Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to all noble Lords who made this such an informed and interesting debate over the past seven hours—yes, it is seven hours. I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Orpington for his indefatigability. He seems to have been here throughout the whole process and that is much to his credit.

I also welcome and very much enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. I am sure we can remember when we entered your Lordships’ House that there was a feeling of some trepidation; perhaps we were daunted by the prospect. However, when, as we heard, you have dropped from a helicopter on to a nuclear submarine as the noble Baroness has, I am sure that coming into your Lordships’ House was an absolute breeze. We may not often agree, but I look forward to her contributions in future.

As I had long understood to be widely acknowledged and accepted, our university sector is hugely successful, but it would appear that that is not widely accepted enough in government circles. A higher education Bill was certainly due, but it should have concentrated—as the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, said—on celebrating that success and building on it, not imitating my five year-old son with his latest Lego set. He opens it eagerly, builds it according to the instructions and admires it. The next day, he moves on to what really challenges him: he deconstructs it, then rebuilds it to his own design specifications and the result bears no resemblance to the picture on the box. That analogy with what the Government are trying to do to the university sector in the Bill is, I think, apt. They are attempting to solve problems that do not really exist. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked, what is the Bill designed to fix? We have not been told.

The 2016-17 world university rankings again demonstrate the continued strength of the sector, but the latest set of rankings highlight a marked increase in the number of our Entrepreneurial University of the Year institutions in the overall list, which includes many newer universities. As is often the case, the wider value—particularly the social value—of what universities do is overlooked by league table compilers. That includes providing opportunities for older learners and part-time learners who continue to study while at work—issues on which the Bill is silent. My noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, spoke eloquently on these issues, which we shall address in Committee.

My noble friend Lady Blackstone emphasised the diversity of the sector as a source of strength. That is important to avoid a narrative that only the “top” universities matter to the Government, which would be very damaging for both the sector and its students. For example, last week London South Bank University won the Entrepreneurial University of the Year Award. Other modern universities such as Bath Spa and Southampton Solent regularly sit atop the league tables on creative courses, while Abertay University in Dundee—about which I should disclose an interest as that institution awarded me an honorary doctorate—was the only university in the whole of Europe to feature in the rankings for computer game design, a hugely important earner for the UK. It is important to note that excellence is to be found across the sector, and both the UK and its economy are the richer for it.

Yet we have a Bill that is in thrall to the market, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Royall. It proposes an open-door approach to new institutions. My noble friend Lady Kennedy warned of the consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, told us that his daughter called it a power grab. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, called it a changed dynamic.

It is not just the Department for Education or the newly fashioned Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy seeking to influence that control; we now see the Home Office playing an increasingly intrusive role, one in which the objective is to reduce immigration, irrespective of the damaging effect that will have on not just higher education and research but the broader economy. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the need for an appreciation of the threat to international visas. International students’ fees subsidise home-based students and anything that undermines that would have a seriously detrimental effect on the viability of some institutions.

The international perspective was mentioned by many noble Lords, among them my noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. It is also a potential problem in respect of the TEF, which would result in universities being graded—some might say shamed—very publicly in a way that no other country does. The TEF as proposed, with its flawed metrics, would not provide quality assurance on teaching. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, rightly highlighted, the Scottish perspective on the TEF, even though it would not apply north of the border, is another important issue. For obvious reasons, that matter is of personal interest to me and it will be probed in Committee.

The Bill has nothing to say on links with the further education sector and technical and vocational education, nor on higher education delivered through further education colleges. These issues were raised by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and, most strongly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I think the noble Baroness’s contribution was the feistiest one we heard today and I am relishing the prospect of her getting to grips with Ministers in Committee. I say to Ministers that they should anticipate a wolf in wolf’s clothing.

Like many noble Lords participating in this debate, I am of the generation that benefited from the expansion that followed the Robbins report. Of course, the landscape has changed out of all recognition in half a century, and nostalgia is of little value, but some of the Robbins principles stand the test of time. Robbins said that universities should have,

“four objectives essential to any properly balanced system”.

The first was “instruction in skills”. The second was the promotion of,

“the general powers of the mind … to produce not mere specialists but rather cultivated men and women”.

The third was to maintain research in balance with teaching since teaching should not be separated from “the advancement of learning” and “the search for truth”. The fourth was to transmit,

“a common culture and common standards of citizenship”.

However, having read the Bill, we are left with these questions for the Government to answer. In 2016, what is a university? Does it have a public purpose? That is an important issue because under this heading is the guarantee of free speech, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, rightly stressed.

The Bill makes no mention of scholarship or the pursuit of truth, yet it displays a relentless pursuit of a free-market approach, with students as customers or consumers—terms that my noble friends Lady Cohen and Lord Judd rightly derided. That is not the best means of ensuring that we prepare the workforce of the future—the drivers of industry and the economy. To some extent, that is happening already, with too many universities, as we have heard, employing academic staff on short-term—sometimes zero-hours—contracts, sometimes even paying on an hourly basis. This applies to universities with which more than a few noble Lords have an association and perhaps they might ask some questions of their CEOs.

The student experience is an essential part of what should inform the choice of university that a young person makes. It is also essential to what the student emerges with at the end of the course. If academic staff have no sense of job security or a commitment to the institution, that can only devalue the student experience. Noble Lords will have seen the case reported this week of an Oxford graduate taking legal action, claiming that the university was at fault for his failure to achieve a first and therefore a more lucrative career. I doubt that that case has much future and it dates back 15 years, but it could presage a glut of modern cases relating to a poorer level of teaching stemming from the increasing demoralisation of junior academic stuff. Job insecurity is a major concern and universities need to be aware of the consequences of any race to the bottom in employment practices.

Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are vital, as we heard from many noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lord Giddens and Lord Triesman, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten. That is why I find the relative silence on these matters—indeed, on the Bill in general—from Universities UK and the Russell group at best puzzling. Have they been leant on, by any chance? We understand that they are more concerned at the implications of leaving the EU, but surely it ought not to be beyond the means of those well-resourced organisations to respond to two major threats simultaneously.

Part 3 of the Bill makes changes to the arrangements that govern the funding and support for research. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, provided some figures on UK research and used them to illustrate the extent to which the country punches above its weight. My noble friend Lord Darzi referred to this country as a research superpower—a status that should be guarded jealously. These Benches share the concerns of many noble Lords who attach great importance to the objective of ensuring that the UK remains a world-class centre of research and innovation, with strengthened capacity to address cross-cutting and cross-disciplinary issues. We accept the argument that there can be economies of scale, but there is potential for there to be adverse effects. In Committee, we will probe how adequately the new arrangements will ensure that the benefits of the current system are not lost.

There have been considerable advances ascribed to the autonomy of the research councils. Certainly, we are of the view that it is important to ensure that they have independent chairs and that the devolved Administrations are given a proper voice, not the token one which emerged from a government amendment on Report in another place. The Bill will, in our view, be enhanced with the Haldane principle written into law.

The Bill has many flaws and will require significant amendment to make it fit for purpose. We shall use the Recess to gird our loins for the battles that lie ahead in Committee and hope that at the end of that process the Bill is in a much more acceptable shape.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Baroness Cohen of Pimlico]

My Lords, at the risk of lowering the tone after my noble friend Lord Judd’s speech, I say that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Not only are we cutting ourselves off from the intellectual, social and international contribution from the students we are refusing or discouraging, we are behaving with staggering ungraciousness to those students who have already made an enormous financial contribution to the welfare of our universities. It would serve us right if they stopped doing so. Anyone who, like me, has been instrumental in raising money for universities knows how we can depend on the generosity of foreign students educated here to support our universities. I cannot bear it that we are treating them with such ungraciousness.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was quite relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, delivered his intervention—because, up to that point, he was very much cast in the role of guest at his own party. As ever, I enjoyed his contribution. His amendment is an important one; it highlights the need to pursue transparency, accountability, equality of teaching and how it is to be assessed—issues that you would think cannot fail to command the support of all noble Lords, although I suspect that the Minister will find a way to disagree.

I diverge a little from the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who prayed in aid the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment as products of high-quality university scholarship of their ages. I have to say that two out of three ain’t bad—but, as a fellow Scot, he will know what I mean when I say that I hae ma doots about the Reformation.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on these amendments by looking at them from the perspective of how the old system has functioned. We have been told about the powers of the OfS, and your Lordships are scrutinising those very carefully. I think that perhaps the powers of the old HEFCE have been understated. In reality, HEFCE was not only the funder but was using its funding power to be the regulator—a highly discretionary regulator that operated with very little transparency and few constraints.

HEFCE was the extremely successful buffer body between government and universities, and the Government communicated with HEFCE notably through the grant letter—and the grant letter, I suspect, is the origins of the guidance provision in front of us today. The grant letter is the way in which the Government have historically set out their policy, week by week, year by year, for universities, and so, for example, it has been historically possible for the Minister for Universities to go to the Chancellor and say, “High-cost subjects are not being sufficiently funded. We do not think that the extra costs of doing them are properly reflected in the higher cost bands. Will it be possible to have extra funding attached to that?”—and then in the grant letter to suggest to HEFCE, “In the light of the funding we have available, it would be excellent if HEFCE were able to identify and set aside more funding for high-cost subjects”. Indeed, I used to write such grant letters with my excellent former colleague Sir Vince Cable.

What is happening—this goes back to discussions we had last week—is that as we are now moving from that old discretionary high-trust system to a new rule-bound system with a regulatory function, quite understandably your Lordships, at each stage of the process, are trying to pin down what kind of decisions will be taken and how they will be taken. I think that a power to give guidance distinct from a power to give instructions, and a reasonable amount of flexibility for Ministers to use it so that they can communicate the same kind of messages that they used to in the old HEFCE letter, is in the interests of the sector as a whole.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the group contains several common-sense amendments that would strengthen the Bill and one of the amendments within this group seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State should have regard to any advice given to her or him by the Office for Students. The Government are placing a huge amount of faith and power in the Office for Students and it makes sense that the Secretary of State should not only give guidance to that body but should have regard to what the OfS says to her or him. Why would it not be sensible to do so?

It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did several times in Committee, that he does not want to see too much detail on the face of the Bill. In effect, he is saying, “Trust me. There is no need for it. Everything will be fine”. With the greatest respect, even were we to accept that from such a find upstanding Member of your Lordships’ House as the noble Viscount the Minister, he cannot of course bind his successors, who, I suspect, would not be willing to be bound by him and his colleague Mr Johnson. Who knows what might or might not follow in the months and years after this Bill passes into statute? For that reason, it is helpful to have this sort of detail in the Bill. At the end of the day, it is only a question of having regard to what the OfS says, but it will have built up considerable experience and wisdom over time and the Secretary of State should surely benefit from that.

There are also amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the need to ensure that the Secretary of State does not take any action that would prohibit the Office for Students from funding a particular course of study. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, eloquently explained the reasons behind that and there was some discussion on this last week as well. I trust that the noble Viscount has taken note of the arguments advanced in support of those amendments.

The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 69 and 510, which seek to make the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance to the OfS exercisable by statutory instrument. Last month, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House reported on its consideration of the Bill. When commenting on Clause 2(2) which requires that the OfS,

“In performing its functions … have regard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State”,


the committee said:

“There is no Parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance and there is no requirement for it to be published. The absence of any Parliamentary scrutiny is explained in the Department’s memorandum”,


but that,

“We are wholly unconvinced by the Department’s reasons”.


However, it did not stop there. In summation of its consideration of that part of the Bill, the committee concluded:

“The wide range of functions which are being conferred on the OfS will give it the ability to bring change to the whole of the higher education sector. We consider that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under clause 2 will act as a significant control over how the OfS exercises its functions. Therefore, far from having no Parliamentary scrutiny, we recommend that guidance issued under clause 2 should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and that the affirmative procedure should apply”.


That does not leave much room for doubt, and I am not aware that the Government have yet responded to the committee’s report, but I hope that they will be able to take such trenchant criticism on board—or will this be yet another example of the Government saying in effect that, “We know best. We have a monopoly on wisdom and we intend to plough on regardless”? I certainly hope not. The Delegated Powers Committee is of course cross-party and in this case was actually chaired by a Conservative. If its role is to be treated with respect, its considered view should surely be weighed heavily by the noble Viscount and his colleagues.

Last week the Minister undertook to reflect on the amendments debated and it is to be hoped that, as regards Amendments 69 and 510, the issue really is rather a black-and-white one. I hope that he will be able to give a considered response to it when he rises to speak in a few moments.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

122: Clause 10, page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to “limit”;”

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

My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I must point out to the Committee that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read: “page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to ‘see’”, not “limit”.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to the various amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, including Schedule 2 stand part.

Schedule 2 is about linking the case for a fees increase to the teaching excellence framework. It provides a mechanism for the setting of fee limits, permitting providers to charge fees up to an inflation-linked cap according to their ratings for teaching quality established through the teaching excellence framework, which is referred to—though not, of course, by name—in Clause 25. The Explanatory Notes reveal the name of the TEF, which is supposed to enable the impartial assessment of different aspects of teaching, including student experience and the job prospects of graduates.

We believe it is important to break the proposed connection between measuring teaching quality and the level of fees that can be charged. Increasing fee limits in line with inflation is of course nothing new. It was introduced in Labour’s Higher Education Act 2004 and was routinely applied between 2007 and 2012, until ended by the coalition Government. What is new is linking fee limits to teaching performance, and that is what has alarmed so many people and institutions in the higher education sector.

The framework is described in Clause 25 as a system for providing,

“ratings … to English higher education providers”.

Schedule 2 sets out the meaning of a high-level quality rating, which will be determined by the Secretary of State. Our Amendment 122B seeks to ensure that the high-level rating is established by regulation so that it can be subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament. That rating will be the gold standard, irrespective of whether we have a traffic-light system, and, as such, will be of crucial importance in the future of higher education in England—too important, we would argue, to be left to the Secretary of State alone to decide.

Universities are rightly concerned about the use of proxy metrics, including statistics on graduate earnings, in a framework that is supposed to be about teaching quality. Also of concern is the fact that a gold, silver and bronze rating system is proposed to differentiate the sector based on those metrics. This will undermine the sector’s reputation both within the UK and overseas because universities deemed to be bronze will have been independently quality assured and have met all expectations of a good provider, but that is not how it will appear to those outside, whether in the UK or, indeed, further afield. That is why we have submitted Amendment 195, which seeks to ensure that the scheme has only two ratings: meets expectations and fails to meet expectations. That has the benefit of being simple to operate and, perhaps as important, simple to understand for those considering whether to apply to a particular institution. It also sends a clear message beyond these shores and enables comparisons to be made with providers in other countries without the confusion of a bizarre system of three categories.

Where metrics are used, they have to be much more securely evidence-based than those suggested. Our Amendments 196 and 198 contain proposals that would oblige the OfS to make an assessment of the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is actually correlated to teaching quality and would ensure that, prior to making that assessment, the OfS consult those who know first-hand what is needed to measure teaching quality namely, academic staff and students. Having carried out those requirements in the interests of full transparency, the OfS should publish the assessments. Surely any inconvenience that the Minister may point to in terms of administrative burdens on the OfS would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits accruing in terms of the much more robust nature of the metrics produced.

We also believe it is necessary for the OfS to demonstrate the number of international students applying to and enrolled at higher education providers that have applied for a rating. It is important to protect the number of international students that providers are permitted to recruit; and to ensure transparency on that, the OfS should be obliged to lay a report before Parliament each year. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has added his name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on Amendment 200 to emphasise that we believe it is essential that the TEF must not be used as a determinant when providers seek to enrol international students, and I look to the Minister to confirm that, even if he is unable to accept the amendment itself.

Those faced with a wide range of institutions from which to choose when considering their course of study have a right to the fullest possible information on which to base that choice. That is why our Amendment 176 seeks to alter the wording of Clause 25, in much the same way as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his amendment, to ensure that all the relevant information is made easily accessible to staff, students and parents and that the information is made available in a consistent form in order to facilitate meaningful comparisons between providers.

Noble Lords on all sides of the House made clear at Second Reading their opposition to statutory links between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching. Since tuition fees were increased from £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a consequential improvement in teaching quality. Indeed, the National Union of Students has said that there has been no change in student satisfaction with the teaching on their course, while institutions have, in some cases, been shown to spend additional income from the fees rise on increased marketing materials rather than on efforts to improve course quality.

Why do the Government now believe that there is a link between fees and teaching excellence? Indeed, which should come first or be expected to come first? This is a clear example of the Government’s view that the Bill is as much a question of consumerism as it is about education. As I said at Second Reading, we on these Benches reject the concept of students as customers or consumers in higher education. Many universities have said in their response to the Bill that there is no evidence to point to fee increases improving the quality of teaching. The University of Cambridge stated in its written evidence that the link between the TEF and fees is,

“bound to affect student decision-making adversely and in particular it may deter students from low income families from applying to the best universities”.

Another point of concern in relation to the fees link is that in further stages of the TEF, the Government are moving to subject-based assessment. We do not take issue with that, because universities are large institutions within which there are a huge range of subjects and a great diversity of teaching quality, but linking a fee with an institutional assessment cannot do other than mask that range of teaching quality. People studying in a department where the teaching quality is not as good as in others will also pay higher fees. This flawed proposal does not enhance the Government’s objective, and we believe it should be rejected.

What Schedule 2 would do is introduce the provision that only those providers that can demonstrate high-quality provision can maintain their fees in line with inflation. The specious reasoning behind this proposal, based on metrics that are widely seen as an inappropriate method in which to take such decisions, would lead to a skewed outcome because, as we heard at Second Reading, several high-performing institutions would lose out on a high-level rating through no fault of the actual quality of their teaching.

We of course welcome any means of improving teaching quality in higher education, and we do not oppose a mechanism to measure such improvement if a reliable one can be found. But the TEF as proposed is not that mechanism, for reasons that I have touched on already and shall expand on when we come to debate what is currently group 17. Schedule 2 introduces the whole area of the fee limit and fee regime, a link which we believe is without merit. As such, Schedule 2 is not fit for purpose, and that is why we believe it should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which complement those that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to. The Government’s current policy is for fees, even for those having achieved the top rate of the TEF, to increase only by inflation. However, paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 2—on page 78, line 3—enables an increase by more than inflation if a resolution to that effect is passed in Parliament. Amendment 125 would remove this provision, thus requiring new primary legislation for any Government wishing to go further.

Amendment 199, which mirrors the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to, is somewhat of a pre-emptive amendment. No matter what your view of the TEF, it is clear that it is an attempt, albeit ham-fisted in our view, to give students more information and more security when choosing a course and to lift the standard of teaching in our university sector across the board. Both of these are noble aims. We agree with the aims, but challenge the methods proposed. We particularly deplore the categorisation of gold, silver and bronze, which seems to us to be extraordinarily damaging.

We do not have faith that the TEF will not be used for ulterior purposes in the future, in particular as part of the Government’s continued, blinkered action towards student immigration. This fear is not unfounded. Nick Timothy, the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser, is one of the biggest advocates of further crack-downs on student immigration. In a piece in the Telegraph in June 2015, he made clear his views that students should be,

“expected to leave the country at the end of their course, while only the very best of them should be allowed to work in the UK”.

In the piece, he states that these students are not, in fact, the best and the brightest and key contributors to our future prosperity, as,

“the number of foreign students at Oxford and Cambridge is a little more than 4,000, while there are about 66,000 at the remaining Russell Group universities”.

This attitude displays a staggering lack of understanding about the diversity and value of our higher education institutions and their graduates.

This amendment would prevent the TEF from being used in determining eligibility for a visa for students on leaving university. It would ensure that such a change would require primary legislation and not be possible through a simple change in Immigration Rules. If the Government were to seek to pursue such an approach, they should rightly have to make their case in Parliament. Can the Minister also clarify that the Government do not agree with the approach Nick Timothy has previously advocated? There are very many of the brightest and best students at universities outside the Russell group, and such discrimination can only be damaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, my noble friend made a statement of the Government’s policy regarding overseas students which was fuller and stronger than I have heard from anyone else—on which I congratulate him. Can he confirm therefore—it would be consistent with what he said—that the Home Secretary has now taken a step back from the remarks she made in her speech to the Conservative Party conference, and in particular the ones that implied she would reduce the number of students by refusing lower-quality courses, as she described them, the right to take overseas students?

On gold, silver and bronze, my noble friend is somewhat confused as to the effect of these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others pointed out, bronze is only valuable because so many people get worse. Under the old Ofsted rating system of outstanding, good and satisfactory, it was quite clear that “satisfactory” meant “avoid at all costs”. It was the lowest rating you could get above absolute disaster. That is the way it was perceived.

Although we in this country may manage to give things time, see them in perspective and understand why it is worth sending our children to a bronze institution, it would be extremely hard for agents overseas to do so. We will be competing with other countries which will not hesitate to ask, “Why are you thinking of sending this child to a bronze institution when we in Canada”—or Australia or wherever else—“can offer them a top-quality institution doing the same course in the same subject?”. It would be really damaging.

It is also unnecessary, because it is not valuable information for a student. It is the Government’s conclusion, but what is important is the students’ and their advisers’ conclusion. The way in which the Government choose to balance particular elements of their assessment of quality do not bear on the decision that an individual student may take. That must be a matter for individual decision. We should publish the information—absolutely—but not some arbitrary percentage. Someone in the Civil Service or in some committee may decide that only 20% of our universities are excellent. At least with Ofsted there are criteria that can be relied on. This will be damaging and will hurt one of our great industries. It is not based on anything useful or on fact, but it will be treated as if it is.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, as have many other noble Lords, gold, silver and bronze. At last year’s Olympic Games an event at which many British athletes and Paralympic athletes won medals was swimming—we won many gold medals, many silver and many bronze. The Minister must be in line for a gold medal at swimming because he has been facing a torrent against him throughout the debate. He has been swimming manfully but has not made very much progress.

By my calculation, some 13 noble Lords have spoken in the last hour and 52 minutes. Of those, all were in favour of improving teaching quality, as you might expect, and of having a teaching excellence framework in some form. As all noble Lords have said, we welcome the role of Chris Husbands in developing it. However, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, we all believe that it cannot be delivered in the form that is proposed—and even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, could muster no more enthusiasm for the TEF than to say that the current metrics are not as bad as claimed. That qualifies as faint praise.

Many noble Lords also spoke against the link between teaching quality and fees in principle, and more spoke in favour of rating on a basis other than the gold, silver and bronze. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quoted someone in Canada, looking at British institutions and spotting a bronze and thinking, “Why would I advise my son or daughter to go there rather than an institution in Canada because it is only a bronze?” The point is that the bronze institution in the UK could well be better than the institution in Canada, but the perception will not be that. Perception consistently outranks fact, and that is the big danger in the three-tier system being advanced by the Government.

I wish to make a serious point about two of the contributions in the debate—those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. Both highlighted and made powerful points on social mobility and the effects that the Government’s proposals not only could but almost certainly will have. I quoted Cambridge University in my opening remarks; that has the same fear. The Government claim to be committed to improving social mobility although some of us are unconvinced. That view is reinforced by the fact that the Minister, very disappointingly, failed even to mention social mobility in his reply. In his own terminology, he needs to reflect on that matter before Report.

In his response, the Minister referred to linking fees to quality of teaching but did not say how that would be achieved. That is the main reason for noble Lords’ opposition to the link. My noble friend Lady Cohen said that objectivity is the key here. That is what is required, and it is a quality that is lacking in the metrics as they stand at the moment.

The problem of rating on the basis of institutions has also been highlighted. The Minister said that, at the moment, the Bill allows for the scheme to be developed at institutional level and then at departmental level at some point in the future. The question mark is how. If the ratings are to be made on a departmental or faculty basis, how can you avoid, ultimately, differential fees being charged within institutions if the Government truly believe in that link? That certainly is not a road we would wish to go down. The bottom line here is that the Government need to build confidence within the sector that the path they are going down is one that will improve the sector’s quality and sustainability, particularly with so many new operators arriving.

My noble friend Lord Desai asked whether anyone would fail the exam. The Minister could not bring himself to admit it, but unless he believes that all institutions will be capable of being rated gold, the answer can only be yes. That is why our Amendment 195 recognised that fact and advocated a simple pass/fail rating. That way, every institution knows where it stands—as does everyone outside it when making their decisions. That is something that those looking at a course at a university have the right to have available when they make their choice.

I suggest that the Minister will need to come to terms with the fact he is not carrying noble Lords with him. I suggest he will need to change his position substantially before we come back to this matter, which we undoubtedly will when we next discuss it on Report. On the basis of an invigorating and very useful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

Noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciate the personal commitment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to this issue. However, I have to say that there has always been a long queue of people who wish, for various reasons, to exempt students from fees. My view has always been that this is an extremely dangerous route to go down. Students do not pay fees, and as soon as one implies in some way that fees are a barrier to students getting into university, one feeds a misconception that can do enormous damage. Indeed, if students from care were not, through the Exchequer, repaying these fees, that would be a loss of revenues for the university. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has recognised that because his Amendment 449A provides an alternative means of financing their education out of public expenditure.

We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, quite correctly, that we need to support more care leavers in university. If there were ever any public expenditure of the sort the noble Earl envisages in Amendment 449A, rather than devoting it to a group of students being exempt from fees that they are not going to pay anyway, it should be devoted to helping people leaving care to go to university. Exempting them from a fee that they are not going to pay anyway, or will pay only if they are in a well-paid job afterwards, is not the most effective way to help care leavers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute, as I have in the past, to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his hard work in many areas, particularly in respect of care leavers. We worked together last year quite effectively on the Children and Social Work Bill, and made some progress in terms of government concessions; I hope that we might have some success here as well.

I am slightly disappointed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said about exemption from fees, as that is not what is sought here, as I see it. The amendment seeks a limit on or exemption of part of the fees, but not an entire reduction. In the circumstances that is important, because we have to understand that for people leaving care even to get to university is quite an achievement in many cases. Only 5% of care leavers make it to university, compared with 38% of the population as a whole at that age. So it is incumbent on us to do what we can to offer some assistance.

The amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, cover a number of areas, which together create a package which would be of considerable assistance. People leaving care are some of the most vulnerable young adults, and they need help and encouragement to make their own way in life after a childhood that has often been devoid of the kind of settled home environment that many of us simply take for granted. For that reason, it is surely right that any care leaver who succeeds in gaining the passes necessary to be offered a university place should not be denied it due to financial constraints. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made about a university degree leading to higher earning, and that is the general backing that the Government, and Conservatives generally, give for tuition fees. That has some traction, but in this case you are dealing with people who have had many difficulties in their lives.

We also have to think about the question of accommodation, which another of the noble Earl’s amendments touches on. Some universities already discount fees; some do not charge fees to care leavers. But another issue is what happens outwith term time. As the noble Earl said in speaking to Amendment 229B, the question of accommodation can be a crucial factor. All too often, care leavers who begin a course of study do not complete it because they have been unable to settle during holiday periods, having no settled home to go to, to the extent that they do not feel able to resume their studies.

Being in care does not prevent young people achieving a successful life, but those who have spent time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success. In many cases, there has been a gradual improvement in educational outcomes, but the rate of care leavers going to university has hardly changed in recent years. Children in care have the wealthiest parent of all—the state—yet it fails them in the most fundamental aspect of child development: education. The noble Earl’s Amendment 122 should not be seen as a cost to the public purse. In the longer term, care leavers who complete their courses will put back more than they have received—an argument understood in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government decided that all young people who have experience of care and who meet the minimum entry standards will be offered a place at university. Of course, although fees are not an issue in that part of the UK, those students are awarded a full bursary, which will be worth £7,600 from academic year 2017-18.

That is an example of the extra, targeted help to those who most need it, so that young people who have had life experiences that most of us can barely imagine are given an enhanced chance to succeed in building a life for themselves. Reduced tuition fees should, I believe, be automatic for care leavers, although I accept what the Minister said on Monday about not all care leavers wishing to self-identify as such. There are various reasons for that and I hope we can at least try to understand them, but we should do all that we can to minimise those reasons in offering a helping hand into higher education. The group of amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would provide a powerful means of doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I learned earlier this evening that he taught at the University of Pennsylvania, as did I and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. That university is about to be further distinguished by the fact that one of its alumni is to become President of the United States in two days’ time. But I did not agree with his saying that it is easy to assess university teaching, partly because of the mixture of research that is involved with teaching and the difficulties of making judgments in that area.

I will come to this issue in Amendment 189, in my name, but there is a real danger that the Government are aiming for a spurious scientificity in their attempt to deal with the problem. On the other hand, Amendments 133A and 133B hit on something that can and should be dealt with to protect students’ interests. It shows greater objectivity in the treatment of students, which is all the more necessary in the epoch we are now in, when these matters are greatly disputed, much more than they were a generation ago. Broadly speaking, it is easier, and I think more appropriate, to meet the requirements of the government manifesto by aiming at things which actually hit at what I might call the fecklessness of university teachers—not marking properly or quickly enough, not being good enough at getting in contact, not replying to emails. Those are things that legislation should be aiming to correct to protect teachers, but it should not aim at a spurious scientific metric, which is quite a dangerous thing to do.

The thinking behind Amendments 133A and 133B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is very solid and goes to the heart of putting, as the Minister said, the student and the legitimate protection of the student’s interests at the heart of things, rather than seeking a bogus popularity among students. This is a legitimate concern for students and they have a right to be protected in this matter.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, as someone who is not an academic, I find it quite surprising that amendments of this sort should be necessary, but given that they have been moved and supported by very long-established academics, it is clear that there is an issue here. I thought that that blind-marking assessment was what happened all the time in the established universities, but it may not be the situation in some of the newer or smaller providers, and the question is what will happen with some of the future providers. To me, this is something any student should have a right to expect. Nobody, whatever their background, should be discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, by whoever is involved in marking an assessment. If we are being told by academics, as it appears we are, that these amendments are necessary, I would certainly want to support them. I hope the Minister will take it in good faith that they are necessary.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for tabling these amendments, which speak to concerns about unconscious bias in admissions and assessment, which I know we all take very seriously. As we have established, institutional autonomy is a vital principle for higher education, and academic freedom will continue to be protected through the Bill. I suggest the matters raised in these amendments are for individual institutions to take their own decisions on, as independent and autonomous bodies.

Amendment 133A would add a new requirement to Clause 13 to ensure that judgments made by higher education staff when making an assessment of a student’s work are not pre-determined by knowledge of the student whose work is under consideration. Under the current quality system, this is covered by the UK Quality Code. Expectations and guidance to ensure that judgments of student performance are based on the extent to which the student is able to demonstrate achievement of the corresponding intended learning outcomes are of course the essence of what is intended by that quality code. Indeed, all providers are expected to abide by the requirements of the quality code, and that will continue under the OfS. We would not want to undermine the flexibility of providers to achieve a fair assessment by introducing a new level of prescription, which the amendment would do. We do not feel that would be in the best interests of providers or indeed of students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall not repeat how subjective the test is,

“if it appears to the OfS”—

but it is entirely subjective. These are very wide-ranging powers that are envisaged; they are very serious powers that will be exercised. Of course, as the Minister said on 9 January, they are powers that will have to be exercised reasonably, not on a whim, and would be subject to a judicial review—but a judicial review of such a decision would succeed only if the decision made by the OfS were unreasonable in a particular legal sense, so that no body exercising these particular powers in this situation could have exercised them in this way. It will not succeed merely because the decision is wrong.

If I may make it more personal, two reasonable people can disagree with each other and both can still be reasonable. If the Minister disagrees with me—perhaps he will, perhaps he will not—I may respectfully suggest to him that he is wrong, but I would certainly not suggest to him that he was being unreasonable. It is a point of view. There is a great deal to be noticed in the context of what the reasonable exercise of powers actually amounts to.

These amendments are designed, as I see it, to secure from the outset that the office must believe that there are reasonable grounds for its decision to deploy its statutory powers. Framed in this way, the grounds for relief can themselves be examined. Although there are passages in the schedule which deal with that, it would encourage greater thought and analysis being given to any process of deploying the draconian powers that are being vested in the office.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I do not rise to add anything to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I am not able to do so; the points they make sound very sensible and backed up with legal opinion. I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I rise on an amendment on which I and my colleagues have no involvement to make the more general point that I am sure that the Minister is going to say, “This is all very well, it sounds fine, but it’s not necessary—in the best of all worlds it will all be fine”. It is getting very tiresome. This is not the way in which legislation is meant to progress in your Lordships’ House. There have been absolutely zero concessions so far from the Government since the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. It is inconceivable that anyone outside looking in would accept that every amendment put forward is unnecessary or does not fit in with the Bill. That cannot be the case. I say in all good faith to the noble Viscount the Minister—and to the noble Baroness the Minister—that I am not making a political point as it is not one of my amendments but, with so many amendments on this Bill, they cannot all simply be turned down flat. I hope that he will bear that in mind, if not on this group of amendments then as we move forward.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I shall address the points raised by the noble Lord directly. He will know that we are and have been listening and that I gave some very warm words on certain amendments on the previous day in Committee. I therefore ask him to take back that point. I think that it is uncalled for, if I may say so.

I want to be brief in responding to this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for raising these issues. I will be brief, as they were. The Bill states that the OfS may take these actions if it appears to the OfS that a breach of conditions has occurred. While I understand and respect the honourable intentions of noble Lords here, this test is used in other legislation, as I have mentioned before. For example, under Section 151(1)(a) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, Ofqual may impose monetary penalties on a body that it has recognised for the purpose of awarding or authenticating certain qualifications where,

“it appears to Ofqual … that a … body has failed … to comply with any condition to which the recognition is subject”.

This provision has been in force since 1 May 2012.

It is also the case that the usual public law considerations will apply so that the OfS may be legally challenged if it acts irrationally or unreasonably or fails to follow the proper procedure. The OfS, as a public body, must at all times act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with public law when exercising its powers. In addition, before suspending a registration, imposing a penalty or deregistering a higher education provider, the OfS must give the reasons for the action. Decisions to deregister or to impose a penalty are subject to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. So it is my belief that,

“it appears to the OfS”,

requires the OfS to make a judgment and take responsibility for its decisions—and that, we believe, is the right approach. The OfS is obliged under Clause 2(1)(f) to regulate in a,

“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,

way. It is in all of our interests to want a more engaged OfS applying its judgment flexibly and sensibly. And Clause 2 of the Bill is relevant here too—making it clear that the OfS must follow the principles of best regulatory practice, including that its regulatory activities should be,

“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and … targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.

I think it is best that I write in full on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, when he spoke to Amendment 159. Therefore, without further ado, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 142.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which is self-explanatory. She has set out very clearly the reasons behind it: to ensure that the OfS can place restrictions on the number of new students a particular higher education provider may enrol, if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the provider is in breach of a registration condition.

Given that the Bill aims to improve the student experience, it is particularly important that, if a higher education provider is falling short in the provision it should be offering, the OfS should, as part of its duty, have powers to intervene to prevent cohorts of new students being enrolled. The registration conditions in the Bill are important but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, set out, it is important that the OfS should have a range of sanctions available if a particular provider is not abiding by the registration conditions, and that those sanctions should be proportionate. On the amendment’s second paragraph, it is only right that that there should be regulations setting out the procedures, but only right too that rights of appeal for any such sanction should be added to the clause.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, set out very clearly, her amendment would allow the OfS to place,

“quantitative restrictions on the number of new students that the provider may enrol”,

if it 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 … or to its ability to implement a student protection plan”.

She went into some interesting and rather unfortunate detail about what can happen when colleges or providers get into serious difficulty.

The amendment has echoes of Amendment 142, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, last week, which sought to replace the words,

“it appears to the OfS”,

with,

“the OfS has reasonable grounds for believing”,

relating to the power to impose monetary penalties in Clause 15. Restrictions on new students would be a new power following the provisions of Clause 15. In effect, it is another form of monetary penalty, which we support in principle, although we would be concerned if it were left open-ended. As soon as a breach is shown to have been brought to a conclusion, we believe the restriction should be lifted so as not to harm existing students, who are blameless but could be affected—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, graphically explained—to their detriment through the institution either being closed, or having fewer resources.

I read closely the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, from our debates on Wednesday. I cannot say that he made a convincing case for rejecting the rather stronger words in that amendment. He basically stated that as the wording in the Bill is used in other legislation—he quoted the apprenticeships Act of 2009—there was therefore no reason to change it. He did not come up with any other reason, despite the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, saying in moving the amendment that “it appears to” was but one of the options available and one of the lower ones at that.

Although the words “it appears to” are used in other pieces of legislation, few use the formulation in the context of a decision to take enforcement action, which is what raises concern with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, stressed that the aim was to raise the legal threshold before the OfS was entitled to take action. In doing so, he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, one of whose cases was quoted. It seems at least odd that the Government feel that their lawyers, who I suggest probably do not have the noble and learned Lord’s expertise and experience, know better on this matter. The same applies to some extent to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. Having had time to reflect, perhaps the Minister will—if not today, before Report—come to the view that it is appropriate to raise the standard required of the OfS in such situations.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill creates the conditions to improve the overall quality and diversity of the higher education sector, creating a level playing field through a risk-based approach to regulation. Clause 6 enables the OfS to impose specific, ongoing registration conditions on a provider. The practical effect of this is that the OfS will assess the compliance of all higher education providers with the appropriate conditions and will adjust its regulatory approach accordingly. This is central to the risk-based approach to regulation that the OfS is being established to provide.

In practice, we envisage that, if the OfS considers that an institution or an element of an institution, such as its financial sustainability, poses a particularly high risk, it can add, change or tailor the registration conditions applicable to that provider to address that risk. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the Bill already provides for the OfS to set a student number control condition in cases where it is appropriate and proportionate; for example, an institution that the OfS considers may be in breach of registration conditions that relate to quality of provision could have a student number control imposed by the OfS as an additional specific registration condition, if the OfS believes that such action is reasonable and proportionate. The OfS may also exercise this power if it considers that there is a risk that the provider is recruiting more students than its student protection plan can properly cater for.

I am in complete agreement with the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Garden, about the importance of providing the OfS with the tools it needs to ensure the quality of higher education provision. However, given the powers already conferred on the OfS through Clause 6, it is unnecessary to include in the Bill one example of the conditions that could be imposed. Indeed, including one example of such a condition might appear to exclude other conditions which might be more appropriate in the circumstances of a particular provider, including those which have no plans to increase their student numbers. However, I appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, raising this and I hope I can provide some further reassurance for her, focusing particularly on overseas providers, which she mentioned. Our plans will speed up and streamline process without lowering standards. In order to become eligible for degree-awarding powers, any provider must register and pass rigorous entry requirements. It is a high bar which only high-quality providers will be able to meet. We welcome overseas providers which meet this test increasing choice for students. Providers that cannot meet the rigorous entry criteria will not be able to become registered or obtain access to degree-awarding powers or university title.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, asked what sanctions are available to the OfS. I start by saying that the best principles of regulatory practice will be adhered to. These include transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and, where issues are targeted, targeting only cases where action is needed. Specifically, the escalated suite of actions and sanctions available to the OfS includes: putting in place a support strategy or issuing a direction for a provider to take specified actions; imposing additional specific ongoing registration conditions—for example, as I mentioned earlier, student number controls; or imposing a monetary penalty. We envisage that most often this will be used where a breach has occurred but has now been remedied, but it can also be used alongside a suspension. Also—and by the way, this is as a last resort—the OfS can order deregistration. To further reassure the noble Baroness, this will be where all other efforts have failed or it is clear that imposing monetary penalties or suspensions will simply not be sufficient to deal with the provider. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, we support the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Wolf. It is appropriate that until the OfS has issued a monetary penalty notice to a provider, has issued a notice to suspend a provider’s registration, or has issued a notice to remove a provider from the register, the OfS should keep its intentions and the reasons for them confidential, as already stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown.

Confidentiality is an important factor in situations such as these and it is necessary to protect against that all too common suspicion that there is no smoke without fire. Even if exonerated, an institution may never completely recover its reputation, and the ensuing stigma could have serious effects on its ability to attract students, academics and research funding. There could be significant risks in such situations, not just to the reputation of the individual provider but to the higher education sector as a whole. For that reason, these amendments are necessary.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I first apologise for my voice. I have a heavy head cold and my remarks may be more impenetrable than usual.

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to protect provider reputation in the early stages of an OfS investigation while evidence is being gathered. We recognise that even the knowledge that the OfS is considering sanctions could have a detrimental effect on a provider in a number of ways. I hope I can reassure your Lordships that the Bill already contains safeguards to protect the interests of providers in the circumstances outlined, and that it is moreover highly unlikely to be in the interests of the OfS to disclose that it is considering sanctions.

When the OfS is considering action as a result of a perceived breach of registration conditions, the primary objective is generally to achieve compliance. I am sure your Lordships agree that the desired outcome, for the benefit of students and the provider alike, is that the provider takes the actions necessary to ensure compliance with the conditions of registration that have been placed on it. Providers are expected to be given guidance and time to enable them to take corrective action or make further representations to the OfS. Only in very serious circumstances would we expect sanctions to be imposed. Disclosing details of possible sanctions during this sensitive period, when the OfS has yet to decide to take action, and when discussions, representations, remedial action and evidence-gathering may be ongoing, would not generally be either appropriate or helpful.

I assure your Lordships that under the Bill, in Clause 2, the OfS must have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice and act in a proportionate, accountable and consistent manner. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are many regulatory bodies covering a wide range of areas of activity in the UK which do indeed implement and deploy that best practice. As such, the OfS, like any other public body, would not look to disclose information prematurely or unnecessarily that could have an adverse effect on a provider before a decision was taken. To do so would not be in accordance with regulatory best practice. Let me be clear: if a decision has been taken to impose a sanction, we would expect the OfS to consider making it a specific condition of registration that a provider’s governing body advises students promptly and accurately of the OfS’s sanctions. The OfS itself may also look to publicise the details if appropriate, especially where this may be in the interests of students.

I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness and I ask her to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and ask the Government whether they have fully considered the appeal and legal implications of this new structure. There is already quite a body of education lawyers. I have no doubt, subject to correction by noble and learned Lords, that every single significant decision in the Bill will be appealed when it comes into force. The awards of gold, silver and bronze will immediately spark judicial review, as will the metrics used for the teaching excellence framework. Grant and non-grant of title are mentioned in the Bill. Registration, validation, numbers of students, access—every single vital decision is unprotected, quite rightly, from appeals and, in particular, judicial review, which could bring a whole system to a halt.

There is already a student complaints system which will, I am sure, expand, given the promises that will have to be made under the new structure being brought into effect by the Bill. Have the Government thoroughly considered all the areas in the Bill that will be open to judicial review and how institutions and the OfS will cope with it?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Judd’s suggestion would be a very useful addition. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, just now support that.

In response to the previous group of amendments, the Minister stated that under Clause 2(1)(f) the OfS must give due consideration to “best regulatory practice”. Surely, offering somebody the opportunity to appeal a decision, which could have pretty far-reaching consequences, cannot be described as anything other than best regulatory practice. On that basis, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd, along with the Government’s amendments, because it is undoubtedly a question of best regulatory practice.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I note that a similar amendment to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been tabled in relation to the provisions on degree-awarding powers, which we will come to in future sessions.

The appeals provision in the Bill has been drafted to cover specific scenarios where the OfS makes a decision that deprives providers of a status powers or imposes a monetary penalty. I understand the sincerity behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but he is proposing something additional: extending the appeals provisions to unsuccessful applications to join the OfS register.

I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, say that her apprehension is that the justice system would become overloaded without this amendment. The Government’s contention is that extending the appeals provisions to unsuccessful applications could achieve that very consequence, which would be undesirable and could also encourage ill-prepared applications. But let me provide some reassurance—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

It is not about just unsuccessful applicants but situations where a registration is suspended, having already been given.

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I might observe that there is a distinction: suspension is a temporary compliance measure. Although there is no formal right of appeal, the Office for Students is required to notify an institution of its intention to suspend registration and allow 28 days for the institution to make representations. So there is a process, which means that the institution at risk of suspension has a right of comment and an opportunity to take remedial action.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I realise that the Minister is a lawyer—that is understood—but she seems to be making a significant distinction. It is not just about having a right to comment, saying “I wish you hadn’t done that”. This is about the right to appeal a decision—building an appeal and trying to have it overturned.

[Baroness Goldie]

I cannot claim to be a lawyer— I am a very long since defunct lawyer—but what I am endeavouring to do, without reference to legal parlance, is to draw a distinction between the scenario I have outlined, where we understand that appeals could be competent and would be important, and that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. We think there is a difference between the scenario I have outlined and suspension, which by its very nature is an interim process—either it will be dealt with or it will not be dealt with.

I will try to provide some reassurance. Where the OfS proposes to reject an application to the register, or indeed to suspend a provider’s registration, the provider is afforded a minimum period of 28 days to make further representations to the OfS before the final decisions are taken. In these circumstances, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to consider not moving his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, to pick up on the recently finished speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I thoroughly agree with the three main points she made. First, producing a mixed indicator, as the Government propose, would not be useful to students or others looking at the quality of a university or a course. It would be like composing a meal out of mincemeat, cornflakes and cleaning fluid. Each of those things is useful in its own right, but mix them together and they have no function. Keep them separate, as the noble Baroness advocated, and you get some very useful data on which students can judge in their own terms the quality of a university.

Secondly, let these things be criterion-referenced. We have a real problem at the moment in GCSE—we are saying that every child should get English and Maths, but we are making that impossible, because we make these exams harder as students do better. About 30% are required to fail in order to meet the requirements of Ofqual. We have to be careful about this when we are looking at a bronze, silver or gold indicator. If we do not make these indicators criterion-referenced, we are saying that, whatever happens— however well our universities do—we will always call 20% of them bronze. In other words, we will put them into an international students’ “avoid at all costs” category. That seems a really harmful thing to do. If these criteria mean anything —if there is a meaning to any of the elements going into the TEF—we should be able to say, “We want you to hit 60%.” Why not? Why do the criteria have to be relative? They do not mean anything as relative criteria. They must have absolute meanings and they must be absolute targets.

Thirdly, this really adds up. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made it clear that gold, silver and bronze indicators—this big step change between the three grades —are not suited to a collection of imprecise measures. You do not know whether an institution that you have placed towards the bottom of silver is actually bronze or, worse, whether something in bronze is actually in the middle of silver. It is not that exact. You have to do what the Government do elsewhere in education statistics—for example, in value added on schools—which is, yes, to publish a value, but publish a margin of error too. That way, people get to learn that you might be saying: “This is actually 957 on your scale of 1,000, but the error margin is somewhere between 900 and 1,010.” You get used to the imprecision, to understand that this is not precise, so you can put a proper value on the information you are being given.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to the proposal, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, that Clause 25 should not stand part of the Bill.

That clause refers to the Office for Students taking over HEFCE’s current administrative responsibilities to deliver the TEF on behalf of the Secretary of State. I say in passing how disappointed I am that so many in your Lordships’ House, whom I thought would come to hear this debate on TEF metrics, have now departed. Perhaps that was not the reason they were here after all. Those of us who are ploughing through the Bill until all hours of the night realise that this is an important topic. The fact that we have had so many speakers on it is a clear reflection of that.

As the Minister will be aware, there is widespread concern across the sector at the use of proxy metrics, including statistics on graduate earnings, in an exercise that was supposed to be about teaching quality. On the face of it, there is some logic to the metrics. It is difficult to imagine an excellent course, the teaching, support and assessment for which the students think are rubbish, and that a large proportion of the students do not complete; or that hardly anyone who completes it manages to find employment or get a place on a postgraduate course.

Where metrics are used, they have to be much more securely evidence-based than those suggested. Last week in Committee, our Amendments 196 and 198 would have obliged the Office for Students to assess the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is actually correlated to teaching quality, and ensured that, prior to making that assessment, the OfS consulted those who know first-hand what is needed to measure teaching quality: academic staff and students. The Minister did not comment on that point, so it remains one on which I should like to hear his opinion. The importance of ensuring the statistics used are reliable and evidence-based cannot be overstated. They must earn and retain the confidence of the higher education sector—and that involves academics, students and administrators.

In her Amendment 201, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, seeks to ensure the quality of the statistics used by the OfS, and this should be a basic requirement. I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey in questioning the validity and value of the National Student Survey. The survey merely asks students about their perceptions of teaching at their institution. By definition, these perceptions are subjective and cannot involve comparing institutions. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, when he suggested that similar institutions could be compared in terms of their ethnic make-up and students’ economic background. That kind of benchmarking sounds improbable at best because, even if suitable comparators could be found, the question is, how would the outcome be weighted?

It sounds as though gold, silver and bronze categories would be created before the metrics had even been measured. As I said, that sounds improbable to me, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that benchmarking is surely not the answer. Linking institutions’ reputations to student satisfaction is likely to encourage academics to mark more generously and, perhaps, even avoid designing difficult, more challenging courses.

With academics increasingly held accountable for students’ learning outcomes, students’ sense of responsibility for their own learning—something I thought was a core aspect of higher education—will surely diminish. We are now entering an era where students dissatisfied with their grades can sue their universities. Improbable as that sounds, only last week the High Court ruled that Oxford University had a case to answer, in response to a former student who alleged that what he termed “boring” and “appallingly bad” teaching cost him a first-class degree and the opportunity of higher earnings.

This may be the shape of things to come. Last year, nearly 2,000 complaints were made by students to the higher education Ombudsman, often concerning contested degree results. Nearly a quarter were upheld, which led to universities being ordered to pay almost £500,000 in compensation. Does anyone seriously believe that the introduction of the TEF metrics will lead to a reduction in such complaints?

Metrics used to form university rankings are likely to reveal more about the history and prestige of those institutions than the quality of teaching that students experience there. The Office for National Statistics report, on the basis of which the TEF is being taken forward, made it clear that they were told which metrics to evaluate, leading to the conclusion that these metrics were selected simply because the data were available to produce them. It is widely acknowledged that students’ experience in their first year is key in shaping what they gain from their time at university, yet the focus of the proposed metrics, of course, is mainly on students’ experiences in their final year and after graduation.

The ONS report was clear that the differences between institutions’ scores on the metrics tend to be narrow and not significant. So the majority of the judgment about who is designated gold, silver or bronze will actually be based on the additional evidence provided by institutions. In other words, an exercise that is supposedly metrics-driven will in fact be decided largely by the TEF panels, which is, by any other description, peer review.

Although the Minister spoke last week about how the TEF would develop to measure performance at departmental level, the ONS report suggested that the data underpinning the metrics would not be robust enough to support a future subject-level TEF. Perhaps the Minister can clarify why he believes that this will not be the case—the quality of courses in a single university tend to be as variable as the quality of courses between institutions. As I said in Committee last week, this would also mean that students’ fees were not directly related to the quality of the course they were studying. A student at a university rated gold or silver would be asked to pay an enhanced tuition fee, even if their course at that university was actually below standard—a fact that was disguised in the institution’s overall rating.

Learning gain—or value added—has been suggested as an alternative, perhaps better, measure of teaching quality and is being explored in other countries. At a basic level, this measure looks at the relationship between the qualifications and skills level a student has when starting their degree programme, compared to when they finish—in other words, a proper, reliable means of assessing what someone has gained from their course of study.

The BIS Select Committee report on the TEF metrics published last year recommended that priority should be given to the establishment of potentially viable metrics relating to learning gain. I hope the Minister will have something positive to say on that today, or, failing that, on Report. We do not believe that the metrics as currently proposed are fit for purpose; more importantly, nor do many of those within the sector who will be directly involved with the TEF. That should be a matter of some concern for the Minister, for his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science, and indeed for the Government as a whole.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, when we last met, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, we had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the TEF, and I value a further debate on this important subject.

The Conservative manifesto committed that we will,

“introduce a framework to recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality”.

During last Wednesday’s debate, I was pleased that, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, noted, all noble Lords who spoke were in favour of improving teaching quality and of having a teaching excellence framework in some form.

Before discussing the specific issues raised today, I should like to clear up what appear to be some misapprehensions about how the TEF will operate. Before doing so, I should say that I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who raised a number of detailed points. I think it is best if I address those specific points in another letter. I should reassure noble Lords that I have just signed a letter relating to our previous day in Committee, and that should arrive on their doorsteps shortly.

It is important that when we discuss the TEF we do so in the context of the framework that has been set out, in detail, by the Government. To be clear, this framework has been designed over the past year and a half with the sector, through two consultations, and using the input of experts such as HESA and the ONS.

First, the TEF is not only—not even primarily—about the NSS, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, acknowledges. The NSS is just one of three principal sources of metrics data being used, and we have explicitly said that the NSS metrics are the least important.

Secondly, the TEF is about much more than metrics. Providers submit additional evidence alongside their metrics, and this evidence will be given significant weight by the panel. The work of the panel will be driven as much by judgment as by metrics, ensuring that the distinctive character of institutions, as well as the diversity of missions and approaches across the sector, are recognised in the ratings awarded. Furthermore, final decisions on TEF ratings will be taken by a peer review panel, not by Ministers or civil servants.

We also consider it vital that judgments are based on a combination of core metrics, with additional and qualitative evidence, wedded together by expert peer judgment. It is for providers to determine what and how to teach, and excellent teaching can take many forms. However, great-quality teaching, defined broadly, increases the likelihood of good outcomes. In our consultation, over 70% of those who responded welcomed our approach to contextualising the data and provider submission.

I reassure noble Lords that we are not naive about the use of metrics. Chris Husbands, the TEF chair, has noted that the approach that the TEF takes is realistic about the difficulty of assessing teaching quality. He said:

“It does not pretend to be a direct audit of the quality of teaching. Instead, it uses a range of evidence to construct a framework within which to make an assessment—looking at a range of data on teaching quality, learning environments and student outcomes”.


Turning to Amendments 187, 197 and 190, that is why the development of the TEF, including metrics, is a phased process of development. Our consultation on the metrics included a table of the potential unintended consequences and our proposed mitigations. We will continue to collaborate and work with the sector to make further improvements, learning lessons from the initial, trial year. The aim is to instil and gain the confidence of the sector, and I believe we have made a very positive start. As Dame Julia Goodfellow, president of Universities UK, said:

“The government’s response to the Teaching Excellence Framework consultation demonstrates that it has consulted and listened to the university sector”.


I am concerned that some of the amendments in this group add a level of process which could reduce the incentive to make further changes to the scheme or the metrics by requiring that they are laid before Parliament as they change. This reduction in flexibility is not required by other schemes supported by many noble Lords, such as the research excellence framework.

I now turn to amendments to prohibit the use of the National Student Survey. We are listening carefully to concerns on the NSS, but we cannot ignore the only credible, widely used metric that captures students’ views. We are not using the general satisfaction ratings in the TEF; rather, we are using specific questions related to teaching quality. My noble friend Lord Willetts highlighted that point. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, acknowledges, we recognise the limitations of the NSS and have taken steps to mitigate these, including directing TEF assessors not to overweight the three NSS-based metrics and making them aware that NSS scores can be inversely correlated with stretch and rigour. Looking at three years-worth of data will mitigate concerns about the effects on small providers. It will also help to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about spikes created by a non-response. The need for care when interpreting results for small providers has been drawn to the attention of the TEF assessors. However, overall the panel will be encouraged in its assessment to reward and recognise quality wherever it finds it, without being bound by guideline distributions of gold, silver and bronze.

--- Later in debate ---

With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 187.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the Minister said there are no quotas, but unless my memory fails me, when we discussed the TEF, he said he thought that gold and bronze would have roughly 20% each and the rest would be what he termed “in the middle”. I understand that they are not firm quotas, but it seems that the Government have a fairly clear idea of what they expect the outcome to be.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I will have to check Hansard, but I believe I was speaking about the current system and how it is working now. I should stress that there is no quota and it could well be that these percentages are different when operated under the TEF. There is no particular expectation. I believe I was answering the question about how it might be likely to be very different.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 266, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, which I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, liked. Indeed, given the comprehensive manner in which he opened the debate, I have little to add.

Clause 40(10) provides for the OfS’s power to make an order authorising degree-awarding powers to be exercisable by statutory instrument. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, it is unusual, to say the least, for the power to make statutory instruments to be conferred on organisations or people other than Ministers. I hope the Minister can explain to noble Lords why this departure from accepted practice is justified.

Amendment 266 would require the statutory instrument first to be approved and made by the Privy Council as an Order in Council. Many universities have degree-awarding powers that were awarded by the Privy Council, so the question for the Minister and the Government is: why take that away? In this amendment we are not asking the Minister to do something; we are asking him not to do something. We say that there have been no examples of universities clamouring for change, so why not leave things as they are?

My noble friend Lord Stevenson will speak in more detail about the Privy Council on a later group, but I want to stress now that it is an independent body, completely impartial and well respected. That is something not to be cast aside lightly. This is the established process for introducing new universities, and the current system has worked well over many years. We do not believe the case for such a radical change as handing all powers to the OfS has been made, but if the Privy Council is to be replaced, its replacement should be as rigorous as the Privy Council, and at least capable of building a reputation as strong as its reputation. The OfS cannot as things stand, and may not ever, achieve that status. It is essential to ensure scrutiny by the Privy Council of the power to grant awards.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, understandably quoted from that committee’s report on this part of the Bill. He commented, I think, on paragraph 30; I want to highlight what the committee said in paragraph 28, commenting on Clause 43, which enables the OfS by order to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers. Although exercised by statutory instrument, these powers would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The DfE had sought to justify this to the committee, but the committee’s response was unequivocal. Paragraph 28 says:

“We are not in the least convinced by the Department’s reasons. We do not believe that the requirement for detailed consideration by the OfS, and the existence of a detailed procedure including rights of appeal, are incompatible with an order under clause 43 being subject to Parliamentary scrutiny … There is nothing on the face of clause 43 which limits the way in which the OfS is able to exercise the powers, leaving it wholly to the discretion of the OfS when and in what circumstances the powers should be exercised. We therefore recommend that the powers should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and that the affirmative procedure should apply”.


There is nothing I can add to that—an opinion reached after due deliberation by a committee with no political axe to grind. I imagine the Minister may feel more than a little uncomfortable at the fact that he and his department are effectively ignoring the judgment of noble Lords. They do not deliver such verdicts lightly, and I believe that the Minister and his team need to revisit the report and reconsider their position on the manner in which the OfS is to be permitted to act on varying or revoking institutions’ degree-awarding powers.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Goldie has asked me to apologise to the Committee as she has succumbed to her bad cold and I will be in the hot seat for the rest of the evening.

I entirely agree that we need to ensure that the processes around the award, variation and revocation of degree-awarding powers and the award and revocation of university title are sound and fit for purpose. I will explain why we believe the Bill does just that. However, we will continue to listen and reflect on whether there are further improvements that we can make to these processes. I say that at the outset.

I shall deal with the amendments to Clause 40. At the moment, we have a lengthy process for the award of degree-awarding powers, which involves the Privy Council seeking advice from the department, which in turn seeks advice from HEFCE and the QAA. This is unduly complex, and through our reforms we are seeking to streamline the process without lowering standards. This is why, under our plans, the OfS would run the whole process from application through to award. Decisions on degree-awarding powers would be taken by the OfS, as an independent, arm’s-length body, on the basis of published criteria set out in guidance, and should be made after having consulted relevant bodies such as the designated quality body. It is therefore only logical that the OfS would also make the order that grants degree-awarding powers. Adding the Secretary of State or Privy Council approval would, under the new regime, have little benefit other than complicating the process.

I turn to the amendments that would ensure that orders varying or revoking degree-awarding powers and revoking university title have to be made by the Secretary of State, who would also deal with the processes of variation and revocation. Giving order-making powers to persons and bodies other than the Secretary of State or the Privy Council is not unprecedented—for example, Ofcom has order and regulation-making powers. The OfS, as an independent regulator, is best placed to make an assessment as to whether degree-awarding powers or university title should be awarded, varied or revoked. It will have much better insight into the provider in question and the sector as a whole than the Secretary of State ever could. Therefore, our intention is that these decisions are taken by the OfS on the basis of published criteria set out in guidance, the detail of which the department intends to consult on.

Let me provide some further reassurance that these powers are not intended for everyday use. We intend that the OfS and the new quality body will work with providers to address any emerging problems early on. Removal of degree-awarding powers or university title is therefore likely to be a rarely used, but necessary, safeguard for quality in the system. In addition, the OfS would always, in accordance with its general duties listed in Clause 2, have regard to important factors, which includes the need to promote quality. These are additional safeguards to ensure that the OfS’s powers are not abused. Any decision to subsequently revoke degree-awarding powers or university title will be regulatory decisions. We think it is right that they should be taken by the regulator, not a Minister. However, we recognise the significance of these powers and have therefore made sure that there are appropriate safeguards in place. These are set out in Clauses 44, 45, 54 and 55. They include the OfS having to notify the provider of its intentions and to give reasons; the OfS having to give the provider a chance to respond and take account of that response before making a decision; and, as the Committee will know, a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. This safeguards against any undue interference with the institutions’ autonomy. We believe that an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal provides for the most independent review of a case.

I address a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, about providers with royal charters. I will explain how the process would work in that case. We do not envisage a scenario where the use of powers in Clause 110 would result in the revocation of an entire royal charter which established the institution. The Secretary of State can amend royal charters where appropriate so that the charters operate smoothly, but only where they reflect any changes made by the OfS to degree-awarding powers or university title contained in the royal charter—for example, a revocation of university title. This is not a general power to amend but must be linked to changes made by the OfS in relation to degree-awarding powers and university title. Importantly, I reassure noble Lords that any amendments or revocations made by the Secretary of State would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure, which I think, and hope, that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned and acknowledged. If we were to introduce parliamentary scrutiny for the orders on top of this already very strong, but also lengthy process of appeals, as suggested by Amendments 511 and 512, we would further delay the implementation of any decision, and thus potentially put students at risk. It would also introduce unnecessary complexity into the system: how would parliamentary scrutiny work alongside an appeals process and what if they reached different conclusions? Again, I emphasise that we have designed the processes in such a way that there is no need for Ministers to get involved. It will be a regulatory process, instigated by the regulator and decided by the independent judiciary.

While I understand the intention behind these amendments, I believe that the controls and protections in place are adequate and therefore the amendments are not necessary. However, as I said at the beginning, I will reflect on any further improvements that could be made. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I understand that the Minister will reflect on this, and no doubt the department is preparing its response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. I wonder whether the Minister will take the content of this short debate and feed it into that process, so that it might carry some weight in deciding the government position.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Indeed, the noble Lord makes a good point. I am sure that will be taken into account in terms of any further improvements we might wish to make.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

282: Clause 43, page 25, line 34, at end insert?
“( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I am moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. The amendment intends to establish the principle that a statutory instrument containing an order to revoke an institution’s authorisation to grant degrees must be an affirmative statutory instrument. We believe that such a draconian action as revocation—which in some circumstances is potentially fatal to the institution concerned—should not simply be left to the OfS to issue as a statutory instrument. I take on board the points the Minister made in respect of group 13 a few moments ago, when he talked about the OfS being an independent body. That also applies to the Privy Council, but it has been written out of the equation. It should not be possible for such a statutory instrument to be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

In response to an earlier amendment before the dinner break the Minister stated that requiring the affirmative principle would delay a decision that had been recommended by the OfS. If that is the case in certain situations, so be it. If ever there was a case where the maxim “Better to get it right than to get it right now” applied, this is it. Depriving an institution of degree-awarding powers is sufficiently important for Parliament to have its say, and any delay that results is surely justified in terms of due process.

I made my remarks on the importance of retaining the Privy Council in the debate on the group containing Amendment 266, and I shall not repeat them. However, I shall again draw to your Lordships’ attention the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made a further comment on Clause 53, which impacts on this group. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said at that time. But the committee made it very clear that it took the view there were significant new legislative powers being given to the OfS that are not subject to any limits to their exercise, and that there should be parliamentary scrutiny with the affirmative procedure applying. I think that is a very important point to make. I know that the Minister is considering this and other aspects of the committee’s report but, in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 298A, which is on the Marshalled List. At this stage of the proceedings, as an older Member of this House, I must be allowed to make an observation. We have gone a long way down the road I predicted. We are trying to make the best of this legislation. We are trying to engage in damage limitation, which becomes almost a cause. As an older man, I grieve at how far we have drifted from the concept of a university as an international community of scholars awarding degrees, based on the distinction of the university. This is a sad road we have taken, and we are dealing with the consequences: the commercialisation and marketing of the whole concept of universities and higher education. I have great difficulty in coming to terms with this language of markets and of students as consumers, as distinct from students as contributors to a community of scholars. It is a sad situation, but we are in the situation we are in, and we have to try and make it as acceptable as possible.

Under my last amendment, I talked about fairness, justice, transparency and accountability, and this amendment is about exactly the same theme. I talked previously about decisions not to register or to suspend, and now I want to talk briefly about why it is that there are no rights of appeal against the OfS refusing to authorise providers to grant degrees. Apparently, by this legislation, rights of appeal are allowed only when the OfS decides to vary or revoke such an authorisation. However, the decision to authorise or not in the first place is a significant decision and a significant exercise of power, which will determine whether a provider could enter the market—here I go using the word myself—or not. There seems no justification to deny a right of appeal where the OfS has decided not to grant authorisation.

There must be transparency and accountability. I absolutely understand and relate to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he says that we cannot have institutions below the grade granting degrees. If we go down that road, there will be a temptation for people who are just opportunist money-makers to get into the money-making business by awarding degrees. We know this, so we have to have safeguards—of course I understand that. But I also understand the Minister when, in the logic of his position as he sees it, he says we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be newcomers to the field who will bring something new, fresh and challenging and who ought to be taken very seriously. I understand the logic of that point, and my amendment tries to take that point on board.

We cannot have an alienated public who think that there are high-handed university administrators and regulators, as well as universities themselves, making these strategic decisions without having to explain to those involved, let alone the wider public, why they have come to particular conclusions. Indeed, I can see a case for saying that, if what I advocate comes to pass, it will be a very educative experience for the public, because there will be an explanation of why a particular authorisation cannot be allowed. I think that the amendment and the principles behind it matter, and I am aware that I am becoming a collaborator in damage limitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I note the point the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has made and that will definitely be part of our general reflection.

I now turn to the processes and safeguards. The OfS, as an independent regulator, will be best placed to make decisions on whether to vary or revoke an authorisation to grant awards or revoke a university title. However, there is a statutory process that must be followed. Clauses 44 and 54 provide that the OfS give appropriate notice to the governing body of the provider, set out its reasons why it considers it necessary to take the step of variation or revocation and must have regard to any representations made by the provider before proceeding. I agree that the OfS should be able to draw on all relevant information, including from other parties. Clause 58 enables that already.

Turning to Amendments 282 and 347A, we want to move to a system where quality, rather than the age of an institution, will be the yardstick and where the OfS has powers to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers and to revoke the university title of any institution, no matter how they were obtained. This is essential to achieve a level playing field among providers.

Amendment 282 would unlevel the playing field for revocation of degree-awarding powers. We included a right of appeal for any revocation decision because we felt that this was the most appropriate and independent review, and that it would therefore be the best way to safeguard the interests of the provider, including its institutional autonomy. An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is an opportunity for a provider to present evidence to support its case. It provides for a politically neutral and objective judgment of the merits of the case. I see the logic behind these amendments and we value the expertise of Parliament, as well as the important scrutiny functions. However, on matters of regulation, we believe such scrutiny and safeguards are better provided by the courts, rather than by Parliament. The regulatory framework will apply to all providers equally. If we accept this principle when it comes to other rights and obligations, I find it difficult to justify treating a provider that got its degree-awarding powers in the 1970s—such as the University of Buckingham, for example—differently from one that gets them in 2020.

Before I finish, let me briefly address the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which would allow for appeals against unsuccessful degree-awarding power applications. There currently is no such provision and the appeals provision in the Bill has been drafted to cover scenarios where the OfS makes a decision that deprives providers of a status or powers, or imposes a monetary penalty. I can provide some reassurance: we expect that there will continue to be internal complaints mechanisms similar to those run by the QAA at present. The amendment is therefore not needed.

I am afraid there is no time to address the thoughtful points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the path universities are travelling down. I say only that there is undeniably an important, international market where we are in the business of attracting students who realise that they have a choice. We have to be realistic and remember that.

As I said, we appreciate the need to get the safeguards right. While we feel we have struck the right balance, we will continue to reflect on any areas of improvement. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to withdraw Amendment 282.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his response and noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. It has been quite lively, with some interesting points made. On the points made by my noble friend Lord Liddle that the OfS should set out its reasons, allowing Parliament to debate its report annually, there seems to be no rational reason why that should not occur, because it does for several other regulators—although, is the OfS a regulator? That debate is continuing. I heard the noble Viscount say that he will consider that and we will return on Report, but whether the reports would be dull or refer to events that had happened frequently is not quite the point. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Adonis for drawing attention to Schedule 1’s requirement for an OfS report and welcome the Minister’s willingness to consider that before we move on to Report.

The noble Viscount—a man we are increasingly coming to recognise as the man of letters—said that Amendment 282 would “unlevel the playing field”. I am not sure whether that is a new verb added to our language, but none the less, as I understand it that compares existing providers with new arrivals. I do not see that it would necessarily do that. He mentioned the University of Buckingham. Yes, that has been there some 50 years outwith the system, because it was not part of the mainstream for many years, but the argument we had on the new providers needs to be separated from the situation of those that have held degree-awarding powers for a long time, rather than those that have recently got them and may be deprived of them for good reason, inasmuch as it could be said they should not have had them in the first place. That may be correcting an award that was done earlier than would have been appropriate.

The internal complaints mechanism to which the noble Viscount referred also needs to be looked at again. He said in response to my noble friend Lord Judd that there is an appeal provision against the decision of the OfS to vary or revoke degree-awarding powers, but not for those trying to have those powers granted. This impacts on a discussion we had earlier when the noble Viscount used terminology along the lines of, “It’s different if they’re in the system”, as opposed to being outside, and that they have to be treated differently if they already have the powers, as opposed to just seeking them. There is a basic justice issue there of an individual or organisation having the right to appeal against a decision that affects them adversely. A provider without degree-awarding powers would by definition not be part of the internal complaints mechanism to which the noble Viscount referred. I do not think he has answered my noble friend’s point. Again, I am sure this is something to which we will want to return on Report.

I welcome the fact that the noble Viscount has taken on board the points made. I look forward to returning to them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 282 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

366: Clause 59, page 37, line 3, leave out “body” and insert “bodies”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to others in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Amendment 366 is self-explanatory, so I will say a little about the others. Amendment 374 seeks to extend “what … when and how” to,

“what … when, where and how”,

when the Office for Students is determining what course information is to be published. It is designed to make it incumbent on the OfS to consider what would be helpful to students on higher education courses in terms of where the information should be made available. The Government have decided to ensure that how the information provided by the OfS is disseminated should be subject to all considerations with the exception of where it should be available. Surely this is one small amendment that the Minister cannot find a reason to turn down.

At first reading, Amendments 376 and 377 may seem pedantic, but the aim is simply to ensure that this subsection is all encompassing. If the Minister declines to accept these two amendments, it could imply that only some people considering applying for such courses should be included. Should that be the Minister’s intention, he needs to say who he thinks might or should be excluded. I hope that would not mean mature students.

Amendment 379 would achieve the same purpose in respect of staff, who also need to be given consideration in this case. Amendment 384 would add staff working in higher education institutions to the list of those whom the OfS must consult from time to time about the information to be made available. Students and prospective employers are included in the Bill so it is fair to ask why not the people who collectively work to ensure that the student experience is as rewarding, in all senses of the word, as possible. This clearly casts the net wider than academics. Support staff in many categories also contribute to the success of the courses provided to students at our universities and it is therefore appropriate that they should also be part of the consultation exercise.

Amendments 396 and 406 are similarly concerned with ensuring that the views of higher education staff are taken into account—the first in respect of consultation prior to recommendation of the designated body and the latter in situations where it is proposed that the designation be removed. I suspect the Minister will point to the final subsection in all three cases, which allows for the involvement of “such persons” as the Secretary of State “considers appropriate”. These two amendments are concerned with inclusion—involving the people who work day to day in our higher education institutions. The Government have been unwilling to include staff explicitly as the Bill stands, or perhaps they have considered them and deemed such inclusion inappropriate. As a result, what confidence would staff likely have that the Secretary of State might suddenly decide that it was a good idea and introduce them under the “such persons” subsection? These two amendments are about including staff; doing so would not exclude anyone else. It is right and proper that the Minister should agree to this common-sense addition to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank all noble Lords who have raised these important issues. I agree immediately with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the importance and quality of data. I will make one overarching point, in the interest of brevity, before addressing individual amendments. We are not seeking to determine in the Bill exactly which data must be collected or exactly who must be consulted. Data requirements and needs evolve over time, and the body needs to maintain the ability to adapt to changes.

In response to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I appreciate what he said. We do not feel it is appropriate, for example, to specify workforce data when all other data will—very importantly—be agreed under the duty to consult. The relevant body will have the duties to plan data publication in conjunction with the full range of interested parties, with sufficient flexibility to take a responsive approach.

Turning to Amendments 376, 377 and 383, given the OFS’s duty to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students, just to reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas, there is, to my mind, no question that under Clause 59(5), considering the needs of people thinking about undertaking higher education courses must include considering what would be helpful to prospective and potential students from a diverse range of backgrounds.

In considering Amendments 368, 379, 384, 396 and 406, it is expected that the views of higher education staff will be considered as part of the voice of the sector institutions. The OfS will also have the discretion to consult persons they consider appropriate, including any relevant bodies representing the staff interests. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, foresaw the words that I have just spoken.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

On that point, the Minister said that it would be “expected” of the OfS, but I do not see what could be done if it chose not to do it. I would think it was a normal thing to do, but if it is expected, why not just say that or something equivalent to it in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply on Amendment 371, but I think he rather missed the point. In respect of school data, the Department for Education already publishes extensive information, under the heading of performance tables, as open data. The level of information has grown substantially over the years and is free for anyone to reuse, as is the database on schools, EduBase. I am very sorry to say, as the proprietor of the Good Schools Guide, that this has resulted in the emergence of a lot of competitors, which is thoroughly tiresome. While it would be convenient for me if the Government did not do it, it is very good for the economy and for students and pupils that they have, and it is the pattern I would like them to pursue with regard to university data.

The Department for Education also makes available the National Pupil Database, which is confidential, at various levels. The whole database is available to the “very serious” level of researchers, but anonymised information is also available at pupil level, which is immensely useful for understanding how schools are operating and how various examinations and other aspects of the school system are working. That is a precedent for really good practice that is, now, contained within the same department that will look after university data.

The practice for university data is different. It is either held by UCAS, in which case it is effectively not available to anybody, or by HESA. In the latter case, there is a long application process to determine whether it will let the data out because nothing is standardised and you have to ask permission from individual institutions. It then charges a hefty fee. This is a comfortable situation for me, as a user of HESA data, because it means I do not get a lot of competition, but it is not the way the market should be. The market should be open. The only reason that the use of the data is charged for is that HESA wants to make money out of it. If it is given the power to charge institutions then it is in the interests of the economy and the country that it makes it freely available whenever it can. It is much better for the country that HESA should make a little bit of money by making it available in a more restricted way and for a large fee, or a substantial fee—not an unreasonable fee; HESA is a good organisation. We should go open. The Government, as a whole, have made a lot of progress in making much bigger collections of data open, when they were formally charged for. There has been a lot of benefit from that. That is the practice we should follow with the university data.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, this has been a livelier group of amendments than had been anticipated. Gratitude is due to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for exciting some controversy. It is a surprise that the shortest amendment to the entire Bill—it is just two letters—led to so much impassioned debate.

The Minister is treading on rather boggy ground if he feels that his legal people will be able to counter the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the precedent for statutory bodies. The Minister has developed the practice of writing letters to us in Committee. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that he might write to the Minister on this particular point and perhaps assist in clarifying the position and getting the Minister to think again.

I liked the noble and learned Lord’s point about spotting a reference to an employee in the Bill. He was, of course, referring to a part that we will consider on Monday, but that it took his legal eagle eye to detect it underlines my point about staff being notable by their absence from the Bill, and hence, I would suggest, being undervalued. I take on board what the Minister said about it being expected that the OfS will consult staff. Experience tells us that expecting organisations or employers to do something on behalf of their staff often leads to disappointment, and that is why I believe it should have been a bit more explicit in the Bill. I suspect, however, that his comments today may well be quoted by a number of staff and their representative organisations in future. There is another question, which perhaps he could answer in one of his famous letters, which is: what recourse would be open to staff if it was shown that the OfS was not considering their views, as I suggested in my amendment?

Other noble Lords spoke about financial issues, which I think remain as they were prior to the debate, but it has been both enjoyable and interesting. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 366 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, having launched that original consultation document I am delighted that we now have these provisions in this Bill. It is welcome progress and the lack of legal framework to do it was the main reason for the delays. I very much hope that the new scheme can be brought in as quickly as possible. Although it is a familiar excuse, there are IT issues to be resolved and the noble Lord is right to press for rapid progress on that.

My one qualification to the noble Lord’s otherwise excellent speech was that we have to be careful not to assume that all Muslims take the view that the current arrangements are not acceptable within Islamic law. The good news is that there are many Islamic students whose religious advice is that they can use the current framework. There is a small number who do not believe that that is satisfactory and that is why we need this provision, but it is very important that this Committee does not give the impression that Muslims cannot use the current scheme. Many of them do and their imams say that they can.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, it is very much to be welcomed that Muslim students are to be offered Sharia-friendly student loans which should assist in applying to university, although I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that only some students have been put off in the past in the belief that taking out a loan conflicts with their religious beliefs.

This is certainly a big step forward, but as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, outlined, when will it happen? He has traced the path that has been followed since 2012, when a government commitment was first made. As he said, the consultation exercise was undertaken and the Government responded in September 2014—quite quick for government replies. Their response said that,

“the Government supports the introduction of a Sharia-compliant takaful alternative finance product available to everyone, and will work on its development”.

That response also mentioned the need to find what was described as an “appropriate legislative window”. Two years on—more than that, in fact—we are at that window, yet we do not have a date for the commencement.

Amendments 442 and 516 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Willis, appear to me to be rather contradictory. Amendment 442 calls for the scheme to begin in the autumn of 2018, while Amendment 516 seeks its introduction immediately after the Bill becomes law, but no matter. We wish to see the scheme introduced as soon as it is practical, and I trust the Minister will outline the timescale that the Government have in mind. In particular, I hope they will offer some explanation if, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, they suggested that a delay would be necessary until 2019. I found it very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that he had consultations with people in the Muslim community who said that it need not take that long, so we look forward to the Minister’s response on this important matter.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, the debate has been helpful. I think we all agree that participation and choice in further and higher education must be open to everyone with the potential to succeed, irrespective of their background, gender or religion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for a sensitive and reflective contribution to that debate.

The Government recognise that, under the current system, there are concerns that some prospective Muslim students may feel deterred from accessing student loans; we appreciate that they might consider that student loans are not consistent with the principles of Islamic finance. Our research has suggested to us that Muslim students are less likely to use student loans than their contemporaries. That is why the Government have introduced Clauses 80 and 81, which are ground-breaking and innovatory and set out our intention to provide the Secretary of State with the power, for the first time, to offer alternative payments alongside existing powers to offer grants and loans. We are the first Government to legislate to make alternative student finance possible, and we have legislated at the first opportunity. We are fully committed to making alternative student finance available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendments 446, 449 and 449B are in my name. Amendment 446 is a reaction to the fact that Conservative education policy has had a detrimental effect on the education and life chances of those from low and middle-income backgrounds. We can trace that back to 2010, when Labour left office, with 71% of state-educated pupils going to university. By 2014, that had fallen to 62%.

The change from maintenance grants to loans is a regressive policy, introduced last year, that will leave students from low and middle-income backgrounds facing higher debts, which they may never be able to repay; we will discuss this in a later amendment. Bringing back the maintenance grant, which is what is proposed in this amendment, is a necessary move to ensure there is that investment in our young people, helping more of them access a university education, and providing the country with the highly educated and highly skilled workforce that we need.

English students already face some of the highest levels of student debt in Europe, with the average student graduating with anything up to £50,000 of debt. This is a particular problem for students from low and middle-income backgrounds, who are more likely to need to rely on loans to fund their studies. It is well known that students from more affluent backgrounds do not need a loan—they may take one out because it provides access to cheap money—but for low and middle-income students, that is not an option; they have to take that loan out. Increasing the amount of debt they face by replacing grants with loans could act as a disincentive that will stop some of them pursuing higher education at all.

It may well be asked: if you were to reintroduce this, what would it cost? Labour has in fact costed it. We reckon it would cost about £1.5 billion in each academic year but our policy is quite clear and has been stated before: we would raise corporation tax by 1% to 1.5%. By funding the policy in this way, it is a direct correlation: companies would be contributing to the education and training of the highly skilled, highly trained workforce that is needed to help Britain’s economy thrive in the 21st century. It would be a cause and effect in that respect.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said about Amendment 449. I bow to his greater experience and, indeed, direct involvement in this until quite recently. The Student Loans Company appears to be a law unto itself. In many ways, it seems out of control. Repayment levels are well below projections and there is very little confidence in the company. The loans are regarded as a non-contingent tax liability, not a normal loan, and therefore they are not regulated. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, and there are reasons for that, but the money has to come from somewhere. I accept that for those seeking a loan affordability is an issue. We are very concerned about the way in which the Student Loans Company operates.

Just a few minutes ago, in a quite unrelated set of amendments, we were treated to a further example. When the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, told us that one of the reasons why the sharia-compliant finance product could not be introduced—and she did not appear to have the faintest idea of when it would be released—was that the Student Loans Company needed time to get its processes into suitable order. So thousands of Muslim students are forced to wait while the Student Loans Company dithers. That is symptomatic of the way in which that organisation operates. The Student Loans Company does need proper regulation, if not by the Financial Conduct Authority, then by some other means. If the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, thinks it is operating satisfactorily, he should say so, but I would be very surprised if he does.

The last amendment I will speak to is Amendment 449B. It traces back to when the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, was Higher Education Minister. In the 2015 Autumn Statement the then Chancellor announced that the repayment threshold on student loans was to be frozen at £21,000 from April 2017, instead of being uprated in line with earnings, as was promised in the marketing materials and in writing from—and I am not trying to score particular points—the noble Lord, the Minister at the time. That is an important point.

Labour MPs submitted a raft of amendments to this Bill in another place that were designed to stop retrospective changes to student loans by Ministers, and to bring them under regulation by the FCA. The key issue is that millions of students have taken out loans with an understanding that the threshold would increase with earnings, and have had their loans changed retrospectively and regressively. I say to both Ministers opposite that that is the sort of underhand tactic that undermines the public’s trust in politics and politicians, and that alone would be sufficient reason to overturn this decision. Worse, however, the change places additional financial burdens on poorer students and sets a dangerous precedent. It also falls short of the standards that we would expect from the private sector, where the FCA has the power to stop this happening.

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, outlined the effect on students. Our amendment would prevent any changes to the repayment of a student loan after the terms and conditions of repayment had been agreed. This would apply to existing loans after the commencement of the Act, and it would ensure that such a situation would not recur by bringing loans under the regulation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These amendments demonstrate the need to regulate the student loan market and would provide the protection that students need and, we believe, deserve.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I broadly support, in particular, Amendment 446, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson. Opportunistically, however, I ask the Minister, since we are discussing student fees, when there will be clarity vis-à-vis student finance for EU students who want to register for courses in 2018-19. They have no clarity at the moment, and this is putting some EU students off even thinking about applying to UK universities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, plagiarism is a form of cheating and an academic offence. “Contract cheating” is a particular type of plagiarism where a student commissions a third party to complete an assignment. They might even employ a ghost-writing tutor. The QAA says it poses a risk to the security of academic standards and the equitability of assessments, as well as reliability and validity. “Essay mills” produce assignments that are not completed under exam conditions, and other pieces of work such as coding assignments in computer science can be completed by a third party as well.

I knew nothing about this 18 months ago. It was not something I understood. Then a group of students from one of our redbrick universities made contact with me. They came to the House of Lords to talk about it. We sat out on the Terrace. They were genuinely upset that they saw this practice happening regularly among their fellow students. They said, “Why are we diligently doing our work when you can pay and you can cheat?”. As a result of them coming to see me, I wrote to the chief executive of the QAA, who kindly wrote back and said, “We don’t regard this as a particularly serious problem. The number of people we are talking about is minuscule”. I contacted him again and furnished him with quite an important file of evidence. He very kindly arranged to come and see me, and we talked it over—in quite robust terms. He then organised a private round-table discussion with a number of other academics. From that, a number of issues arose. I am very grateful to them for taking that initiative.

So how many students are we talking about? According to the QAA, about 17,000 students—about 0.7%—get caught cheating each year. Remember, those are the ones who are caught. The data do not show how many students plagiarised. Another report commissioned in 2014 showed that 22% of students reported having paid someone to complete their assignment. As I said, this type of cheating is referred to as contract cheating, a specific type of plagiarism where a student commissions a work produced by a third party for a fee.

How does this happen? Different approaches are taken and different sites can be used. The more established sites will have a bank of people who have previously written for them and essay commissions will go to those people, with the essay mill acting merely as an intermediary. Other sites go instead to an online freelance writer: the work will be reverse-auctioned and any writer registered on those sites will be able to bid for the work.

In a recent publication, Professor Phil Newton and Christopher Lang looked at the operational aspects in some depth. They found that turnaround times for commissioned essays are very small: between a day— 25% of those analysed—and 24 days. The average was five days. Most—80%—were fulfilled in the specified time. For every fulfilled request on a freelancer-type site, another 10 people bid for the work, suggesting significant spare capacity in the market. The prices range from £15 for law—a master’s, a 3,000-word dissertation —to £6,750 for a PhD or a 100,000-word dissertation, with a seven-day deadline.

I was talking to some students only yesterday who told me that people even approach them on their campus and say, “We can get you a 2:1. We can write your essay for you. We can write your dissertation for you”. These people actually approached them on the university campus.

What about the students themselves? Well, it must be noted that some students do not plagiarise intentionally. A disproportionate number of students who are caught cheating, I am sorry to say, are foreign students. We had the debate earlier on foreign students. Language competence is one of the main reasons for them cheating. There are also sometimes cultural difficulties. Interestingly, according to the Times investigation, foreign students are four times more likely to cheat. Universities have been criticised for enrolling foreign students with poor command of the English language because they pay higher fees. There is then real pressure on those students to complete their assignments.

What should we do about it? My amendment is based on what has happened in New Zealand, where it was quite a serious problem. As a result of them making the practice illegal, the problem has significantly improved.

I am minded to quote the QAA, which said that the way forward can be described in three words: “Education. Detection. Deterrence”. The QAA goes on to say that at present it has no legal or regulatory powers to take action against students quickly for plagiarism, using essay mills, websites or ghost writers. We see this as academic fraud. We need to take action now.

We are in our sixth day of Committee, and we have heard so many eloquent speeches about the importance of higher education, the incredible work our universities and students do and how important it is to maintain that quality. Well, maintaining that quality means making sure that academic fraud does not happen, and that all students are on a level playing field. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I commend him on the amount of preparation he has done for this amendment. I am very surprised at the extent of what he has revealed. I think we all know that, to a greater or lesser extent, cheating goes on—it is important to use that word—and in some cases fraud, but the extent of it is such that action needs to be taken. I am disturbed by the QAA more or less dismissing it, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said. And yet, as he pointed out, 17,000 students had been caught, and if that number were caught how many were getting away with it?

It is an issue that has to be addressed. Although there are means of catching cheats these days—software can be, and is, employed by universities that can spot and pick up patterns of writing—there are other ways that cannot be tracked easily. It would be helpful to have a recognition that this is a problem and for something at least to be said, if not done, by the Minister to indicate that the matter will be taken forward in a way that it has not been, effectively, up until now.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, this amendment raises an important issue that is central to the quality and reputation of higher education in the UK. Plagiarism in any form, including the use of custom essay-writing services, or essay mills, is not acceptable and the Government take this issue very seriously. That is why the Government asked the QAA to investigate the use of essay mills in the UK. Following the QAA’s publication on this issue in August 2016, the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, said:

“Plagiarism is not acceptable and, on this industrial scale, represents a clear threat to standards in our universities … we are looking closely at the recommendations in this report to see what further steps can be taken to tackle this scourge in our system”.


The Government thank the QAA for its work exploring this issue and continue to work closely with it to progress the options and recommendations put forward. As a first step to addressing the issue, the Government have already met with Universities UK and the NUS to discuss a co-ordinated response. Within the next few weeks, my honourable friend the Minister will be announcing a new initiative, working with the QAA, Universities UK, the NUS and HEFCE, to tackle this issue.

On the amendment specifically, although we share the general intent, we are keen to ensure that non-legislative methods have been as effective as they can be before resorting to creating new criminal offences. That is where the initiative mentioned comes in. If legislation does become necessary, we will need to take care to get it right. We have to be absolutely clear about what activity should be criminalised and what activity should remain legitimate. That requires evidence, discussion and consensus. We do not yet have that.

To that extent, it is crucial we get the wording of the offence right. In the amendment tabled, it is unclear who would be responsible for prosecuting and how they would demonstrate intention to give an “unfair advantage”. For example, it may be difficult to prove that a provider intended to give an unfair advantage, or that an advertiser knew that an unfair advantage would be bestowed, and there is a risk of capturing legitimate services such as study guides under the same umbrella definition. What is an “unfair advantage”? On one view, a student who is able to afford a tutor when others cannot obtains an unfair advantage. That is surely not what this amendment is trying to catch. But can we be sure that it does not, and where do we draw the line instead? These are not things that can, or should, be rushed when the result is a criminal record.

The effectiveness of a legislative offence operating as a deterrent will depend on our ability to execute successful prosecutions, and as such, we will need to be confident about these principles, as well as about who has the power to prosecute and how they will capture sufficient evidence. Rather than taking a premature legislative response to this issue, we believe it is best first to work with the sector to implement non-legislative approaches. We will of course monitor the effectiveness of this approach and we will certainly remain open to the future need for legislation if it proves necessary.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the Government are committed to addressing this issue. Although the Government remain open to future options, as we do not believe that legislative action is the best response at this time, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to hear that I will move Amendment 470 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wolf as quickly as possible. This is a probing amendment with a simple purpose. We have many distinguished research institutions with long track records of PhD students receiving excellent support. However, some of these institutions are not able to award their own research degrees but have to do this through university collaborators. Examples, I believe, include the John Innes Centre and Rothamsted Research for plant sciences, and Pirbright Institute and the Moredun Institute for animal diseases.

The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister to think about whether there is an appropriate route to offer these institutions a path to research-degree awarding powers, should they wish to obtain them. There is a very strong focus in the Bill, understandably, on what is required for new institutions to get taught-degree awarding powers. These institutions come into a very different category. They are typically smaller and with smaller numbers of research students. Will the Minister be happy to think about whether there is an appropriate route to research-degree awarding powers for these institutions? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendment 471 in this group is in my name. It seeks to remove part of new Section 123B on supplementary powers of a higher education corporation in England:

“A … corporation in England has power to do anything which appears to the corporation to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of their principal powers”.


We want to withdraw this because we do not see why it should be necessary. It seems almost nonsensical. It is completely open ended. It would be interesting for the Minister to tell us to what he thinks it refers or might refer. I feel like coming out with a list of ridiculous examples of things that a corporation might choose to do that may be within the law and indeed within the exercise of its principal powers. I am not going to do that but just in the last few minutes we have had a couple of examples. What if a corporation decided to turn a blind eye to the sort of activities that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined in terms of plagiarism and so on? What if a corporation thought, “Well, that helps our pass rates”? It is not illegal as yet—I hope it will be. In the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, just spoke to about free speech, the corporation could take action or not which may be seen to be offensive by students, staff or the public where the university or college was situated. I say to the Minister: what is this about? Why is it necessary and really should it not be deleted?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord has set me a task. I will keep my response suitably short, given the lateness of the hour. The Bill amends the Education Reform Act 1988 to deregulate the prescriptive statutory requirements that apply to higher education corporations in England, while ensuring that the route for FECs to achieve HEC status is kept open. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, suggested that research institutes should be given a similar legislative route. However, dozens of collaborative relationships exist between universities and research institutes across the country and they do not agree that these relationships are a shortcoming. For example, one such institute, the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, says on its website:

“This relationship, between the LMB and the University of Cambridge, gives our graduate students membership of two of the world’s leading research institutions”.


Further, there is no legislative barrier in this Bill that would, in principle, prevent an institution that provides supervised programmes of research embarking on the process of achieving registered higher education provider status, and ultimately seeking to gain its own degree-awarding powers, if it wished to do so and could meet the applicable requirements.

I turn to Amendment 471, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I begin by offering reassurance that these provisions are not new and nor do they allow a HEC to do whatever it pleases. The provision’s wording is the same as that already contained within existing legislation on HECs—specifically, Section 124(2) of the 1988 Act.

All the Bill does is remove the list of ways this power to do what is necessary or expedient can be exercised. This might include, for example, the power to supply goods and services, to enter contracts, or to acquire land or property. This list is detailed and non-exhaustive, and setting out specific powers in this way is perceived as outdated and unnecessarily restrictive. As a consequence, there is a risk that it stifles innovation and growth and slows down institutional change. It is also inconsistent with the Government’s commitment to establish a more level playing field in higher education.

We want to allow HECs the power to do anything that is necessary or expedient to further their objects, as many of their counterparts established under different corporate forms can do. For example, higher education institutions that are incorporated as companies under the Companies Act 2006 do not have their specific powers listed in legislation in this way.

I wish to reassure noble Lords that this will not give HECs an unfettered ability to do anything. A HEC’s powers must be permitted by law and exercised in furtherance of its objects. We also understand that HECs may wish to explicitly specify some or all of their powers, and they will be able to do this in their articles of government.

With that short explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment 470.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Debate on whether Clause 88 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, I will speak to Clause 88 stand part.

Ministers are prone to deflecting arguments with the warning that they might contain “unintended consequences”. We have heard that several times, and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, followed that trend this afternoon in his response to the first amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Therefore, when a Bill or part of a Bill contains a provision which might have unintended consequences, logic suggests that Ministers should be willing to take that argument on board and act on it—surely that is consistency.

Clause 88 is one of the most closely associated with an issue which is of concern to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself. It relates to the position in which the Bill will place a world-leading scientific organisation based in Scotland: the James Hutton Institute. At this juncture I should declare an interest of sorts. The institute has its headquarters on the outskirts of Dundee in the village of Invergowrie, which happens to be the place where I spent my childhood—the village, that is, not the institute—and which is reflected in my title. By way of clarification I should say that I have not lived in Invergowrie since 1972, and although the institute, then the Scottish Crop Research Institute, was there during my childhood, I have never entered its premises—not even as a minor, although I may well have attempted it on occasion.

The institute was one of many which sent briefings to noble Lords on the Bill and, as I have done with representatives of many other institutions that made contact, I arranged to meet with its chief executive and chief of science, Professor Colin Campbell. The tale he had to tell is a worrying one, concerning funding eligibility criteria which the Bill may leave in place, and the consequent effect on the James Hutton Institute.

The institute encompasses a distinctive range of integrated strengths in land, crop, waters, environmental and socioeconomic science, and is the biggest independent research institute in this area in the UK. Approximately 60% of its funding comes from the Scottish Government and the remainder is from the EU, international, UK and Scottish agencies, and some from private industry. Its research has been shown to make a significant contribution to the UK economy, with £12 returned for every £1 invested. It recently became one of the most successful institutes in the UK in winning EU money from the Horizon 2020 funding programme. That is the source of the dilemma facing the institute. While EU funding is open to all institutions and research providers and encourages collaboration with industry and especially small and medium-sized enterprises, as constituted, the Research Councils UK is not open to all and has eligibility rules which exclude the James Hutton Institute and others.

The institute is currently ineligible for direct access to RCUK funding due to a rule that states that no organisation receiving more than 50% of its funding from a single funder is eligible. The rule was introduced more than 20 years ago, apparently to avoid a situation whereby veterinary and surveillance labs, as fully funded government agencies, could not attract additional research funds from RCUK—which is not unreasonable. The James Hutton Institute is not a surveillance lab, although, as I said, it receives 60% of its funds from the Scottish Government. A significant amount of that funding is for centralised science facilities and national capability, which it is fully open to other institutions to use. The institute is not a public sector research establishment, and is currently the only independent research institute not eligible for research council funding.

The main concern is that with the restructuring of the RCUK and the establishment of UKRI, not only will the 50% eligibility rule carry over but there may be unintended consequences if such matters are unintentionally overlooked or if any new arrangements encompass rerouted EU funding once the UK leaves the EU. This would be very serious for the James Hutton Institute, as there is a risk that it could go from being one of the most successful research providers in gaining European funding to having next to no access at all.

As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said when speaking to his amendments, Scotland punches above its weight in research terms. Universities Scotland said in one of its briefing papers sent to noble Lords that on the basis of competitive excellence, Scottish universities win around 14% of project funding from research councils but only around 7% from Innovate UK. Scottish research in all forms was able to win more than €200 million in the last year for which figures are available. Scottish institutions are naturally concerned about what the future will hold once the UK ceases to be a member of the EU. Not all EU funding will be lost, but it will become much more difficult to achieve when bidding is done from a standalone UK.

That, therefore, is the context within which the James Hutton Institute finds itself. It will have much of its EU finding closed off—perhaps all of it if in future it is all channelled through UKRI, to which the institute will have no access because of the 50% rule to which I referred.

It seems that there was no vehicle in terms of a detailed amendment to the Bill that would have achieved what is necessary for the institute to be able to have access to a level playing field—the scrapping of that 50% rule. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to tell me—after a suitable period of reflection, of course—what can be done. However, the rule has applied since the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, one of the seven research councils that work together, was founded in 1994, and that is funded by BEIS, so surely the Government can exercise their influence in this matter. Would the civil servants working in RCUK—or UKRI, as it will become—have the final say or can they be told to change what is clearly an anachronism?

This matter has been raised directly with the Minister for Universities and Science and with Sir John Kingman, and it seems that a misconception may have emerged. It appears that there are plans to run pilot trials in which PSREs in England Wales may be given access to RCUK, but this does not help the James Hutton Institute because, as I have already mentioned, it is not a PSRE and it may in any case suffer if it has to await the outcome of trials.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister, “Over to you”. This is a Catch-22 situation in which the James Hutton Institute finds itself through no fault of its own. The 50% rule is a barrier that can be dismantled if the will is there. Surely it must be.

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on this. I assure noble Lords that I have entered the premises of the James Hutton Institute, which is held in high regard not just in this country but internationally.

Here we have a situation where government departments are, very reasonably, keen to try to live within their means, and there is a suspicion among the research councils that public sector research establishments might be unloaded on to research council funding. When I wrote to my noble friend Lord Younger, having raised this matter at Second Reading but without referring specifically to the James Hutton Institute, he was good enough to admit that that was the concern. Those who were concerned did not want departments to get rid of their responsibilities by passing the funding over to research councils.

This is a typical government spat, with public sector research establishments not being allowed to apply for research council funds. As I understand it, this is a ruling made through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out, the irony is that the James Hutton Institute is not even a PSRE, so it gets caught by a sort of collateral fire. It is an international institute but, through this ruling that any institute that gets funding of more than 50% cannot apply for research council funding, it cannot apply for international funding either, whether at an EU or an international level. This is a clearly pernicious ruling that has no bearing on the James Hutton Institute. As I said, it is there to prevent PSREs being unloaded on to research councils. It lies within the power of the Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box today, to say that Clause 88(4), which says that,

“UKRI must have regard to the desirability of not discouraging the person from maintaining or developing funding from other sources”,

can be put into operation immediately. Forget the rather infelicitous double negative; it is saying, “We encourage people working in research to look for funding wherever they can”, but of course that must be based on the quality of the science—supporting excellence, as the previous amendment referred to. No one doubts that the James Hutton Institute is a centre of excellence that should be encouraged to apply for international funding and indeed for research council funding. It needs this pernicious ruling to be abolished, and that could be done here and now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I have to start with the confession that the James Hutton Institute is just a name to me. I confess my appalling ignorance on this subject. I need to research it. If I could, I will investigate the particular circumstance relating to the James Hutton Institute and then write to the noble Lord. I hope that that will be acceptable to him. I am sure it is a world-leading institution but, as I said, I have not visited and am not familiar with it.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The Minister is very new to his post and there is absolutely no question of reproach here. What he has suggested is acceptable. However, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is an important one. He has identified a particular issue with the clause, and if the Minister could refer to that in his reply, it would perhaps open up an avenue for the matter to be returned to on Report.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Let me give the noble Lord my response. If it does not cover exactly the points that it should, I will pick it up outside here and write to my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord. I will also try to set my response in the context of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Willetts.

The clause will make sure that UKRI is able to carry out one of its primary functions: to provide individuals and organisations with financial support to carry out research and innovation.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised questions about other research organisations’ eligibility for funding. Many of these organisations are currently not eligible to receive Research Council funding as their research activity is already separately funded from outside the science ring-fence by other government departments or the devolved Administrations.

The rationale is to keep a clear separation between government funding and challenge-led Research Council-funded science and the capability of science funded directly by government departments. This is compatible with funding excellent science and maintaining the integrity of the funding ring-fence.

Noble Lords have argued that the wording in Clause 88(4) relates to this eligibility policy. I can reassure noble Lords that the clause does not establish or steer UKRI’s eligibility criteria. The wording is intended to ensure that UKRI does not spend public funds unnecessarily where this might result in crowding out private sector investment or funding from other sources. It is one safeguard to ensure that UKRI spends public money wisely. It also enables collaborations and partnership working, as already debated, around research charities.

The Nurse review recommended that research councils should refresh their eligibility criteria to pilot an approach allowing PSREs to become eligible for funding where they put forward high-quality research proposals relevant to their capability in collaboration with a university partner. In response to this, Research Councils UK is looking to pilot ways to include PSREs in a second call for the global challenge and research fund, with funding to start in financial year 2017-18. While the Government agree that we should be making the most of the excellent science being done in PSREs, they also agree with Sir Paul Nurse that government departments should remain the principal funders of capability and funders of last resort for PSREs. I am not sure to what extent that addresses the point made by my noble friend Lord Willetts.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We need to have a status of title that puts universities and higher education in an elevated place in our society. We know that “students” comes trailing clouds of all sorts of other implications that may not be appropriate. Education and universities are serious, hard-core activities on which this country depends, and they deserve respect.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount will ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and I can understand why from his point of view—but it does not stand up to scrutiny to maintain that the name of the body should be the Office for Students. In response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendment in Committee, the noble Viscount said:

“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”.


Many noble Lords may have doubts about anything other than the second of those objectives, but the noble Viscount was correct to point out that, in introducing the Bill, the Government had those three distinct objectives—so why were they unable to come up with a title that encompassed more than one of them?

The Minister also said in Committee that it was the Government’s intention,

“to put the student interest at the heart of our regulatory approach to higher education”—[Official Report, 9/1/17; cols 1840-41.]—

hence the name. That claim does not withstand close scrutiny. If that had been the case, why did the Bill not contain provision for at least one student on the board of the OfS? Why did it require vigorous argument by the Opposition in Committee in the other place before the Government came up with a rather weak amendment to Schedule 2 providing for the OfS board merely to,

“have regard to the desirability of”,

someone with,

“experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students”.

It does not provide for such representation; it just says that it is desirable.

In that context, the name “Office for Students” is not without some irony. It is certainly inappropriate because it is a misnomer. If the Minister wants the amendment to be withdrawn, it is incumbent on him and his Government to come up with a name that more accurately reflects the duties that the body is about to assume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate having a further short debate on this matter, but I find it a little ironic how in Committee many noble Lords sought to omit “standards” from the Bill, but now this amendment would add “standards” to it. I would argue that the name relates to the OfS’s core functions and purpose. In response to concerns that the mission of the Office for Students is not sufficiently focused on the interests of students to merit its name, let me assure noble Lords that the Bill places a clear duty on the OfS to consider the interests of students in every aspect of its operations.

The OfS has duties to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students and to encourage competition between higher education providers where this is in the interests of students and employers. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the body should be called the Office for Students—dreary or not—and that its title should signal the fundamental refocusing of the regulatory system towards the student interest which the reforms are intended to bring about.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

55: Clause 18, page 11, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) specify what happens to existing students during the suspension period as documented in a provider’s student protection plan.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, all of which concern protection for students. We are to some extent returning to an issue touched on in Committee although the specifics vary somewhat.

We have heard often enough that it would be a very rare occurrence for any institution to go bust and drive itself into the sand. Of course, we are ready to believe that. We desperately hope that that is the case. However, it could happen and at some stage it is pretty much certain that it will. When it does, the people who must be everyone’s main concern are the students, those men and women who have taken out student loans to study at the relevant institution, identified that as the place they want to be, commenced their studies and, in some cases, nearly completed them. These three amendments deal with various scenarios that students might face if their institution gets into grave difficulty or perhaps folds completely.

Amendment 55 proposes that when the Office for Students suspends a registered higher education provider’s registration, various provisions have to be specified in relation to what the notice of suspension must promote. Various provisions are specified in subsection (6) of Clause 18. However, none of them mentions what happens to existing students during a suspension period. The purpose of Amendment 55 is to put that right. The Minister has mentioned on several occasions, and specifically in relation to amendments earlier today, the proposal to change the name of the Office for Students. He said that that was not possible because students are right at the centre of this legislation and the Government want that to be very clear. If that is to be clear, students must surely be accommodated within the clause to which I referred.

Amendment 56 seeks to ensure that students at an institution that becomes deregistered are fully notified about when that will happen. This issue was covered in Committee. It seems to me self-evident that that should take place. I cannot conceive of any reason why that would not be the case. They should also be told the expiry date of any access and participation plan.

In many ways I think that the most important of these three amendments is Amendment 57, which is about ensuring that where a higher education provider ceases to be able to provide courses for its students, the Office for Students must seek to place those students on similar courses at another provider. As I said, if the Government are committed—as I believe they are—to having students at the centre of the legislation, why should they be left to suffer through no fault of their own when a higher education provider is no longer able to deliver the service for which they signed up? If another course cannot be found for them, they will probably be left out of pocket over fees because loans have to be repaid. We believe that the Office for Students has a duty to assist them in every way possible and ensure that they can complete their studies. That is what Amendment 57 is about. However, overall, these three amendments are about protecting students, which I think is a cause to which everyone in your Lordships’ Chamber would be happy to subscribe. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for that, but he rather gave the impression of a man thrashing around in a deep pool, desperately trying to find something to cling on to. I did not find his arguments convincing. When I moved the amendment I said that it has been stated time and again that the Government want students at the centre of the Bill. I did not quote Clause 18, but I will now. It says:

“Where the decision is to suspend the provider’s registration, the notice must …specify the date on which the suspension takes effect … specify the excepted purposes … specify the remedial conditions (if any), and … contain information as to the grounds for the suspension”.


It does not specify what happens to existing students during the suspension period, as documented in a provider’s student protection plan. Why not? How will that hinder any institution if that were to be placed in the Bill? Surely it is the sort of thing that students are entitled to know when their institution is getting into severe difficulty. I do not see why that should provide any difficulty at all.

I enjoyed the analogy drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, between this Bill and the Technical and Further Education Bill, which, as she said, is substantially about the insolvencies of further education colleges. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Minister in charge of that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, assured noble Lords that that will never happen either. We are to believe that insolvency has no greater a chance of happening in the further education sector, yet three-quarters of the Bill is about insolvency.

It would have been helpful if the vehicle used for dealing with insolvencies in the further education Bill—the special education administrator—had had some equivalent in this Bill, because situations will arise where that kind of role will be necessary. It cannot be carried out just by the Office for Students. That section of the further education Bill concerns further education students getting into difficulty having a special education adviser. With no such equivalent person for higher education provided for in this Bill we are left with a section that is rather like “Hamlet” without the prince. No one will be appointed by the courts in this section. That is the difference between this Bill and the further education Bill.

The Minister talked about draft guidance for consultation with staff and students on when a student protection plan becomes effective, but the amendments here are not about pre-empting. We are saying something different. We are talking about a situation after the college has got into difficulties. It is about reacting to that, not anticipating it. It is important that that difference is understood.

I say to the Minister, particularly in relation to Amendment 57, on which we welcome support from the Cross Benches and the Government Benches, that we would make it easier for the Office for Students. The amendment says that,

“the OfS must, as promptly as possible, seek to make arrangements for the students of that provider to be offered places on similar courses with another higher education provider”.

We could have omitted the words “seek to”. We have been helpful to the Government by suggesting only that the OfS should seek to do that. I take the Minister’s point that some students would not like to be told by the Office for Students, “Very sorry, your university is closed. Here is where you will go as of next week”. That is not the way I would envisage it happening. It would be about choices. The Minister talked about student choices. Student choices should, as far as possible and practicable, be provided by the Office for Students, because it will have overall responsibility as the regulator. It should be able to say to students, “You are without a class at the moment. Here’s what we suggest”.

I acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, that there will be some cases where colleges are very local and students are unwilling to travel to the next town or, if it were London, to another part of the city to complete their studies. On that basis, they may decide that completing their studies is not possible, but they should be offered choices. That is what we are suggesting. Students are at the centre of the Bill yet the OfS is not to be allowed to provide options for them to continue studies. Again, I find that very surprising. That is a real failing of the Government’s commitment. We should ask what their real commitment is to the interests of students. That should be the test, and the test to which we should put it is that of the opinion of the House.

The Deputy Speaker decided on a show of voices that Amendment 55 was disagreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

57: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of OfS to seek to place students whose provider ceases to offer courses
If a higher education provider ceases to be able, or eligible, to provide higher education courses for its students, the OfS must, as promptly as possible, seek to make arrangements for the students of that provider to be offered places on similar courses with another higher education provider.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I apologise for the previous confusion. On this amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 62 to 66, 88 and 93, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to all of which I have added my name. I declare my usual interest as a full-time professor at King’s College London, but also note that I am a founding editor and editorial board member of Assessment in Education, a leading international academic journal in the field.

I have listened with interest to all the remarks made by other noble Lords and have agreed with the overwhelming majority of them. I just want to comment on an issue that is at the heart of the amendments to which I have added my name. It concerns the profound difference between using a single composite measure and having a wide variety of measures that are reported separately.

One of the prime rules of assessment—indeed, of measurement—is that you do not throw away information if you can avoid it. The Government have, rightly and repeatedly, emphasised their commitment to transparency and to giving students better information about teaching quality and other aspects of the higher education courses to which they might or do subscribe. But the trouble is that a composite measure is the opposite of transparent. It is also a problem that it is seductively simple: three stars, four stars—how can one resist it? We believe it is somehow objective because that is how we respond to a single number. In modern societies, we love rankings. But if we add up measures of different things and produce a single number, we are not being transparent and we are not being objective. What we are presenting to people, first, throws away large amounts of information and, secondly, imposes our value judgment on those different measures. When we use different indicators, add them up and create a single rank or score, we are denying other people the chance to see how it was done. It is irrelevant whether you gave equal weight to each measure or decided to do all sorts of clever things and weighted one thing at threefold and another at a half; the point is that by doing that, you have imposed your judgment. The students for whom these are designed—the students we want to help—may have different interests from you, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has pointed out.

That is why I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that a scheme to assess quality must report individual measures individually. It is also why I completely agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that the last thing we want to do is impose on Governments, quite possibly for the next 30 years, the obligation to create rankings.

In this case, we are not even adding apples and oranges, which at least are both pieces of fruit. We are adding up things that are completely different. If the numbers are measuring or representing different things—and doing so with varying degrees of error, as is always the case—adding them up will compound the error. Obviously it would be nice to have a wonderful single measure, but the fact that we would all like one does not mean that it is better to have an unreliable one, rather than not have one at all. On the contrary, it is worse.

We know why most universities have signed up to this. On Monday, the Minister pointed out that if they do not agree to link TEF scores to fees they will,

“lose £16 billion over the course of the next 10 years”.—[Official Report, 6/3/17; col. 1140.]

Universities are in a corner and over a barrel—as we have heard, that is exactly how you would feel if you were the vice-chancellor of Warwick.

It seems to me that this is all quite unnecessary. The Conservative manifesto did not commit to rankings, to a single measure or to labelling people as gold, silver or bronze. It said that students would be informed of where there is high-quality teaching. That is something to which everybody in this House would sign up. I very much hope that the Government will continue to listen and will move away from a current commitment that can only be harmful, for all the reasons that people in this House have talked about so eloquently this afternoon.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a passionate debate, which reflects accurately that this is the most contentious part of the Bill—certainly the email traffic that all of us have experienced would bear that out.

As we have heard from many noble Lords, the metrics proposed for the TEF are flawed, and confidence in their effectiveness remains extremely low among academic staff, students and more than a few vice-chancellors. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, referred to the University of Warwick. I have to say that that is more reflective of the general view than that sent out in the rather unconvincing letter from Universities UK and GuildHE a few days ago.

We on these Benches have consistently said that we are of course in favour of a mechanism that enhances the quality of teaching and of the general student experience. But, due to the differentiation of tuition fee levels, the TEF as it stands—even with the improvements made thus far—is not fit for purpose. In view of these uncertainties, and because the reputation of UK higher education institutions needs to be handled with particular care in the context of the upheaval that will result from our impending departure from the EU, it would be inadvisable to base any form of material judgment on TEF outcomes until the system has bedded down.

That is why Amendments 67 and 68 in the names of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, calling for delays in the implementation of the TEF and the linkage of any fee increases to it, are sensible. As we on these Benches have argued consistently, we do not believe that there should be such linkage. In many ways, using student feedback as part of a framework that leads to fee increases, while at the same time purporting to represent and embody the interests of students, is contradictory. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has outlined why it is appropriate for the Secretary of State and not the Office for Students to bring forward a scheme to assess the quality of teaching.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment which sought to ensure that any rating scheme had only two categories: “meets expectations” and “fails to meet expectations”. So we welcome the fact that that principle is incorporated in my noble friend’s amendment. The amendment has the benefit of being straightforward without a confusing system of three categories, all of which would be deemed by the OfS to have met expectations—to different extents, of course. However, as many noble Lords have said, that is not how it would appear either to potential students, to those awarding research grants or to the world at large.

Amendment 72 also highlights the need for consistent and reliable information about the quality of education and teaching at institutions. The fact that what is proposed in the Bill would guarantee neither is a major reason why so many have opposed the TEF in its current form. The requirement to have the data and metrics on which the TEF is based subject to evaluation by the Office for National Statistics was advocated in Committee, but it merits reconsideration today. Without a firm base on which to establish the TEF, it is unlikely to gain the confidence not just of institutions but of staff and students, on whose futures it will have great bearing.

The future standing of higher education in the UK will depend on the Government rethinking their approach to these issues. It has to be said that not one noble Lord in the debate this afternoon has spoken in favour of the TEF as proposed. I ask the Minister and his colleague Minister Johnson to give that fact due weight of consideration.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

124: Schedule 5, page 89, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) the suspected breach may constitute fraud, or concerns serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds,”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson is really a probing amendment, designed to ask the Minister why we have Schedule 5 and why we need it. We have more than five pages on powers of entry and search, from the power to issue search warrants to those of inspecting, copying, seizing and retaining items. It all sounds terribly dramatic, and the reasons for it are not at all clear. Such a power was not in the 1992 Act and has never, as far as we or those connected with the higher education sector are aware, been necessary before. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there are problems that we are not aware of which are so serious that they demand a schedule all to themselves.

When it comes to Schedule 5, the Explanatory Notes refer us to the commentary on Clause 56. That does not enlighten us all that much, although it goes into slightly more detail:

“The warrant may permit or require a constable to accompany an authorised person and that constable may use reasonable force if necessary”.


That all sounds as though something serious is envisaged by the Government. Three-quarters of the Technical and Further Education Bill currently before your Lordships’ House is taken up with insolvency procedures—something that the Government do not envisage happening other than in extremely rare circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will say the same about Schedule 5. We certainly hope so, because we do not want these powers to be used at all, but certainly only sparingly. If entry and search is deemed to be required, it should happen only after a serious breach of a registration condition is suspected. That is why we set out fraud or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds as conditions that must be met. Short of that, the vague conditions of the schedule do not meet the test. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and in what situations he envisages where it might be necessary? I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that he posed his questions as to why we need these powers, and I agree that we hope that they will be used rarely. We are revisiting a debate that we had in Committee, and I am grateful to those who participated in that debate, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.

In the light of the debate that we had in Committee, we have carefully reflected on the schedule, but remain of the view that it should stand as drafted. This will ensure that the Office for Students and the Secretary of State are able to investigate effectively if there are grounds to suspect serious breaches of funding or registration conditions at a higher education provider.

The proposed amendments would narrow these powers so they could be used only where there are suspicions of fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds. We believe that most, but not all, cases where these powers would be used would fall into that category. However, narrowing the powers in the way proposed could affect our ability to investigate effectively certain cases where value for public money, quality, and the student interest was at risk, but where these might not clearly constitute fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds at the time of the application for the warrant.

Higher education providers will be subject to OfS registration conditions. As an example, the OfS could put in place a condition to limit the number of students a provider with high drop-out and low qualification rates was able to recruit: for instance if the OfS considered that those performance issues are related to the provider recruiting more students than it can properly cater for.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. He is talking about low-qualification and high drop-out rates. Could it be that we have never needed this power until now because of the present university architecture, but given the expectation that there will be new arrivals on the scene, the Government are implicitly saying that they foresee dangers in future that have not been considered a threat hitherto?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will come in a moment to why at present there is not provision for these types of institutions, where there is for every other, and I hope that that may answer the noble Lord’s question.

I was explaining that a breach of such a condition may not clearly constitute wilful mismanagement of public money if the provider was using the tuition fees in line with their purpose—the provision of a designated higher education course to an eligible student. However, there is a significant risk that value for public money, quality of provision and the students’ experience will be seriously negatively affected. If the OfS has grounds to suspect that the provider is in any case undertaking an aggressive student enrolment campaign, it is important that evidence can be found swiftly to confirm this, and to prevent over-recruitment.

If the amendment were made, a warrant to enter and search may not be granted in cases such as that. The amendments would also amend the powers so that the search warrant must state that all the requirements for grant of the warrant specified in Schedule 5 have been met. My noble friend Lord Younger wrote to Peers at Committee stage to clarify that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provisions for the magistrate to certify that conditions for grant of the warrant have been met, and we are not aware of any examples of this.

Schedule 5 sets out the conditions that must be met for a warrant to be granted, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a strong and sufficient safeguard to ensure a warrant would be granted only where necessary. This is a standard approach used in existing legislative provisions relating to search warrants and powers of entry. Examples from recent legislation include the powers to enter and search within Section 39 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the powers to enter within Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

To be clear, a requirement to state that conditions have been met would not provide an extra legal safeguard. The requirement for these conditions to be met already exists in the schedule as drafted. There are strong safeguards in place to ensure these powers are used appropriately—and, I hope, rarely. A magistrate would need to be satisfied that four tests were met before granting a warrant: that reasonable grounds existed for suspecting a breach of a condition of funding or registration; that the suspected breach was sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises; that entry to the premises was necessary to determine whether the breach was taking place; and 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 that entry must be at a reasonable hour and the premises may be searched only to the extent that is reasonably required to determine whether there is or has been a breach. Powers of entry, such as these, already exist for a wide variety of other types of education. Ofsted has inspection powers in respect of schools, colleges, initial teacher training, work-based learning and skills training, adult and community learning and education and training in prisons.

Local authorities have powers to enter the premises of maintained schools. Regulators of qualification awarding bodies also have powers of entry. So, to answer the noble Lord’s question, currently HE providers are an exception as neither the Department for Education nor the Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory right to enter an HE provider if serious wrongdoing is suspected. To that extent, we are bringing these institutions into line with other institutions in education, and indeed other fields. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, against the background of the reasons I have given for the schedule remaining as it is at the moment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but I have to say that I am even less reassured than I was before moving the amendment. The Minister mentioned, as I did earlier, low qualification levels and high drop-out levels, and he then went on to talk about aggressive student enrolment campaigns. That conjures up images of press gangs going round the bars in ports and people being carried off, never to be seen again—or, in this case, to be seen again in a new higher education institution near you. It is a rather bizarre concept that I cannot quite picture in my mind.

The question is basically, “Why now and why not in the past?”. As far as anyone is aware, and the Minister has not suggested it, there has been no lacuna. The Minister said he is bringing this sector into line with parts of other education sectors. I do not know the detail on that, but my basic question is: where did the demand come from? Five pages in a schedule does not exactly suggest a tidying-up exercise, if we are allowed to use that phrase. It seems rather odd. However, I shall leave it at that. It does seem rather odd but in the circumstances, none the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, might I respond to the points that my noble and learned friend has raised? In so doing, perhaps I will respond very briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in concluding the previous debate about why these powers were necessary and where the demands came from.

As I said, at present, neither HEFCE nor the Secretary of State has the statutory right to enter a HE provider to investigate if serious wrongdoing is suspected. This compromises investigators’ ability to obtain evidence of what may have happened and makes it harder to tackle rogue providers.

In its 2014 report on alternative providers, the National Audit Office said that the department has no rights of access to providers and that this affects the extent to which it can investigate currently. Therefore, we believe that these powers are needed to safeguard the interests of students and the taxpayer and to protect the reputation of the sector.

I apologise to my noble and learned friend, but I tried to address Amendment 125 when I—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate that he is taking the opportunity to clarify that last point, but to some extent he has stirred the pot again. He is talking now about rogue providers. My point was that, up until now, we have not been aware of rogue providers. There is clearly a fear that in the not too distant future there will be rogue providers, and that surely is a bigger issue than the question of having five pages in Schedule 5 to deal with them.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, the provisions are not required for the reasons that the noble Lord has suggested but because we believe they are necessary for the current institutions and in the light of the NAO report, which was written before these new providers came on to the scene. The department has no right of access to the providers. This affects the extent to which it can investigate currently rather than in future.

I turn to my noble and learned friend. I am not sure that I can usefully add to what I said earlier. I would not of course challenge for a moment what he said about practice in the judiciary. My understanding is that it is not usual practice within powers of entry provision for the magistrate to sign a certification document, and we are still unaware of any examples of this. The relevant clause in the Bill, as I think I said a moment ago, sets out the considerations that magistrates would have to take into account when making their judicial decision to grant a warrant, and we have full confidence that this constitutes a sufficient safeguard to ensure that a warrant will be granted only where necessary. For that reason, we are not persuaded that his amendment, in saying that it would have to be signed, constitutes an extra safeguard to ensure that a warrant would be granted only where necessary. I hope that, against that background, my noble and learned friend will feel that he does not have to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

131: Schedule 6, page 94, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff,”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, Amendments 131 and 132 mirror those that we brought forward in Committee. They concern the entitlement of higher education staff to be consulted prior to the OfS making a recommendation of a body suitable to perform the data functions. In such situations, this schedule provides for a number of registered providers of higher education, covering a broad range of different types of providers, a broad range of students on higher education courses and a broad range of employers of graduates, which is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

That is it, apart from the catch-all,

“such other persons as the OfS considers appropriate”.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government did not think it appropriate to restrict the ability of the OfS to consult such other persons as it considered appropriate. These amendments do not do that. If we had extended them to delete the reference in the schedule to “such other persons”, that would have closed things down. However, we are not doing that; we are leaving it there and suggesting that we should add another provision to ensure that staff working in higher education are part of the process. That does not mean only academic staff but includes all categories of people who contribute to making the experience of students fulfilling in every way possible. These people know higher education and the way in which institutions work, and so caretakers, catering staff, IT support, technicians and other categories should be asked to bring the benefit of their experience to bear in the decision either to designate a body or to remove that designation.

The Government do not give adequate consideration to the role that staff working in higher education can play. They have a contribution to make and they should be enabled to make it. This is not a radical suggestion—it certainly ought not to be—and adding one more category to those who must be consulted would certainly not be onerous for the Office for Students. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I repeat what I said in an earlier debate: we appreciate the role of all HE staff and there should be no imputation to the contrary.

This is another issue which we discussed in Committee. The amendments would require the OfS to consult HE staff on designation of the data body and would require the Secretary of State to consult HE staff before removing such a designation. We are committed to a system of co-regulation for the designated bodies, and this means that both the OfS and the sector should have confidence in the designated data body. Therefore the Bill already contains a requirement for the OfS to consult a broad range of registered HE providers on designation of the data body, and the Secretary of State must also consult before removing such a designation.

Providers are, of course, made up of HE staff, and in consulting HE providers we would expect their responses to be inclusive of the views of their staff, not only the academic community at that institution but the administrative and support teams, who in many cases directly gather and then submit the data required. So we expect that the views of staff on data and designation will be represented in their institution’s response.

However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent direct consultation with staff groups. The OfS and the Secretary of State will have the discretion to consult any person, including a staff representative body. We would expect it to adopt an open approach, and we bear in mind the remarks that have just been made by the noble Lord.

The legislation must be broad and flexible to stand the test of time and therefore, despite the urging of the noble Lord, we should resist specifying this sub-group, or any other group with an interest, in the list of consultees when the current drafting of the Bill is sufficient to ensure that the views of HE staff will be represented both in the designation process and in the removal of designation. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I find that partially encouraging. The Minister’s initial remarks will be noted by those who represent staff—trade unions and other organisations—and in future will be shown to the management of higher education institutions when the time comes for them to be consulted on designation or “dedesignation”, if there is such a word, in this context. I am sure the Minister did not mean to be disparaging, but for the staff to be described just as a “sub-group” undervalues the role they play in the running of an institution. That is why we believe there is a case to add one more provision, while still leaving it open for anybody else to be included.

However, the Minister’s remarks have been helpful. It would be even more helpful if at some stage they could be issued as some form of guidance to higher education institutions, but it is up to staff representatives, trade unions or whoever to use those remarks and ensure they are turned into meaningful representation within higher education institutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 131 withdrawn.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

145: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Financial support: loans
(1) In section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) No provision may be made relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section which would change the repayment conditions of that loan once the first payment has been made to the borrower or directly to the institution to whom the borrower is liable to make payments.(5B) No provision may be made relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section, and under which any payments have been made prior to the commencement of section (financial support: loans) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which would make any further changes to the repayment conditions of that loan after the commencement of that section.”(2) In section 8 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 (consumer credit), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) Loans made in accordance with regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 are to be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.””

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 145 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Students beginning their university courses after 2012 were told that if they took out a student loan, they would be required to repay it at the rate of 9% of future earnings above £21,000 a year. The Government repeatedly promised that the £21,000 would be uprated each year from April 2017 in line with average earnings. Indeed, that was confirmed in a letter to parents by the then Minister for Universities and Science, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. That letter contained no caveats, so students and their families knew where they stood on repayment of their loans—at least, they thought they did until the 2015 Autumn Statement, when the then Chancellor announced that the repayment threshold for student loans was to be frozen at £21,000 from April 2017, instead of being uprated in line with average earnings.

This is fundamentally a question of broken faith: of trusting what the Government say proving ill founded. Quite apart from the substantive issue in the amendment, that question of trust is, we believe, far from insignificant.

This issue is being revisited following debate in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, used his ministerial experience to explain that when the decision was taken in 2011 to freeze the repayment threshold, the figure was based on 75% of projected average earnings in 2017. Earnings in the intervening period having risen by less than anticipated, the noble Lord told us that,

“as a result … the repayment threshold has become significantly more generous relative to earnings than we expected when we set it”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 729.]

Unfortunately, that possibility was not mentioned in his aforementioned letter to parents.

By the logic of that argument, had earnings risen more than anticipated, students would be facing an increased threshold next month. Noble Lords will forgive me if I cast some doubt on that being allowed to occur. Nor should it, because an agreement is an agreement and should be respected as such by both sides. The Government’s action amounts to breach of a contract, with one party unilaterally changing the terms of the student loan. In any other context, it would be open to legal action to have the contract enforced and that action would succeed.

When the Bill was considered in the other place, the Minister for Universities and Science, Mr Johnson, called on universities to redouble their efforts to boost social mobility. He was right in his exhortation, although wrong to suggest it was solely the responsibility of institutions. When Labour left office in 2010, 71% of state educated pupils went to university. By 2014, that figure had fallen to 62%. This change will have a disproportionate impact on graduates on modest incomes and will act as a disincentive to young people from less well-off backgrounds to take up a place at university, because they will know that a previous cohort of students were misled by the Government over the repayment term of their loans. The parents of that cohort were also misled, and some of the financial impact may well follow them.

Amendment 145 would prevent any changes to the repayment of a student loan, irrespective of whether that benefited students, after the terms and conditions of repayment had been agreed. This would apply to existing loans after the commencement of the Act and ensure that such a situation would not recur by bringing loans under the regulation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—which, many people were surprised to learn, does not apply at the moment.

Some regulation of the student loan market is needed to provide the protection that students need. In replying for the Government in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, told noble Lords:

“On the matter of student loan terms and conditions, I share your Lordships’ desire to ensure that students are protected ... However, it is important that … the Government retain the power to adjust terms and conditions”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 732.]


How are those two statements capable of reconciliation? They are not, because only the Government are protected, not students—the very people that the Minister has consistently said throughout our deliberations are at the heart of this legislation. The unilateral reneging on loan agreements demonstrates that in fact, students’ interests can be dispensed with whenever the Government deem it necessary. That is unacceptable and is one more reason why the amendment should be adopted as a new clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I shall very briefly comment, as I have had my arguments referred to by the noble Lord opposite. The graduate repayment scheme is neither conventional public spending, nor is it a commercial loan. All three parties, when faced with the question of how you finance higher education, have concluded that the best way forward is through such an arrangement. If it is public spending, it will be a low priority, and the funding of universities will suffer. If it is a commercial loan, which now appears to be what the Labour Opposition are calling for, and if we really were to have it regulated under the terms of the convention on private loans, one of the first requirements would be the requirement to know your customer—to make an assessment of an individual recipient to see whether they have the capacity to repay a student loan. The agencies would have to decide whether to lend to any one individual or not, and disadvantaged students would certainly lose out from such an assessment. That is why this scheme is a midway house between two unpalatable alternatives, and why all three parties have backed it.

As part of that arrangement, it seems legitimate that Governments should be able to decide—I have always thought every five years, in an explicit public review—the balance between repayments by graduates and the remaining burden being borne by the generality of taxpayers, as the loans are paid off. That seems a sensible arrangement, bringing necessary flexibility into the system, and it is why it has always been made clear to students that Governments have the right to change the repayment terms as they wish. That seems a sensible feature—and if we go down the route of treating it like a private contract and repayment, it will have consequences which all of us in this House, particularly the party opposite, will come to regret.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that students should be entitled to protection when they take out student loans. Protections are already available in law and take account of the particular nature of these loans. Student loans are not like the commercial loans of the sort regulated under the Consumer Credit Act; they are not for profit and are universally accessible. Repayments depend on the borrower’s income, not on the amount borrowed, and the interest rate is limited by legislation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willetts for summarising the excellent speech that he made on this subject in Committee, and putting forward powerful reasons for not treating these as commercial loans.

I turn first to the issue of the threshold freeze. To put higher education funding on to a more sustainable footing, we had to ask those who benefit from university to meet more of the costs of their studies. This enabled us to remove the cap on student numbers, enabling more people to get the benefit of a university education. When the current system was first introduced, the threshold of £21,000 would have been around 75% of the projected average earnings in 2016. Since then, updated calculations, based on ONS figures for earnings, show that figure is now 83%, reflecting weaker than expected earnings growth since 2012. Uprating the repayment threshold in line with average earnings would cost around £5 billion in total by April 2021 compared with the current system. The total cost of uprating by CPI would be around £4 billion over the same period. The proportion of borrowers liable to repay when the £21,000 threshold took effect in April is therefore significantly lower than could have been envisaged when the policy was originally introduced. The threshold would now be set at around £19,000 if it were to reflect the same ratio of average earnings. The current £21,000 threshold remains higher than the £17,495 threshold that applies to loans taken out under the system left behind by Labour in 2010. Low earners remain protected. Borrowers who earn less than £21,000 a year repay nothing, while borrowers earning more than this repay 9% of their earnings above the threshold, irrespective of how much they borrowed. Any outstanding balance on the loans is written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower and no effect on their credit rating. This Bill makes no changes to any of these arrangements.

It is important that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Government retain the power to adjust the terms and conditions of student loans. As I said a moment ago, I fully share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that students are protected and that is why the loan terms are set out in legislation.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

If the situation had been reversed, and earnings had risen by more than had been anticipated, would the Government’s ability to vary the loans have been carried out in a manner which benefited students, rather than as has happened on this occasion?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Perversely, the noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the Government making any changes to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower. In other words, one of the effects of the amendment would be that we would not be able to alter the terms to the advantage of the borrower if the situation changed.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

As I said earlier, that is what the amendment is designed to do. The point is, when you reach an agreement you stick by it; you do not vary it either way. I am certainly not advocating that it should be varied the other way. My question was whether the noble Lord and his Government would be prepared to vary it the other way, had earnings risen by more than had been anticipated.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My response was that we would not be allowed to under the terms of the amendment. We have flexibility, which the noble Lord would deny us. The amendment would mean that future cohorts of students and taxpayers would have to bear the risks of the scheme, because it would insulate current students from any change. Perhaps that is why the Labour Party did not legislate to prohibit changes to the terms and conditions of existing loans when they introduced the system of income-contingent loans in the late 1990s. As I said, his amendment would prevent the Government making any change to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower, were this ever to be necessary.

It is also important that the Government should continue to be able to make necessary administrative amendments to the terms and conditions to ensure that the loans can continue to be collected efficiently. An example of this was the repayment regulations having to be amended in 2012 to accommodate HMRC moving to an electronic system to collect PAYE income tax through employers. Not being able to make this type of technical change to the regulations would eventually affect our ability to collect repayments through the tax system.

Having reflected on the question that the noble Lord asked me twice, the best answer is that I am reluctant to comment on a hypothetical question.

I turn to the regulation of student loans. The current student loan system is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and is universally accessible to all eligible students regardless of their financial circumstances. As my noble friend has just reminded us, taking out a student loan is in no way the same as taking out a commercial loan, and it should not be regulated as if it was. This fact was recognised by Labour when it legislated to confirm this exemption in 2008.

The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. Extending a system of regulation designed to regulate a competitive market in personal finance to a system of subsidised loans whose terms are set by Parliament would be impractical, expensive and fundamentally ill conceived. The additional costs of the regulation would need to borne by borrowers and taxpayers and would not be in their interests.

I return to the point that this is a heavily subsidised government loan scheme, and it remains right that Parliament should continue to have the final say on the loan terms and conditions, as it is best placed to balance the interests of taxpayers, borrowers and students. We are committed to a sustainable and fair student funding system. Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills of our citizens. We are seeing more young people going to university than ever before, and record numbers of 18 year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and, with it, the cap on aspiration.

I hope that this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, and I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 145.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some of his comments about the Government’s commitment to student loans would have carried more weight had they extended as far as sharia-compliant loans; we know from the previous debate that that is not the case. Although I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, he did not address the major point of this amendment: challenging the fact that the Government have changed the rules of the game after the game has begun, leaving a huge number of students worse off financially as a result of their actions. That is not acceptable. I have heard nothing from the Minister that suggests that the Government regret the move that they have made. In fact, they have said quite clearly that it was done for financial reasons. Those financial reasons are impacting on students. We believe that is unacceptable, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

I would make one final point. Why do students cheat? Why are they forced into going down this path? It might sometimes be from the pressures they find themselves under. It might sometimes be from mental anxiety. As well as making the practice illegal and dealing with those despicable companies that provide this service and obviously want to make a profit, we need to support students as well. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I spoke in support of the same amendment in Committee. This is a problem of some seriousness and I think it is understated. We heard in the previous debate that the QAA was not taking it particularly seriously and had no legal or regulatory powers to take action against an individual student who was found to have cheated in whatever way. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us at that time that it was rather offhand about the fact that only 17,000 students had been caught cheating. The fact that that was the tip of the iceberg seemed not to be a major issue.

It is a major issue if there is such an amount of this going on that Professor Newton—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has referred in the past—has carried out a survey by interviewing students and those providing such services, which came up with a whole list of how long it took for an essay, a dissertation or whatever. If it is even worthy of academic study, it has to be a problem of some substance. The noble Lord quoted Professor Newton and said that he had been advised that if the word “intent” had been taken out of the amendment it would have strengthened it. I am not quite clear about how it would have strengthened it. I think the noble Lord said it would have given it more power, but that has not been done. Will the noble Lord explain why the amendment has been submitted in the same form?

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place. She was the Minister who responded to this debate in January. As we were together in the Scottish Parliament many years ago, I hoped that she might respond to this debate, but I see that—forgive me—silence is Goldie and the noble Lord, Lord Young, will respond. Will he pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made in her response in January that the Government were on the point of announcing a new initiative on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said it would be with us,

“Within the next few weeks”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 765.]


Seven weeks have ticked by since we last discussed this, so we must be very close to it now. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has a date for the publication of this new initiative, which I think was to involve the QAA, the NUS, HEFCE and UUK—a whole lot of acronyms. It would helpful and would perhaps deal with this issue, at least in the interim, as I accept that we are short of a position where legislation is required.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his extensive work on this issue. I am grateful for his contribution to the round-table discussions with the QAA and his continued engagement on this matter. He touched on the problem of foreign students. The evidence presented in the QAA’s report on plagiarism indicates that cheating may be more prevalent among international students. However, we recognise that plagiarism is a wider issue, so our approach is to look at the sector as a whole. We will be working with the QAA and other sector bodies to develop a co-ordinated response across all students and providers.

As my noble friend Lady Goldie said in Committee, plagiarism in any form, including the use of custom essay-writing services, or essay mills, is not acceptable and the Government take this issue very seriously. Having said that, I am afraid that I am going to plagiarise much of the speech which my noble friend made in Committee when she dealt with this amendment. My noble friend announced that the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, would be launching a co-ordinated sector-led initiative to tackle this issue, working with the QAA, UUK, NUS and HEFCE. In response to the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, this initiative has now been launched.

The Minister has asked sector bodies to develop guidance with tough new penalties as well as information for students to help combat the use of these websites as well as other forms of plagiarism. This new guidance for providers should ensure that a robust approach with tough penalties can be embedded across the sector. In developing the guidance, the Minister has asked sector bodies to bear in mind that, for any enforcement to be effective, the penalties imposed must relate to both the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of an offence being discovered. The new sector guidance and student information is expected to be in place for the beginning of the 2017-18 academic year.

As part of this initiative, the QAA has also been tasked with taking action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with the problem. The QAA has already started to progress these actions, including making a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, asking it to investigate the essay mills sector on a project basis.

We believe this sector-led, non-legislative initiative is the best approach to tackling this issue in the first instance. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of this approach and we remain open to legislation in the future should the steps we are taking prove insufficient. If legislation does become necessary, it would be crucial that we get the wording of the offence right. In the amendment tabled, it is unclear who would be responsible for prosecuting and how they would demonstrate intent to give an unfair advantage. As currently written, there is also a risk that the offence could capture legitimate services, such as study guides, under the same umbrella as cheating services.

The effectiveness of a legislative offence operating as a deterrent will depend on our ability to execute successful prosecutions and we would need to take care to get it right. This was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Committee, who said that,

“this should not be rushed and we should get it spot on”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 766.]

We do not believe that legislative action is the best response at this time, and I have outlined the steps that are being taken. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.