Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Mark Field and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

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

[Joseph Johnson]

The TEF is not being rushed; it is being piloted for the first two years. Awards will not be differentiated until 2019-20, with effect from the 2019-20 academic year. That is a significant period for the reforms to bed in. The university sector has welcomed the link to fees. Universities UK has recognised that there is a need for such a link and that we need to fund on the basis of quality as well as quantity. There is no attempt by the sector to separate the link.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I applaud the Minister’s view that we should focus on quality in the sector, rather than just volume, which is one of the problems that has beset the higher education sector in the past 20 or so years. Is there any international parallel for the OFS? Does such a body exist in Canada, Australia or other big global higher education sectors? Are we taking a lead, or following elements of what has happened elsewhere?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. We have studied regulatory systems around the world in drawing up our proposals for the OFS. Our system is in line with several in the Anglophone countries that have moved towards a market-based system in which the student is the primary funder of his or her higher education experience. It is therefore incumbent on us to put in place a system of regulation that recognises that we are moving away from the classic funder model of regulation that was put in place by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which created the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

New clause 12 and amendment 47 seem to misunderstand the aim of the TEF. Changing the ratings, as proposed by amendment 49, would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students from being able to determine which providers are offering the best teaching and achieving the best outcomes. Amendments 46 and 47 would stifle the healthy development of the TEF, and amendment 50 ignores the reasoned and consultative approach that we have taken and will continue to take in developing the metrics.

Let me set out the reasons why amendments tabled by Opposition Members on our plans for degree-awarding powers are unnecessary—namely, new clauses 4 and 7, and amendments 40 and 41. Our reforms will ensure that students can choose from a wider range of high-quality institutions. If the higher education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier for it to start awarding its own degrees, rather than needing to have degrees for its courses awarded by a competing incumbent. We intend to keep the processes on scrutiny of applications for degree-awarding powers, which have worked well so far, broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element of independent peer review for degree-awarding powers applications. Setting this out in legislation, as new clause 4 suggests, would tie this to a static process which would be inflexible. We intend to consult on detailed circumstances where degree-awarding powers and university title might be revoked, including changes of ownership, so there is no need for new clause 7. As for amendments 40 and 41, I can reassure Members that we will, as now, ensure that the very high standards providers must meet to make such awards will be retained. We are streamlining processes, not lowering standards, and these amendments are therefore unnecessary.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has proposed amendment 58 on the criteria an institution should demonstrate in order to be granted university title. None of these are current criteria. Like now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title in guidance, not in legislation.

This group also includes some technical amendments to ensure that the legislation delivers the policy intent set out in our White Paper. I know Opposition Members will be keen to talk about the amendments they have tabled, and I look forward to responding to any further points raised.

Science and Research

Debate between Mark Field and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, on this important subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on prompting discussion on a key aspect of Government policy.

The UK regions are at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. The Government are mindful to ensure that investment should not get sucked into hyper-concentrated areas, such as the golden triangle, at the expense of the excellence that can be found in many other parts of the country. That is a matter to which I have been paying close attention in my first few weeks in my role.

We believe that science and research has a central role in the regions and the Government want the national economic recovery, which has been under way for a number of years, to continue to benefit all parts of our country. Investment in research based in the regions is an absolutely key part to that. The extra gear our economy needs is to be found in R and D capabilities in the universities in our regions as well as in the golden triangle.

UK science is an international success story and a major driver of growth and attractor of inward investment, as hon. Members have mentioned. It is not always recognised that it can make a huge contribution to local and regional economies and to rebalancing the economy, a goal to which the Government are strongly committed.

By way of illustration, I will take a quick regional tour of the investments we have made in recent months, starting from Land’s End and going all the way up to John O’Groats, many of which will contribute to our goal of rebalancing the economy. In the south-west, synthetic biology has been assisted by a £14 million investment in a centre for synthetic biology in Bristol. I will detour via London, which, as Members have already mentioned, has well-known strengths and new investments in institutions such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Alan Turing Institute. Just north of London, we have recently invested £12 million in a centre for agricultural informatics and sustainability metrics near Harpenden and work will start there this summer on modelling more efficient food systems.

Further east, we have just invested £44 million in Babraham and £26 million in Norwich in research agri-tech. In the west midlands, not far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we have an example of what will help our ambition to make the midlands an engine of growth. As part of the Government’s £270 million investment in new quantum technologies, Birmingham University has just secured £35 million towards developing an internationally leading centre of excellence and a quantum technology hub. That is in addition to plans for a new national college for high-speed rail, which the right hon. Gentleman described as a

“once in a generation opportunity to transform our local economy.”

The manifesto we published before the general election had a strong commitment to building the northern powerhouse. That is becoming a reality and our investments in centres such as the Hartree Centre and the square kilometre array, the largest scientific experiment in the world, will support that objective. I could add to that list our various investments in graphene such as those at the National Graphene Institute and the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central will be impatient for me to cross the Pennines. He will know that, in the Sheffield city region, £10 million has just been invested in a new facility for aerospace and other sectors at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. In York, we have invested £27 million in a quantum communications hub as part of our national programme.

As we head further north to Scotland, we continue to support Scotland’s fine scientific tradition. Just last year, the Chancellor announced a £16 million contribution to a new stratified medicine imaging centre of excellence in Glasgow, which will unite world-leading clinical academic expertise in stroke, cardiovascular disease and brain imaging to aid our understanding and treatment of a range of human diseases. Other examples in Scotland include Edinburgh University’s national computing centre, which has benefited from funding for ARCHER, the UK’s top supercomputer, which is now being used by 1,000 academics and people in industry.

I turn to issues raised by Members, and by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill in particular. I thank him for his generous welcome; it is a pleasure to be in this relationship to him. I have always enjoyed talking with him and I hope that we can have a productive and cordial relationship in the months ahead.

There is strong cross-party agreement about the role that investment in science and research can play in solving our productivity challenge and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are truly committed to that. Our manifesto is evidence of it: investment in science and research runs through it like words through a stick of rock and it is a personal passion of the Chancellor. Science and research therefore is front and centre of our solution to the productivity puzzle and such investment in our regions will be one of the key ways in which we will try to plug the productivity gap that holds us back.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 3% target, which has been an ongoing question in public policy debate for some time. As he will know, previous Governments attempted to introduce R and D-related targets without success. An isolated target does not lead to behavioural change in and of itself; it needs to be complemented by additional policy measures. It is not clear that 3% is the optimal target and there is no evidence that it would lead to optimal investment for the UK. Evidence suggests that the UK under-invests compared with other major research economies and that there would be economic benefits from increased investment, but the aim of achieving 3% GDP spend on R and D is set out at EU level and is not a UK target. The investments we make as a country are recognised as being particularly fruitful. We are recognised as being an excellent place in which to innovate and get very high returns on scientific R and D investment.

[Mark Field]

Without pre-empting the battles that the Minister will no doubt have with the Home Office, the immigration question is close to our hearts. He will appreciate fully that if the brightest and best from across the world come here, they will go back to their countries as ambassadors for this country for the rest of their lives and often build up businesses with links to us. We lose that at our peril: such links will then go to Canada, the USA and Australia, and the point has been made that, without significant numbers of overseas students, leading postgraduate courses will simply close down, which will be to the detriment of our own indigenous population.