; and have successfully operated with full degree-awarding powers for three years. As we do now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for obtaining university title in guidance, and we plan to consult on the detail of this before publication. The OfS will make awards having regard to this guidance, just as the Privy Council does now. I make it clear that we want this to be a high bar, designed to ensure that the reputation and prestige of being an English university are maintained. That is in the interests of the whole sector. The term “university” will, of course, remain a sensitive word under the Companies Act, which means that it cannot be used in a business or company name without the appropriate consent.

I know there are some concerns that our reforms would open the door to low-quality or even bogus universities. That would be a very unwelcome prospect. However, I submit that the protection of the word “university”, along with all the safeguards I have just outlined in relation to obtaining university title, are designed to ensure that this could not happen.

I turn to the amendments that relate to the role of the Privy Council. As I said, we intend to keep the broad structures for the award of university title—that is, a decision which is made independently, having regard to published guidance. At present, providers send their application to HEFCE, which advises the department, which in turn advises the Privy Council, which then rubber-stamps a decision. This is unnecessarily complex. It is legitimate to ask the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: what is the role of the Privy Council in this context? That is an important question. A briefing paper of the Library of the House of Commons describes the Privy Council, in this context, as,

“effectively a vehicle for executive decisions made by the Government”.

We have investigated and cannot cite a single case in recent memory where the Privy Council disagreed with a recommendation by the department.

I hope I have been able to explain that we are not planning to change the independent decision-making and scrutiny, nor the core of what it means to be a university. I therefore suggest that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, are not necessary and in these circumstances I ask him to withdraw Amendment 339.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her contribution. I am glad to see that she has got over her sore throat and it is not worse than at our last meeting so she is in full voice again. I am a bit confused about quite where that answer took us. I welcome the candour with which a Minister of the Crown has spoken about the role Ministers play in relation to royal charter achievements. The idea that the Privy Council has never turned down a Minister’s recommendations is exactly the point that many of us were making in relation to the BBC. The former chairman is sitting there, looking as if he is about to leap to his feet and comment on this matter—I am sure he will at a later stage.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I was very careful and quite specific in the expression of my description of the Privy Council in the context of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The subtlety of that point, I am afraid, has been lost on me entirely and therefore I will continue. The point I was trying to make —it completes the circle of the argument—is that it is not about the Privy Council in essence but about independent scrutiny of the processes under which organisations achieve the valuable status of becoming universities, which at the moment is done by an outside body. It may not be perfect, and probably it is not, but it still requires a step to be taken by a body beyond the processes controlled by Ministers which could, at least in theory, raise questions of an uncomfortable nature.

The Minister will be aware that although there has been no occasion when the Privy Council has not accepted the recommendations, I am sure there have been occasions when difficult questions have been asked of institutions which have wanted to change statutes or make changes to their own governing arrangements. Indeed, I know that to be true. Because of Privy Council requirements these have had to be laid before the council and before they could be agreed they were the subject of a considerable exchange of information, discussion and debate. Indeed, anecdotally one could even talk about the recent press standards issue. Just after the legislation went through both Houses of Parliament, the royal charter for the press recognition arrangement could not be implemented because the Privy Council could not consider two applications for approval on a single area at the same time. There are processes that engage with the sort of scrutiny I am talking about. It is not about the Privy Council but about whether such standards should be in existence. Let us park that for a moment.

As I understand it, the changes proposed in the Bill will not reduce standards. I accept that. There will still be a process under which a university title is different from being a higher education provider—the Minister read out a list including the number of students, the amount of time it takes and so on. These are distinctions that would be made and the body currently charged with that, the Office for Students, would have to make the recommendations, whether to the Privy Council or not, on that issue. That is good and I am not trying to move away from it, but it still raises the question of whether the last step, which may not be a substantive step at the moment but could be, is still required. That is the point that we might want to return to, but I will not detain the Committee further. I look forward to reading Hansard and I may come back to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 339 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am greatly in sympathy with what the noble Baroness has just said. I very much hope that universities will carry those principles through into their current practice of taking lots of money off students who are studying humanities in order to give it to students who are studying sciences. The little bits of money being unfairly taken off students to fund the OfS are not a very substantial worry in proportion to what universities are already doing to students on different classes of course.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 423 in my name. The question is about grants to the OfS for set-up and running costs, but there is the additional possibility, picked up in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, that there may be other aspects and bright ideas that come to mind about how these charges might be recouped. The amendment asks whether or not there are tight guidelines available which would restrict the ability of the OfS to raise funds in a broader sense other than specifically for set-up and running costs. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in her opening remarks on Amendment 420 is important, because we still worry a bit about what the nature of the beast called “OfS” is. Is it a regulator? It has been said that it is, and if it is, does it fall under the Regulators’ Code? I think I heard the Minister say on a previous amendment that it did not qualify to be considered within the code of practice for regulators. But if that is so, why call it a regulator? It will cause confusion and doubt if, in the public mind, it is a regulator for the sector but in fact it is not because it does not fulfil the criteria that would normally apply to other regulators. As the Minister said, these are not unhelpful comments in relation to regulator practice. They would clarify a lot of the uncertainty we have been experiencing in terms of how the regulator will operate. It might be that there is a case for it, even though it was not intended.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has pointed out a number of times that there are other statutory provisions and considerations that might bear on how this Bill is constructed and issues relating to it. It is wise to have a wider net on these matters than simply to focus on the wording of the Bill. If there are other considerations that we ought to be aware of, it would be helpful if the Minister could respond, making quite clear what it is that drives the determination that the regulatory code does not apply in this area, even though some of the factors might be helpful and effective in terms of how it discharges its responsibilities.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I want to repeat what has been said by a large number of people in the Committee this afternoon about the issue of fees paid and how this is looked at and moderated. It seems fundamental to the future of the relationship between the regulator and the sector. An awful lot of what one gets from reading the Bill is the sense that they will be at odds—that the regulator is there to punish, to force, to fine and to search. Ultimately, that is completely destructive. The most destructive thing of all will be if people are fighting constantly over the nature of fees, what is legitimate and what is not.

Therefore, rather than repeating comments that I made in connection with an earlier amendment, I simply say how fundamentally important this issue is and how very much I hope that the Government will look carefully at the structures that are being set up. Fees and payments go to the heart of everything. As a policy researcher, “follow the money” is always what I say to myself. It would be very helpful if the Minister were able to assure us that, following this House’s deliberations on the Bill, that is one of the things that the Government will look at in terms of other legislation and statutory requirements, and that they will look at how, going forward, the OfS will interact with the sector in a way that is mutually beneficial rather than being made up of constant arguments and turf wars.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lady Brown said. Up until now, higher education has been fortunate in that it has had relatively few different regulatory authorities. The OfS will be quite different from anything that we have had before.

I refer to other sectors. I personally know the social care sector quite well. Those of us who have worked with or in this sector or the health sector, for example, know that, when you have more than one regulator, if they overlap or if it is not really clear who is responsible for what, you get regulatory and expenditure creep. This is not necessarily what the regulators mean—at least, not at the top level—but it is very much the experience that one has. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, referred to this earlier in our deliberations. He talked about the problems that you could have in the health sector as a result of Monitor thinking that bringing institutions together was not a good idea when other people thought it was.

This is a probing amendment to ask for clarity, if not total simplicity, because there are very real costs when a sector does not have it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister. I was watching a figure behind who seemed to be moving towards an upright position and therefore might speak. If he is not I will carry on.

This is an interesting amendment and I am glad that it has been raised in the form that it has. We cover a number of points every time we debate this, but here is a question that cannot be ducked. The reality is that universities have to face a number of different regulators already. Those that are charities obviously have the Charity Commission as their regulator. Then there are those that are established as companies. As we have heard, many higher education providers have the permission of the Secretary of State to use “university” in their title or, even if they do not, are subject to anything that may be required under the Companies Acts. Many will have a variety of regulators; it is not unknown to have companies that are also charities. There are also bodies that are not for profit—corporations that are subject to the Companies Acts, but in a different way from those that are set up for profit.

However, I think the main purpose was to try to untangle the relationship between the CMA—a recent entry to this area—and the universities. It is a little surprising that the CMA has entered this area rather late given that it stated recently that providers of higher education that now come within its scope are subject to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013; the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, for contracts concluded prior to 1 October 2015; and Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That Act went through your Lordships’ House just over a year ago and included the application of consumer rights to public bodies such as institutions of higher education. It was amended during its passage through the House.

As I think is well known, the CMA has carried out a preliminary investigation into the new responsibilities that it has taken on in the last 18 months, and has obtained undertakings from more than a few universities to secure improvements to their terms and/or practices. It has written to all higher education providers, drawing the findings of the compliance review to their attention, and asking them to review and revise their practices and terms, as necessary, to ensure compliance with consumer protection law.

Where will this wave of regulatory practice, which is sweeping in with unforeseen and possibly unpleasant purposes, stop? I do not object to the CMA’s engagement or to anything that raises standards and keeps public bodies moving forward. However, there will be regulatory overload, as has been mentioned. We must be very careful to guard against that. The way most sectors operate in the event of overlapping regulators is to obtain a memorandum of understanding between the principal regulator—or in this case regulators—and the one closest to the bodies concerned. If the OfS is to be a regulator, we will need to know how this will operate in practice. It is welcome news that the Bill team is considering whether to engage more directly with the Regulators’ Code, as that would solve a lot of problems.

Before we proceed further with the Bill, we should be told exactly what the boundary between the CMA and the OfS, as envisaged, is. Indeed, it would be helpful to be informed of the boundary between the Charity Commission and the Registrar of Companies, if that is relevant. We should also probe a little further whether it is envisaged that a memorandum of understanding between these regulators will be drawn up to protect the provision we are discussing. If so, what timescale applies to that? Could that be provided by Report, at least in draft form, so that we can discuss it further?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Wolf, and others for laying this amendment as it gives me the opportunity to clarify the role of the Competition and Markets Authority in the higher education sector. I say at the outset that I understand that the CMA is content that there is no conflict between the two organisations. The Government share that view.

In summary, the CMA is not a sector regulator but an enforcer of both competition and consumer protection law across the UK economy. It also has a number of other investigatory-type functions across the economy, including investigating mergers and conducting market studies and investigations, so I shall say a little more about competition and consumer enforcement in particular.

Enforcing competition law is a specialist activity requiring particular economic and legal expertise. Enforcement cases require substantial input of specific skills over a sometimes protracted period of time. The OfS will not have these and it would be unnecessary and expensive to replicate them. Placing a duty on the OfS to encourage competition between higher education providers in the interests of students and employers is a very different matter to enforcing competition law. We believe that there is no conflict between these two different responsibilities. Arguably, giving the OfS additional competition enforcement powers would risk distracting it from its important regulatory duties, or would possibly create conflicts of interest.

To answer concerns that encouraging competition would be at the expense of collaboration, there should be no conflict between providers collaborating and the OfS’s duty to have regard to the need to encourage competition where that competition is in the interest of students and employers. We are wholly supportive, as is the CMA, of collaboration and innovation where they are in the interest of students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I support the amendment and endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said in introducing it. She hit the nail on the head very firmly. There are issues around new providers. There is not very good evidence, and the evidence that there is seems to be anecdotal rather than scientific. The information published recently by HEPI threw doubt on whether many of the institutions that have come forward were bona fide or would survive, and some questionable practices were exposed—so there is an issue there.

In addition to the points that the noble Baroness made, which I endorse, there is, again, a gap in the centre of what the Office for Students is being established to do. It could have been imagined—pace the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about not wanting to overload the OfS—that it would have a responsibility to speak for the sector to the Secretary of State about the gaps that it may see in provision, and the issues that may need to be picked up in future guidance. I would have expected that to be the normal thing.

However, it is interesting to see that the general duties in Clause 2 do not cover it. They are all about functions to do with quality, competition, value for money, equality of opportunity and access. They are nothing to do with surveying and being intelligent about the future and how it might go. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, the game may have changed a bit now with the publication of a strongly worded industrial strategy—or at least, we hope it will turn into an industrial strategy after the consultation period. Out of that will come a requirement to think much harder about the training and educational provision that will support and supply the industrial machine that we will need as we go forward into the later parts of this century. It therefore makes sense to have advance intelligence about this, and to recruit from those who have expertise. It makes even more sense to do that in the way suggested by the amendment.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, we agree that it is necessary to have a holistic overview of the sector to understand whether our aim of encouraging high-quality, innovative and diverse provision that meets the needs of students is being achieved. However, I do not agree that to achieve this an independent standing committee is necessary. There are already a number of provisions in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State, the OfS and other regulatory or sector bodies, where necessary, to work together to consider these important issues.

For example, Clause 72 enables the Secretary of State to request information from the OfS, which, as the regulator, will have the best overview of the sector. Clause 58 enables the OfS to co-operate and share information with other bodies, and, as we have discussed at length, the Secretary of State can give guidance to the OfS to encourage this further.

We have already debated the issue of new providers at length, but let me reiterate that there is a need for new innovative providers. The Competition and Markets Authority concluded in its report on competition in the HE sector that aspects of the current system could be holding back greater competition among providers and need to be addressed. In a 2015 survey of vice-chancellors and university leaders, 70% expected higher education to look the same in 2030. This risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We must not be constrained by our historical successes, because if we place barriers in the way of new and innovative providers we risk diminishing the relevance and value of our higher education sector to changing student and employer needs, and becoming a relic of the last century while the rest of the world is moving on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

That is not possible. The noble Lord has spoken to it, so it must be moved, and I shall propose the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

We have run into a slight procedural problem, in that Amendments 440 and 441 in a previous group were moved formally when they should have been moved properly and debated. Given that they are of a relatively trivial nature, we can pass over that—unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has read them quickly and found that devastating little point that he always brings in at this stage. We can move on, but we should be a bit more careful in future on that procedural point.

Technically, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, spoke to Amendment 442 as part of the earlier group, but the Deputy Chairman has now called the amendment, so it would be appropriate if the Minister made a brief response and then we can move on.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Perhaps I should point out that even when an amendment is grouped, it is still open, when that amendment is reached, to move it formally or make remarks on it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

443: After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to support for students recognised as needing protection
(1) Within six months from the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for financial support for higher education courses offered to students with certain immigration statuses.(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must include, but shall not be restricted to—(a) provision for persons who have been brought to the UK under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, or any equivalent scheme, and their family members to access student loans on the same basis as refugees recognised in-country, and(b) provision for persons who have claimed asylum and been granted a form of leave to remain in the UK to be eligible for—(i) home fees for a higher education course if they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands since being granted leave, and(ii) student loans for a higher education course, if—(a) they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands since being granted leave, and(b) are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands on the first day of the first academic term of that course.(3) In this section—“home fees” means fees for a higher education course charged to persons considered as “qualifying persons” under regulations made under the Higher Education Act 2004;“student loans” means loans made to students in connection with their undertaking of a higher education course under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this amendment has wide support across the House, and I look forward to hearing the comments from others who have joined my noble friend Lord Dubs’s amendment. My noble friend apologises to the House for being unable to be present, but he has been asked to be the guest of honour at a Holocaust memorial service in Reading and felt that he could not stand up that occasion. I am sure the House will be sympathetic.

Very briefly, because I am sure others will make the point, the amendment deals with people who are in a bit of a lacuna as far as support for loans and maintenance is concerned. Currently, people with refugee status in the UK are classified as having home fee status for purposes of higher education as well as being able to access student finance. However, other potential university students who have either been given a different form of protection or who, after claiming asylum, have been granted a type of leave other than refugee status encounter restrictions and delays in accessing home fee status and student finance. Therefore, they face a barrier to education that is often insurmountable.

The amendment would rectify this arrangement so that all refugees resettled to the UK, as well as people seeking asylum granted forms of leave other than refugee status, can access student finance and home fees. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name. Access to higher education represents a potentially important avenue to the integration and strengthening of the life chances of young people forced to flee their home countries by increasing their employability, career prospects and earning potential, and integrating them into the community of students.

These are young people who are likely to be in this country for some time. Access to higher education can enhance the contribution they can make and wish to make to British society. If they are eventually able to return to their home countries, would we begrudge them being able to use what they have learned to contribute to those countries?

When this was debated on Report in the Commons, Paul Blomfield MP, who moved the amendment, suggested there had been some discomfort on the Government Benches when it was voted down in Committee. I believe that the Minister’s arguments there were not found to be exactly convincing. Mr Blomfield focused in particular on the treatment of Syrian refugees resettled under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme who are granted five years’ humanitarian protection rather than refugee status, thereby denying them the access to student support enjoyed by those with refugee status. Earlier in Committee, he commented that the Government have never explained why this is so. Since then, however, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, explained in an oral answer to me that,

“what we have is people in acute need and we want to get them here as quickly as possible. Humanitarian protection is the vehicle by which we can do so. If we first have to go all the way through the route of establishing refugee status for a lot of people who have no identification papers, it means they are at risk for longer. That is why we have chosen to take that particular route, to ensure that we can get people here and give them the help they need as quickly as possible”.—[Official Report, 10/1/17; col. 1859.]

I can see the logic in that, but it raises the question of why it is not possible to treat humanitarian protection as an interim status that can be, in effect, upgraded to refugee status once it is possible to establish that that is appropriate. The problems caused by the current position were raised by the Public Accounts Committee in its recent report on the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. It noted the undue stress that those problems cause.

The Government have tended to argue that humanitarian protection is broadly the same thing as refugee status, but among other things, as we have already heard, it does not provide the same access to student support, hence this amendment. When giving oral evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, Paul Morrison, director of the Syrian VPRS, said that they are now aware of these issues and are working closely with DfE officials and others to look at them, and are keeping them under active review. I am not sure who will reply to the debate, but I suspect the noble Viscount will not be in a position to throw any light on what progress has been made in these discussions now. I ask him to relay our concern about the particular implications for access to higher education. If he is able to enlighten us, perhaps at Report or in one of his many epistles, that would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is not in his place. I think the House is aware, as certainly I am, that he has worked assiduously in support of the Syrians. This is an important issue, and I realise that it is also a sensitive one, but it is already addressed within the student support regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about the importance of the UK being a warm welcoming country. I absolutely agree and I will make some very strong points on that matter in a subsequent debate, which I hope will take place today.

I am pleased to say that those who come to this country and obtain international protection are already able to access student support. Our regulations have for some time included provision for those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and their family members. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, people who enter the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme are granted humanitarian protection. Like UK nationals, they are therefore eligible to obtain student support and home fee status after only three years’ residence in the UK. Persons on the programme are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they consider they meet the criteria. As Home Office officials said at the Public Accounts Committee on 7 November 2016, the department is aware of the issue and keeps it under active review. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, understands that. I reassure the House that I have also had discussions with Home Office officials on this important matter, so there is joined-up thinking—if I may put it that way—between the DfE and the Home Office.

Those with refugee status are uniquely allowed to access student support immediately, a privilege not afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens, to be ordinarily lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student support. It also upheld the Government’s case that it was legitimate to target the substantial taxpayer subsidy of student loans on those who are likely to remain in England—or at least the UK—indefinitely, so that the general public benefits of their tertiary education will ensue to the country’s advantage. The second part of the amendment would break that long-established policy by extending support to failed asylum seekers who, it has been decided, do not need our protection but have been granted temporary leave to remain in the UK. In other words, these are persons who have only recently established a connection to the UK, which may well prove temporary. This amendment would therefore allow people who may subsequently be required to leave the country to access taxpayer funding for their study.

I realise that this is a sensitive issue but I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

But, my Lords, that is not what the amendment says. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I will certainly read Hansard when it is published, but the intention behind the amendment—whether he has picked it up correctly or not—is for people who claim asylum and are not recognised as refugees but are granted another form of leave, such as humanitarian protection or leave as unaccompanied children, to be given the fee eligibility of home rather than overseas students if they satisfy the test of being ordinarily resident. That test is if they have lawfully and habitually resided in the UK out of choice since being granted leave, and being eligible for student finance if they are also ordinarily resident on the first day of their course. We are not talking about people who are temporarily here and who might suddenly be removed without notice, making them unable to take their course; we are talking about people with a right to be in the United Kingdom.

All the Minister’s points about this not being in accordance with Home Office policy are therefore not correct, in my respectful view. We have picked up that there are people with an ordinarily resident status who do not technically qualify for refugee status, and that it is only for refugee status that the three-year ordinarily resident requirement is given. If that is where the Minister is coming from, surely what my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate said were on point: imposing a three-year residency requirement for somebody who wishes to exercise their ability to remain in the UK in order to use that time to study is a ridiculously aggressive attitude for a caring Government to take. The Minister talked about a warm, welcoming, integrated and supportive environment but the facts are that an enormous barrier is being put in the way of people’s ability to benefit from being given the ability to stay in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right.

I understand that this is an emotional and difficult area and it may be better if we could meet outside to talk about it. Perhaps we could also bring in representatives from the Home Office who obviously hold the whip hand. If the Minister is able to do that it would be a great deal better. This is not something we can give up on but in the interim I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 443 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I felt that this part of the debate would not be complete without the voice of the overseas student. I was an overseas student. I did my PhD at Harvard. The process for getting a visa was rather fierce. I remember going to the American embassy in London with a chest X-ray in a very large brown paper envelope, and there were other things that had to be produced. When the time came to leave, I had an American husband and a baby with an American passport. That made no difference. I was a foreign student who had come in under a particular programme, with a particular sort of visa, and I had to leave.

The point that is relevant now is that it is the accuracy and precision of the control process that prevents any drift from student status to economic migrant status. This is what matters and pretending that they are one and the same does not really address the problem. The problem is surely clarity about categories and controls.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a terrific debate. It must rank as one of the better ones on this topic that have taken place over the years. It has lacked only one thing. We normally like to have the comfort of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, making an orotund statement to sum up our feelings and allow us to drift off into the night in a comfortable way. The noble Lord is present but he is not going to speak and I am saddened by this. There is nothing more that needs to be said—the points have been put across so well.

Perception is always at the heart of this. We send messages that we are unwelcoming. We do not live up to the best that could happen in UK plc and we are missing huge opportunities in soft power and the development of our own arrangements. It may be a step too far to take back control from the United Nations. Even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, when he comes to his senses—if ever—will realise that it may not be the best argument we have heard tonight. The arguments are almost irresistible. I cannot believe that the Minister will not want to endorse them in every respect.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I mentioned something about hot seats in respect of my position later in Monday’s debate. I feel that the temperature has risen somewhat in debating this issue. As one noble Lord said, it is rather an old chestnut for this House. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is an important matter.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for moving this amendment and to those noble Lords who have put their names to it. This debate has demonstrated considerable strength of feeling and provided a useful opportunity to discuss international students.

Before dealing with the specific amendment, I should like to make clear the Government’s position on international students generally. As has been said—the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, put it pretty succinctly—perception is vital. It is important that we give the impression that the UK is a welcoming place for international students. I make no apology that, when we came to power in 2010, we took steps to rid the system of abuse that was then rife. No one denies now that action needed to be taken then. More than 900 institutions lost the ability to bring in international students. However, there is a world of difference between clamping down on abuse and our policies on genuine students. The Government welcome genuine international students who come to study here. Their economic contribution is significant. Not only do they enrich the experience of home students, they should also form a favourable view of the UK which should serve this country well. That is why we have never imposed any limit on the number of genuine international students who can study here, and why—I must emphasise this point—we have no plans to impose such a limit. Educational institutions will continue to be able to recruit as many international students as they want. I agree that it is a major opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said.

Noble Lords have said that UK educational institutions are in competition with other countries for the best student talent. I want to outline the UK’s offer and how it compares internationally. Students from outside the EU need a visa to study in the UK. They need to show that they have the necessary academic ability, competence in English and funds to support themselves. Other developed countries, quite reasonably, set similar requirements. The system already allows students from low-risk countries to produce fewer documents. In 2015, 93% of student entry clearance visa applications were approved, a number that has risen every year since 2010, and 99% are approved within 15 days.

The terms which apply to students once here are again highly competitive. International students attending higher education institutions are allowed to work 20 hours per week during term time, the maximum that is compatible with devoting sufficient time to their studies, and similar to the rules in the United States, Australia and Canada. International students are additionally allowed to work full-time during holidays.

Post-study work is a matter of considerable interest to the education sector. Any international graduate of a UK university who is able to secure a skilled job can move into the workforce. There is no limit on the number who can do so and numbers have been rising year on year, with over 6,000 recent graduates doing so in 2015. If international students have been undertaking a course lasting more than a year, which covers the majority, they can remain in the UK for four months after finishing their studies, during which time they can work. The only country in the world with more international students than the UK is the United States. In the US, international graduates, other than when they are undertaking work directly relevant to their degree, must leave the country within 60 days of the completion of their programme.

I give a few statistics to support my proposition that the UK does welcome students. The UK is the world’s second most popular destination for international higher education students. Since 2011, university-sponsored visa applications have risen by 8%. Although Indian student numbers have fallen, as was mentioned earlier, we have seen strong growth in respect of other countries, including a 9% increase in Chinese students in the year ending September 2016, as was also mentioned. This shows that our immigration system allows for growth. I apologise for speaking at some length on these matters but it is important to lay out the facts and address this very important point of perception.

I turn to the specifics of the amendment before us. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the clear way in which he introduced it, I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled by it as it requires that no student should be treated as an “economic migrant”. But what is an economic migrant? I suspect that we all have a view of what we understand the phrase to mean, but no such term exists in law. We believe that it is used in the media; it is just a term which is used. I assume that those behind this amendment have in mind, when they refer to economic migrants, people who come to the United Kingdom on tier 2 work visas. People on a tier 2 visa come for a specific purpose on a time-limited visa and are expected to leave again when it expires, but that is precisely what the education sector tells us happens with international students. Similarly, those coming on a work visa may have conditions attached about the kind of work they can do. Equally, international students are limited in the number of hours they can work during term time. Again, this seems unexceptionable, and I am not sure why a parallel between international students and economic migrants would be seen as a bad thing. In one important regard there is a difference between economic migrants and international students. The main tier 2 (general) work visa is capped, with an annual limit of 20,700. By contrast, there is no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to study here.

I should also deal with the inclusion of students in net migration statistics. Immigration statistics are produced by the ONS, the UK’s independent statistical authority. It would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence how statistics are compiled. By including international students in its net migration calculations, the ONS is following international best practice. I say in response to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on this matter that this approach is considered best practice by the United Nations, which I think was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Willetts, and is used by a wide range of countries, including the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand. International students use public services and contribute to population levels. Those planning the provision of such services need to know who is in this country.

With respect to the Government’s net migration target, so long as, in any given year, the number of arriving students broadly corresponds to the number who leave having completed their course, students should make a minimal contribution to net migration. I repeat that genuine international students are absolutely welcome here. We do not, and will not, seek to cap or limit the number of international students.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked when the Government’s consultation would be published. I suspect she has heard this response in the House before but we intend to seek views shortly. I am afraid that at present I cannot give the House an exact date or timetable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the arrangements for EU students post Brexit. We recognise that future arrangements after we leave the EU for students and staff who come to the UK is a key issue for the higher education sector. The noble Baroness will have heard my next point before, but this issue will need to be considered as part of the wider discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

My noble friend Lord Willetts asked a couple of questions, including one on the ability of universities to plan ahead. He asked me to confirm that the Government were not planning changes to the visa regime. He also asked where education was placed within the industrial strategy. I have made it clear that we have no plans to limit the number of genuine international students whom our educational institutions can recruit. They can plan on that basis. I do not have a full answer to his question on the industrial strategy. However, having attended a number of meetings, I know that the skills aspect is very much a key part of that strategy. I think it is best that I follow that up with a full brief on how that fits into the industrial strategy and, indeed, any other educational matters which fit into that area.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, this has been a good debate. I am sure that I have not answered every question that was asked or, indeed, satisfied the Committee given that this is a hot topic and an old chestnut, as was said earlier. I am very grateful indeed to all those who have contributed. However, with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I hope that in the course of this Bill we will make an amendment somewhere in this area or in that of the previous amendment, and I think that we will have to consider carefully what that amendment is. We know that we will be up against a tough negotiator who, in the case of Brexit, has said that no deal is preferable to a bad deal. Unless we can steel ourselves to that level, we will not get our way.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been another good debate. In some senses the previous amendment and the two amendments in this group are two sides of the same coin. The first amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, set an aspiration for what we were trying to do about the flow of students that, for all the reasons we gave, we wanted to see. The two amendments we are discussing now deal with the detail of how we could achieve that—they could probably be combined to make the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

I do not need to say much more about this; I just want to put one point. On our first day in Committee we spent a lot of time talking about what we thought about our universities, what they were and what they were about. We have not really come back to the amendment we were debating then—which is probably just as well, as the wording was, I admit, not very good. The essence of it was an attempt to reach out to an aspiration that everyone in the Chamber, apart from those on the Government Front Bench, felt—that universities do have a particular distinctive nature and character. I argue that these two amendments help us to articulate that in a rather special way: for all the people who attend those universities—our children, and any other students who come to them—we want the very best quality of teaching and research available. That aspiration can be met only if we are able to recruit for it, and that is what these amendments would achieve.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for moving the amendment. I set out in some detail the Government’s approach to international students in response to the previous amendment, so I do not intend to repeat those points. However, I want to say something about the position of international academic staff, since they are specifically referred to in Amendment 464. Again, the Government have a very good record in supporting the sector.

The UK’s immigration system recognises the critical role academic staff can play in the economy and wider society, and that human mobility is linked to the UK’s ability to remain at the forefront of science and research. Immigration reforms since 2010 have explicitly taken account of the needs of academics, including scientists and researchers. The Government have consistently protected and enhanced the treatment of academics in the immigration system.

In tier 2, we have given PhD-level occupations higher priority. None of these occupations has ever been refused places due to the limit being oversubscribed. We have also exempted PhD-level occupations from the £35,000 earnings threshold for tier 2 settlement applications. In recognition of the fact that universities compete in a global talent pool, we have relaxed the resident labour market test to allow the best candidate to be appointed to PhD-level occupations, regardless of nationality and whether there are suitable resident workers available.

The amendments would provide that the immigration controls applying to non-British students or academic staff could never be more restrictive than those applying on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent. I wonder what “more restrictive” means in practice. The terms that apply to international students and workers contain a number of elements. Focusing on students, there are rules on how many hours they can work, how long they can stay in the UK after graduation, how they can move into work immigration routes, and on dependants.

Every student will have a different view on how important those various elements are. Suppose—I stress that I am offering this merely as an illustration, rather than making a statement of the Government’s intentions—we were to reduce the weekly hours that a university student can work during term time from 20 hours to 15 hours but, as compensation, lengthened the period for which undergraduate students can stay in the UK after their studies from four months to six months. Is that more or less restrictive than what currently exists? Some students would certainly see it as such; others would regard it as more liberal. It would all depend on particular circumstances and requirements. If we were to go down the route envisaged by these amendments we would be inviting the prospect of endless litigation as we sought to understand what constitutes greater restriction.

As for academic staff, as I have said, PhD-level university staff are currently prioritised within the limit for tier 2 visas. But what if we wanted, for very sound economic reasons, to give priority to another sector of the economy? Again I make no statement of the Government’s intent, but it is surely a possibility. Even if all the evidence pointed in one direction, the amendments would prevent such a change being made.

However, my principal concern about the amendments is that they seek to set the immigration system that applies on the date of Royal Assent in stone. Imagine that, as sometimes happens, a particular loophole in the immigration rules emerges, which everyone agrees needs to be dealt with. If the remedy was arguably restrictive, nothing could be done to close the loophole—even if government and universities agreed it was a problem—without amending primary legislation.

I am sure the House will acknowledge that we sometimes encounter instances of unintended consequences in immigration rules. We remedy these through minor changes. For example, we have very recently tidied up the rules on academic progression to deal with concerns raised directly by the education sector to the Home Office. These changes have been welcomed as improving the rules on academic progression but, under these amendments, had anybody been able to argue that what we were doing was in any way more restrictive, we would have been unable to respond to the sector’s concerns.

I understand the motivation behind the amendments, but I cannot advise your Lordships to accept them. Setting in stone the immigration system as it happens to be on a particular day, exposing ourselves to the possibility of extensive litigation and denying ourselves the opportunity to make even desirable changes is surely not the way forward. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment 463.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

466: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Disapplication of duty in Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to higher education institutions
(1) The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In section 27(2) at the end insert—“(k) a qualifying institution as defined by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004;(l) an institution providing courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Educational Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses);(m) an institution providing fundable higher education as defined by section 5 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005.”(3) In section 31(1)—(a) in paragraph (a) after “1996” insert “or the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005”;(b) omit paragraphs (b) and (c).(4) In section 32 (monitoring of performance: further and higher education bodies)—(a) in subsection (1) omit from “2015” to the end;(b) in subsection (2) omit “or a relevant higher education body”; (c) in subsection (4) omit “or a relevant higher education body”;(d) omit subsection (5)(b);(e) in subsection (9)(a) omit “, and includes the Open University”.(5) In section 33 (power to give directions: section 32)—(a) in subsection (1) omit “or a relevant higher education body”;(b) in subsection (4) omit “, “relevant higher education body””.(6) In Schedule 6 (specified authorities)—(a) in Part 1 omit—(i) “The governing body of a qualifying institution within the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004.”;(ii) “courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”;(b) in Part 2 after “post-16” insert “further”.(7) In Schedule 7 (partners of local panels)—(a) in Part 1 omit—(i) “The governing body of a qualifying institution within the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004.”;(ii) “courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”;(b) in Part 2 after “post-16” insert “further”.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, the threat we face from terrorism is unprecedented and very real. In addition to the framework of the criminal law, we must have a strong and robust preventive element to our counter-terrorism efforts. We must collectively help in the fight against terrorism and try to protect those who may be vulnerable or susceptible to radicalisation towards acts of terrorism.

I want to make it clear that HE providers are not being singled out as the potential cause or root of radicalisation. Responsibilities under this duty have also been placed on schools, hospitals, prisons, local authorities and colleges, and other institutions which regularly deal with people who may be vulnerable to the risk of radicalisation. In higher education, the Prevent duty exists to ensure that providers understand radicalisation and how it could impact on the safety and security of their staff and students.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her helpful, informed and powerful contribution, which was cogently authoritative. What the Prevent duty does not do is undermine free speech on campus. Higher education providers that are subject to the freedom of speech duty are required to have regard to it when carrying out their Prevent duty. This was explicitly written into legislation to underline its importance both as a central value of our HE system and of our society.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England, the body responsible for monitoring compliance with this duty in England, reports that the large majority of institutions have put in place clear, sensible policies and procedures that demonstrate they are balancing the need to protect their students and their obligations under Prevent, while ensuring that freedom of speech on campus is not undermined. We have seen higher education institutions become increasingly aware of the risks to vulnerable students and there have been some really good examples across the sector of how to proportionately mitigate these risks.

On the whole, the higher education sector is embedding the requirements of the Prevent duty within its existing policies and procedures. It gets ongoing advice and support both from HEFCE and from our own regional Prevent co-ordinators. There is a wide range of training available to staff in HE and there is an ongoing dialogue between the Government, the monitoring body and the sector to ensure that the implementation of this duty is done in a pragmatic way.

It is also important to note that this amendment has another consequence because it seeks to disapply the Prevent duty not only in relation to English higher education providers but in relation to Scottish and Welsh institutions. That would require the consent of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

We welcome discussion about how Prevent is implemented effectively and proportionately, but blanket opposition to the duty is unhelpful and, dare I say it, dangerous, given the scale of the terrorist risk before us—the threat level currently stands at severe. The Prevent duty is an important element of our fight against the ever-increasing threat of terrorism. We must have an efficient strategy for trying to prevent people being drawn into it. On this basis, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 466.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all speakers in this debate. It is a difficult area and we certainly went into several of its most difficult parts. Surely my noble friend Lord Judd is right that there is a tension in attempting to address the worries expressed by the Minister in her concluding remarks by preventing the debates and discussions that might win hearts and minds and protect us, and which need to be protected against the changes the Government are seeking to impose.

The analysis is relatively straightforward. There is no room for illegal acts in any institution. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, will accept that in proposing this amendment we do not wish to change that very obvious and important guideline. But the tension between free speech, which should exist in universities, and actions taken to inoculate against unpleasant and difficult ideas taking root does not seem well expressed in the legislation. This is a probing amendment which attempts to take that forward. In that sense, I felt that the Minister struck an odd note by suggesting that even discussing these issues in this Chamber was dangerous. If I am mistaken, I will withdraw that remark.

[Baroness Goldie]

What I said was that we welcome discussion about how to implement Prevent effectively and proportionately, but that we consider blanket opposition to the duty unhelpful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Unhelpful is certainly not the same as dangerous but I think the word “dangerous” was used—we will check the record for it. I do not regard it as dangerous to discuss these issues because they raise very important matters about freedom of speech and the ability to discuss and debate issues across a range of topics, not necessarily all concerned with terrorism. Therefore, in that sense, I resist that—but obviously not to the point that I would resile from the fact that this is really a tricky area and it is very hard to approach it without raising emotional and other issues that get in the way of the debate.

Maybe a review is required—maybe that would be the way forward. Maybe the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to take its work further. It was helpful to know that this work is still being considered, and maybe that is a way forward. The main achievement of this amendment was to get us into this whole debate and ensure that we understood and recognised the opportunities but also the threats that there are in trying to debate that. Maybe we can return to a more detailed discussion of this when we get to the group of amendments which raises the two particular issues about freedom of speech and preventing unlawful speech that are at the heart of the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 466 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

468: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Higher education providers: freedom of speech
All registered English higher education providers must ensure that their students, staff and invited speakers are able to practise freedom of speech in the provider’s premises, forums and events on all matters not specifically prohibited by law.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of how we put into statute a definition that will adequately cover some of the debates we had on the group of amendments before last, relating to freedom of speech. It is interesting that alongside that is Amendment 469 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which deals with the same issue but from completely the opposite direction. Amendment 468 in my name tries to stress the need for the definition and practice of freedom of speech in premises, forums and events, affecting staff, students and invited guests. The alternative version of this, which I think aims to come to the same place, is written in terms of completely the reverse option—that is, to avoid unlawful speech by the same people in the same areas. There is a very interesting question about which of these two approaches would be better if one had to choose between them.

In some senses, that picks up the theme of the last debate, which I have been reflecting on during the interregnum of the very important discussion on the advertising of cheating services, about what we are trying to do here. Without wishing to pre-empt the discussion, I will say that I still think there are probably two issues here: first, whether we believe that our higher education providers, particularly our universities, have to have regard to the issues raised in these two amendments; and, secondly, whether there are external constraints or opportunities to use other statutes and practices to bolster that. There is absolutely no point in having the most well-worked and beautifully phrased approach to this issue if it is not implemented in practice. The problem we all have is that we may well aspire to good words, good intentions and good practice but, if there is not an effective, efficient and speedy determination of where these things are not being practised well, we will all fail. I beg to move.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I have spoken many times before about freedom of speech. I want to link together the Prevent guidance amendment, this amendment and Amendment 469. In my view they stand and fall together because they are trying to demarcate the line between lawful and unlawful freedom of speech. That is all that matters, including in the Prevent guidance.

People often see freedom of speech as too broad and as encompassing everything, but it is always within the law. I anticipate that in response the Government will say that freedom of speech is already guaranteed. However, Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is too narrow. It is treated as limited to meetings and to the refusal of the use of premises to persons with unpopular beliefs. Universities have not handled this well. They have wrongly refrained from securing freedom of speech where student unions are involved, on the grounds that the unions are autonomous. That is not the case under charity law, nor does it fit with the universities’ own public sector equality duty. Moreover, Section 43(8) of that same Act expressly includes student unions. Universities have treated their duty as fulfilled if they have a code of practice concerning freedom of speech.

However, the practice of censorship is spreading, both by universities and by student unions. As I have explained before to this House, many explicit restrictions on speech are now extant, including bans on specific ideologies, behaviours, political affiliations, books, speakers and words. Students even get expelled for having controversial views. The National Union of Students has a safe-space policy and brands certain beliefs as dangerous and to be repressed, without regard to what is legal or illegal. The academic boycott of Israel-related activities is illegal as it discriminates against people on the grounds of their nationality and religion, and is contrary to the “universality of science” principle. Indeed, in this era of Brexit we should point out that attempts to put barriers in the way of exchange between scientists and other academics, inside or outside the EU, who wish to collaborate in research and conferences conflict with the principle of the universality of science, and it would be the same if other European states put barriers in the way of UK researchers. A recent bad example of behaviour is the LSE, which silenced a lecture by its own lecturer Dr Perkins because of his unpopular views on unemployment.

Freedom of speech in the UK is limited. I will not give noble Lords the whole list of measures; I shall name just a few. It is limited by the prohibition of race hatred in the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Equality Act 2010, and the Charities Act 2006 as it applies to student unions, defamation, the encouragement of terrorism and incitement to violence. There is a great deal of law for universities to take on board in permitting lawful freedom of speech in any case.

We need a new clause to go beyond meetings and make all this clear. Students have been closing down free speech and universities have neither intervened, nor protected it, nor taken action when it is lawful— or unlawful. We all recall when the Nobel laureate, Sir Tim Hunt, was hounded out of University College London. Section 43 was irrelevant, because his tasteless joke was made abroad. Universities are not taking up training offers about freedom of speech—what is lawful and what is unlawful. This amendment would ensure that lecturers and university authorities took cognisance of the law, got training in it and ceased to treat student unions as autonomous. They should know that they have a duty to promote good relations between different groups on campus under the Equality Act. I wish this amendment were not necessary, but it is.

--- Later in debate ---

We would not want to put in place a law that results in higher education providers being overly cautious and risk-averse to the extent that free speech is stifled. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with me on the importance of exposing students to controversial and sometimes unpalatable opinions provided they are within the law. Therefore, I am happy to provide assurance to the Committee that we are considering how to make sure that higher education providers continue to be subject to the existing freedom of speech duty under the new definitions created by this Bill. For unlawful speech, I believe that working with the sector to implement existing legislation is the best way of protecting staff and students rather than the introduction of another law. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 468.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Viscount for his considered response. This is a matter on which we should all reflect. I am sure that we are all trying to achieve much the same ends. However, I still think it is important to keep discussing the matter and hope that we will do so. If there is an opportunity to hold a meeting to discuss possible wordings or stronger wordings, we would be very happy to take it up. In the interim, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 468 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised in this group of amendments. I hope when he replies my noble friend the Minister will not lose sight of the extremely pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the ability of research councils to form partnerships and to do so without having to seek permission.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good, sharp little debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Given his previous background in your Lordships’ House as a spokesman on behalf of the Department of Health, presumably he will speak with a bit more direct experience than would otherwise be expected. It must be very clear that, whereas in the first two groups of amendments we were talking about the mechanics and he was able to guide us away from any suggestion that the Bill might be amended, he is now firmly up against the fact that the culture is sorted here, but the mechanics are not. We will have to look very hard at the points made, with some force, by all those who have spoken.

We have signed up to most of the amendments in this grouping and support the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Sharkey. They made it absolutely clear that what we are talking about is completely different from desirable changes. It is about ensuring that the huge success we have seen in the development of research—particularly medical research, but it applies to other research councils—is wired into the structure. We must have an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case.

What was not said, but is available for those who have read the briefings, is that the current situation is also of concern to charities. They feel that they have been slightly taken for granted. If there had not been the change proposed here for UKRI they would probably have come forward with suggestions that they should have been brought in at this stage, if they had not been before, to the Medical Research Council and others. That is not a new initiative; it has been a bit of sand in the oyster for some time. It would be appropriate to do as they suggest. We have already been reminded that the Nurse review made it clear that charities felt that, given,

“the overlap in their interests with the Research Councils, it is important that strong contacts are developed and maintained between the Councils and the charitable sector”.

Indeed, Sir Paul, in the final section of his report, says:

“To facilitate such interactions and to ensure that proper knowledge and understanding of the entire UK research endeavour is maintained, I recommend particular care is paid to ensuring there are strong interactions between the charitable research sector and the Research Councils”.


That is a coded phrase, but it is fairly clear that his intention would be that charities, which make so much of a difference to what we are doing and bringing in patients—they have been doing this for so long and have so much experience to offer—should be hard-wired into what we are about.

Our Amendment 486A is subsidiary in a sense because the primary purpose of these amendments is to make sure that charities are involved going forward. One amendment, which we support, suggests that the mechanics of this should be done by continuing the arrangement that those charities which currently fund jointly with research councils should be able to do so and there should be nothing in the Bill to prevent that. We suggest that, in looking at this, the Government might also look at the question of making sure that the UKRI has that capacity as well and there is no problem in any legal framework about it. We support these amendments.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, this has been a really good short debate. I think we are all in huge agreement about the importance of the charitable sector. I recognise the figures given today: over the lifetime of this Parliament some £6 billion—I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said—will go into research from charities. That is about £1.3 billion a year, which is huge. As the noble Lord said, it is bigger than the NIHR. We are all acutely aware that research money from charities is absolutely fundamental to our whole research effort in the UK. Even after the increase of £2 billion a year from the Government in 2020, which is a fantastic change, if you compare our research spending with other countries we are still low. We depend heavily on the charitable sector.

I share with all noble Lords the aspiration for UKRI to work harmoniously and productively with the charitable sector. That is why the recent advert for the UKRI board lists engaging with charities among members’ duties and welcomes applicants with experience of the charitable sector. UKRI board members will be recruited on the basis of experience and expertise from across the full range of interests of the UK’s research and innovation system. We are ensuring this happens through our current recruitment exercise. If noble Lords will find it agreeable, we will reflect on today’s debate and see whether we ought to stiffen up that language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

We have heard a number of variations on the theme of reflection. Before the noble Lord finishes, could he be clearer about whether he will seriously take this away and look at it with a view to coming back on Report or will he just sit and reflect on it? Noble Lords would be very grateful to know that.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I was under the impression that the word “reflection” has a parliamentary connotation and means more than just idly reflecting in the Bishops’ Bar after this debate, instead implying a serious discussion with colleagues and parliamentary draftsmen. Sometimes you can make amendments that satisfy the spirit of everything that has been discussed but they have unintended consequences which can have the opposite effect. When I use “reflect” now or later in this debate, I do so with serious intent.

Turning to Amendments 486A and 491 on partnering, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, with a third of university research income coming from links with business and charities, their contribution towards the UK research endeavour is clearly very significant. The councils continue to have an important role, encouraging links with universities and through forming their own direct partnerships. UKRI will continue this and ensure public, charitable and private investments in research are aligned to achieve maximum overall benefit. Noble Lords will have noted that UKRI has two specific powers to allow joint working: with the devolved Administrations and with the OfS. This is not just because these are important interactions; there are specific legal reasons why additional powers are necessary, for instance to allow Research England to continue to work with the devolved Administrations jointly on current UK-wide priorities, including developing the next research excellence framework.

In all other instances, however, I can reassure noble Lords that UKRI will not need specific provision to be able to work jointly with other bodies. I can absolutely reassure noble Lords that those partnerships between UKRI or its councils and the charitable research sector, not to mention other research funders, will be in no way impeded by the Bill. I can confirm the statement made by the UKRI chair, Sir John Kingman, in this respect. In fact, the Bill places a duty on UKRI to be as efficient, effective and economic as possible. It is difficult to envisage instances where collaborating with an appropriate funder from the charitable sector or elsewhere would not achieve these aims.

In conclusion, while I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this proposal and welcome the opportunity to recognise the important role of charity funders, no additions to the Bill are required to enable UKRI to work with other bodies or to ensure charity sector experience on the board. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I agree that consideration needs to be given to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, but one must not forget that there are regions of the United Kingdom south of the Scottish border which may require special attention.

I am hopeful that the reflection, which I am sure that we will have on these amendments, may result in good outcomes. Officials in the department have given me a copy of the application invitation to non-executive members of UKRI, which says:

“We welcome applicants with a range of experience from within the different nations of the UK, the charity sector, and with international experience”.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing it so well, because he covered all the nuances. We have one amendment in this group, Amendment 500A, which complements the points that he was making. It reflects the need to make sure that Research England, in its functions, which would be very narrowly focused on England—including, of course, the north of England—could have the capacity to consult other bodies that perform the same functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That goes with the general grain of what is being discussed.

I have a fantasy that this area was probably dreamed up in the good old days before Brexit was on the horizon, in the confident assumption that there would be no separate Scotland—and certainly no separate Wales and Northern Ireland, if these issues are still in play, as I am sure they are. That reflects a relatively straightforward analysis of what had to be done to pay lip service to the need to ensure that those people not physically located in England were seen to have some influence on the levers that generated the money. But that is such a naive view of what is now such a complicated world that I wonder whether what is in the Bill is sufficient to take that trick. It is one area in which reflection will be required, as the noble and learned Lord hinted, because I do not think that what we have here will do.

I take it as axiomatic that UKRI is not a representative body and that there would be no advantage in making it so—so we are not talking about ensuring that the representation on it is in some way reflective of the various agencies and constituencies that need to be served by it. However, there are optical issues—it has to be seen to be representative in a way that would not have been the case two or three years ago. The idea that, as we heard from the letter of invitation, it has an acknowledgment of the need to recruit from people with obvious experience in an area will probably will not be sufficient. We are talking about the allocation of resources getting scarcer as we go forward, despite the Government’s reasonable largesse, in an environment where it would be very difficult for those bodies that have been funded to seek alternative matching funding. The institutions we are talking about are not all universities, because research is carried out outside the universities—although much less than in other European countries—in research institutes and similar places. Up until now these have been very reliant on external funding and, as we will hear in later amendments, they are feeling a cold wind coming. In this very complicated area we have to ensure that the funds will reach the institutions which are best able to provide the research services which UK plc is looking for and in a way that is seen to be fair.

We have not touched on the fairness issue. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the need for firewalls to make sure that the funding streams were not absorbed by other pressures and under other arrangements. That is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition and does not need to be in the Bill. However, the idea exists that England, because of the golden triangle effect, has a pre-eminent chance of getting all the funding and that, despite the way in which these funds will be allocated—through the Haldane principle and others—there will be enough room left for those who wish to make trouble about this in, say, Scotland or other places. This is a worry and it will need to be looked at very carefully before the Minister comes back. I do not have a solution to it, but we are not necessarily in the right place at the moment.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his speech at the beginning of this debate which helped identify some of the issues. First, I emphasise that UKRI, as a UK-wide body, has a built-in duty to work for the whole of the UK. The prospect of having people on the UKRI board from all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not fill one with much joy. Secondly, I make it clear that these reforms will not affect current funding access for institutions in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister cited the Public Bill Committee evidence of the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee and current vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, Sir Alan Langlands. I hope that noble Lords will permit me to echo that powerful evidence once more. Sir Alan said that,

“given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that”.

As part of UKRI, the research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate across the UK, funding projects through open competition on the basis of excellence, wherever it is found.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on capital, the devolved Governments have a capital allocation direct from the Treasury as part of their block grant. Decisions on whether to allocate any of these funds on research or innovation are entirely for them: this will not change. Capital allocated by research councils, as a result of competitive processes, wherever the researchers are based across the UK, will continue to be delivered through the UKRI councils: this will not change. The Secretary of State, when making capital allocations for research, most recently through the capital road map, also makes an allocation for HE institutions to support the sustainability consequences of their relative success in winning research council funding. This process will not change, including the requirement for the devolved Governments to match-fund any allocation by the Secretary of State to the devolved funding councils.

On Amendment 501, I share the noble Lord’s desire that UKRI’s strategy should work for the whole of the UK. The strategy will be the product of a consultation with research and innovation institutions and bodies from across the UK. I also assure noble Lords that this consultation will of course incorporate the views of the devolved Governments. However, I disagree that this should be achieved by requiring the Secretary of State to formally consult with the devolved Governments on reserved UK government policy, which would undermine the whole devolution settlement.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are putting in place extra protections for Research England. This reflects the provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which places the same restriction on the Secretary of State in relation to HEFCE funding. The provision protects the academic freedom of institutions in respect of what is taught, what research is undertaken and who is employed. Likewise, I assure noble Lords that Research England will work closely with its devolved counterparts on matters of strategic interest—for example, on the research excellence framework. After discussions with the devolved Administrations, the Government passed a new clause in the other place, now Clause 107, to enable this joint working. Additionally, the current drafting of Clause 91 enables Research England to consult with its devolved equivalents, and we would fully expect it to do so whenever this was appropriate and valuable.

I turn to Amendment 502. UKRI must have flexibility to manage its funds to ensure best value for its resources and to meet our strategic aspirations for seamless administration of interdisciplinary research and joint research and innovation projects. Currently, allocations to funding bodies are discussed with the Treasury, which assesses any Barnett implications for the devolved Governments. This is not changed by the Bill. UKRI will also be bound by rules established for managing public money and a financial accountability and assurance framework which will be set up with the department. These arrangements do not constitute a reduction in current levels of parliamentary oversight. This amendment would place additional duties on Parliament to scrutinise even small variations in budgets that would be required in response to changes to project timelines or to support joint research and innovation projects, for example. This would not be a good use of Parliament’s time, and would hamper UKRI’s strategic agility by significantly slowing decision-making.

I urge noble Lords to consider the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, offered at Second Reading:

“I urge UKRI not to be overly prescriptive about partitioning funds between its component parts. We need a system that allows partners to come together across STEM subjects, the humanities and social sciences, and with industry partners, to drive a research ecosystem which goes from blue-skies research to commercial application and impact”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 624.]


Noble Lords have raised concerns about Research England’s funding stream. I reassure them that the Secretary of State would not agree to UKRI viring money in such a way as to result in a net change in Research England’s stated budget over a full spending review period. This will be made clear in guidance to UKRI.

Amendment 504 would give an effective veto power to the devolved Governments on matters of reserved UK government policy. The power of direction is limited to financial matters and reflects existing powers. The Secretary of State may use it to deal swiftly with financial issues, and it is an essential safeguard to the over £6 billion of public money that UKRI will receive per annum. Since this power is intended to allow the Government to deal quickly with urgent financial matters, I further appeal to noble Lords that a restrictive and drawn-out process of consultation is not the right approach.

As regards Amendment 507, the Government will continue to work with the devolved Governments on research and innovation policy, as they do now. The Secretary of State, as a UK Minister, already has a duty to act in the best interests of the whole of the UK. The Government made an amendment in the other place to ensure that the Secretary of State, when appointing members to UKRI’s board, must have regard to the desirability of including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. No such duty is currently in place regarding existing bodies with UK-wide remits. This strikes the right balance between ensuring relevant experience of research and innovation systems across the UK on UKRI’s board and giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to appoint the best people for these important roles. Here I assure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there will be a proper gender balance on the UKRI board. Further wording around the Secretary of State’s duties in this respect would damage this crucial flexibility. With these explanations and assurances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to withdraw his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

483A: Clause 86, page 55, line 14, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this continues on the theme of uncertainties. I think that I can deal with the issue fairly quickly; at least that is my aspiration in moving the amendment. The starting point for this brief debate is Clause 86, which lists the seven current research councils and then adds Innovate UK and Research England. The intriguing statement is:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend”,


that list so as to,

“add or omit a Council, or … change the name of a Council … But the regulations may not omit, or change the name of, Innovate UK or Research England”.

Inevitably, the question that arises is: why is that? This is not in any sense an attempt to set in concrete the existing structures. These councils have come and gone and changed their names with dazzling frequency and I do not think that what we have before us, the seven currently dealing with the range of research that they do, will last for very long. But it is important to have an explanation from the Minister, perhaps by letter if he so chooses, of what consultation might be undertaken before the councils are changed—because there is a bit of a worry about the uncertainty.

[Lord Willetts]

The noble Lord has just made an assertion which I do not think is quite correct. After the research councils were created in 1965 by the Wilson Government, if someone who had participated in those debates at the time were to look at this list of research councils, they would indeed observe changes. However, it is not the case that they change frequently: rather, they have changed very slowly over time. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council was created in the 1980s and the Science and Technology Facilities Council more recently. But the noble Lord should recognise that there is some quite deep continuity here, which is important if we want to ensure that they remain stable entities in the new dispensation.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is a very kind intervention because I no longer need to give the second half of my speech, in which I would have stated that the names of the councils are only one aspect; the worry is that the work might change. That was the point I was seeking to make. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am almost humbled to accept such a wonderful offer. I thank the Minister very much indeed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 483A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, this is a short but important point. Schedule 9 paragraph 8(1) states:

“UKRI may … appoint employees, and … make such other arrangements for the staffing of UKRI as it considers appropriate.


Sub-paragraph (2) states:

“The terms and conditions of appointment as employees are to be determined by UKRI with the approval of the Secretary of State”.


That is the general provision. However, there is an extraordinary provision in Clause 89. After listing the research councils—it is interesting that the arts and humanities are separate although the arts include humanities, although that does not matter too much—subsection (2) states:

“Arrangements under this section may, in particular, provide for the exercise by the Council concerned of UKRI’s functions under paragraph 8(1) and (2) of Schedule 9”—


those are the paragraphs I have just read—

“in relation to relevant specialist employees”.

In other words, the council is going to get, possibly, a chance to make arrangements in regard to relevant specialist employees. Who are these?

“A ‘relevant specialist employee’, in relation to a Council, means a researcher or scientist employed by UKRI to work in the field of activity of that Council”.


It is quite obvious that the term “scientist” is fairly ambiguous. For example, would it include a specialist doctor working for the MRC?

The other obvious question is whether this applies to technicians in laboratories. Is a technician a scientist? I would think they certainly are, but it cannot be taken as a certainty that the construction of the term “scientist” in this Bill would necessarily include a technician because sometimes we distinguish between them in the terminology. So far as researchers are concerned it is, vague in the extreme. Is a person who organises research but does not do any himself or herself qualify as a researcher? I thought that there must be some principle behind the selection of the terms “researcher” and “scientist”, and that is what my amendment ventures to suggest. It provides that, for a specialist employee,

“after ‘scientist’ insert ‘, or other person whose knowledge or experience is important to the operation of that Council”.

That is the only way to avoid ambiguity.

I have the impression from my discussions with the department that the general view is much in accordance with mine, but the officials seem to think that the terms “scientist” and “researcher” would include them all. I would like to say that they do not, but it is certainly not clear at all and I see no reason why it should not be. The easiest way to put it clearly is not to set out a list of all the people we can think of, because there would quite a number; rather, it is to set out the principle on which the relevant specialist employee as a characteristic is determined. That is what I have tried to do in my amendment, and I am happy to seek a better formulation if the Minister wishes it. I raised this point when I wrote to my noble friend’s predecessor and to the Minister in the Commons. I hope that we might be able to get an answer to this question tonight and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment and it has been well trailed since the noble and learned Lord made it clear in a couple of our Committee sittings that he intended to speak on this issue. We are glad finally to get the benefit of his words expressing concern about the current drafting and the need to unpick it. I think the Minister will be at a slight disadvantage because we have been making this point throughout the six days of our deliberations in Committee. We have tried to draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that wherever there is an opportunity, in our view, for the Bill to inflect a sensibility within the structures and operations of the various bodies being established under the new architecture, towards an inclusive way of treating those employed within these structures, it has always been rebuffed. That might be too strong a word, but although it has been played back to us as something the noble Viscount would think about, we have not even managed to get him to reflect on it.

So the Minister is not able to take responsibility for the omissions of the earlier sittings of the Committee, but this is a great opportunity to pick up the point. Given that he has come from a department which must have responsibility for employees—indeed, in his last outing he was dealing with trade union reform and related issues—he will be well aware of the sensitivities that these matters can give rise to. He might want to reflect on the need to respond positively to the noble and learned Lord, who has made such a fine point.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I am going to respond but I will have to let the noble Lord draw his own conclusions as to how positive the response is. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has raised an interesting point and I thank him for that. In the interests of discipline and autonomy, and respecting the Haldane principle, it is right that the council should have special delegated authority to appoint and to set terms and conditions for specialist academic and research staff within that council and its institutes. There are particular cases where it may be necessary for councils to directly appoint and set terms and conditions for scientists, researchers and other technical staff involved in a research endeavour. In such cases, authority to do so will be delegated to the councils, as per subsections (2) and (3). A relevant example is the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. There is no intention to change such long-standing and effective relationships.

I am sympathetic to the concern raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and agree that there are many other persons whose expertise is of great importance to the successful operation of a research council. As such, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill enables the continuation of existing practice to hire staff. Such persons will become employees of the councils through UKRI. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. It seems extraordinary to imagine the Office for Students unilaterally making a decision that an institution should have the power to award research degrees. Surely it is quite essential that a research organisation—particularly, in this case, UKRI—should be heavily involved. Equally, I do not think that UKRI can make the decision alone because it relates also to the capacity of university departments to receive and look after research students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, briefly, I put my name to this amendment because it raises quite a big issue in relation to the respective powers, which the noble and learned Lord explained very well. We have almost a surfeit of expertise around and it needs to be picked through very carefully. I invite the Minister to respond after due reflection, perhaps in writing, because this is something that we will need to come back to when we look again at the powers of the OfS on Report. This is not his current responsibility; it will probably be for the noble Viscount the Minister to respond.

This is a question of what powers the Secretary of State feels need to apply to which institution, not just in relation to the power to award research degrees—which is in itself an important decision—but in relation to, for instance, the quality of the teaching that might be involved.

We are hearing a lot about the way in which the department feels strongly that a measure must be introduced that will allow it to assess the quality of teaching. As far as we understand it, at the moment that is at an institutional level—although it will go down to departmental and, possibly, to course level. If it goes to course level, or even to departmental level, presumably it would be an imperfect measure if it did not also look at the research degrees that were awarded by that department or by the staff involved. We therefore have to know a lot more about this before we can make a decision about whether the powers are allocated correctly and whether the responsibilities lie in the right place. I look forward to having responses in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, most of which were not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I shall respond briefly and particularly take note of the general comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I shall make a short concluding comment. If there are matters in this group of amendments that require some writing, I will write to all noble Lords and put a copy of such letters in the Library of the House.

I shall make some concluding comments about this quite long Committee stage. I record my appreciation of the whole Committee and of all noble Lords who have taken part in all the debates for the quality and constructive nature of the discussions we have been having in the past few weeks. I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise that Committee stage is about discussing the Bill, probing the detail and, importantly, giving all sides an opportunity to listen to other noble Lords’ points of view. As a result, noble Lords have not felt the need to divide the Committee beyond the first amendment on the first day. For that, I am grateful.

Now we have some time before the Bill enters its Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has challenged me on the meaning of different verbs used on occasion by me on and around the word “reflect”. I hope I can leave a smile on his face—or perhaps not—by saying that I am actively working with my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, to reflect on these discussions and consider the best way forward. On a serious note, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Mendelsohn, realise that I have given much warmer words than that at certain points. In that spirit, I want to be sure that he understands that we are looking very carefully at Hansard and reflecting generally on all the debates. I am looking forward to Report. In the meantime, I would just say that I have very much appreciated the debates and look forward to future ones.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, because of the invitation to reflect, I will take a slight liberty and make two points. The worst time of my life was when I occupied a post in the British film industry and was involved in trying to get decisions for funding for films. We were often engaged in trying to deal with larger, richer and often foreign bodies, which were prepared to tantalise us with the thought that they might invest in our films. It became well known in that process that the worst decision you could get was the slow maybe. I am afraid we are in that situation. The Minister has said that he is reflecting and thinking, but we have not been able to get clarity. It is easier to have a straight, “No, we are not taking this forward”, than it is to have variations on “thinking hard about” or reflecting. I appreciate the gesture that he has made, but it has been a bit of a frustrating period, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will also say that sometimes it has been very hard to understand where the Minister has wanted to get to with a particular issue because we did not get clarity about it.

However, that is all past. We are now into a period of calm waters, and perhaps we can pick up the threads of some of what we are doing and try to take forward the ideas for Report and possibly onwards from then. I hope that that will be a fruitful time, and I look forward to it.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but given that this is such a massive Bill with so many unknowns in it, I and probably others will be calling on Report for some sort of post-legislative scrutiny and checking. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I rise in opposition to Amendments 12 and 13, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In doing so I thank him for raising a very important point, but I suggest that we already have a very effective mechanism for doing what he wishes to see happen, which is the British Council. I urge the Minister to ensure that the British Council is properly funded to undertake talks of this sort in the future.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have signed this amendment and all the others that make up this package, which is a substantial one; we should not underestimate the impact it will have. It is a most significant move for the Government to recognise the pressure of institutional autonomy right across the sector. It would be hard to overstate the impact of this coming together of the whole House with the Government to create an intervention in this area. We welcome it.

It is important also to recognise that the concession made was not just rearranging the existing wording—we acknowledge that the Bill already had a lot about institutional autonomy. Making not simply the OfS but the Secretary of State responsible for having regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy is a much more powerful approach. We should be cognisant of that as we accept the amendments.

It is important also to recognise that there is a gap. Although it has been pointed out that the UKRI is not a regulator in the same sense as the OfS, we will later move an amendment that proposes that the UKRI also have regard to institutional autonomy because there will be joint responsibilities in relation to research degrees, but also because these bodies will be operating with the same funding group—obviously, a smaller one in the case of the UKRI; nevertheless, it is important that we have equality of arms.

This has been a very successful case of trying to get a better Bill from what the Commons presented us with. It is a better Bill as a result of this intervention—of course, there is more to come. We should acknowledge that the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and the support that he and I received from the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, from the Liberal Democrats, has been instrumental in persuading the Government that they should take account of this issue.

In bringing attention to the need for new providers in Amendment 5, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has done us a service by ensuring that we think not only of existing arrangements within the sector but new entrants. It is important that we pick up the theme behind his amendment and ensure that it is properly regarded as we proceed.

In concluding, I hope we can have the Minister’s assurance that all the amendments in this group will be taken as consequential if the lead amendment is passed.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for introducing this group of amendments and the helpful and constructive engagement I have had with him and many other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave on the issue of institutional autonomy.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for his amendment in Committee, which was widely supported across the House and which has provided an excellent template for the institutional autonomy protections that we are discussing today. Indeed, on issues across the Bill, I am grateful for the expert scrutiny the Bill had in Committee and the many constructive meetings that my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, and I have held with noble Lords since.

I said in Committee that we were listening and reflecting on the issues raised, so I hope that noble Lords will recognise that that is exactly what we have done through the government amendments. I am particularly pleased that institutional autonomy is one of the areas where we have found common ground. Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are the keystone of our higher education sector’s strength. Throughout the Bill, we have sought to protect these values, but we recognised and understood the importance of extending these protections to the work of the OfS and of enshrining institutional autonomy itself in legislation for the first time.

I turn to Amendment 5, spoken to by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. We have already seen new providers emerge that do not fit the stereotypical—often negative—description that has been previously offered. The Government welcome plans to introduce new models of provision, such as that proposed by the New Model in Technology & Engineering in Hereford. I reassure noble Lords—my noble and learned friend in particular—that the Bill already allows both the OfS and the Government to consider, encourage and respond to the emerging needs for new providers, so while I support the broad intent of Amendment 5, I feel it is unnecessary.

I should like to make a few further points. We believe that the duty on the OfS to have regard to the need to encourage competition between higher education providers and regulate in a proportionate manner will ensure that it encourages meeting the emerging needs of new providers. The OfS has many duties and there are already a variety of other measures in our reforms that will enable the Government, as well as the OfS, to support the need for new providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with getting the age statistics right. That is a crucial example because it is objective and not highly sensitive, at least in my view. However, most of the other protected characteristics are not susceptible of statistically robust estimation. People do not always want to declare whether they are pregnant or to declare their ethnicity. I discovered that young people of mixed background did not wish to take sides between their parents, as they put it. People do not always wish to declare their sexual orientation, particularly when they are very young. The result is that one has an enormous number of “no information” entries in these statistics. To use this information in a statistically responsible way is not a simple matter. However, I exempt age. I would, until recently, have exempted gender because I think most people will give a simple answer on that. However, I fear that the information one actually records is not always robust.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very good and interesting debate. I think that there are some questions to which the Government will want to respond and I will not overegg the pudding at this stage. However, the question of why we are not including protected characteristics, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is interesting. Amendments 16 and 18 are helpful in this regard. I take the points made by the noble Baroness, who is expert in these matters. However, if we as a country do not start to set out these requirements in terms of a whole range of protected characteristics, we will be the loser in the long run. It may be just be a question of how we do that.

This group of amendments also contains important first steps towards a more engaged transfer and credit transfer arrangement for students in relation to the higher education sector, which I welcome. However, I again wonder why the Government have not thought to take into account Amendments 47, 128 and 129. It seems to me that they would help progress in this regard, which is something we all support.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

First, I reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that Clause 10(2) already requires higher education institutions to publish the information contained within the transparency duty. We expect prospective students to be able to access this easily on providers’ websites. I further reassure my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Willis, among others, that this information will also be shared with the OfS with the intention of presenting these data in a comparable form to students, commentators and advisers.

To respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I say that noble Lords will recall that we have concerns about legislating to add a wide range of additional characteristics to the duty due to the quality and comparability of the data as well as the disclosive nature of some of the information. However, having listened to noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lords whom I mentioned just now, we have reflected on their suggestions, and I am pleased to make a commitment to the House today. The Government will, through guidance, ask the OfS to consult on what other information should be published by individual institutions with a view to making their record on widening participation even more transparent.

We expect the consultation to consider whether specific additional information should be made available by institutions. We expect this to include consideration of whether the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 should be captured, including categories such as disability and age. However, the consultation will not limit itself to the protected characteristics and should also look at categories such as care leavers. This will enable a considered view of what additional information should be published by providers, balancing the desire for greater transparency around access and participation with considerations around the robustness and comparability of data, student privacy and the regulatory burden on providers. Universities will be expected to respond to the outcome of the consultation as part of their future access and participation plans following further guidance, once we have established best practice.

I hope that it is clear that we have listened and reflected on the amendments tabled in Committee. The inclusion of attainment will make the transparency condition more effective, and the additional commitment to consult on what other information should be made available will help drive equality of opportunity for all students.

I now turn to the amendments relating to student transfer—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blackstone]

My Lords, I can see why the Government want to link the quality of teaching to fees. I assume that behind it is that they need a kind of sanction to do something about those universities which are not providing adequate teaching. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the best teaching is not necessarily provided by those universities which do the best research; in other words, the high-status universities. Some of the new universities have excellent teaching quality, where some of the best research universities do not give it enough attention.

I support what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It is not the right time to attach the decision about the fees that can be charged to the TEF, because we do not have a TEF that is yet suitable and up to scratch in how it will operate. It is putting the cart before the horse. There may be some date in the future when it might be appropriate for the ability to increase fees to be related to the quality of teaching, but we have not reached that point. We really need to get our metrics right and provide a TEF that is fit for the job that it is being asked to do.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate and it anticipates another debate which, at this rate of progress, we will be able to schedule and advertise for those noble Lords who wish to come back and listen to it for Wednesday just after Oral Questions, when we will be returning to many of the themes. This is quite a narrow amendment. The amendment before noble Lords is not about what metrics could be used or other issues relating to the TEF, as it is called. It specifically tries to avoid that, to leave space for that debate to take place on Wednesday. It specifically tries, though, to break the link that might be established between any scheme established under Clause 26 and the ranking of higher education providers as to the fees or the number of students they may or may not recruit.

On a number of occasions the Minister has been at pains to point out that, throughout the very long period we kept the House sitting in Committee on the Bill, he was, in complete contradiction to the impression he gave, listening and, indeed, in some cases, reflecting. It was sometimes difficult to get the nuance between listening and reflecting but those were the words he used. We were doing the same. We have been listening to and reflecting on some of the responses we have heard to the very good cases that have been made around this aspect of the Bill, and I have to say that, having listened and reflected, I do not think he has made the case well, but the case that has been made around the Chamber this afternoon is exactly on spot.

If you want to raise the fees in higher education to accommodate the cost increases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, it has been possible since 2004, and Labour’s Higher Education Act, to raise fees by inflation. It was done routinely between 2007 and 2012 by two successive Governments. There is no reason at all why the Government should not bring forward a statutory instrument under the terms of the Act that makes provision for the power to do so. There is no need, in fact, to anticipate what may be a good system for measuring higher education by linking it to the teaching quality that has been discovered by a half-baked scheme that is not yet half way through its pilot system. The case was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. The case for linking the quality of education and fees, or the quality of education and the number of students, is completely hollow. I very much hope that if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, he will do so. We will support him.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before I discuss fees, I would like first to be clear that the Government welcome genuine international students, and to reiterate the confirmation that I offered in Committee that we have no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students, based on its TEF rating or on any other basis.

As well as the link to student numbers, this amendment would remove an important principle at the heart of the TEF: the link to fees. The TEF is intended to rebalance the priority given to teaching and learning compared to research. Funding for teaching is currently based on quantity, whereas research is funded on quality. It was a Conservative Government who first introduced early versions of the research excellence framework. Over the past 30 years, the principle of linking funding to quality has incentivised the UK’s research base to develop into the world-leading sector that we have today. We want to apply the same principle that has driven such continuous improvement in research to teaching. Linking fees to the TEF will provide strong reputational and financial incentives to prioritise the student learning experience.

It is important that high-quality institutions can maintain fees in line with inflation if we are to ensure that the sector remains sustainable. As I pointed out in Committee, the £9,000 fees introduced in 2012 are worth only £8,500 today and will be worth less than £8,000 by the end of the Parliament. If we want to provide the best-quality education in our universities, and to compete with our global rivals, universities need the resource to invest in their teaching facilities. This is why the Universities UK board unanimously supported the link between an effective TEF and fee rises. Some 299 institutions have voluntarily applied to take part in the TEF this year out of about 400: that represents a big majority. This includes the majority of the established higher education sector, including all the English Russell group universities. I think that noble Lords will agree that this represents a very encouraging and excellent endorsement of the current scheme.

Furthermore, as GuildHE said:

“The link between the TEF and inflation increases in fee and loan caps makes sense ... When the £9000 fee cap was introduced in 2012/13, the BIS spending review assumption was that it would rise by inflation each year. Instead, the price has been held flat for four years. Without an increase to take account of rising teaching costs, the ability of institutions to invest in the quality of the learning experience on offer will, inevitably, decline”.


However, there will be no something for nothing. Make no mistake: if this amendment is enacted the sector will lose £16 billion over the course of the next 10 years. This is the value of the funding we intend to make available for institutions through the TEF. We will not allow universities to raise their fees unless they can demonstrate, through the TEF, that their teaching is of the highest quality.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

54: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to restrict enrolments
(1) If the OfS has reasonable grounds for believing that a registered higher education provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition with respect to the quality of the higher education provided by the provider, or to its ability to implement a student protection plan which forms a condition of its registration, the OfS may place quantitative restrictions on the number of new students that the provider may enrol.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedures for imposing such restrictions and about rights of appeal.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment is returning to a topic that was raised in Committee and discussed in some detail, but not extensively, in relation to what might happen in the hypothetical situation where a higher education provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition relating to the quality of the education it is providing or its ability to implement a student protection plan. The Bill is good on these issues and it is important that we should have measures of this type in statute.

The question that arose during the earlier debate, and which arises still because the answer was not entirely satisfactory, is about the only penalty specified in the Bill being a financial penalty. In other words, in breach of the registration conditions in the terms I have just outlined, an institution would face a fine that is not specified but which could be quite substantial in relation to activities.

The point was made in Committee that there may be other sanctions available and the question is: why are these not specified in the Bill? It would be helpful for the OfS to have a range of possible opportunities to get redress from institutions and, in particular, not necessarily go down a financial route, which might have the ultimate result—one not entirely satisfactory in terms of the Bill’s requirements—of reducing the amount of money available to spend on teaching students. The question specified in the amendment is whether it would be better to have a numbers cap as well as a financial penalty in that area. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, within this part of the Bill concerning registration conditions and their enforcement, so far it appears that there is nothing much about restricting enrolment. Clause 16 enables monetary penalties where necessary and, in various other respects, Clauses 17 to 22 inclusive provide powers to correct and adjust, if and when desirable. Yet the latter will constitute relevant actions in the second place, and thus subsequent to the central matter, which is enrolment in the first place. In this context, by contrast, thus it appears anomalous that enrolments, and in certain circumstances a useful scope for their restriction, should so far not have been addressed at all. However, the proposed new subsections of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, redress that omission. His amendment is timely and very much worthy of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for contributing to this debate. The noble Earl picked up a point that I had not quite spotted myself, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. There is a bit of a lacuna here in terms of how institutions are going to be treated. The Minister has not gone as far as would be obviously the right thing to do. He made all the arguments—rather better than I did, in fact—but then held back at the last minute. At this time, I would like to encourage him to go a little further and would like to test the opinion of the House.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene in this debate to welcome the proposals that the Government have now brought before us. There is, as we recognised in debates at earlier stages, always a balance to be struck. On the one hand is protecting the interests of students, which must be paramount, and the reputation of British higher education as a whole. On the other hand, the fact is that most of the innovation and advances in higher education in England have occurred as a result of new providers coming in and doing things differently. The history of the growth in, and success of, higher education in our country has been that doing things differently from the start is easier than changing an existing body. The arrangements in the new clause today get that balance right.

If anything, the process will now be more rigorous and defined than the kind of process that we had when decisions on degree-awarding powers and university title were taken by, among other bodies, the Privy Council on advice. This is superior to what went before. I feel a bit wary of referring to the 1960s now that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has referred to them. But the fact is that one of the most exciting experiments in the growth of higher education in this country in the 1960s was when universities got their title and degree-awarding powers from the very beginning. We should not be far more restrictive than we were then.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is worth reflecting that we had quite a long discussion of this issue in Committee, when opinions were more sharply divided than they are now. Amendment 116A, which has been spoken to and which we have put our name to, was originally drafted in slightly different terms. The balancing point between the end of the first part and the second part was that the new provider would have to be established for a minimum of four years with validation arrangements and that the QAC had to be assured that the provider could meet the required standards for the long term. We are listening and reflecting on what the Government say as much, I am sure, as they listen and reflect on what we say. We have decided to change our position on this and now align ourselves with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who has spoken on this amendment. We are prepared to accept that it is a good balance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that we now have it about right. There is a route through which new institutions can come forward and receive degree-awarding powers: one of partnership and which has a minimum of four years. We would like to see that maintained because it has a value, but there is also the opportunity to be assessed and assured directly, without having to have a waiting period.

I am glad that, in all this debate, we have now lost the idea that there will in any sense be a probationary period; there will be no such thing as probationary degrees. We are talking about getting something up and started, which will have external value and be recognised by everyone in this country and abroad as a new institution that is of the standard required in UK higher education. We can therefore support this, which is why we are happy to sign up to the proposals in government Amendment 116. We acknowledge, although we did not sign up to them, that the new arrangements set out in the government amendments introduced by the Minister will be an effective and efficient way of carrying this forward. We support them but hope to amend the amendments that have been tabled.

The narrow point is about whether the Government’s proposals mean that new, innovative providers can come forward without what the Government allege has been a problem with trying to find validation, and the cost of that. Given that the information from the Minister’s department was that there were of the order of more than 400 new providers, of which just over 100 have degree-awarding powers already, there does not seem to be much of a problem here. We should not be too shaken into worrying about the status to which the higher education system in the UK might have fallen by having this new charge for innovation. I am a bit sceptical about that; it can be overstated. Nevertheless, I accept the general principles proposed here and we are therefore able to accept them. But the measures that are in place would be of value if the specific words in Amendment 116A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, were in place. I hope very much that, when it comes to it, she will invite the House to have an opinion on that.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, I have nothing against new providers coming in. I should declare that I taught for 14 years at the University of Essex, which was a new provider and which I think achieved very high standards. It was of course believed not to have done so until the first research assessment exercise, which revealed that it was doing very well.

However, the deep difference that we have not yet explored in this debate is that we used to assume that new providers, like old providers, would have a system of governance of a sort that we recognise in this country. We have talked quite cosily about the governing bodies of institutions, but it is not clear to me that that is an apt way of speaking about the full range of possible providers that might come forward under this more open scheme. In effect, the burden is being transferred from governing bodies to a regulator. A regulator may say that there are certain standards of governance that it thinks are important or even that it believes that university councils should undergo some sort of fit and proper person test. That would be a reasonable thought, but that is not in the Bill at present, so when we think about new providers, we must open our minds to the full range of possibilities, and we may wish to set some restrictions on the sorts of institutions that would be appropriate. I use the euphemism deliberately.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester is unable to be in his place this evening, but I bring before your Lordships his Amendment 119A. I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive discussions we have had with him and his officials, and for co-sponsoring this amendment.

One of the features of the rich diversity of higher education provision is the power exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury to confer degrees under the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533. It may help your Lordships to briefly recapitulate the background to this power. Lambeth degrees, as they are often colloquially termed, are now issued in one of two distinct ways.

The first of these is following examination or thesis under the direction of the Archbishop’s Examination in Theology, usually referred to as the AET. Since 2007, the AET has been offered as an MPhil research degree with the opportunity to extend to a PhD. This provision is already registered with HEFCE, and students following these programmes have access to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, while the standards which apply are those which accord with the requirements of the QAA.

Archbishop Justin, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, places great emphasis on the rigour of the AET, and he is not alone in his belief that the course makes a valuable contribution to theological research. It enables those who may not otherwise be able to study for an English degree in any other way to do so. In particular, it opens up such opportunities to students across the Anglican Communion and makes a significant contribution to the development of further and higher education when those students return home.

The second route is the awarding of higher degrees—they are not always doctorates—in a range of disciplines to those who have served the Church in a particularly distinguished way and for whom an academic award would be particularly appropriate. Indeed, Members of your Lordships’ House have received such degrees, among them the noble Lord, Lord Sacks.

Although this is perhaps a less familiar part of the higher education landscape than some your Lordships have been considering, it is by no means merely a historical curiosity. These powers have been in active use ever since the passage of the 1533 Act and were recognised following the Education Reform Act 1988, by means of the inclusion of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the list of approved degree-awarding bodies in the relevant statutory instrument. Should your Lordships be eager for the reference, it is the Education (Recognised Bodies) Order 1988, No. 2036. These powers were left unaltered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

The amendment ensures two things. First, it ensures that the Archbishop’s degree-awarding powers are appropriately safeguarded, both for those degrees conferred as a result of the submission of a thesis or the successful sitting of an examination or other form of academic assessment, and for degrees conferred on those who warrant an academic award for their scholarly or intellectual contribution to the work of the Church or to the place of faith in society. Secondly, the amendment properly brings within the new regulatory framework those awards—via the AET—which will now fall under the oversight of the Office for Students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I briefly express our support, as shown by the fact that we have signed up to those amendments on revoking degree-awarding powers, introduced by the Minister. We had a good discussion of this in Committee, and it was an area of concern to many noble Lords. We had thought of tabling an amendment to try to pick up on a couple of areas that seemed unresolved. However, after discussion and reflection with both the Bill team and the Minister we were able to sign up to the group and we are therefore happy with what is now before us.

We are also pleased that the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester has been accepted by the Government. We have all had trouble when we have had to address right reverend Prelates in their place, and the idea that we also have to stumble over the words “holder of degree-awarding powers” when referring to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is another thought that will make it even more difficult to engage with them in future. We are very pleased that the Archbishop has these powers and, since 1533, an unbroken record of awards of degrees that we will recognise in future through this legislative process.

There is only one question left in my mind. The Government have been very good in bringing forward Amendment 196, which records in the Act that no provision of the Bill may be used to revoke an institution’s royal charter—with the rather weasel words—“in its entirety”. It does not mean to say that the Government will not revoke parts of the royal charter. I do not expect a response today, but perhaps the Minister might write to us with some examples of how that power might be used in future. I ask the slightly deeper question: since we are now fully aware of the powers of the Privy Council—which seem to include the ability to go and get from Her Majesty the Queen in Council changes to any royal charter, including that of the BBC, without much publicity ever occurring—why on earth have the Government decided to put this forward in the Bill at all? I would be very interested to receive that answer. With that slight aside, I am happy to support the amendments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, first, I will be happy to write a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which I hope on this occasion will be a short one, to clarify some aspects of our Amendment 196.

I want to make some very brief remarks on Amendment 119A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, which we fully support. We fully recognise the unique position that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is in when he awards degrees to those who have served the Church. We agree that the Archbishop’s ability to award such degrees, which do not require a course of study, supervised research or assessment, should be left untouched by the OfS. This amendment achieves this, while being clear that any taught or research degrees awarded in the usual manner—for example, following a course of study as part of the Archbishop’s Examination in Theology—will remain covered by the Bill.

I am pleased with the progress we have made on these matters. With these amendments added, it leaves the Bill in very good shape by giving the OfS the powers it needs while being crystal clear that these are underpinned by strong safeguards. It strikes the right balance between institutional autonomy and protecting students, and the quality and reputation of our HE sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, they used to say that real tennis was the game of kings. I suspect that the game of Parliament is listening to noble and learned Lords tearing into a piece of badly drafted legislation. We have enjoyed that very much. I will add one point and make a concluding comment. Clause 46 is the first of two. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that Amendment 123 to Clause 56 is consequential as it deals with exactly the same matter as Amendment 117. We do not wish to encourage noble Lords to repeat themselves—although that would be much more fun. Secondly, we were not able to sign up to this amendment because when it was tabled it was immediately snapped up by others. Therefore, we were not able to express our public opinion of it. However, should the noble and learned Lord wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, looking at the names on this amendment, it is certainly a gold star amendment, to use the language of the OfS. When I looked at it, I was relieved to see that the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay was not on it. Therefore, I was somewhat disappointed when he rose to his feet to lend his formidable support to the amendment.

I can see that these amendments stem from concerns that there need to be appropriate safeguards and checks on the OfS’s powers under Clauses 43, 44 and 54. We fully agree and have listened to the concerns expressed in Committee. As a result, we have tabled two sets of amendments. First, there is Amendment 116 after Clause 44 and related amendments, which we have just discussed in an earlier debate. These ensure that the OfS must seek expert advice before granting degree-awarding powers or varying or revoking them on quality grounds. Secondly, there are amendments to Clauses 43, 44 and 54, which we have just debated in the group with Amendment 107. These amendments clearly set out the limited set of circumstances where the powers of revocation can be used, such as in cases of serious quality concerns. These further strengthen already very robust safeguards, including statutory processes guaranteeing providers the opportunity to make representations and a right of appeal. By the way, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent further appeals to higher courts.

Noble Lords also suggested in Committee an annual report on how the OfS exercises its powers of revocation under Clauses 43, 44 and 54. I accept that this is a good idea and would contribute to greater transparency. I can therefore tell noble Lords that in respect of each year where the OfS has made use of its powers to revoke degree-awarding powers or university title, we will ensure that a report be laid before Parliament that includes information on how the powers have been used.

Turning turn specifically to the amendment, the grounds for appeal in Clauses 46 and 56 have been carefully chosen and are largely based on what a judicial review would take into account. Despite the noble and learned Lord’s disparaging remarks about judicial review, it is the way in which public bodies are held accountable. These are sensible and appropriate grounds which balance the need for a regulator to make robust and confident decisions using its unique expertise with the need to hold that regulator to account where it makes decisions that are not within the reasonable scope of its powers. The Bill as drafted achieves that balance.

An appeal can be brought on three grounds, as the noble and learned Lord outlined. The first is that the decision was based on an error of fact. This means that if the OfS based its decision on wrong or incomplete facts, it can be overturned by the tribunal. The second ground is that a decision was wrong in law. We have specified in our amendments, to which I referred a moment ago, exactly when the OfS can revoke degree-awarding powers and/or university title, and how it has to go about it. For example, if the OfS decided to take the step of revocation outside the circumstances we have now specified in the Bill, its decision could be overturned by the First-tier Tribunal. Likewise, Clauses 45 and 55 provide that the OfS must have regard to representations made. If it did not do so, this could amount to being wrong in law and would therefore be grounds for appeal. Lastly, an appeal can be brought on the grounds that the decision was unreasonable. A provider could appeal against the OfS on the basis that its decision was unreasonable, having regard to the facts of its case.

Those grounds for appeal are complemented by strong procedural safeguards, which, again, are clearly set out in the Bill. These ensure that any decision made by the OfS must be legally correct and factually accurate and reflect a reasonable judgment, the OfS having carefully considered the available facts and applied its expertise according to the law. That is a very high standard to which the Bill holds the OfS to account.

By contrast, there are real risks in taking the route mapped by these amendments. They propose a more general and much less clean-cut ground of appeal—namely, that an appeal may be brought when the decision of the OfS is “wrong”, as explained by the noble and learned Lord. That is far less certain for the provider, for the regulator and indeed for the tribunal. It would also expand the range of cases that could go to appeal. What is “right” from one angle might always be seen as “wrong” from another. For example, will a provider that has its degree-awarding powers revoked on entirely justifiable grounds ever see that as anything other than “wrong”? Surely that provider should not have an automatic right of appeal, with all the delay, uncertainty and cost that that involves. The amendment would appear to allow that, as the balanced limitations of factual and legal accuracy and reasonableness would have been dispensed with.

Furthermore, the amendment would require the court to decide whether it agreed with the expert judgment reached by the OfS. Such an exercise would allow—indeed, it would require—a tribunal to put itself in the regulator’s shoes and then substitute its judgment for that of the OfS. I have to ask whether that is really the right place for the tribunal to be—asserting expertise in higher education rather than, in a more focused way, looking at lawfulness, factual accuracy and reasonableness. I respectfully suggest that it is not. Changing the grounds of appeal in this way would risk creating a process whereby the tribunals, rather than the OfS, regulated the HE sector. That is a powerful argument which noble Lords have so far not addressed.

I do not believe that the amendments are the right way to go—although they are well meant, I do not think they will take us in the right direction. Therefore, with respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I was expecting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to speak to Amendment 118 in the group, if he wishes to do so.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I did not understand why this provision is in the Bill. I was rather surprised when I first saw it, and when I raised the point at a meeting, those promoting the Bill seemed to be almost equally surprised. However, I have now found out exactly what it is for. It is intended to deal with situations where someone has gained a degree through various nefarious practices and that is discovered. Once you understand that, it is quite normal and certainly not unexpected that the same provision should apply to other arrangements. However, this is a special one for this particular situation. I am happy with the explanation and I shall not press my amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, given that elucidation, I shall say much the same thing but in different words in relation to Amendment 119.

My name was attached to Amendment 117A and I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. It is an offer to the Government to tidy up an area that needs more attention.

I turn first to a letter we received by email today just before we got into the Chamber. The Minister may have something to say on this point which may resolve the issue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support on Amendment 119. It was spoken to when we tried to link it to an earlier group of amendments in case, as has happened, the Bill was amended to reflect a situation where validation routes are twofold. One route involves working with another institution or provider for at least four years—some courses are longer than four years—and then applying for the powers at that time. The other route is by having a tougher assessment arrangement, which is done through the Quality Assessment Committee of the Office for Students and the designated body appointed in this area. In those circumstances, it does not seem necessary that there would be a requirement at any stage in the future for the OfS also to be a validator.

The amendment would remove the infelicitous possibility that the body which is now called a regulator, the Office for Students—I wish it had another name—would not only ensure that validation arrangements operated throughout the sector but would also be a validator and the regulator of those two processes. That does not seem appropriate. However, in the letter today there is an announcement, which I am foreshadowing, which deals with the fact that there will be a process of consultation on the precise way in which the OfS will provide a validation service. That seems to covers the point very well, so we will not press the amendment.

[Lord Willetts]

I am encouraged by what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I think that there is a kind of logical structure here which the removal of Clause 48 would damage. We have currently a lively set of arrangements for validating degrees carried out by a range of universities. I was involved, for example, in supporting a programme to create a new higher education institution in Herefordshire. When it tried to find a validator, it had a queue of universities that wished to be the validator. We have a lively market at the moment, although there are concerns that it may not always cover every case and is not as open as it should be.

There is a proposal that it should be possible, if necessary, for the Office for Students to commission a validating body if it is concerned that validating is not being done properly. However, in cases where it has not been able to commission arrangements that ensure validation, in the last resort it may itself be the validator. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is right that it is unusual for a regulator also to be the validator, but I hope we will hear from the Minister that the circumstances in which that became necessary are rather remote. Given what is already happening, one would expect either the current arrangements for validating to be satisfactory or for the OfS to be able to commission a body that will undertake validation.

The argument for Clause 48, which it is proposed should be deleted, is that it is the logical long stop in the event that it has not been possible to commission anyone else to carry out the arrangements. On the basis that it is unlikely the power will be necessary, but we can understand why it has to be held in reserve, I think Clause 48 is needed and the amendment to remove it would leave a potential gap in the system. I hope we will hear more on that from the Minister.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 126 and 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Willis. I accept the arguments that the noble Lord set out clearly and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

I also add my support for Amendment 130, as I did in Committee. As we have already discussed, those on non-permanent contracts may find it more difficult to deliver quality teaching with all the uncertainties hanging over them, and it would be useful to have data to see whether that is in fact the case. The reverse situation with lifetime tenure tended to have the effect of too much certainty of employment, which could lead to a lack of incentive to devote time and trouble to quality teaching, but tenure is not really a problem that we have to address these days. The employment status of staff and the staff to student ratio are both significant factors in teaching. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment and I look forward to his reply.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Willis, which were explained very well by the noble Lord. They would contribute to a better understanding of all the issues that have arisen during the course of the Bill and would be a source of good data for the future as we see how the system being brought into play works in practice.

My Amendment 130 stems from Clause 61, which would place a duty on the relevant body or the Office for Students to put in a series of measures in relation to data that are to be published. The requirements are not very detailed—there is broad discretion—but the broader areas relate to student entrants, the number of education providers of different types, the number of persons who promote the interests of students and a good range of other things. Curiously, it does not really go down into the detail of some of the mechanics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, when she spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and these are the issues picked up in my amendment. It happened to be topical because, when the Committee stage took place, there was an investigation into the use of part-time, non-permanent and permanent staff in higher education on zero-hours contracts—I think that was the term used. This amendment at least points in that direction but I think that it has a wider resonance, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this debate for addressing data issues. I entirely share the view of my noble friend that as much data as possible should be made openly available as soon as possible, and I have no difficulty in endorsing the broad principles that he enunciated.

However, I do not think that the issue here is about the powers to obtain data under the Bill. The current drafting already enables the OfS to make data available in connection with the performance of its functions and it also gives the Secretary of State the power to require application-to-acceptance data for qualifying research purposes. I am sure my noble friend will accept that, however we draft the powers of the OfS, data protection rules will necessarily mean that open data are subject to restrictions on sensitive and personal data.

With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, although I sympathise with its intent, the OfS will be a regulator of HE providers, with the power to require such information from them as is required to perform its functions. However, it is not feasible to expand its remit to impose conditions on private companies that it does not regulate and with which it has no regulatory relationship.

Although I do not believe that these amendments are the answer to overcoming barriers to accessing data, I agree that greater collaboration between sector bodies on sharing and making comparable data available to students and researchers is something that we must continue to strive for. We would expect the OfS and the body designated to compile and publish higher education information on behalf of the OfS to play a part in encouraging that collaboration. The requirement to consult on what, when and how data are published will ensure that the interests of the sector, as well as those of students and prospective students, as called for by my noble friend, are taken into account. Moreover, in the spirit of co-regulation we must also recognise that the sector is already taking measures to address the points raised by my noble friend through the recently published HESA open data strategy, along with the recommendations made in the Bell review around the co-ordination of data.

I turn now to Amendment 130, which relates to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in Committee. I understand his concerns about the job security of higher education staff and I can reassure him that the Government value the crucial contribution of HE staff. I remind the noble Lord that we are not seeking to determine on the face of the Bill exactly which data must be collected. Data requirements and needs evolve over time. The relevant data body needs to maintain the ability to adapt to changes and therefore data requirements will be decided through a period of consultation. The OfS will have a duty to consult on data collection and publication in conjunction with the full range of interested parties. In respect of the publication duty, the OfS will also have the discretion to consult persons that it considers appropriate, including any relevant bodies representing the staff interest. It would be inappropriate to specify workforce data when all other data requirements will be agreed through a period of consultation. It also risks pre-judging the consultation process.

However, I can offer the noble Lord some reassurance on workforce data. The current data body, HESA, already collects data on so-called “atypical” academic staff whose working arrangements are not permanent. This is governed by the code of practice for higher education data collections. Discussions were held last year between the trade unions, employers’ representatives and HESA on improving understanding of employment patterns in the HE workforce. This has led to proposed improvements to the HESA staff record. These are currently going through consultation with a view to being implemented in 2017-18. We are confident that this issue will be considered as part of the data consultation and that the OfS will want to build on HESA’s positive action in this area. I would therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

133: Clause 70, page 44, line 19, leave out from “protect” to end of line 26 and insert “the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

135: Clause 71, page 45, line 41, at end insert—
“ In exercising its regulatory functions under this section, the OfS must have regard to the Regulators’ Code.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, I will speak to this group. We understand that their Amendment 135, which we support, has been overtaken by events. It may be subject to an announcement that would remove the requirement for it, which I am sure we would all be grateful for. I have read through the Regulators’ Code and looked in detail at what it does. It can do nothing but good for the sector. It is an effective and useful guide. It will be extremely helpful to all those who will have to deal with the OfS as it moves into its new role. It is to be welcomed that the Government have seen the sense of the amendment we tabled in Committee and have decided to move forward in this way.

Amendment 136 is a slightly different beast. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who always seems to get stuck at the end of debates and has to hang here to make her very valuable contribution. That situation will change when we next discuss amendments that have her name to them. This one concerns an issue that has been growing in impact as we have been discussing and thinking about the issues raised in the Bill.

There is not, as might be implied by the drafting of Amendment 136, any sense in which we would resile the authority of the CMA regarding the work that will be done by the OfS and its associated committees and structures. The CMA has statutory rights to engage with anything consumers do in the public and private realms. Therefore, it will from time to time no doubt take an issue and respond to complaints. All these things are set out in statute in the ERR Act and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, there clearly are operations under the whole umbrella of the CMA that will have a resonance and possibly an ability to be dealt with by the Office for Students. It would be more appropriate for it to do these as part of its regulatory functions.

This is a question we have asked before and have not had a satisfactory answer to, which is why we are bringing it back tonight: what exactly is the boundary between the Office for Students in its regulatory mode and the CMA? At the moment the CMA has taken quite a serious first step into discussions with higher education providers. It has carried out a survey of the way they treat their consumers: students. It has drawn certain conclusions from that and is currently obtaining undertakings from a range of providers, many of which are well-known household names. This is a dog that barks and bites. We have to be very careful where it might go. We would not in any sense wish to constrain it, but it will introduce a completely new sense of engagement between those who respond to offers from higher education institutions to go to them and study, the results they obtain, and their attitudes to and relationships with such institutions.

However, the detailed work of that will necessarily fall to the Office for Students, so there really are questions. Where does the boundary lie? What are the parallel powers that the Government are setting up in this area? Will the OfS have the same powers that the CMA has, as defined in the two Acts that I have already mentioned? Are there new and additional powers that are not being mentioned? If so, could we have a note about these? Where exactly are we on this? I think there is a danger that this ground will be rather trampled over. I have said this was a dog that not only barked but bit, but I think there are other worries that there may be some sort of competitive urge between the two bodies to be more regulatory than the other, and I hope there will be powers available to make sure that that does not happen. We do not want too many dogs, and we certainly do not want them biting. We want to make sure at the end of the day that the true interests here, which are the interests of the students, are not curtailed or in any sense hampered by the fact that regulators are exercising functions in a lot of different ways. I am speaking to this amendment but there is a previous one in the group, and I will respond to mine once the noble Baroness has responded. I beg to move.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak about Amendments 135 and 136. It was a bit of a shock to many people to find that the Competition and Markets Authority had entered this rather competitive field of regulation. The CMA’s job is to promote competition and make markets work. I think much of the debate we have had over the past few weeks is precisely about how universities are not really about competition and markets; they are about collaboration, scholarship and research.

The OfS is replacing HEFCE, which was the lead regulator, but the OfS is not taking over the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. I declare my interest as the first holder of that office, a few years ago. The OfS is intended to be a single, student-focused regulator. I think the Government might be seen to be undermining their own scheme if they allow the CMA to meddle in affairs which really are not suitable for it. There is already far too much compliance and legalism for universities to deal with—human rights, health and safety, data protection, freedom of information, judicial review, Prevent guidance and much more, including the common law. There is a crowded enforcement field as well—the CMA, other higher education bodies, consumer protection legislation, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, Scottish and Northern Irish ombudsmen, government departments, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Quality Assurance Agency. The CMA admits how fragile its own guidance is because everything depends on how the courts would interpret consumer law applied to universities’ functions.

I would argue that the CMA is also an inappropriate regulator because it shows little experience of how universities work. It is insistent on clear information being given about course variation before a student signs up. This is an example of how it is inappropriate. The prospectus for a student goes to print four or five years before the potential student who has read it graduates some years further on. It is impossible, therefore, in a prospectus to lock in lecturers for five years because of sabbaticals, fluctuating demand and finances, and even building works. How can a university predict what its fees will be five years from now, especially with new mechanisms being introduced right now? The CMA has recently opined that it thinks that it is unfair for universities to withhold formal qualifications from a student who is in debt. Does it have any idea how difficult it is to chase a student through debt collection procedures or failure to provide campus accommodation the following year—which it suggests as a sanction—when a student has left with no forwarding address or gone abroad, as frequently happens?

The CMA will also come into conflict and overlap with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The latter has been in existence for about 13 years and has decided thousands of cases, many of which have a consumer flavour. It has given a wide range of advice to universities about the same issues that the CMA has involved itself in. The OIA’s task, however, is to decide what is fair and reasonable. This is not the same as the CMA’s perspective, which is about deciding a dispute on the precise terms of the contract.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator offers alternative dispute resolution, which is far better than resort to litigation. Unlike the CMA, the OIA can be flexible and offer resolution tailored to the needs of the wronged student—not money but a chance, for example, to retake a year or have extra tuition. The OIA should prevail over the CMA because it was based on a statute designed to provide that one specialised service for students; namely, the settlement of complaints according to what is fair.

There is something wrong in theory about letting the CMA drive issues of university information and practices. Its perspective would cement the student as a paying customer expecting to reach an acceptable outcome. But we are dealing in this Bill with a participatory process—education, not training; knowledge, not skills; and teaching, not rote learning—in a situation that involves a relationship of give and take between students and lecturers, parents and universities, and employers and government. We do not want the commercialisation of this relationship, as if it were the purchase of a car. We want value placed on stimulation, career guidance and intellectual growth, not just the path to a paper qualification.

The consumer model that the CMA applies results in a totally one-sided set of contractual details. It seems to think that there are no obligations on students to pull their weight and no enforcement mechanisms against students’ own shortcomings. There is no mention by it, or in the TEF, of students’ efforts and their responsibility to learn. This one-sided market approach is more likely to lead to complaints about poor teaching after an unacceptable result has been handed down. We expect collaboration and not competition.

Higher education is not like a consumer transaction. The education relationship is unique. There is no fixed outcome which can be measured by organisations such as the CMA because the quality of the experience is determined by the aptitude and hard work of the student, as well as the facilities and teaching offered by the university.

Higher education is one of a class of major events in life which do not readily lend themselves to government by contract. Such situations are too emotional and personal, with no clear goal and perhaps an imbalance of power. The issue may be too important for the rest of society to be left to the narrow issue of a contract between the individual parties. Only overall regulation focused on the goals of higher education and the student will do, not intervention from an unrelated and unrepresentative body such as the CMA.

The CMA focuses on choice, price and competition. It assumes that satisfying the consumer-student is all that matters. Its view of contracts is about the provision of education, but it is no help when it comes to what education should achieve. Its interventions will not only overlap and conflict with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator but will lead to more micromanagement, box-ticking, checking and inspection, and not to greater quality or public benefit. It has no place in this new system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to these two amendments for their contributions to this debate. I shall deal with the easy one first.

My noble friend explained in his letter earlier this week that he had listened to concerns around the regulatory powers of the OfS and the assurance that noble Lords, many of whom have spoken in this debate this evening, are seeking around its adherence to the Regulators’ Code. As already stated in the Bill, under Clause 3(1)(f), we share the aspiration that the OfS should comply with recognised standards of good regulatory practice. We remain wholeheartedly committed to the principles of the Regulators’ Code, and because the OfS is the sector regulator, we agree that it should sign up to the code. I am therefore pleased to confirm the announcement made on Monday that the OfS will voluntarily commit to comply with the code, with a view to its regulatory functions being formally brought into scope when the list is next updated via statutory instrument.

I now turn to the more difficult amendment about the respective roles of the CMA and the OfS and what the interface is between the two. In his letter to noble Lords earlier this week, my noble friend recognised the concern over the respective roles and responsibilities of the CMA and the OfS. I will explain why we believe that this a not a substantiated concern. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, used the right expression when she said, “We expect collaboration”. That is exactly what we expect.

The CMA is not a sector regulator but an enforcer of both competition and consumer protection law across the UK economy. The CMA has the specific role and specialist expertise to enforce competition law and consumer protection across the whole of the UK economy. It would be unprecedented, as has been suggested at times, for the competition and consumer enforcement functions of the CMA to be transferred entirely to a sector regulator. Even where sector regulators have enforcement functions, the CMA retains powers as an enforcement authority, with appropriate arrangements for co-ordination of concurrent functions.

In the past the CMA has provided general advice to HE institutions on complying with consumer law. In addition, its consumer enforcement powers have been used in relation to the sector. Specifically, it has received undertakings from providers around, for example, academic sanctions for non-fee debts, such as accommodation debts; information for prospective students on additional non-fee costs; terms and conditions on fee variations; and fair complaints procedure.

HEIs are expected to comply with consumer law, enforced by the CMA. The OfS will be expected to take on board the CMA’s guidance and best practice when it develops the details of the regulatory framework. It is perfectly usual for an organisation that is subject to sector regulation to be required to comply with legal requirements that are enforced by bodies other than the sector regulator. For example, even in regulated sectors the Environment Agency carries out regulatory and enforcement activity in relation to the environmental aspects of an organisation’s activities—for instance, as regards waste and contaminated land—and the Health and Safety Executive enforces health and safety requirements.

Although the CMA and OfS share areas of common interest in relation to competition and consumer matters, their roles are distinct and complementary, not contradictory. This is the joint view not just of Ministers but of the CMA. So we expect the CMA and the OfS to work productively together, just as the CMA works well with other regulators—indeed, as it does with HEFCE at the moment—and we see no reason for this to be different once the OfS is established. There will be a further opportunity to explain respective roles and responsibilities, as necessary, as part of the consultation on the regulatory framework this autumn.

Students—in addition to being students—have consumer rights, and universities and other higher education providers that do not meet their obligations to students may be in breach of consumer protection law. Compliance with that law is important not just to protect the students but to maintain student confidence and the reputation of the HE sector, and to support competition.

The noble Baroness asked whether there was confusion about the regulatory roles of the CMA, the OfS and the OIA. I applaud the work that she did at the OIA. As I think I said a moment ago, subject to the passage of the Bill, the OfS will be the regulator for higher education providers in England. The OIA will continue to operate as the body designated by government to operate the student complaints scheme in higher education, so it is not a regulator and it will continue to deal with individual student complaints. The CMA is not a sector regulator but an enforcer of both competition and consumer protection law across the UK economy, and it has the specific role and specialist expertise to enforce competition law and consumer protection across the whole of the UK economy. So there is no overlap of responsibility between the CMA, the OfS and the OIA, although the OfS will be expected to take on board the CMA’s guidance and best practice when developing the regulatory framework.

As I said, there will be an opportunity, as part of the consultation on the regulatory framework this autumn, to explain, discuss and identify the respective roles and responsibilities of these three bodies as necessary. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that reply. On the relatively simple question—the good news, as he called it—of Amendment 135, I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. We are very grateful for the listening and reflecting that has taken place. The end-result is exactly as we would want it. This is a body that will be carrying out regulatory functions. It would be better if it were fully subscribed to the Regulators’ Code. I understand that there will be a transitional arrangement. If that is the intention, we wish it well and that will be the right solution for that.

However, I am a bit more puzzled about the question of the overlap and links between the CMA and the Office for Students, particularly in relation to the very powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose experience in the OIA leads to real and very important questions about where this is all going to go. As she pointed out, and I do not think was picked up by the Minister in detail—although I will read what he said in Hansard—there are three bodies with very different functions and aims. They have very different cultures, missions and outturns that they will be looking for. I do not quite see how that all fits together.

I understand that there will be a consultation period, but we are starting from a very odd position. With the competitive focus and the competition issues—the possibility that institutions might seek to challenge the work being done by other higher education institutions through the Competition Appeal Tribunal—this is a new world that is going to cause quite a lot of concern, worry and cost. It is certainly a deflection from their main purpose of the higher education institutions engaging in this. That has not been dealt with, and I wonder whether it might be possible for more information to flow our way.

On the detailed precision about where the CMA sits in relation to the Office for Students, I understand that will have to evolve. I am not in any sense being critical of that, and I have already admitted in my opening statement that we understand the role that Parliament has given to the CMA. That cannot be taken away but, surely, there is a case here for a memorandum of understanding at least—some sort of written documentation so that we would at least have a baseline on which to operate. I did not hear that from the Minister. Perhaps he could reflect on that and write to me about it.

It was a good aphorism to say that these are complementary but not contradictory groups working here, but it will be very difficult to see for a few years where this will all settle down. He may be right in what he asserted: it may be that this is in the best interests of students, but it is a bit hard to see that at the moment. While I see no particular case for progressing this amendment, or any others related to it, to improve the Bill, I wonder whether it might be sensible to have a quick meeting about this. Those who are keenly involved in this might just share experiences about where our nervousness comes from to ensure that there is nothing to be picked up, at least by a statement about a way forward to set out the broad understandings under which we will start the system before we get to Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 135 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have been encouraged to do so. First, I remind your Lordships of my interests as declared in the register: I am chairman of a sharia-compliant bank in London and therefore have some knowledge of the problems, but I have also spent my professional lifetime in sharia banking.

I encourage the Government to move ahead as rapidly as possible in providing these loans. Clearly, there are no real problems in doing so from a sharia point of view. All those problems are well understood and are easily addressed by conventional techniques in sharia banking. There are problems, however, in the way that the Bank of England treats those types of loans and in the way that the Treasury looks at them. I suggest that the Government really need to move ahead to resolve those issues as quickly as possible because the benefit to the Muslim community of providing these types of loans outweighs any difficulties I can see that the Government could face.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, with all the voices in accord around the Chamber it seems almost otiose for me to join in and add my support. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, just after he had tabled his amendment; I suggested that it was a rather weak amendment and he ought to sharpen it up because I thought there would be a lot of interest around the House. I have been proved right in that, to the point where a vote would perhaps be sensible. I am sure his intention in speaking today is not to force a Division on the House because the arguments are so all-encompassing and completely unanswerable.

I hope the Minister will be able to make a firm commitment, as previously suggested: first, that he supports the intention of introducing this measure as quickly as possible; and, secondly, that he will not allow the apparent problems with the supply line to hold up the provision of sharia-compliant loans. After all, a touch of competition from those experts in the field who might be able to step in might be a way for the Government to get themselves out of the hole. But it is a very sorry tale. The idea that students who could benefit from these loans cannot because of a conflict between faith and their ability to operate within the system that is currently available seems so utterly shocking that it just needs the Government to say that it will change.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is to be commended for his continued work to emphasise the importance of the Government’s plans to put in place a viable system of alternative student finance. I know that he has had a useful discussion with the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, and my noble friend Lord Younger.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sheikh, who reminded us of the history of this commitment and the objectives of further opening access to higher education to more people who might be unable to access it at the moment. His points on the importance of Islamic finance in this country, particularly on the potential benefits of alternative student finance, are well made. We will consider carefully the correspondence that he has sent on to us. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, for reminding us of the adverse impact of the current regime on women, and to other noble Lords who came in on this debate.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, who is worried that this might be more expensive, I have looked quickly at page 53. Clause 82(7) would insert new subsection (11), which says that,

“the person making the regulations concerned, achieves a similar effect to a loan under this section”,

so the idea is that it should be neither more nor less expensive than the equivalent finance under a conventional student loan.

During debate in Committee, my noble friend sought to assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to delivering alternative student finance. We are the first Government to legislate to make such alternative finance possible, and have legislated at the first opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just reminded us there is no disagreement at all about the policy and the objective. Introducing alternative student finance is one of our priorities for the student finance system. We are working to expedite its delivery. We want this new alternative system to be available to students as soon as practicable. In response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and other noble Lords, I can inform the House that subject to parliamentary processes, we are currently working towards it being open to applications from the first students within this Parliament.

I can see that there is interest in more information on our progress but I am afraid that a quarterly report, as required in the amendment, would be an unusual and unwarranted step. It would be onerous and, I suspect, of limited value to the people we are trying to support. The Bill is not the place to set out administrative processes around policy development; it is about the legislative framework needed to bring in alternative student finance. I am very happy to give an update on our progress here today, in the light of the clear interest shown. I have detected a note of impatience in the speeches we have heard this afternoon. Noble Lords will of course have an opportunity to hold the Government to account through the usual processes, whether by tabling questions or scrutinising the regulations that we intend to bring forward using the powers within the Bill.

Officials in the department are co-operating closely with counterparts in delivery partner organisations. Together, they are working through the requirements for the new alternative student finance system. We have started the process to engage dedicated experts in Islamic finance to work for the Government and support the detailed implementation of alternative student finance. We are also commissioning research that will explore the views of Muslim prospective students, and their non-Muslim peers, to help ensure that alternative student finance will meet their needs. I also assure noble Lords that we are actively considering how best to bring alternative student finance to the attention of prospective students in England in the run-up to its launch. We will want to ensure that we reach prospective students studying in a variety of settings, or indeed not currently studying at all.

It is only by working hard to develop and deliver complex and detailed plans that we will be able to meet our policy objective—a shared policy objective—of supporting participation in education. This careful, sensitive and important work has to be done properly first time. It takes time but I reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that it is one of our top priorities.

As a final point of reassurance, I note that in Amendment 208 the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has sought to ensure that his proposed new clause in Amendment 144 would be commenced on Royal Assent. I assure noble Lords that although the Government’s clauses enabling alternative student finance are to be commenced by regulations and not directly on Royal Assent, this is consistent with the rest of the Bill and should not in any way be considered as an impediment to the Government’s commitment to making alternative student finance available as soon as practical.

In light of the progress that I have set out here, and of the commitment that we have given about the timing of the introduction of this important new initiative, I hope that noble Lords will feel that a reporting clause in this legislation is not required. I therefore ask respectfully whether the noble Lord might withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to try to help to ensure that higher education providers, including new ones, have adequate standards of governance, and in particular standards that support the integrity of the student loans scheme. The intention of the Bill is to permit a wider range of higher education providers to offer university education in England.

The novel term “English higher education provider” has a capricious definition: it is simply an organisation that offers higher education in England. It could be a public body, a charitable body, a company limited by guarantee or a for-profit company. It could also be an organisation with a single proprietor. In our debates so far, we have tended to speak of such providers as having governing bodies. This can sound reassuring and familiar, but there is nothing yet in the Bill that requires an English higher education provider to have a governing body that meets specified standards, let alone UK standards. The term “English higher education provider” is therefore somewhat misleading. We would not, I think, speak of a Chinese textile company that sells cotton t-shirts and socks here as an English cotton clothing provider. However, the English higher education providers that the Bill envisages are to count as English merely if this is a market for which they provide something.

We all hope the new entrants that the Bill when enacted may attract will offer high-quality university courses—ideally, courses that are not sufficiently available in the current spectrum of UK university offerings. For example, we might hope that some new providers would offer the quality of undergraduate education that the best American liberal arts colleges or the best technical universities in Germany or Switzerland offer. However, I think that that is very unlikely. The cost base for these institutions is extremely high. The US liberal arts colleges—I have in my time taught on five well-known undergraduate programmes of that type—require a four-year degree and charge extremely high fees. These institutions are typically part-supported by endowment funding and could not function without it. The cost of STEM provision, such as that offered by technical universities in Germany or Switzerland, is evidently also high, as it is for their counterparts here. Such institutions are not likely to see a ready market for their standard offering here, particularly as there would be very high competition from the best existing UK institutions.

At most, such institutions might offer a restricted, downmarket set of courses only in subjects that are cheap to teach but whose graduates are assumed to be well paid—typically law, business, accountancy or subfields of these. That approach to their franchised overseas provision has been taken in other jurisdictions by some prestigious US institutions. However, I am not going to name names, because I think that that would be unfair.

The major risk is that institutions of quite other sorts would seek to enter the market to provide higher education in England, lured by the prospect that their students might have access to publicly funded tuition loans. At present, somewhat surprisingly, there is nothing to ensure that those who seek to provide higher education will have even adequate, let alone high, standards of governance. We have talked rather cosily about the governing bodies of higher education providers, but that need not be the situation. Noble Lords who followed the story of the collapse of Trump University and the compensation settlement that was reached a few months ago will recognise the sort of risk that I am talking about. Noble Lords who have not yet had the enjoyment of following the gory story might start with Wikipedia. It is not an edifying tale.

The amendment seeks to address this problem by requiring incorporation under UK law for any English higher education provider whose students may gain access to publicly funded tuition loans. This requirement would allow the Office for Students to discover something about the governance, and therefore the finances, of any would-be English higher education provider that hopes to franchise its offerings in the UK. The OfS might even be minded to set a fit-and-proper person standard for members of such governing bodies and university leaders. We do this for banks; should we do less for universities? I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a golden thread in our debate that has been pursued with considerable vigour by the noble Baroness, who has on every occasion, I think, asked difficult questions. In fact, she has been quite free with her favours, asking questions of me and of other noble Lords around the whole Chamber when we have failed to measure up to her high standards of accuracy and precision when mentioning the words “English”, “higher” and “education” in sequence.

Here we are at the crunch point. The noble Baroness has put down a very specific amendment that would have quite strong repercussions for any body attempting to recruit English higher education students, because along with students comes public money. The main argument as I take it—and we look forward to hearing about it from the Minister—is that we are risking public money on bodies when we have no certain knowledge about where and how they are incorporated and what rights and responsibilities they have to the students. She could have mentioned several other areas and it is important to get them on the record. Under the Consumer Rights Act, students are owed a duty of care by the providers of their course. Specific issues must be supplied by the institutions and remedies for students lie in legal protections, which would be exercised in court. If the bodies are not incorporated in the UK, how are they going to manage that? I think the Minister should respond to that in a positive way.

We are also concerned with insolvency issues. It is quite interesting and instructive that most of the Technical and Further Education Bill—which is accompanying this Bill through Parliament—is taken up with measures that apply if a college of further education goes into insolvency or is wound up. There is a special education administration regime with particular powers for the insolvency practitioner appointed to ensure that students rank above all other creditors and that their courses will continue, if possible, or be transferred to a similar institution if not. Creditors, who in insolvency law—as I am sure your Lordships’ House is well aware—are normally given primacy, are relegated to second place. We have no such system for higher education institutions in the UK. There is therefore no provision for what happens when a private company, in particular, decides it no longer wishes to teach its students. Where will the students seek redress? The cases mentioned by the noble Baroness are relevant in this jurisdiction as well as abroad. It will be very interesting to see how students will recover their loans and their opportunities if there is no incorporation which allows them to do so.

We are discussing this when there has been a change of ownership of a very distinguished private provider, BPP. That situation is not nearly so dire as the one I have been discussing but nevertheless reflects a very major arrangement. The ownership has changed. The senior management have decided to not continue and there is still uncertainty about how the overall firm will be run. This is a real situation involving large numbers of students, lots of money and very difficult legal and jurisprudential positions.

The Government are taking this seriously. I had a letter delivered to my hand as I walked into the Chamber. It deals in four pages with some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. I am not in any sense wanting to make slight of the letter because it is useful to have it on the record, but the Government seem to be broadly of the view that the existing arrangements under which the Office for Students—surely we will be shortly be calling it the Office for Higher Education, as we prefer—will have responsibilities under the registration and degree-awarding powers will make sure that nothing untoward happens. That is not sufficient. We need greater certainty about what institutions are responsible for our students, how they are responsible, in what way they are incorporated and what the legal position is.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I do not think that he will be able to measure up to some of the very strong critiques that have been made so far.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has pointed out, we are in the strange position where one has far greater protection if one is studying for a higher education qualification in a further education college than if one is in a university, because there are very clear requirements, now going through this House, for what should happen if that institution becomes insolvent.

This issue has been raised on a number of occasions in this Chamber, where it has been argued that, although the Government have committed to a protection regime for students in higher education, it is not very clear or demanding, as far as we can tell. The amendment goes a step further, because it draws attention, as have my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to a situation in which, over and above issues relating to the institution delivering the education, there is an issue of ownership. It may mean that, in extreme situations, it is unclear where students would seek redress, never mind how.

The Government are aware of the new issues that have come about as a result of creating a sector in which providers can be bought and sold. In 2015, they asked HEFCE to look at this issue and, as a result, there are now some new regulations about the treatment of degree-awarding powers in the event of a change of ownership or legal status. In that situation, HEFCE must discuss the potential implications for degree-awarding powers, including continued eligibility to hold them, and must be assured that the original institution that was awarded the powers is in substance the same institution in spite of the change of ownership. That is what is happening with BPP at the moment and there is no reason to suppose that the institution will not continue to be a distinguished provider of higher education.

I think that everybody in the sector who is providing good-quality education, whether they are private or not for profit, would agree with that. However, what the regulations do not get to the heart of is how, if an institution is owned by a company or body overseas—it may be somebody who has taken the entire institution into private ownership—the OfS will be confident that it can make sure that the institution complies with the conditions of registration. An institution may change hands regularly—I give the example of the University of Law, which in the three years after it moved from being not for profit to being a for-profit company changed hands twice. How in that situation will we operate if we find that students are in effect left without not only the institution in which they enrolled but any clearly identifiable body to which they can have recourse and which the OfS can—bluntly—bring to court and demand that it do what it should do?

This is a major issue. The amendment would make sure that there was a body to which students and the Government could address themselves if a catastrophic event, which I am sure would be extremely rare, occurred. Setting up a subsidiary company in this country is generally not a very complicated or time-consuming affair. It cannot be beyond the power of the Government and it would not distort the underlying objective of the Bill to ensure that any institution offering higher education to students receiving loans subsidised by the taxpayer is clearly identifiable in the case of students being left without an education and creditors being left without obvious recourse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for bringing back this amendment in an amended form. We should also credit the Minister for arranging a meeting with his counterpart in the Home Office, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which was extremely helpful in identifying two things that allowed us to make progress. One was that the original drafting seemed to imply a much larger number and a much larger problem than could have been resolved within the scope of the clause as originally proposed and amended. After a very good discussion, we were able to get that down to a very narrow point. It seemed to be a point of considerable unfairness in relation to the people whom my noble friend mentioned. I also thank the Home Secretary, to whom reference has been made, for taking the trouble to see my noble friend Lord Dubs today to make sure that he understood the context within which the decision, which we hope to hear shortly, has been made.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing forward this amendment and, with others, I commend him for his tireless campaign on behalf of a group of vulnerable people. This is an important issue and our short debate today, coupled with our debate in Committee, have demonstrated wide support and compassion for those who seek our protection. The UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it. The Government take our responsibility in asylum cases very seriously.

Those who come to this country and obtain international protection are able to access student support and home fee status. Uniquely, those who have been granted refugee status and their family members are allowed access to immediate and full support. This includes access to tuition fee loans, living costs support and home fee status at higher education institutions. This is a privilege not extended to others, including UK nationals who have lived overseas for a few years or EEA nationals, all of whom need to have lawfully resided within the EEA for at least three years prior to commencing study.

The requirement for three years’ lawful residence was put before the Supreme Court only two years ago, in the case of Tigere. The Supreme Court upheld as fully justified the Government’s policy of requiring three years’ ordinary residence in the UK prior to starting a course. The Supreme Court also upheld the Government’s case that it was legitimate to target substantial taxpayer subsidy of student loans on those who are likely to remain in this country indefinitely so that the general public benefits of their tertiary education will benefit the country.

Noble Lords have expressed sympathy and compassion for people who have entered the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme who are currently granted humanitarian protection. The Government share that sympathy and have taken a number of actions to support those on the scheme. The Government are not persuaded of the need to treat persons given humanitarian protection more favourably than UK nationals for the purpose of student support. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised some wider issues, and I confirm that we are looking at them in the round.

UK nationals arriving from overseas must wait three years before accessing student support, regardless of their personal circumstances, and so must nationals of British Overseas Territories. That is not a lack of compassion but a fair, objective and non-discriminatory rule to demonstrate the lasting connection to the UK upheld by the Supreme Court in the Tigere case.

Turning to the specific group whose cause the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has championed, I know that the Home Secretary has met him to discuss how we can progress the issue of access to higher education and that she shares my sympathy for the matters presented by the noble Lord. The Government understand the importance of accessing higher education as soon as possible for those on the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and are looking very carefully at this issue. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot say more than that today. I know that he will continue to engage with the Home Office on this issue over the coming weeks to resolve some of the complexities in the determination of refugee status to safeguard the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it.

I was not at the meeting which the noble Lord attended earlier today, but if he came away from that meeting with a spirit of hope and optimism, it is no purpose of mine to do anything to take away from that. In the light of the ongoing discussions that are under way with the Home Office, and against a background of the spirit of hope and optimism mentioned by noble Lords, I hope that the noble Lord might feel that this is not an amendment that should be pressed to a Division at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I declare an interest as a visiting professor at LSE and UCL, and my first job was as a lecturer in economics at the University of Glasgow, where I saw at first hand the joys of teaching a diverse group of students. I take all the points that have been made about education and the economy. However, I want to speak as a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Far too rarely in this House do we pass amendments that have the effect of helping the Chancellor and reducing the deficit. Undoubtedly, this will do that, so could the Minister pass on that message to the Chancellor? It is a very good reason for accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which I support.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Follow that. My Lords, this has been a terrific debate. We have rightly taken our time over it, taking perhaps a little longer than we should have done, but it has been worth it. We have explored the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wished us to and come to a resounding conclusion on all sides of the House—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Green. He stated in parentheses that he was not in a majority on this occasion. My noble friend Lord Blunkett put the case rather well, and I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is never in a majority on this issue. However, I am glad that the arguments have been made so that we can knock them down.

At the heart of this debate are relatively straightforward issues to do with counting, reporting and transparency. The point was made rather well by the noble Lord, Lord Broers—by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rather. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Broers, who also made a very good speech; I am in no sense comparing the two, but it is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that I want to pick up. The Government are in a quandary over this. When introducing his amendment in the previous group, my noble friend Lord Dubs said that he was trusting a single government voice. Perhaps more in hope than experience, he has agreed to go with the Government and trust them on that. This amendment, however, is one on which the Government are speaking with many voices. We are going to get the Government’s view tonight, but I am afraid that it is not going to be the view that many in the Government would like to see. The fact that we got as much support from the Conservative Benches as we did from elsewhere in the House suggests that this is not an argument that the Government can win.

I urge the Government to agree that we have before us a straightforward set of amendments that would solve the problem of students coming here to study being treated as economic migrants when they are not, help with the staffing issues that are going to be so important for our industrial strategy and our future post Brexit, and provide a common sense, no-brainer solution, as so many speakers have said. We have covered the economic, industrial, cultural, educational and local perspectives on why having overseas students here is good for us in every respect. We have been told how much money is involved. However, at the end of the day, as many have said, it is about perception.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, quoted the Prime Minister of India, who said: you want our trade but you do not want our students. It is about the perceptions that have built up. I am sure that when he comes to respond the Minister will say that there is no cap and that every overseas student who is qualified to do so can come. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, the signal being sent out to the world, and which the world believes, is that we do not want students to come here. We have to take a stand and make our case absolutely clear to the world. The fight back can start now. This is a flag that we should all be waving. We must join together, around the House and across the country, to say that this is something that we want to happen. I leave it to the Minister to say that he agrees.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, for the second time I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and to my noble friend Lord Lucas for providing your Lordships with an opportunity to discuss the issue of international students. I also send my best wishes to my noble friend Lord Patten, who cannot be with us today. I say at the outset I am left in no doubt about the passions expressed in this debate by noble Lords around the Chamber. As I have previously indicated—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, indicated—we have indeed said this before. But I will say it again so that the House is in no doubt. The Government very much welcome the contribution that international students and academics make to the United Kingdom’s higher education and research sectors and we have sought to nurture and encourage that.

I will deal first with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. I entirely share its goal of ensuring maximum transparency. I am pleased to say that there is already a wealth of information in the public domain about the contribution of international students. Provisions in the Bill will add to this. As I have previously indicated, the Bill already includes provisions requiring the Office for Students to monitor and report on the financial health of higher education providers. This can be done only if the OfS understands the types of students and the income they bring to the sector. Clause 9(1)(b) requires all registered providers to give the OfS such information as it needs to perform its functions. This will ensure that the OfS has the power to gather the information it considers it requires on international student numbers.

Furthermore, the Higher Education Statistics Agency already publishes detailed information about international student numbers, along with a breakdown of the countries they are travelling from. We envisage that these arrangements will continue. This amendment would also require information about the proportions of visas granted when set against the total number of applications submitted by each institution. The Home Office already publishes a breakdown of tier 4 visa applications, including the number granted and the number refused.

As I explained in Committee, I do not support providing this information broken down by institution. If there is an institution which, for any reason, has seen its visa refusal rate rise, that does not necessarily make it a failing institution. Provided that it passes the Home Office’s basic compliance assessment, and there are no other compliance issues, no action will be taken against it by the Home Office. But I am sure that the institution concerned would want to make any changes to its system that it deemed appropriate out of the public spotlight. I dare say that any institution that finds itself in that position would support the Government’s position on this.

My noble friend and I both support transparency and the publication of as much information as possible. Much of the information that he seeks is already available and published, and the Bill will strengthen those arrangements. There are small elements of his amendment where, for the reasons of practicality or commercial confidentiality that I have given, I would not favour publication of the data in question. However, those cases are very much the exception, and I can assure my noble friend that the information in which he is interested will be collected and published for all to see.

I turn now to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. These topics, as the House will know, were covered at some length in Committee and I do not propose to repeat all that I said then. However, it is important that I put on record again that there is no limit on the number of genuine international students whom educational institutions in the UK can recruit. I make no apology for repeating that. Equally importantly, the Government have no plans to limit any institution’s ability to recruit international students. Likewise, as recently emphasised by the Prime Minister, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be one of the best places in the world for science and innovation.

I previously pointed out that the United Kingdom has a very competitive offer when compared to other major recruiters of international students, whether you look at speed of visa processing, proportion of successful applications, work rights during study or post study opportunities. While, of course, there is no room for complacency, the United Kingdom continues to be the world’s second most popular destination for international students and we have welcomed more than 170,000 international students to the UK for the sixth year running.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke eloquently, backed up by statistics, about the importance of overseas students to the UK. We continue to look for ways to promote the UK as an attractive place to come to study and we have a very generous offer for international academics who want to come to work in UK universities. The Chancellor’s recent Budget acknowledged that the continued strength of UK research and innovation depends on access to world-class skills, ideas and talent. It set out how the UK is investing in our industries of the future and that the Government have committed to invest more than £100 million over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK. This will help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in science and research. It includes £50 million ring-fenced for fellowship programmes to attract global talent and more than £50 million from existing international funds to support fellowships that attract researchers to the UK from emerging research powerhouses such as India, China, Brazil and Mexico.

In the tier 4 visa pilot, four universities are involved in a trial which involves less paperwork surrounding applications and a longer period of post-study leave. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, mentioned a similar issue. This is an excellent example of taking sensible steps to try to ensure that the UK is as welcoming as possible for international students. It covers exactly the ground in the first limb of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I do not believe that a general statutory duty, which would be impossible to measure and bound to give rise to litigation, is the way forward here. The noble Lord, Lord Green, stated that these were not matters appropriate for legislation.

I turn now to the second part of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which seeks to stop students being treated as long-term migrants. Incidentally, I have noticed that the noble Lord has moved from the description of “economic migrant” in his amendment in Committee to “long term migrant” now. However, I fear that, whatever the terminology, the difficulties with what he proposes remain the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke to it in previous stages of the Bill. I will be brief; in any event, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, set out a comprehensive argument as to why this is so important. Who would have thought that it was important in this country to champion freedom of speech? Sadly, obviously that has become necessary. We are living in strange times. We have heard tales of students closing down free speech, and universities have taken remarkably little action over some issues when freedom of speech should have been protected.

It is difficult. There are obviously grey areas between what is lawful and what is not. As the noble Baroness said, we must not in any way encourage hate speech or incitement to violence but university students should be subject to ideas they find uncomfortable and be in a safe place where they can address them without those ideas immediately being shut down. This amendment also includes students unions, so it should help activities and events organised by students to make quite sure that they too encourage freedom of speech. It is a precious and valued part of our national life, and it is currently under threat. This amendment would add powers to ensure that we preserve it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a very important debate. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising again with such powerful arguments the point she has been making consistently throughout Second Reading and Committee about the need to focus on this and get it right in the legislation. This issue is at the heart of what we really think about universities and higher education providers more generally. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, it is almost shocking to think that the understanding we have of what constitutes a university does not read across to what actually happens on the ground. The stories are legion and very unpleasant, and in many cases almost too awful to talk about in these circumstances.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

162: Schedule 9, page 105, line 2, leave out from “least” to end of line 4 and insert “—
(a) one person with relevant experience of Scotland;(b) one person with relevant experience of Wales;(c) one person with relevant experience of Northern Ireland;with the respective agreement of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 162 is taken from Amendment 476, moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. While there is no dissatisfaction with the way the Government responded at that stage, it is more that, particularly in relation to the changes wrought by the decision reached a few days ago for the Scottish Government to try to move forward on a second independence referendum, a certain piquancy has been added to the debate and discussion. It might be time to reflect a little further on some of the issues that were raised on that occasion.

When the noble Lord, Lord Patel, moved his amendment in Committee, he was clear that he did not expect this to be a surrogate for a change in the way in which UKRI is set up. It is not a representative body and I do not think that either he or I in this amendment are trying to make that change. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are significant differences in the customs, practice, legal systems and operational practices of the Scottish university sector and research community to suggest that at least there, and I believe also in Wales and Northern Ireland, it would be sensible for UKRI to have regard to—more than just once in a few returns around the membership cycle— having someone with experience and practical knowledge of how things operate in those parts of the United Kingdom. In Committee we also talked about other parts of England requiring certain attention, but I do not think the difference between what happens in the regions of England in any sense mirrors the differences present in the legal and other structures that operate in Scotland and will over time also accrue in Wales and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments. I think we all share the sentiments that lie behind them.

Perhaps I may first deal with the interesting, rather technical point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, about the scope of the matters in the Science and Technology Act 1965 that are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. He raised it with me earlier in the week and I agreed to write to him on it if I can, as it is of a fairly technical, legal nature, and to put the letter in the Library for others to see if they are interested.

I acknowledge that I and the Government appreciate the sentiment of the amendments and the underlying concerns from those working in the devolved nations. It is essential that we continue to work together to secure for the long term the UK’s global reputation for excellence in research and innovation. This joint working happens on a number of levels, from regular informal discussions to formal partnership arrangements. Where appropriate, it can include the development of an MoU between the bodies, the devolved Administrations and their agencies and institutions.

There are many such arrangements at present, from ESRC’s MoU with the Scottish Government on the What Works programme to the MoU between HEFCE and the devolved funding bodies, which ensures the operation of the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund across the whole UK. There is even an MoU between BBSRC and the Scottish Government for the horticulture and potato initiative. These arrangements will continue and I can commit to new MoUs being put in place where appropriate. I know from my own experience that MoUs can be window dressing, but they can be of great substance—it varies, entirely depending on the intent behind them of both parties. I sometimes think that we are beguiled by an MoU, when it is the informal relationships that lie behind them which are often much more important.

As we have debated at length and agreed on a number of occasions, it is vital that UKRI, a body which will operate UK-wide, is empowered to work for the whole of the UK. Noble Lords do not need to take my word for this. Duties for it are built into the Bill—hardwired, if you like—in multiple clauses.

Let me make it clear that these reforms will not affect current funding access for institutions in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. As part of UKRI, the research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate across the UK, funding projects through open competition on the basis of excellence wherever it is found.

On the UKRI board, the Bill as amended in the other place recognises that the Secretary of State has a duty to consider appointing at least one person with relevant experience of the devolved nations. This change means that the Bill already goes further than the current legislation, which makes no such requirement. Of course, this should not be taken to mean just one person. The search for UKRI board members now under way actively seeks suitable applicants with experience from across all nations of the UK. We want and are actively working to recruit a board that will have this broad experience. However, requiring experience of all four countries at all times could have potentially unintended consequences. If a member of UKRI’s board were to step down from their position, we would not want only to be able to recruit a like-for-like successor with the same background as their predecessor. Equally, we would not want to limit experience of each nation to just one individual on the board if the quality of applications is high. Such flexibility is essential to ensuring that the diversity and quality needed to deliver the best outcomes for research and innovation across the UK is present on the UKRI board at all times.

Amendments 193 and 194 ask that UKRI and the Secretary of State have regard to the promotion of research and innovation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of these amendments. In fact, we already provided for UKRI to undertake this in its functions, described in Clause 89(1)(h), which says that UKRI may,

“promote awareness and understanding of its activities”.

However, the proposed drafting of these amendments limits the scope of this additional duty to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I understand noble Lords’ admirable desire to ensure that the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are suitably protected, but this should not be done at the expense of English institutions. Ministers’ responsibilities are to the whole UK, and the Secretary of State, and UKRI, should be held to account by Parliament on that basis.

I also share noble Lords’ desire that UKRI’s strategy should work for the whole of the UK. The strategy will be the product of consultation and engagement with research and innovation institutions and bodies from across the UK. Let me also assure noble Lords that this consultation will of course incorporate the views of the devolved Governments. However, the development of a full research and innovation strategy for the UK may be an infrequent affair. I have spoken to Sir John Kingman, chairman-designate of UKRI, and he agrees that regular consultation with the devolved Administrations on UKRI’s priorities would be a more appropriate way of ensuring their views are captured and taken account of regularly. This would be consistent with the MoU between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, in which the principle of good communication with each other is key. The primary aim is not to constrain the discretion of any Administration but to allow them to make representations to each other in sufficient time for those to be fully considered. I commit today to putting this intention regularly to consult on strategy with devolved Administration colleagues into guidance from the department to UKRI.

I have been clear today that there are many areas where we expect UKRI to work with the devolved Administrations, and many areas where we have a common goal. I have committed to capturing this in guidance to UKRI. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in this debate. We learned a great deal from the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, whose experience is of course unparalleled in seeing things from the perspective of the devolved Administrations. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has real experience of trying to operate in an institution that is largely based in Scotland but that draws from the strength of UK science and UK contributions to its work. He therefore understands the mechanics of what we are about.

It seems that Goldilocks has been ignored in this process. I agree that “not just one” does not exclude “more than one”, but I think that Goldilocks would have wanted a little more in her porridge than just the promise that over a period of time there would be not one bowl but three bowls and that she could sup from all of them—I think my metaphor is about to run out, but noble Lords get my point. I hear what the Minister said, and he is an honest and good man. I am sure that he is trying to set up an arrangement under which we will achieve what is set out in Amendment 162. I will not press that to a vote on this occasion. We will take his assurances, but I hope he recognises that we are in difficult circumstances here.

Hardwiring may be too hard an approach to this. Underwiring, with support from below, may not be sufficient. I just hope that in some way, in the gap between memoranda of understanding and letters of guidance, we can get to a more settled arrangement over a period of time. I agree that it is difficult and I am not trying to constrain the Minister in any way. However, it is a bit defensive to say that one reason you do not wish to go down this route is so as not to disincentivise or in other ways constrain English institutions. That is exactly the sort of poison that will be used by those north of the border and in Wales and Northern Ireland to complain they are not getting fair treatment. The sensibility is probably right, but the wording must be looked at carefully. I hope that that message will get across.

We seem to be permanently in difficult times in terms of constitutional issues. This is not the time to let any chink through. If we all agree around the House, as I think we do, that this matter cannot be ignored and must be brought forward and foregrounded, then we can make progress together. Our commitment will not be doubted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 162 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to Amendment 166, I want to emphasise again the importance of having individuals from a business background because, all too often with these initiatives, the Government have the best of intentions but there are people involved who do not have experience in business and have not run businesses, and it is when you run businesses that you realise that innovation and creativity are at the heart of it. I would go further and say that they must come from science-related business backgrounds. Any good business has to be innovative. In my industry—food and drink—you have to be innovative. But the key issue here is having people with business backgrounds at the top table.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I confirm that we are signed up to Amendment 166 and support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. It is important to get the balance right. There is probably another Goldilocks pun there but I am sure the Minister will pick it up and we will get a response to that.

We have also signed up to government Amendments 173 and 183, which are at the heart of the debate we had earlier. Again, this plays to the argument made by the Minister that there are ways of improving the Bill. We have been able to explore them in Committee and now on Report, and it is good to see that there are movements here that have support right round the House, which we are pleased to be part of.

We also feel that more constraints may emerge from the business consideration than have perhaps been allowed to emerge so far. As my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya pointed out, given the genesis of all this through the Technology Strategy Board, and now through Innovate UK, it is important that institutions learn from their history and gain from their experience over time. The formation of UKRI and the involvement of Innovate UK in that was not recommended by Sir Paul Nurse, who just felt that the issue should be looked at. But the Government decided to move forward and it is therefore their responsibility to make sure that we get the most out of it.

My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya was also at pains to point out that we are talking about the creation not of a bank here but of a ginger group. It is an opportunity to create incentives and a ginger group that moves forward with the support of industry will be much better than one which tries to do it on its own. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Young, my noble friend Lord Selborne, and the noble Lords, Lord Bhattacharyya, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Stevenson. All our sentiments are the same. To pick up on a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, about the purpose of Innovate UK, if we were to sum it up in three words, which he did, they would be “productivity from research”.

When we discussed the first amendment today, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about the serendipitous fruits that can sometimes spring from blue-sky basic research. The point of Innovate UK is to ensure that more of those fruits take root in the UK, rather than ending up in Silicon Valley or Israel, or in other countries which are frankly more innovative than we are. The whole purpose of UKRI in bringing together Innovate UK with the research councils is to create more fertile soil for some of the great ideas, technologies and research that come out of our universities.

In creating UKRI we are making something new, greater than the sum of its constituent parts. We are not merely bolting together nine separate bodies. To make this work the governance structures need to change, so we are introducing an overarching board in UKRI and a high-profile chair and chief executive. It is appropriate that the governance of the councils changes too to reflect this. We have been listening to debate on this for some time now, particularly the contributions on the role of the council chairs from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the noble Lord, Lord Mair—I know that he cannot be here today for other reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and my noble friend Lord Selborne. However, introducing a non-executive chair for the councils into these new lines of accountability would risk confusing accountabilities within UKRI and undermine its key strategic role. This would apply just as much to Innovate UK as to the other councils.

Although I can of course see the attraction of having a well-known leading industrialist as a non-executive chair of Innovate UK, it would not sit well within the governance structure of UKRI. I think it would fatally undermine the whole concept of UKRI. However, we acknowledge that chairs can play valuable roles outside direct lines of accountability, for example in giving support to the chief executive and acting as a route for high-level communication. We have already discussed the sensible suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Broers, that we give one member of each council the role of a senior independent member. We have given assurances that that will be done and we hope that it is adequate to address his concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, gave a good description of the important role that a senior independent member can play in these circumstances, without undermining the integrity of the governance structure of UKRI.

Amendment 166 also seeks to determine the background of a majority of Innovate UK’s council members. As was discussed in respect of UKRI board members in an earlier group, prescribing the background of members of councils in legislation would encroach on the freedom of UKRI and its councils to manage their own affairs and could be unhelpful in achieving the best possible mix of individuals at any one time. However, we agree with the sentiments expressed. In the case of Innovate UK, government would have a strong expectation, set through guidance, that a substantial proportion of members should have a science-related business background. Indeed, Innovate UK’s current board membership speaks for itself, with most of the council members having science and technology-related business backgrounds. In addition, the board contains much complementary experience of universities, finance, economics, consulting and government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 177A and 178A. Amendment 177A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough returns to the subject of the ability of research councils to enter into funding partnerships. We discussed this extensively in Committee. We had two key questions. The first was, under UKRI, would there be any additional requirements above those already existing for research councils in forming these partnerships? The second question was, are there circumstances in which such partnerships would require explicit prior approval from UKRI?

The Minister addressed the partnership issue in his letter to us all of 8 February. He acknowledged that the councils currently engage in many partnerships, nationally and internationally, to significant effect. He quoted from a letter that Sir John Kingman had written to me in which he had said:

“The individual councils of UKRI will of course have delegated autonomy and authority to agree these arrangements within their areas of expertise”.


This was helpful but did not quite seem to answer our two questions explicitly.

I explored this further in a subsequent meeting with the Minister and his officials. The essence of our discussion was over the meaning in practice of “delegated autonomy and authority”. In particular, I was anxious to have an explicit answer to the two questions. I thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved, especially the councils, to have maximum clarity. What differences, if any, would the councils see under the new regime when it came to forming partnerships? Amendment 177A allows the Government to answer these questions and to put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment 178A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who regrets that he cannot be present today, having urgent family business to attend to. As with Amendment 177A, this amendment looks for clarity and confirmation from the Minister. The context is set out in the letter of 8 February that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, sent to us all. On the penultimate page, the Minister addresses the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, over the employment by UKRI of the “relevant specialist employees” to which Clause 9 refers. Government Amendment 178 deals with that matter.

However, in his letter to us, the Minister also referred to the research councils’ role in appointing some relevant specialist staff in line with the principles of autonomy. As he reminded us:

“A package of flexibilities for research council institutes was approved by Her Majesty’s Treasury at the 2015 Budget”.


There were five flexibilities. Two of them are of concern to my noble friend Lord Willis, who is a member of the NERC, and to the CEO of the NERC. These are the exemptions concerning pay and the rollover of commercial income.

The CEO of the NERC has pointed out that neither of these exemptions is in practice available to research councils. They do not form part of the councils’ agreed delegations and there is no mechanism within BEIS for their approval, so they do not happen. For example, to address the 20% pay gap that now exists between NERC institutes and the HEIs requires a multiyear strategy. NERC as an employer must have confidence that this can be adopted without being placed in annual jeopardy by being subject to annual BEIS approval. There is no real sense in which the councils have the freedom to manage payroll within existing budgets as agreed at the 2015 Budget. Neither does the rollover flexibility work. In practice, an offer is made to HMT to consider a rollover of commercial income in January. NERC did this but had received no reply by the second week in March. If no answer is received, the money will be lost. Accordingly, NERC has now committed the relevant expenditure in this year. That means that in reality the rollover flexibility does not work either.

Our amendment addresses this problem. It seeks to impose an obligation to have regard to the agreed package of flexibilities and it seeks to give the Minister an opportunity to explain if the freedoms granted to the research councils in the 2015 Budget will in fact be available after the introduction of UKRI and the reorganisation of the councils.

I acknowledge that we are raising these rather complex matters at a late stage. I apologise for that. I should entirely understand it if the Minister preferred to write to us in response.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it has been a good debate on a wide range of issues broadly around the work of the research councils. It includes the Government’s important and welcome commitment to uphold the Haldane principle—or Willetts principle—and indeed to enshrine it in the Bill and throughout the instructions that will be given to the various bodies that are to subscribe to it.

We are delighted to be able to sign up to a number of government amendments in this group. We are pleased to see the concession made to the point argued strongly in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about including under specialist employees all technical staff where they are involved in research. That contrasts with the attitude taken in Committee and earlier stages of the Bill, when we attempted to broaden the representational elements relating to the Office for Students—or office for higher education, as it should be called. In particular, we raised the lack of engagement with students, which seems perverse given the Government’s willingness at this stage to include others involved in their discussions.

I shall speak briefly to Amendment 177—the one amendment to which no one has spoken—and seek the Government’s response. We all accept that the strength of our higher education and research institutions will be central to the health of our economy and vitality of our society. As we look towards a post-Brexit world, the role of research in driving innovation, investment and well-being will surely assume greater significance. The capacity of research institutions to act with autonomy and independence will be key to their success.

The Government’s amendments, as I have already said, rightly respond to concerns raised about the need to embed the principle of institutional autonomy more firmly within the Bill. Why, therefore, have the Government not accepted Amendment 177 or brought forward their own version of it?

The Government did respond to arguments about autonomy in relation to the OfS. We welcomed their amendments and signed up to them—they are now in the Bill—such as that on,

“the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers”.

Yet as it stands, UKRI has no such duty, despite the extensive influence and engagement—indirect and direct—that it will have with higher education providers under the new system. We accept that UKRI is not a regulator, but its role is instrumental. It is bound to be engaged in discussions with institutions and bodies that are in a different sector from the institutional autonomy provided by the Secretary of State and the OfS.

That is an asymmetry that I regret. Could the noble Lord, when he comes to respond, at least give us some solace by accepting that, although it may be too late to amend the Bill at this stage, the institutional autonomy issue percolates through to research, is important to the institutions that will be working with the research councils and UKRI post-implementation of the Bill, and is something which the Government should address at some point, whether through memorandums of understanding or by guidance?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, first, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about excellence. I subscribe to the views he expressed on excellence absolutely, 110%. I am pleased as well that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is happy with our Amendment 178. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his comments about the incorporation of the Haldane principle into the Bill. I think he almost called it the Willetts, rather than the Haldane, principle, but in any event, we will amend the Explanatory Notes to the Bill to make clear reference to my noble friend Lord Willetts’s Written Statement, so there is complete clarity about what we mean by the Haldane principle.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, regarding institutional autonomy. I agree that this is also a very important principle and I think we are all glad to see it so clearly articulated in Part 1 of the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that UKRI has the necessary protections already built in through existing provisions in the Bill, much enhanced by the Government’s Haldane principle amendments.

Clauses 97 and 98 already protect institutional autonomy, as they mirror the language used in the definition of institutional autonomy that noble Lords have agreed should be added to this Bill, specifically with respect to courses of study, the appointment of staff and the admission of students. In fact, they already go beyond this and extend this protection to cover universities’ research activities, as supported by Research England. Funding from research councils and Innovate UK is competition-led, and I assure the noble Lord that they do not, nor can they, tell institutions and businesses what they may or may not research or develop, or how they may recruit staff.

This amendment would require UKRI to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers but, unlike the Office for Students, UKRI’s remit is not limited to these institutions. UKRI will have a strategic vision for research and innovation across the whole UK. It will fund and engage with research institutes and facilities outside the university sector as well as with businesses, both domestically and internationally.

This is why the Government have made the provisions I have already described. Combined with our commitment to the dual support system, the Bill already protects the autonomy of institutions in a way that is tailored to UKRI’s mission. This additional amendment is unnecessary and potentially confusing in relation to the scope and responsibilities of UKRI, which are very different from those of the OfS. Again, in sentiment, I think we are fully agreed on this, but I hope in view of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a powerful case regarding the research councils’ ability to strike up partnerships with other funding bodies directly. I have to confess I got a little lost at some point as he was making his speech, and I will take up his offer to write to him when I can read it tomorrow in Hansard, but I will try to be as clear as possible in my response this evening. As part of UKRI, the research councils will be able to form partnerships with other bodies, such as charities, in the same way as they do now.

The noble Lord has rightly identified the need to still abide by prevailing public sector expenditure rules—for instance, those covered in HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money. Although decisions on more routine partnerships such as joint funding research programmes in a particular discipline will still be taken by the councils themselves within delegated limits set by the department, other more complex arrangements—which might involve setting up an SPV or joint venture, for example—would, as now, require explicit prior approval from government. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for raising this important point, and I hope sincerely that my strong assurances are enough to persuade him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 178A would enshrine in legislation a package of spending flexibilities afforded to some research council institutes by Her Majesty’s Treasury in 2015. These flexibilities recognise the important work these institutes undertake and are designed to provide freedom over how much institutes can pay staff, how much they may pay for marketing and how they may carry out procurement, alongside assurances around approval processes for budget exchange activity and exceptional depreciation. I assure noble Lords that these flexibilities are not affected by the creation of UKRI, and there are no plans to alter them.

However, it is absolutely essential that we do not ossify such flexibilities in primary legislation. Not only is it the prerogative of Her Majesty’s Treasury to determine cross-government rules on public expenditure, but it is important that we are able to evolve these flexibilities over time to respond to changing circumstances. I hope noble Lords will acknowledge the irony of solidifying a “package of flexibilities” in primary legislation, rendering the package unalterable, and hence inflexible. These amendments enshrine the Haldane principle in law and further protect the autonomy of UKRI’s councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I have a brief question for either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, or the noble Lord, Lord Smith. One thing that slightly concerns me is that certain institutions, such as the conservatoires, are generally not funded in their research by UKRI at all. Very often these students, who do PhDs at the Royal College of Music, for example, are either self-funded or funded through other charitable grants. Could the noble Lord, in summing up, address why we would need that kind of governance for the research degree? I should just like a bit of clarity on that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am also signed up to this amendment. I come from a slightly different position, but I arrive at the same point. Throughout this section of the Bill, the Minister has been at pains to stress how it has been improved by the preceding contributions and debate of noble Lords who have experience of operational activity in the field we are covering. He is, I think, aware of my feeling—I explained it to him earlier this evening—that, had we had the same measure of agreement earlier in the passage of the Bill, we would have made a lot more progress and the Bill would be a lot better. We had to force our way into a position of improvement in the earlier parts of the Bill, but we have been able to do it by dialogue and discussion in this part, which is to be welcomed.

I say all that because this issue of research degree-awarding powers is really important for the higher education institutions in this country. In this section, we are dealing primarily with the UK-wide impact on research funding, but the reality is that this issue relates to the power to award research degrees. English higher education providers, as we need to call them, have attached great strength to this—so great that it was the motivation behind the insistence that we try to change the way the Bill is configured by ensuring that an amendment, which was resisted very strongly by the Government, was added to the very first clause to set out what we meant by a university. Intrinsically wired into what we mean by a university is the question of who has responsibility for awarding degrees. That was decided in the context of the opening clause with a discussion of what universities meant. Then we agreed with the Government to insert a very strong sentence referring to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. With that goes the ability for universities—higher education providers in England, particularly—to award degrees in their own right within a framework established by statute. This issue goes right through the Bill. It is interesting and quite informative that we have come back to it at this point. It has been a long and interesting journey.

Goldilocks, who featured earlier in our discussions, would have taken the view that there was a need here for some sort of equitable approach. It is very surprising that the very presence of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, sitting directly behind the Minister and looking sternly at him, although he cannot see it—that got him moving quickly—has not had more success in cutting through on this point than his case warrants. He made it clear early in Committee that this was something he felt very strongly about. He got a lot of support around your Lordships’ House and he is still there today. It is an extraordinary situation, unprecedented in my short experience here, and I cannot wait to see the denouement of this process. We wait to hear what the Minister will say. He has tried a letter, he has tried a phone call and now he is going to do it in person—what a wonderful triage we will have before us on this occasion. I am rambling slightly, but I wanted to make the point—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Hush. I wanted to make the point that this is important. It matters to the institutions and cannot be taken away or given just by discretion—it really is about what universities are about. Not to approve the requirement that the Office for Students or office for higher education must work jointly with UKRI is to take away a very valuable part of our community. I support the amendment.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I rather fear that an irresistible force has met an immovable object on this occasion. That is a shame because we have agreed on so much in this part of the Bill and we all agree that the various amendments that have been made have vastly improved the Bill. I would argue that we have done 98% of the work required. Despite the very eloquent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, I feel we are somewhat dancing on the head of a pin on this issue. What is the difference between the two cases being put? On the one hand, my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, say that research degree-awarding powers should be made jointly by the OfS and UKRI, whereas the Bill says they should be made by the OfS with advice from UKRI. There is clearly a distinction between the two and I understand it, but we are not talking about a huge distinction this evening. It is important to bear that context in mind as we wind our way to the end of this debate.

I start by stating that the Government fully recognise the importance of a co-ordinated approach to supporting the pipeline of undergraduate and postgraduate talent and skills development. Let me explain briefly where responsibilities will lie across the two organisations, UKRI and the OfS. The OfS will be responsible for maintaining the quality of higher education in England, including postgraduate provision, and promoting the interests of students in English higher education providers, including students engaged in postgraduate research and study. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

UKRI will support the cost of postgraduate research degree programmes in English universities through Research England’s dedicated PGR funding stream. Support of this type is also a devolved matter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Additionally, the Government made an amendment in the other place that clarified UKRI’s ability not only to support postgraduate provision but to encourage it. At his appearance before the Science and Technology Select Committee last October, Sir John Kingman argued that these reforms would improve oversight of the research talent pipeline.

UKRI will be a major and influential advocate for the importance of maintaining a strong, healthy pipeline of research students. Crucially, it will have a strategic centre that can gather and analyse intelligence on the pipeline from across its councils and can work with the OfS and the devolved funding bodies to develop a more holistic and comprehensive picture of the landscape than is possible under current arrangements.

The Government are backing UKRI to succeed. In the Budget—funnily enough, very little publicity was given to this aspect of it, which is surprising given the importance I know noble Lords attach to it—the Government committed to spend £250 million over the next four years to increase the number of highly skilled researchers and develop the talent needed by British industries for a thriving and innovative economy. We also announced £100 million for global research talent over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK and help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in R&D. That was a very significant announcement. Let me be clear: UKRI will work closely with the OfS and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this vital part of the university system is protected.

I turn now to the amendment in front of us; there are two distinct proposals within this amendment. First, on the matter of research students, it must be said that the OfS is an England-only regulator, while UKRI is a UK-wide funder. It would be entirely inappropriate to give the OfS a decision-making power in relation to a research council’s doctoral funding for a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish university, for example. Secondly, each organisation will make countless decisions that relate to research students. Requiring them to make every one of these decisions jointly would result in a duplication of effort and, in many instances, simply not make sense. For example, the OfS will not be well placed to take decisions on where research funding should be allocated to fund doctoral training for the purpose of enhancing the UK’s research capability where this is outside the university sector—for example, in one of the UK’s world-leading research institutes. Conversely, this amendment would risk giving UKRI unnecessary decision-making responsibilities on regulatory issues which affect all higher education students, but where UKRI will have no particular remit or expertise, such as on ensuring institutions have appropriate student protection plans in place.

As we have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill, the OfS and UKRI can share information and will co-operate at all levels to ensure that the respective decisions they make regarding research students are appropriately informed by the expertise of the other organisation. This is a much more proportionate and effective approach. Clause 108 already enables this and, since both organisations have a duty to have regard to the need to operate in an effective and efficient way through Clauses 3 and 100, the Bill actively encourages such co-operation. In addition, this House has already agreed amendments that require the OfS and UKRI to detail in their annual reports how they have co-operated in the past year. We fully expect evidence of co-operation on matters related to research students to be included in these reports and, through provisions in Clause 108, Ministers can act to require this to happen should the evidence suggest otherwise. However, I put to the House that while co-operation and collaboration is appropriate, asking the OfS and UKRI to make joint decisions in every instance is not.

On research degree-awarding powers, we considered carefully the constructive arguments made in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that this should be a matter where OfS and UKRI should make decisions jointly. Having given this matter much thought, we do not agree that the decision itself should be a joint one between the two bodies, given that UKRI has no direct regulatory function in relation to higher education providers. Nevertheless, while we believe that the OfS as regulator of the sector is best placed to take the final decisions, we fully agree that it is important that the expertise of UKRI should be fully utilised in ensuring that the OfS makes well-informed decisions. Because of this, we put forward an amendment, which this House has already agreed, requiring the OfS to request advice from the designated quality body or committee on degree-awarding powers. This amendment ensures that the advice must be informed by the views of UKRI when it concerns research degree-awarding powers, and this advice cannot be ignored by the OfS. This gives UKRI a clearly enshrined role, securing its influence in decisions on research degree-awarding powers, which is much stronger than anything that has gone before in securing a guaranteed role for such advice to be given for matters concerning research degree-awarding powers. Through our reforms, we see UKRI having a bigger role than any research organisation currently has, or that HEFCE has now.

The new system that we have designed has clear accountabilities, and instituting joint decision-making in this way could give UKRI a role in matters which have nothing to do with an institution’s research capability. Further, the Government will also commit to giving UKRI an important advisory role when the department is preparing guidance on the criteria by which applications for research degree-awarding powers will be assessed. These are meaningful legislative provisions. The Bill does not prevent UKRI having a role in the appeals process when appropriate. We believe that it is a more practical and reasonable alternative to the amendment, taking into account the real-world operations of the two bodies, while crucially ensuring that any decisions are informed by the relevant expertise. The amendment as drafted would make it a legal requirement for the OfS to jointly take decisions about the number of doctoral training places to be supported by the research councils, about the funding of doctoral research training in research council institutes and facilities, and about the support given by UKRI for doctoral training in universities in the devolved Administrations. These things are the primary responsibility of UKRI and are outside the scope of the OfS’s responsibilities, and I believe it would be wrong to put them into legislation today. It is with those things in mind that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Smith, to withdraw his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, this issue was raised in Committee and on Report and concerns the characteristics which the Office for Students can require of universities seeking registration as higher education providers. On Report I narrowed it down in exchanges with the Minister, saying that we would be prepared to consider solely the question of age, and he agreed that he would look at it. I regret that the Government did not come forward with their own amendments, so I have tabled this one. It is a very short amendment, as will be obvious.

As I have indicated, the importance of this clause is that it will ensure transparency. I acknowledge what the Government have done in the course of the Bill. They have added degree outcomes to the information that is required which will complete, as it were, the student life cycle. The Bill specifies that the information should cover gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background; this amendment would add age to that list. The reason I have narrowed it down so much is that concerns were expressed on previous occasions that some of the other characteristics, specifically those covered by the Equality Act 2010, involve to a greater or lesser extent an element of self-identification. I do not think that age could be described in that way, given that it is absolutely objective by reference to one’s date of birth.

The amendment might be small but it makes an important point. Throughout the debates on this Bill and indeed in other spheres, many noble Lords have stressed the importance of trying to do something to revitalise part-time education. The inclusion of a description of age would give us at least one tool to evaluate the progress that is being made in promoting part-time education. It is estimated that most initial entrants into part-time education are aged between 31 and 60, but between 2007-08 and 2014-15 there was a 60% decrease in that group coming in.

As I have indicated, there is a widespread view that we should encourage part-time education. The Open University has taken a particular interest in this amendment because of the important provision it makes for students studying courses on a part-time basis—I declare an interest as an honorary graduate of the university—and this would be a useful and important tool if it was included in the legislation.

Since our debates on Report the Minister and I have exchanged ideas and wordings, and through the toing and froing, he agreed to reflect on the matter. Of course the Government have promised a consultation by the Office for Students with regard not only to age but also to the other characteristics. Can the Minister give an indication of the likely timescale for the Office for Students to carry out this consultation because it will help universities to understand better how they will be supported in the planning and implementation of the requirements?

Quite simply, this small amendment meets the criterion of not being one of self-description. Perhaps I may also quote from the letter sent by the Minister jointly with Jo Johnson on 22 March. He refers to the duty and states:

“While the Duty itself must remain balanced and proportionate, it is clear that greater transparency on characteristics such as age is desirable to support equality of opportunity through widening participation”.


So the Government themselves think that this is desirable. The amendment does not run into some of the difficulties encountered in the earlier amendments. I am not holding my breath that the Minister will respond positively, but I shall listen to him with great care. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in his amendment. We tabled a similar amendment, although one that was slightly broader in context, both in Committee and on Report, so we have a continuing interest in this area. We have chosen not to support this amendment at this time, but I do not think that one should read anything into that—rather, I hope that discussions of which I am aware that are being conducted outside your Lordships’ House will have matured to a point where there may be some news that might bring a conclusion to this matter.

One of the main purposes of the Bill, at least as outlined in the White Paper which preceded it, is that it is intended to improve social mobility. That is an admirable aim and one which we fully support. One of the things about social mobility is that it is supported by a number of legislative arrangements, one of which is the Equality Act 2010 which brings into play a series of protected characteristics that define and encapsulate the issues around the need for social mobility in particular groups. It is important that we should have regard to this in all aspects of our public life, and it is therefore very important that new Bills which come forward should be built on that foundation. It is therefore rather surprising that the information requirements which are part of the amendment and focus on the need for transparency conditions that will be organised by the Office for Students—or as we prefer to call it, the office for higher education—do not include all the protected characteristics. It is only with considerable reluctance that the Government are prepared to concede that age is an important part of this area, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he comes to respond.

There are other values in having a confident sector that is able to publish information around all the protected characteristics. It will give students of all types and varieties the chance to judge whether a particular institution or institutions more generally are appropriate for them, given their protected characteristics, and of course it will be vital in terms of trying to formulate policy. For all these reasons, it is important that the Minister should reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, about his concerns around age as a matter that must be one of the transparency conditions, and of course subject to the consultation it is hoped that some direction will be given to the office for higher education, also known as the Office for Students, that it is something which should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister can also reassure me that it is not impossible that in future years, work can be done to gather information around the protected characteristics, which will be important for all the reasons I have given.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I am not against collecting information because it is always interesting, but I would regret seeking information under all the protected characteristics set out in this Bill, among other reasons because I do not think asking intending students whether they are pregnant is a good idea. Age has the advantage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, that it is quite objective; people know how old they are. However, one characteristic which is not in the list of protected characteristics is socioeconomic background. I think that it is separate from the socioeconomic one and it depends on the utility of the information for the purposes at hand. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has made the case that it is useful because of the decline in participation rates among older students. I do not think we know the significance of that decline. It has happened in an age group of whom many more have had the opportunity to participate in higher education when they were younger, and it is in that context that I would be uncertain whether it is of tremendous informational value. I am not against the amendment but I do not believe that it will yield very much additional information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. As a former vice-chancellor of a university that, early in my tenure, did not always get its returns on student numbers to HEFCE correct, and was therefore subject to some stern discussions with the team at HEFCE and some refunding of income to it, I feel that Schedule 5 sounds potentially rather threatening—and I know that that is how others in the sector feel. While I recognise that such powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances, the addition proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, would help provide reassurance to the sector that the greatest care and attention to detail would be applied if and when such powers needed to be invoked.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it is otiose to add very much to what was a wonderful account of the ramifications that one can get into when one moves to question some of the wording in the schedules to some of our more complex Bills. As a guide, the noble and learned Lord has been a wonderful education for a higher education specialist such as me. To have gone through a higher education Bill and then to have learned something right at the very end is a touch of magic—a bit of fairy dust that will sprinkle down across all of us. All we now need is for the noble Viscount to stand up and measure up to the relatively low but still quite precise hurdle that has been set for him. He is an elegant, small chap; he has light feet; he has had a brilliant career in dealing with difficult questions that we have thrown at him across the Dispatch Box. I am sure that this is well within his capabilities. He would be strongly advised, given the rather glowering face behind him, to do it right this time.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, with that introduction, how can one fail? I thank another noble and learned Lord—this time, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay—for his helpful and astute contributions on this issue both in Committee and on Report. We are very grateful for the expertise that he brings to bear. As my noble and learned friend said, this amendment has had an interesting history and has done the rounds, but, on a serious note, let me offer my apologies if the department’s letters to him on this issue have misunderstood his area of concern.

I shall briefly reiterate why the powers to enter and inspect higher education providers, set out in Schedule 5, are needed. These powers will allow suspected breaches of registration and funding conditions which are considered by a magistrate to be, to quote directly from Schedule 5,

“sufficiently serious to justify entering premises”,

such as financial irregularity, to be tackled swiftly and effectively through the new power of entry. This will safeguard the interests of students and the taxpayer, and protect the reputation of the sector. As the NAO said in its 2014 report on alternative providers, at the moment the department has no rights of access to providers, and this affects the extent to which it can investigate.

We agree that it is vital, of course, that strong safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. As set out in Schedule 5 as drafted, a magistrate would need to be satisfied that four tests were met before granting a warrant: first, that reasonable grounds existed for suspecting a breach of a condition of funding or registration; secondly, that the suspected breach was sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises; thirdly, that entry to the premises was necessary to determine whether the breach was taking place; and fourthly, that permission to enter would be refused, or else requesting entry would frustrate the purpose of entry. These criteria will ensure that the exercise of the power is appropriately limited. Further limitations are built into Schedule 5, including, first, that entry must be at a reasonable hour, and secondly, that the premises may be searched only to the extent that is reasonably required to determine whether there is or has been a breach.

I believe that the thinking of the Government and that of my noble and learned friend is very largely aligned in relation to these safeguards. I fully understand that this amendment does not seek in any way to alter the conditions which must be met for a warrant to be granted, or prevent warrants being granted where they otherwise would have been. Rather, as my noble and learned friend has set out, the amendment makes a small change to the powers so that the search warrant to enter a higher education provider must state that all the conditions for grant of the warrant specified in Schedule 5 have been met. I am grateful for my noble and learned friend’s valuable contribution and have discussed this with him outside the Chamber and reflected on this matter very carefully. As he said, he spoke with my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, on this matter today, and with officials from HM Courts and Tribunals Service. I hope that these conversations were helpful. However, the Government remain of the view that this schedule should stand as drafted, as we believe that a requirement to state that the conditions have been met would not provide an extra legal safeguard.

We agree that it is imperative that the conditions in the schedule are fully met before any warrant is granted. However, we believe that this is already the effect of the Bill as drafted, specifically paragraph 1 of Schedule 5. Furthermore, paragraph 3(1)(f) already provides that the warrant must, as far as possible, identify the funding or registration condition breach which is suspected. We understand that, in the past, magistrates may have taken an insufficiently robust approach towards scrutinising warrant applications but, as I have impressed upon my noble and learned friend, the position is markedly different now: the specifics of applications are carefully scrutinised and it is not uncommon for warrants to be refused. I should acknowledge to my noble and learned friend that there may have been a misunderstanding as to the requirement for a magistrate to certify that the statutory requirements for the issue of a search warrant have been met. I want to reassure him that a magistrate will be required to set out the reasons for their decisions in writing, and to add their signature to their reasons. I accept that this may be described as a certificate.

I want to go into a little more detail, bearing in mind the comments of my noble and learned friend. He asked whether an application under Schedule 5 is within the ambit of the criminal procedure rules. The criminal procedures apply to a magistrates’ court,

“when dealing with a criminal cause or matter”.

Although an application for a warrant under Schedule 5 can be granted only where the breach under investigation is sufficiently serious, there is no requirement that the investigation must relate to possible breaches of the criminal law. However, in the absence of any specific guidance to the contrary, it is the practice of magistrates’ courts to deal with applications for a warrant to enter premises in accordance with the CPR and the criminal practice directions and using the prescribed form of application and warrant. Magistrates’ courts do not seek to make fine distinctions as to whether an application is civil or criminal. It is the nature of the application that is important.

As I said earlier, I can confirm that a magistrate will sign a separate form which certifies that the statutory criteria are met. In addition, of course, the magistrate will sign the warrant. With that reassurance, with the extra detail that I have set out and the reasons we believe this amendment is not necessary, I respectfully ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before the Bill does, I hope, indeed pass, I want to say a few words. At this milestone in the Bill’s passage, I, along with my colleague, the Minister in the other place, would like to take a moment—and I hope that noble Lords will indulge me as I use this term one last time—to reflect, and perhaps I should say reflect carefully, on how far it has come since being introduced to this House last November.

The Bill is the most significant piece of legislation that the higher education sector has seen in 25 years. As is fitting for such an important piece of legislation, we have heard powerful speeches from distinguished noble Lords, many of whom have held respected posts in our world-class higher education and research institutions, on key aspects of the Bill. For example, the importance of protecting institutional autonomy has been an area on which we have reached agreement. The amendments on this issue that were brought forward by noble Lords on Report, which the Government supported, were welcomed across these Benches. The Government listened carefully and responded on this issue, as we did on many others. I believe that the Bill is better as a result of this reflection. I look forward to continued discussions on the changes that the Lords is sending to the Commons, but I am truly grateful for the extensive debate, discussion and consideration of all aspects of this important piece of legislation from all sides of the House.

I express particular gratitude for the constructive engagement of numerous noble Lords. Before I forget, I want to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for his very kind words about my father. It was moving and I am very grateful. I start by thanking noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Watson and Lord Mendelsohn, who have led the Bill from the Opposition Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Addington, played a key role for the Liberal Democrats. A wealth of experience has been brought to bear from the Cross Benches: to name just a few, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Lisvane and Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown, Lady Wolf in particular, Lady O’Neill, who is in her place today, and Lady Deech. I also thank the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Durham, Portsmouth and Chester. Of course, I thank my noble friends behind me: my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who I have mentioned already, and my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Selborne. Above all, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Willetts, who may or may not be in his place—I do not have eyes in the back of my head, I am afraid—whose higher education White Paper in 2011 paved the way for the reforms outlined in the Bill.

Finally, I thank my colleagues—my noble friends Lady Goldie, Lord Prior and Lord Young—for their admirable support throughout the passage of the Bill so far; I stress “so far” because there is a little way to go. I also thank the officials in the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, along with officials in the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice who have supported the Bill. I particularly thank the officials in the higher education and research teams and the Bill team. Having mentioned all those departments, I think the Bill has been a great example of how departments can work together effectively. Once again, this House has demonstrated the value of the scrutiny it adds to the legislative process. While we are by no means at the end-point of the Bill, as I have said, I thank all those involved in reaching this significant milestone.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I gather from the Public Bill Office that the Bill may have broken all records for the number of amendments tabled during its passage. That is an indication of the interest it generated across the House, which allowed the House to play a full and important role, as just mentioned by the Minister, as we scrutinised every clause and, indeed, virtually every line.

The Minister was kind to say that he felt that the Bill had been improved in this process. Ministers do not always feel that way about Bills that have been torn to pieces and not always put back together in the form that they originally liked. He is right that there were things we could do with the Bill to make it, within the context of its overall shape and form, slightly better and more accommodating of the needs of the sector it was intending to regulate. As the Minister says, there is further to go and perhaps it will change again, but we have certainly made a lot of progress. My noble friend Lord Watson said earlier on another Bill that the work we had done here is what we do best. It is something your Lordships’ House should continue to do.

I add my thanks to those expressed by the Minister, starting with him and his colleagues—the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Prior, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who all contributed to various areas within the Bill—for their unfailing courtesy and willingness to meet and, of course, to write. We have the epistolary Minister in front of us, who writes letters almost as easily as he breathes. We benefited a lot from those because they were very detailed and gave us a lot of information. We also appreciate, as has been mentioned, the substantial involvement of the Minister for Universities and Science in the other place, who, unusually, is not here today but has been seen around as we have discussed the Bill.

I also thank the Bill team. They were very good at organising meetings and often anticipated what we needed. But they also produced some very helpful factsheets, which have not been mentioned but I found very useful. These were necessary, because for those not involved in higher education it was a bit difficult to get down into the detail of the Bill. The factsheets were very useful in exemplifying what was meant by the various regulatory frameworks and what the architecture would do in practice, and we found them very helpful.

My Front-Bench team was superb. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Mendelsohn, who covered large areas of the Bill and obtained many of the concessions now in it. Our legislative assistant, Molly Critchley—we have only one—was extraordinary and superb and kept us going with grids and other materials so necessary for an effective Opposition, as well as dealing with the Public Bill Office and all those amendments. We are very grateful for its work as well in that respect.

One of the greatest pleasures of the Bill has been the experience of working closely with the other groups in the House. We quickly discovered that our views on the Bill were shared by the Liberal Democrats and a substantial number of Cross-Benchers, and indeed some Members on the Government Benches. We found that by meeting regularly and sharing intelligence about what Ministers were saying in bilateral meetings, we could make better progress than perhaps would otherwise have been the case. As I approach the end of my current spell of active Front-Bench responsibilities in your Lordships’ House, the close working relationship we built up over the Bill is one of the memories I will cherish the most.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I add the thanks of the Liberal Democrat Benches to the Ministers—the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, the noble Lords, Lord Prior of Brampton and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—who have given such detailed contributions throughout some very tough debates on the Bill. I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to the Bill team for their engagement, briefings and meetings—and, indeed, their patience—in the course of the Bill.

We are most grateful that the Government have accepted and introduced so many amendments to the Bill, and we live in hope that the amendments agreed by this House will be confirmed by the Commons when the Bill returns to them. These include amendments on the issue of international students, on which the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has a compelling article in today’s Guardian; to the teaching excellence framework; on safeguards for the quality of new providers; and on encouraging students to vote. We look forward to hearing the progress of my noble friend Lord Addington’s proposals for guidance for disabled students, and we hope that the Bill more generally will offer more opportunity to adult and part-time students.

Across the House we have all understood the need for teaching in universities to be accorded the same regard as research, but have sought ways which would encourage, rather than brand, institutions. We have seen it as imperative to maintain the worldwide respect of the UK’s higher education, while addressing any areas of shortcoming. I hope that the amended Bill will ensure that both teaching and research continue to flourish and offer learners—young, adult and, indeed, old—opportunities to develop and progress. We wish the ill-named Office for Students and the better-named UKRI every success, in the interests of the country, international collaboration and the individuals who work and achieve within our higher education sector.

I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for his tireless support and invaluable contributions on this and the Technical and Further Education Bill, and Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, who provided us with immensely useful briefings. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we have certainly benefited from close co-operation with the Labour Benches and the Cross Benches, as well as those on the Government Benches who shared some of our concerns. Collaboratively, we have left the Bill much better than how it reached us. Once again, I express the thanks of these Benches for the way in which scrutiny has been conducted, and the hope that the final Bill may reflect the wide- ranging expertise and contributions of your Lordships’ House.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, first, I should declare an interest as a full-time Academic Council member of King’s College, London. I had not expected to speak in this part of the debate and I am afraid that I will be speaking again later. But, since I am on my feet, I would like to say that I agree with all noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation of how the Government have listened to opinions and to the House generally. I, too, feel that we have come a long way. In this context, I will bring back a couple of points that were made in the earlier debates by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and by me in the context of amendments that we had tabled. Since the noble Duke is unable to be here today, I will make them briefly on behalf of us both.

Along with almost all noble Lords here, we strongly welcome the delay in implementing the link with fees—here I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kerslake. I am delighted to hear that we are moving quickly towards a position where we will have subject-level rather than institution-level assessments. However, one reason we became so concerned about the TEF is that putting a label on an institution is potentially very damaging to it.

One thing that has been rather an eye-opener for me is the extent to which—perhaps inevitably and as someone who teaches public management I should not be surprised—the “sector” is, in the view of the Government, the organised universities and Universities UK, and how few good mechanisms there are for the Bill team and the department to get the voices of students, as opposed to occasionally that of the National Union of Students. Students have been desperately concerned about this, because they are in a world where they pay fees and where the reputation of their institutions is so important. They have been worried about and deeply opposed to anything that puts a single label on them. This single national ranking caused many of us concern.

I will say a couple of things that I hope the incoming Secretary of State will bear in mind. First, as others have alluded to, we have a pilot going on and a system of grades that is out there. I fully understand that that is under way and there are enormous lessons to be learned from it. However, I hope very much that, after the election, whoever the Government may be will think hard about how they use that information, how they publish it, and whether they are in any sense obliged to come forward with the type of single-rank national league table that has caused so much anxiety to students. That is of great concern and it is hard to see how it serves the purpose, also expressed in the current Conservative manifesto, of preserving the reputation of our great university sector.

The other thing, on which I do not have any particular inspiration but about which I would love the incoming Government to think, is how to widen out their contacts with not just the organised sector and Universities UK but the academics and students who are really what the sector is about. We have great universities not because we have activist managerial vice-chancellors but because they are autonomous in large measure internally as well as vis-à-vis the state. That has been of real concern to me. Since we are going to have an Office for Students, it would be very good if, post the election, we could make it genuinely an office for students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very big Bill. I share the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that perhaps this subject is one we will not see again for some time to come and so ought to enjoy what we are seeing now. The train passes slowly, but it is a very important one and we should pay regard to it.

We should also bear in mind that the Bill attracted more than 700 amendments and resulted in, at our last count this morning, 31 major concessions made by the Government to the voices raised, in the other place and particularly in here, in relation to some of the issues we heard about today. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was right to reflect on the fact that what we have in front of us today, although really important, is the end of the process, not the whole of it. We should not forget that within the list of concessions—“concessions” gives the wrong sense; I mean the things that moved in the Bill—there are important aspects. There is not just freedom of speech, which she mentioned and which is of course tremendously important, but also measures that will improve collaboration within the sector, that will help reverse the decline in part-time students, that will assist mature students who wish to come back, and that pave the way for more work to be done on credit transfer and flexible courses. These are all really important changes to the infrastructure of our higher education system and will make it better. They have not been picked up today because they were dealt with earlier in the process, but they should not be forgotten as they are important.

We have also heard nothing today about UKRI and the developments made in that whole area, which are to change radically the consensus on operating within science and research more generally that has gone on for nearly 30 years in one form or another. It is important that we also reflect that those changes went through after debate and discussion—and some minor adjustments but not many—primarily because there was an effort to make sure that the words used to describe the change were understood properly. A lot of time was spent in going round talking to people and making sure they were happy with that. That was a good thing. Indeed, this whole process, as has been touched on already by a number of noble Lords, is an example of what this House is good at but should be more widely developed within our political debates and discussions: that there is room for civilised debate and discussion about every issue. It does not have to be party political, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said. It can be small-p political. It can be aimed at trying to arrive at a better overall solution, and I am sure that what we are achieving today has ticked the box in all these areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in this Motion regarding the appeals system is greatly improved, as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has said. I am delighted that this has happened because it is of vital importance in relation to the very serious matters that the Office for Students has the power to deal with. I thank the Ministers who have been involved. I include in this particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, and the Minister in the Commons for the very kind way in which various reactions of mine to this extremely important Bill have been handled.

I want to mention a particular matter that does not arise especially under this Motion but, from my point of view, is rather important. When the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, raised the issue of the new power to search the headquarters of higher education providers, she indicated that it was something that the higher education providers anticipated with a degree of apprehension. In response to that, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie read out from Schedule 5 the statutory requirements before such a warrant could be granted. I have listened to a lot of the Bill without particularly talking myself, but on that occasion it occurred to me that one of the assurances the academic community was entitled to get was that those restrictions, which are quite powerful and important, would definitely be the subject of consideration by the magistrate. I suggested that the magistrate should sign a document to that effect. I got a letter almost immediately, which is still on the website, to say that such a thing was unheard of.

It is 20 years since I handed over with confidence my responsibilities for this part of what is now the Ministry of Justice to my successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, so it is a very long time since I dealt with this particular matter directly. Still, when I got that response, I thought, “Well, in that case the thing to do is to alter the words of the warrant to make it clear that the warrant’s signature carries that with it”. That was objected to for all sorts of reasons, as your Lordships may remember, and some of them were addressed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on Report. I felt rather strongly about it, as he recognised, and he kindly said the Government would consider it further before Report, giving me an opportunity, which otherwise I would not have had, to raise the matter on Report.

I was still very insistent on this, because I could not see any objection to it. I am particularly obliged to the Minister in the Commons, Mr Johnson, for arranging at the last minute for me to have a chance to deal directly with the Ministry of Justice, from which the objections to my amendments were coming. That afternoon, I was able to meet the official in that part of the Ministry of Justice for which, as I said, long ago I had responsibility. He eventually told me that in fact, the procedure for dealing with warrants had now been altered by order of the Lord Chief Justice, particularly in criminal cases so that, at the end of the application for the warrant—strangely enough—there is a place for the magistrate to indicate whether he or she agrees that the warrant should be granted and, if so, what the reasons are for that decision. He said that he thought that this was probably general practice in relation to warrants in the magistrates’ court—because this is not a criminal warrant under the Bill. My noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie said that that was the position when the Motion was moved on Third Reading.

I therefore express my gratitude to the Minister and the Bill team from the Department for Education for their kind treatment of me in connection with this and other matters. It is important that where a Ministry other than that directly responsible for a Bill gives advice to block an amendment from someone who, after all, was thought of as a government supporter, it should be blocked in a way that depends on Ministers’ expertise. With respect to Mr Johnson’s great variety of eminence, he would not be particularly interested in the magistrates’ courts procedure for warrants, so it is really nothing to do with him. Similarly, for my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Younger of Leckie, it is a damaging way of damaging your colleagues without much apparent responsibility. I therefore qualify my thanks for the work that has been done behind the scenes here, modified by that matter, for which the Ministers responsible for the Bill have the right for me to make it clear that it was nothing to do with them; it was from a source for which they have only the responsibility of being in the one Government.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene on this point because the case for accepting the amendments in lieu has been made very strongly by both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lady Royall, but that little vignette from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put me in mind of two things that I thought it might be useful to share with the House. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has been very active on the Bill on a particular narrow issue. As a result, I have got to know him a bit better. He kindly shared with me a speech that he gave recently at a meeting of a rather arcane group of people who seem to be interested in administrative law—the noble and learned Lord probably goes to their meetings every week, but it is the first time I had ever heard of it. They obviously debate serious and important issues. His address was about the quality of legislation going through your Lordships’ House. I recommend it to all noble Lords who been involved in this process, because I observe a little of what the noble and learned Lord described. When the annals of this Parliament are written up, I hope that there will be space for this little vignette of persistence over every other aspect of life, which has resulted in a terrific result. He did not quite give the nuance that I thought that he was going to end up with—and I wanted to share that with the House. There were not many of us there late at night at Third Reading when this matter was finally resolved, but it is worth bearing in mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, makes the point that, very often in considering legislation, a mentality sets in in the Bill team that is called the “tyranny of the Bill”—an article of faith that the Bill must be right, because the people who have put it together have spent most of their professional lives working on this piece of legislation. In the case of higher education, they have probably waited a generation to get a higher education Bill together. They are not going to give up a comma, let alone a word or a phrase, without considerable resistance. He praised avidly legislators in both Houses getting round that. I mention that point only because, as we have found a lot of times, the results that we are seeing today were not always there; it did not always feel as if we were working in a spirit of co-operation, trying to get the best legislation. Perhaps I should not have said it, but I meant it at the time. It certainly did not feel like that on day 1 in Committee, when there was every opportunity to compromise on a particular issue and the Minister, when offered the chance to take away an issue and look at it again, spent about three-quarters of an hour, it seemed to me, finding every conceivable reason for saying no. I do not think that that was to the benefit of the Bill in the long run—but we have got over that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we agree on these Benches that as a result of the work that has been done we have a much better regulatory framework. Rigorous tests for degree-awarding powers are important. I was very much taken with the Minister’s comment that there should be no lowering of quality in protecting the value of university degrees. There are private providers, and the majority of private colleges do a fantastic job, but let us not kid ourselves: there are still some private colleges—and I would use the term “bogus colleges”—that with these new powers and regulations will not carry on letting down the quality of our university degrees and will not let down university students. It cannot be right, for example, that a student is enrolled to do a degree course that is validated by one of our universities but for which the only requirement is one GCSE. That cannot be right in our higher education system. These new powers will, as a result of what the Minister said, ensure that we can be proud of all our private providers.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said already, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who has been a stalwart in fighting this corner. We have supported her all the way on it and I am very glad that we have reached the point where I think we are all happy with where we have got to.

The main focus of the amendments that were laid in Committee and on Report, and those that have been now been presented in lieu by the Government, are about the ongoing arrangements in universities and higher-education providers in order to provide degree-level qualifications. The particularly narrow issue of what happens when an existing provider is taken over, whether by merger, purchase or otherwise, still needs a bit of care and concern, because there is fear within the sector that this might well become a feature, perhaps an unwelcome feature, of what we are doing. We are not against new institutions; we have always said that we will support those, but we want them to be proper institutions that are properly validated, with good procedures and processes in place. We would welcome that. However, where there may be a commercial imperative rather than an academic imperative to acquire a body, could the Minister comment on what he anticipates the arrangement will be should that merger or takeover be in play?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said about the Prime Minister’s remarks on calling the election, I am relying only on my memory but I do not think that she said “the unelected House of Lords”. She referred to unelected Lords who had made it clear that everything they could do to stop Brexit would be done—it was something like that. I do not think that she was referring to the House of Lords as a whole, because apart from anything else it would not fit the description.

I also support what my noble friend Lord Willetts said. He knows much more about the atmosphere in Whitehall now than I do, and he said he hoped that the research promoted in this might well have a good effect in that direction.

Finally, I agree with what has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I hope that he will enjoy the freedom of not being on the Front Bench. I want to thank all his colleagues on the Front Bench and those on the Front Bench of the liberal party and on the Cross Benches for their help with some of my efforts. I have enjoyed their co-operation and for that I am very grateful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the Prime Minister referred to us all as saboteurs more than anything else, which might be a compliment in some ways. We might reflect on that as we go forward.

We must accept that we have made no progress at all on this section of the Bill. It would probably be wrong of me to give too much detail about what happens in a wash-up session. Very few people are privileged to attend them, and I was there only for a small part of it. The rest of the time I was left hanging on a mobile phone in a remote area in which it did not work very well, and I got more and more frustrated about my inability to have any influence in some of the debates. However, one would have hoped that a majority of 94, and the arguments that we have heard rehearsed again today, would have led at least to a discussion about the way forward on this complex and rather annoying area that we seem unable to bring into focus.

In fact, I understand that it was made clear at the very start that the Minister concerned was unable to discuss any concessions in this area: it was ruled off the table from the beginning. In that sense, it plays a little into the conversation that we had earlier: that there is something dysfunctional about Whitehall on cross-cutting issues. We all know the wicket issues that are difficult and that nobody wants to play on. No Minister will take full responsibility for them and unless they get prime ministerial push—and a lot more besides, because Prime Ministers are not always as powerful as public misconceptions would have it—they will not make the progress necessary to achieve something that is genuinely about the whole of government. A hole has been created in this area and we have, I am afraid, fallen into it. Added to that is what appears to be an uncanny ability of the current Prime Minister to exercise control in a fairly remote part of the Government.

I have two other things to say before we hear from the Minister as he winds this Bill up. The first concerns a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said and what was said around the House. We need to use the fact that we have been rebuffed again on this issue to try to get the case right. That would be a good thing to do. Although the statistics are important, I will focus not just on them, because it might be a little ambitious to think that we will get a counting-in and counting-out method just because there is a problem in this area. The real issue is: who actually controls the entry of students to our universities? The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that at the end of the Bill we would probably have the best-regulated sector in the UK and possibly in the world. But should we not be trusting our higher education institutions to get on with the job and to recruit the best people they think can benefit from an education here?

The truth is that this is all second-guessed by the Home Office, which has its own teams of people who interview the students nominated by the institutions. They set the quota levels, which are said to be unlimited but are in practice set and increased only on application, and they change the quotas available to every institution if they feel that an institution is making mistakes in the people it recruits. This is not just about the point of entry. What happens to these students after they have left the responsibility of the institutions? When they go out into the wider world if they are able to get a job, or even if they disappear from the statistics, somehow the original institution that brought them in is responsible for them. That seems a double penalty, both for what they are doing and for future recruitment issues. All this has to be picked up and looked at. It is not a good system.

A pilot scheme is ongoing that affects masters courses, not undergraduate courses—deliberately chosen so that the results will be available earlier. Therefore, there is some hope that we might use that system to drive through a different approach to this, so that trusted institutions that are well regulated under a new system that has the support of both Houses can make the decisions necessary to recruit the right students. Those students will benefit from our system and can then fulfil their soft power responsibilities, duties and activities before going back, creating economic activity before they do so and being good citizens here and in the world. Currently, we have failed completely. I really regret that. I have bitterness and regret as much as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I share his pain, but we must move on from here. The issue must not go away; it is too important for the economic future of our country, for the institutions concerned which need these students if they are to be successful and make progress, and for the individuals who are getting the benefit of the education here. I hope we will make progress urgently on the disaster that we now face.