Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Trudy Harrison]

Q We have heard examples of how we need it; are there examples of why other countries need it in place, for their own benefit?

Angela Hepworth: Yes; there is a nuclear supply chain across the EU and the UK is a great opportunity for those countries. For example, two-thirds of the value of the construction of Hinkley Point will go to companies in the UK but that leaves one-third of the value of the construction going to countries from further afield. Many of those are companies in Europe but, for example, there are companies in the US and Japan which are also involved in the Hinkley Point supply chain. It is in the interests of those companies and countries to have future co-operation agreements which enable them to participate in the supply chain. The UK has great opportunities for international companies: there is supporting the operation of the existing nuclear fleet; there is the nuclear new build programme; there is decommissioning coming up. So there should be real opportunities for other companies to be involved in the UK supply chain if we can get those agreements in place.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q On the same theme, in your evidence you very diplomatically describe the challenge that we face, even if the Bill proceeds in a timely manner. The legal and practical challenges to the Government and the ONR to put the necessary arrangements and resources in place remain significant. I guess that what you are trying to say, in code, is that that is not really very doable by March 2019.

Angela Hepworth: I am not saying it is not doable; I am saying it is challenging. You heard first-hand from Dr Mina Golshan of the ONR this morning about the practical steps that need to be taken. There is an awful lot that it needs to do in terms of recruitment and having systems and processes set up. We are mindful of the fact that that is a challenge in the time available. That is one reason we support an implementation or transitional phase.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q You would find it helpful to have that in the Bill?

Angela Hepworth: Again, we are looking for assurance and clarity. I am less concerned about whether that is set out in the Bill or not; it is assurance and clarity that the industry is looking for.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q From the point of view of EDF’s operations across the world, what is your view on whether, and in what form, association with Euratom might be a reasonable proposition for the future, and on whether the associations already in existence might fit the bill as possible models for UK association with Euratom?

Angela Hepworth: In terms of a future relationship, EDF Energy has been clear from the outset that far and away the best outcome for the UK nuclear industry would be to remain in Euratom. That remains, we think, the right answer for the UK nuclear industry. Assuming that that is not possible and that we have to look at a future agreement, the models of association agreements in place now are limited to engagement in research and development programmes. That is valuable, but it does not address the key issue that we are concerned about, which is the movement of nuclear materials. What we are most concerned about in all of this is our ability to move nuclear fuel, nuclear components, information and services. The current framework of association agreements would not meet that need. If that were going to solve the key issues, we would need to think of some different model of association.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

Q So that critical path when there is project management talk about what steps need to be taken on what date and by whom.

Sue Ferns: Indeed, and what the risks are at each stage, so that they can be known and are transparent. I am sure that various stakeholders are working on them at the moment, but I do not think that the critical path with the risks at each stage is a transparent timeline at the moment.

Another thing that would build confidence is making it clear that everyone will work to achieve this, but if we do not achieve it, we must have a longer transition period. For the sake of the industry, we absolutely cannot afford to step out of the regime that we have now until it is absolutely clear that there are equivalent standards in place and that they are operating. It is quite difficult to impose an arbitrary timescale on that because, as I said, there are a number of risk factors: specifying, procuring and getting new IT systems up and running—there is not always a great track record on that—and making sure that we have appropriately qualified and skilled inspectors.

Reflecting on the previous question, Kevin is absolutely right: the UK has a first-class reputation. We all know how easily reputations can be lost. They take years to win, but they do not take years to lose. There should be a combination of having the critical path, which is transparent about the risks at each stage, and being clear that if we need a longer transition in this sphere, we should have a longer transition because that is in the interests of the industry.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q I want to pursue the issue of the time that it will take to get the necessary staff in place. Sue, you said that you were uncertain about the training period. Prior to this Committee, it had been suggested that it could take up to five years to train safeguards inspectors. Is that a reasonable period?

Sue Ferns: I think that that is a reasonable assumption. The reason I said I was a bit uncertain is that it depends on where you get these people from and what their previous experience is. A reasonable approximation is several years—it is not a matter of months but years for people to be able to do that job. Yes, it is about knowledge and skills—and there are a lot of knowledge and skills in the industry—but there are specific aspects of an inspector’s role. This is a warranted role; this is not just working in the industry. It is not just about knowledge, but experience and commanding the confidence of the companies and the organisations that you deal with, so there are very specific aspects to that role. I think that it is a period of years. Of all the things that worry ONR, this is probably one of the key ones, if not the key one. As I say, I think it is doing the absolute best it can, but this is one of the things that keeps them awake at night.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q That comment probably reflects the very helpful conversation we had with Dr Golshan this morning. I think we all formed the impression that it is doing its very best, but that there is a real worry about the size of the talent pool from which it could draw. Do you want to reflect on that?

Sue Ferns: Absolutely. It is a small talent pool, and it is a challenging talent pool even in the best of times. To use what may or may not be an appropriate analogy, it is fishing in a defined and restricted pool, and we are now saying it has to increase its catch from that pool. That is a hard and really difficult thing to do. Also bear in mind that ONR is subject to public sector constraints in its recruitment and payment practices. If it has to compete with the commercial sector, something will have to give in that regard. How can the catch from that limited pool be increased under the constraints it is operating in? The job is getting tougher and bigger, and there are multiple challenges.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q You said in your evidence, Sue, that you were concerned that the powers of the inspectors were not set out in the Bill. Can you elaborate on exactly what your concerns are?

Sue Ferns: The concerns are set out in our evidence. If you look at sections 20 to 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2013, they set out in some detail what the powers of the inspectors will be. I know there is reference to that in the schedule to the Bill. These concerns come directly from people who will have to do this job. As warranted inspectors, they feel that it is important to have those powers in the Bill. It is important for purposes of parity, to ensure continuity—these things should not be left to the discretion of future Ministers—and also, as we have discussed, for external confidence in the way the job will be done. That is why we believe very strongly that those powers should be specified. I have not heard an argument to say why, if it is good enough for the 1974 Act and the 2013 Act, we should contemplate a change in practice for this piece of legislation.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q May I briefly follow up on that thought? As you say, schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2013 looks like a comprehensive range of powers and definitions for what inspectors can and cannot do, except it excludes nuclear safeguarding from that definition. If nuclear safeguarding were included among those powers for inspectors, would it be the case in your view that what is in the 2013 Act—provided you switched off those prohibitions—would be sufficient to give the inspectors the powers and the arrangements they felt would be necessary for the transfer of inspection from Euratom to ONR? Or are there other matters that you think should perhaps be included in the schedule to the Bill that would comprehensively do the job, as far as those inspectors were concerned?

Sue Ferns: I think achieving that would be an important step forward. However, as we have set out in our evidence, we have identified three other matters, because you would then have to be clear about what safeguarding means in law. The three bullet points in paragraph 5 of our evidence are points where we think that specific clarity is required in relation to what that would mean in a safeguarding regime. Is that clear?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson]

Q Are they being attracted here?

Professor Matthews: They were, but they are not any more.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q Professor, could we return to your primary concern, which we have also exercised with previous witnesses? It concerns the ability of the ONR to recruit sufficient inspectors by March 2019—you helpfully clarified the difference between safeguarding inspectors and safety inspectors. How likely is it that the ONR could meet the staffing levels necessary to take over the Euratom function in safeguarding by that date?

Professor Matthews: I heard the recording this morning of the ONR representative. It looks unlikely that it will be fully functioning by March in two years’ time. The question is: how can we bridge the gap until everything is working properly?

[Paul Blomfield]

Q I guess in lots of other areas, having got close and being not quite but almost fully functioning might be satisfactory. In this specific area, what are the consequences of not having a fully functioning safeguarding regime in place?

Professor Matthews: Springfields, which produces nuclear fuel, will stop working. The Urenco plant at Capenhurst, which is part of three plants in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, will stop working because it will not be able to move uranium around. We in the UK no longer do conversion, which is changing uranium into uranium hexafluoride, which then goes to the enrichment plant and is converted back to oxide or metal for application. That requires movement, and all of that would stop.

It would be difficult for Sellafield and other decommissioning sites, such as the old research sites at Dounreay, Harwell or Winfrith; some of the work there would grind to a halt as well. Eventually, when the fuel charges were removed from reactors operating in EDF Energy’s plant, those would all stop, which would take something like 9 GW of power out of our network at a time when we are perilously close to blackouts. It would be a very serious measure indeed if there was a hiatus.

[Richard Harrington]

Thank you for that, Professor Matthews. You are of course using my argument for why we need the Bill; thank you for supporting it. Dr Mina Golshan, whose organisation is responsible for recruiting the 15 people we are talking about, said that recruitment had already started. Once the Bill proceeded beyond Second Reading—I thank everyone, including Opposition Members, for voting for that—it meant that the financial resources needed for the IT and recruitment are provided. We are very well aware of that.

I thank you for your de facto support for the Bill. I have of course noted the points you have made, and I will be very happy to chat about them on another occasion. The purpose of the Bill is precisely to get over some of the obstacles that you are talking about and prevent what you have explained would happen—as we accept would happen—if we did not have a safeguards regime in place.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) struck the right note when she said this is a serious debate. We have to discuss these issues with due seriousness, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) clearly set out our serious concerns about the Bill in her opening contribution.

The Bill should be unnecessary, and the Opposition hope it may yet be so. What the Government should be doing is setting their goal as the UK’s continued participation in Euratom as a member, if possible, or as close to that relationship as we can get. There is a lot of cross-party agreement on that goal—I exempt the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who extravagantly celebrated our crashing out of Euratom—but in the Westminster Hall debate on the issue back in July, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is a champion of this sector, even the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who was here earlier and who is not a noted dove on these issues, said that we should be working

“towards something like associate membership.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 96WH.]

It appeared then that the barrier to that relationship was the role of the European Court of Justice, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) pointed out. Indeed, the former chief of staff to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer have both suggested that that is why Euratom was linked to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, and the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister. It is deeply irresponsible to put our nuclear industry at risk because of a reckless and ideological decision to make the future role of the ECJ a red line in all matters relating to Brexit.

As hon. Members have pointed out, and as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said in his opening remarks, the Bill provides for safeguarding arrangements for all civilian nuclear facilities in the UK, which is clearly needed if we leave Euratom, but that is only one part of what is at risk. The wider issues were exercised in the Government’s own position paper, which was issued over the summer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out, Euratom oversees the transport of nuclear fuel across the EU and enables vital co-operation on information, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy. It is the legal owner of all nuclear material, and the legal purchaser, certifier and guarantor of any nuclear materials and technologies that the UK purchases. That includes, for example, our nuclear trade with the United States.

Euratom has helped us become a world leader in nuclear research and development. In their position paper on the issue, the Government rightly said that they want a “close and working relationship” with Euratom, and we welcome that. That position paper set out six high-level principles for nuclear materials and safeguards that would frame their approach to the issue. So may I ask the Minister to explain why the Bill fails to address five of those six high-level principles, which are the Government’s own objectives?

Why is the Bill so limited in its scope? Is that because the Government aim to secure ongoing membership and have just brought this Bill forward as a contingency? Will the Minister confirm the answer that I understood the Secretary of State to give to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): that it is the Government’s intention to seek associate membership? Is it because their thinking has not advanced sufficiently on all the other issues connected with our membership of Euratom? Or is it, as was said by some of the more excitable Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), that they are looking forward to crashing out of Euratom—[Interruption.] Perhaps “excitable” was not quite the right word, but he was working towards it. Given that the Prime Minister has talked it up, will the Minister say what work has been done on a no-deal scenario in the event that we leave Euratom in the way that some Conservative Members would seem to like?

[Tom Pursglove]

Is not the whole purpose of a Bill such as this to stop anybody crashing out? The hon. Gentleman is using totally irresponsible language.

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree that it is irresponsible language and I am sorry to have heard it from some Conservative Members during this debate.

This is an important issue and the sector is hugely important, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) pointed out in a thoughtful and informed contribution when she said that it is important that we get this right. The Government therefore need to answer some key questions. The ONR cannot exercise these new powers until it has a voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol from the IAEA for a UK safeguards regime. What work has been done on that and when do the Government anticipate that will be ratified? What have the Government done to ensure that the ONR has the necessary skills to take on the safeguarding of nuclear material? Euratom employs 160 people on safeguarding, 25% of whom work on UK installations, whereas the ONR currently employs eight staff. I understand that it takes five years to train a nuclear safeguards inspector. Two years will not be long enough to reskill the necessary number of inspectors. Are plans under way to re-employ the current Euratom officials or do the Government have another contingency up their sleeve?

[Dr Drew]

The problem is that the nuclear industry is not currently able to call on that level of expertise. It already suffers because of a shortage of labour in many parts of the industry, so that can only get worse.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I am coming straight to. As a number of Members have mentioned, it is planned to halve the current Government grant to the ONR by 2020. I recognise that this is only one part of the ONR’s funding, but can the Minister confirm that that is no longer the Government’s intention? Will he outline what their new funding plans would be, given the additional responsibilities they are seeking to place on the ONR?

An important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), and echoed by some others, was that outside Euratom the Government would have to negotiate individual nuclear collaboration agreements not simply with Euratom, but with every country outside of the EU with which we currently co-operate through our membership, including the US, China, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and South Korea. The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned the example of the United States. A section 123 agreement with the US—a legal necessity if we are to trade nuclear goods with the US—would have to go through the Senate and the House of Representatives, with final sign-off needed from the President. Does the Minister really believe it is possible to achieve that in the time we have left?

What provisions have been put in place to ensure that normal business in the UK is not disrupted? As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out, an important part of that will be ensuring that the UK has the right skills to build, operate and decommission nuclear power stations. What will be the Government’s migration policy for the nuclear worker who previously enjoyed free movement under the provision of the Euratom treaty?

A key benefit of the UK’s involvement in Euratom has been our participation in R and D programmes. The Government have given limited commitments on Culham, but what are their wider intentions on the full Euratom work programme from 2019-20 onward?

Seventeen months does not give us much time to resolve such a huge number of issues. The paralysis at the heart of the negotiations, created by the divisions at the heart of the Government, do not give us much confidence that the issues can be resolved within the time available. One further key question: will the Government seek to continue membership of Euratom—or to come to an arrangement that replicates the benefits and responsibilities of that membership—for a transitional period after we leave the EU in March 2019?

The Bill is inadequate. It fails to address so many of the vital questions that the Government themselves raised in their own position paper. It gives the Secretary of State powers to amend legislation without reference to the House—powers that, although narrower in scope, in many ways go further than those in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. For these reasons, we cannot support it. Nevertheless, we recognise that, if the worst comes to the worst—as some Government Members seem to anticipate—and we crash out without agreement, we would be in breach of our international responsibilities under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons if we do not have a safeguarding regime in place. For that reason, we will seek to amend the Bill significantly in Committee, but we will not oppose it tonight.

Tuition Fees

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and I congratulate him on his election as Chair of the Select Committee and on his thoughtful contribution to the debate, which bodes well for the future. I represent more students—some 36,000 at the last count—than any other Member of this House, and consequently I chair the all-party parliamentary group on students. I represent many post-2012 graduates as well. They have been described as “generation rent” but we might also describe them as “generation debt”. The poorer the family they come from, the greater the debt as a result of the Government’s actions, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported. We are talking about debts of up to £57,000.

It is five years since the coalition Government forced through the £9,000 fees, but the impact is only beginning to take effect. This recent election was the first to be held since students starting graduating with the debt as a consequence of £9,000 fees—in May 2015, they had not started to do so. As a consequence, the issue took centre stage in this election. It is an issue not just for generation debt, but for their parents and, apparently, for some senior members of the Government. Even the Prime Minister’s deputy, the First Secretary of State, says, in a way that contradicts the confidence of the Minister, that we need to have a national debate on the issue. He is right, because we do, and this is only an opening salvo. We need to examine how we can provide the funding that our universities need to maintain their world-leading position, but without burdening our young people with unsustainable debt. That is the big challenge.

There are some immediate things that the Government could do on this. First, they could scrap the proposed increase in interest rates to 6.1% from the current 4.6%. This will be 6.1% at a time when the base rate is 0.25% and rates for average mortgages are less than 4%. The Minister will say that this is an automatic rise based on the formula of RPI plus 3%, but that formula is wrong. It means, as the IFS estimated, that students are accruing an average of £5,800 of additional debt in interest during their studies—before they even have the chance to start paying it off. As the former skills Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), has argued:

“It is unutterably depressing for hard-working students to see the amount they owe spiralling upwards, before they have even started paying it off.”

The greatest burden is on the students from the poorest homes. So will today’s Minister hear what his colleagues are saying, what students and parents are saying, and what this House is saying, and commit to press the Chancellor to scrap the proposed increase in the interest rate and to review the formula?

A second thing the Government should do immediately is reintroduce maintenance grants for students from lower-income households. The grants were a central part of the package put together in 2012 and without that commitment this House would probably not have passed the proposals that saw tuition fees rise, because the grants mitigated the impact of trebling the fees. Scrapping grants for the poorest at the first opportunity after the 2015 election says a lot about this Government’s priorities and went a long way towards undermining confidence in the system.

While we are on the question of confidence in the system, the Government should think again on their retrospective changes to the terms of repayment, which make graduates pay for the Government’s miscalculation of the cost of the funding system and the escalating RAB—resource accounting and budgeting—charge. The Minister says it was a conscious decision; he knows well enough that the conscious decision his predecessor talked to the House about involved a RAB charge of 28%. That got out of control—it rose into the 40% area, and it was even being modelled at more than 50%—and the Government made graduates pay for their miscalculation.

Anticipating that before the 2015 general election, I asked Ministers for assurances that they would not make students pay for the Government’s mistakes by changing the terms of the 2012 system, and the Minister’s predecessor told me there were no plans to do so. Running into the election, the promise to students was that there were no plans to change the terms of the repayments. However, no sooner were the votes counted than the plans were rolled out in the 2015 Budget, freezing the repayment threshold and making graduates pay more than they signed up for. Conservative Members talk about broken promises, but there could be no worse breach of faith, breach of promise and breach of contract than that retrospective change. It is, frankly, fraudulent, and if this had been any other organisation than the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority would get involved. This decision undermines confidence in the loans system, and it should be reversed.

Let me highlight one further thing, of many, that should change: the decision to scrap bursaries and to introduce fees and loans for nursing, midwifery and allied health courses. Back in January 2016, when we debated the issue in Westminster Hall, the then Health Minister, Ben Gummer, told Members that the Government wanted—listen to this—

“to spread to nurses the same benefits that have been realised in the rest of the student population.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 236WH.]

Some of us in the debate expressed some scepticism that nurses and midwives would see £50,000 of debt as a benefit. We warned that these courses, which still provided a route into professional careers for those who were put off university by fees—mature students and others from low-income backgrounds—would see applications fall, at a time when we need more nurses.

Those concerns were cavalierly dismissed by the Government, but the final numbers have been published in the last few days, and Sheffield Hallam University in my city has seen a 22% drop, with the drop across the country estimated at 26%. The Government were clearly wrong. Will they accept that and reverse their decision on bursaries? They have been wrong time and again. We need a fresh start in this whole policy area.

Euratom Membership

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for your rigorous chairing of this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing the debate and on the knowledge of and commitment to this vital sector that he demonstrated in his opening remarks. Those have been reflected by many of the Members who have spoken, from both sides of the House. They demonstrated the strength of concern that exists about this issue across party lines. The Prime Minister has called for some level of cross-party co-operation on Brexit, and in many ways today’s debate has taken her up on that. Her response will show whether she is serious.

Many Members have spoken knowledgably about Euratom’s importance to the UK, and the worrying implications of a cliff-edge departure. Euratom has enabled the UK to become a world leader in nuclear research and development. The fact that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has decided to continue funding the JET facility in Culham demonstrates that he recognises that too. That point was made very forcefully by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).

[Annaliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was not given the chance to speak on this issue, so I want to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of the need for certainty about Culham’s status to be provided within the year, given the need to avoid the Austrian presidency. We need answers very quickly on its continuation. Further, is he aware of the enormous expense that will be incurred if the Culham centre has to be decommissioned, rather than allowed to develop the practical technology of which it was, of course, a global pioneer?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which demonstrates her commitment to the Culham facility not only in her current role but in her previous job. She is right on both points. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon made this point forcefully: we need certainty now—not at some stage in the future, but now—because otherwise the facility is at risk.

[Kit Malthouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that actually the biggest threat to fusion research in Europe generally is the stance of the European Union itself? Given that Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power, the hostility of the Austrians and the fact that the anti-science Greens now pepper the European Parliament and parliaments across the EU, the likelihood of Horizon 2020 funding continuing to go into nuclear research at the same level is very low, and likely to reduce.

[Paul Blomfield]

Those thoughts are contradicted by the enormous investment that the European Union has put into the Culham facility and is committing to.

Moving back to the benefits of Euratom, it oversees the transport of nuclear fuel across the EU and enables vital co-operation on information, infrastructure and the funding of nuclear energy. It provides safeguarding inspections for all civilian nuclear facilities in the UK—a point made well by the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who was right to say that if we get this wrong, it will have an economically crushing impact on the UK. Euratom is the legal owner of all nuclear material, and is the legal purchaser, certifier and guarantor of nuclear materials and technologies that the UK purchases. That includes our nuclear trade with the United States.

As has been highlighted this week and by other Members, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), Euratom also plays an important role in our NHS. A Conservative Member questioned that point, but I take the judgment of the Royal College of Radiologists, which has expressed genuine concern that cancer patients will face delays in treatments if supply is threatened. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) highlighted the National Audit Office report on the risks to Hinkley Point. In all areas, our membership of Euratom is vital.

Indeed, the Government stated that they want to replicate the arrangements we have with Euratom. They have talked about probably the exact same benefits, in the way that they have about the trade deal they want in place of single market membership and customs union membership. It is an ambition that they have yet to demonstrate how they will achieve.

Outside Euratom, the Government would have to negotiate individual nuclear co-operation agreements with every single country outside the EU with which we currently co-operate on these matters. Those would be complex, lengthy negotiations within a 20-month framework. I am interested to hear from the Minister how far they have progressed on those. The Nuclear Industry Association has been clear that if we left without them in place, it would be a disaster—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who is a strong champion of these issues.

All this prompts the question: why add this whole other burden to run alongside the negotiations for our withdrawal from the European Union? The bigger issue at play here was summed up very well—I loved the football analogy—by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): the Prime Minister’s obsession with the European Court of Justice. In that context, it is deeply unfortunate that Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union have dodged today’s debate. It is becoming something of a habit. We have had three debates in this and the main Chamber on exiting the European Union since the election. DExEU Ministers have dodged every one. That is an unfortunate habit, because both sides of this House demand a level of accountability that they are not demonstrating they are up for.

Back in February, I challenged the then Minister of State at DExEU, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), about allegations that it was the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice that had led the Government to issue a notice to withdraw from Euratom alongside the notice to withdraw from the EU. In response he told the House, along much the same lines that he has repeated this morning, that this was not the case. He said:

“it would not be possible for the UK to leave the EU and continue its current membership of Euratom.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 523.]

The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) have expressed the view, which many of us share, that legal opinions are never that straightforward. The hon. Member for Henley made that very explicit.

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned me. He has heard what I have to say. I repeat that the advice that DExEU received was as I have outlined this morning. Does he accept that?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think that there are probably enough lawyers in this place to know that legal advice can go in many ways. It may well be that that advice was received by the Department, but other Conservative Members have made it clear that if the political will exists, a solution can be found.

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not mean to doubt the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that that was the advice his Department received, but it would of course help the hon. Gentleman to agree with him if the Department published the advice that my right hon. Friend saw when he was a Minister.

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I hope the Department will respond by publishing that advice.

[Sir William Cash]

This is not just a question of legal opinion; it is actually stated in the treaty itself. Article 106a of the Euratom treaty, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, unequivocally says that article 50 of the treaty on European Union—the article that sets out the procedure for EU withdrawal—

“shall apply to this Treaty.”

It is there in black and white. It is not a matter of legal opinion—it is just there.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On the issue of cross-party consensus, I have to say that I was interested in his earlier contribution about looking for some sort of associate membership of Euratom, which might well involve the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We are making some progress, aren’t we?

Let me come to those in the Government who have contradicted the comments by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West in February. Comments by James Chapman, the former chief of staff to the Brexit Secretary, contradict that statement, and his comments were confirmed by the former Chancellor. They suggest that the nuclear industry, jobs and cancer treatments are being put at risk by the Prime Minister’s reckless and irresponsible decision to make the future of the ECJ a red line in all matters to do with Brexit.

[Mr David Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, because I am conscious of time.

All this goes well beyond the issue of Euratom. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, it will affect our future in other agencies that we would also wish to be members of, such as the European Medicines Agency. We should start with the presumption that if these agencies are in our interests as a country, we would want to continue to maintain that membership.

We have already seen the obsession with the ECJ undermining discussions on the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and therefore those of UK citizens in the EU27. That obsession will also affect our ability to secure the objective that the Government have set themselves: the “exact same benefits”—I quote the Brexit Secretary—that we currently enjoy in the single market and the customs union.

I hope the Minister will agree to take back to his Secretary of State the clear consensus in this Chamber, and I hope the Secretary of State takes it to the Prime Minister. As James Chapman said, if the Prime Minister does not shift her position on Euratom,

“parliament will shift it for her.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall group Question 13 with Questions 15 and 19.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

15. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

19. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[Claire Perry]

I am, of course, delighted to welcome that incredibly innovative partnership, which was launched in 2002 and is making real progress in working out how we can naturally store carbon in the peat environment that the hon. Lady now represents. As I have said, I intend to publish the clean growth plan when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I look forward to cross-party discussion and, hopefully, consensus on a document that is hugely important both for Britain’s domestic future and for our international leadership.

[Paul Blomfield]

The publication date that the Minister mentions is almost a year after the date originally intended by the Government. Does not this reflect a lack of commitment to tackling climate change? What is she doing to engage with other Departments to ensure that they carry out emissions impact assessments so that we can see a real commitment to tackling climate change across the whole of the Government?

[Claire Perry]

May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, as the proud MP for the constituency that has Britain’s leading carbon capture and storage research facility, he ought to welcome the progress that successive Governments have made on this agenda? We were the first country in the world to set binding carbon budgets, and we have over-achieved on the first and second ones. Our full intention is to engage the whole of Government and industry in delivering on the upcoming budgets.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

Through the Government’s amendments, the OFS will have a specific power to impose an electoral registration condition to deal with HE providers that are not doing enough to co-operate with electoral administrators. When a condition is imposed, it takes effect as a requirement—it will oblige action to be taken. The clear aim is for the OFS to look across the sector and, when needed, ensure that necessary action is taken. The condition can require particular steps to be taken so that higher education providers work with EROs to facilitate registration. As with any registration condition, non-compliance is enforceable, including through OFS sanctions.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his comments on the work that we have done on this issue. The Cabinet Office has been extremely helpful from the very start in supporting the initiative with the University of Sheffield. Nevertheless, does the Minister recognise that the critical game-changer is the seamless integration of electoral registration and student enrolment? When other universities—not only Sheffield—have taken that up, they have seen levels of registration that the simple promotion of the voter registration portal, or giving direction towards it, have not succeeded in achieving. In monitoring the effectiveness of the Government’s proposals, will the Minister look at effective outputs? If universities’ outputs through methods of co-operation with electoral registration officers do not deliver the sort of 70% mark that integrated systems have delivered, will he expect them to be pushed in that direction by the Office for Students?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued and thoughtful engagement with this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with him as we develop the guidance that will be given to the OFS. As we have said previously, we do not expect that there will be a one-size-fits-all approach. We need an approach that recognises the particular circumstances at different institutions. We look forward to continuing to engage closely with the hon. Gentleman in the coming weeks and months, subject to the results on 8 June.

It is vital for this country that we have a healthy democracy that works for everyone. The Government share the aim of increasing the number of students and young people who are registered to vote. It is vital that the views of students and young people are taken into account in the democratic process, and our amendments will help to deliver that.

Last but by no means least, amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 156 relate to international students. I reiterate that the Government value and welcome international students who come to study in the UK. We recognise that they enhance our educational institutions, both financially and culturally, enrich the experience of domestic students, and become important ambassadors for the UK in later life. It is for those reasons that we have no plan to limit the number of genuine international students who can come to study in the United Kingdom. I need to be very clear that that commitment applies to all institutions. We have no intention of limiting any institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students. We have no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, or to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students based on its TEF rating or on any other basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We would expect all higher education providers on the OFS register to be compliant with the duties and conditions imposed on them. If they are not, the OFS has a range of regulatory tools at its disposal to deal with such eventualities.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

For the last time.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand his discomfort on the issue. He talked about numbers, but does he not recognise that in the latest year for which numbers are available—2014-15—new enrolments of international students fell by 3%, so he cannot say that the numbers are going up?

[Joseph Johnson]

We can certainly say that visa applications have risen by around 10% since 2011, although there might be fluctuations from year to year. That has been the case for many periods in the history of international students coming to study in this country. There has not been a story of continued growth; there have been ups and downs. Since 2010, which is a longer timeframe, we have seen applications up by around 10%.

Lords amendment 156 could do real damage. For example, it would prevent international students being treated as long-term migrants. The internationally recognised definition of a long-term migrant is anyone moving countries for a period of more than a year. If we were not able to apply to international students the key features of our work immigration regime, such as the need to obtain a time-limited visa that specifies the terms on which the migrant can come and a requirement to return home upon expiry of the visa, that could undermine our whole student migration system. I cannot advise the House to agree to that amendment.

Secondly, the Lords amendment would prohibit any change to the future student migration regime that could be interpreted as more restrictive than that in force when the Bill is passed. Any future changes—even minor technical changes—would require fresh primary legislation rather than being made by immigration rules laid before Parliament. I do not believe that that would be sensible or helpful, particularly given how crowded the forthcoming legislative programme is likely to be.

That said, I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue, so I am pleased to ask the House to support amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 156. The Bill already creates for the first time a requirement for information on higher education providers to be published. It also puts in place a statutory duty to consider what would be helpful to students on higher education courses here, prospective students and higher education providers. Our amendments expressly extend that important new duty to cover what information would be useful to current or prospective international students in higher education and to the providers that recruit them or are thinking of doing so. They will also specifically require a consideration of the publication of international student numbers. All this is designed to help to ensure that as much information as possible is available about the UK’s offer to international students. We have a good story to tell and the Government are keen to ensure that it is told.

The Bill is long overdue. It will streamline the higher education system’s regulatory architecture. It will give students more choice and opportunity. It will strengthen our world-class research and innovation capabilities, and it will enhance the competitiveness and productivity of our economy. I thank all Members for their constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted to be in the Chamber for the conclusion of proceedings on the Higher Education and Research Bill, having been involved in the Public Bill Committee. We might not be entirely confident about the contents of the Bill, but we can say with absolute confidence that it is in a better shape than it would have been were it not for that Committee and the Bill’s consideration in the other place.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Shakira Martin on her election as president of the National Union of Students. The NUS and students unions can be proud of their contribution to the debate about the Bill, and the Bill is better for it.

In considering the Bill, I have taken a particular interest in the question of student voice and student representation. That issue is close to my heart, and it is particularly important in the light of where higher education finds itself today. We have not addressed in this debate the fact that UK universities are now the most expensive in the world. Students at UK universities are graduating with higher levels of debt than those anywhere else in the world. It is a disgrace that in the past two years we have seen maintenance grants for the poorest students abolished and the scrapping of the NHS bursary to support student nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. We have also seen a nosedive in the number of students applying to study nursing. Thanks to the decisions taken by this Government, many people who are working in our national health service—and in other areas, including our universities—are wondering whether the UK is really the place for them to work, even though they make an extraordinary contribution to our civic, economic, social and political life.

As we enter the election process, I hope that we will bear in mind the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is a constant source of frustration to me that although young people often have more at stake in an election or referendum than anyone else, because they are the people who are stuck with the consequences for the longest period of time, they are the least likely to turn out and vote. My message to them, as they look at what Conservative-led Governments have done over the past seven years, is that their future is on the ballot paper. We have seen a trebling of university tuition fees, and the abolition of grants for the poorest students and of the education maintenance allowance, which supported the poorest students through sixth form and college. Those are not policies that champion the ambitions and aspirations of young people in this country, but policies that seek to cap those aspirations.

International students make an enormous social and academic contribution to our universities, as well as an enormous economic contribution, generating some £26 billion for our economy. They also provide long-term soft power benefits to the UK. It is unfair to criticise the Minister in this regard, but it is a constant source of astonishment to me that, despite all that, we have a Prime Minister who is so short-sighted and narrow-minded in her world view that she cannot see either the short-term or long-term benefits of welcoming people from across the world to work and study in our universities. If she had understood that, she would have not only followed the advice of Ministers around her Cabinet table and Opposition MPs, but listened to public opinion, because the majority of members of the public understand the contribution that international students and staff make to our universities. I do not know why the Prime Minister does not understand it.

I very much look forward to debating such issues over the next six weeks. I hope that every young person in this country, whoever they choose to cast their vote for, will recognise that when young people do not turn out to vote and make their voice heard, other people will make decisions for them, and those decisions are often not in their interests. Every young voter in this country should bear that in mind on 8 June.

[Paul Blomfield]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, although I regret the fact that this Bill has been caught in the wash-up, because we would have had a better and more structured opportunity to discuss these Lords amendments if we had had more time. I pay tribute to the many Members of the other place who have contributed so much during their consideration of the Bill.

I welcome a number of the concessions that the Government have made, especially by accepting an independent review of the teaching excellence framework, although big questions remain about the metrics and the process involved. In previous debates, people have often cited the research excellence framework as a model for the TEF, saying that if that model worked for research, there was no reason why it should not work for teaching. That principle is right, but it took many years to develop the REF into its current form. A real fear was expressed in Committee, as well as in the Chamber, that we were rushing into a TEF in a way that could create unintended consequences. The idea of an independent review and the way in which that has been framed are welcome.

I am grateful for the concessions that were made in the Lords on strengthening the role of the Director of Fair Access, which I talked about in Committee. I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for responding to points that we discussed in Committee about extending to refugees who had been granted humanitarian protection the opportunity to access higher education as though they had been granted refugee status. I recognise that that the group does not capture everyone, but it was a significant move by the Home Secretary.

On voter registration, in which I have become boringly engaged over many years—

[Richard Fuller]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for disagreeing with me. This measure is a step in the right direction, but we will find that it will not go far enough unless we embed electoral registration seamlessly within university enrolment procedures. For many reasons, I hope we can continue to work on that together in the next Parliament.

I welcome the strengthening of provisions on degree-awarding powers, but I retain one concern—the Minister might wish to cover this either in an intervention or in his concluding remarks—about the transfer of ownership. I heard his comment that the Office for Students will be expected to review degree-awarding powers when there is a transfer of ownership, but I am concerned about the nature of that review if ownership is transferred to an organisation that has no track record as a provider. In those circumstances, will we effectively press the reset button and have a comprehensive review as if we were talking about a new provider? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.

Having said all that, I am bitterly disappointed that there has been insufficient movement on the issue of international students, and I say that as co-chair of the all-party group on international students—I share that job with Lord Bilimoria. My disappointment is evidently shared by Conservative Members. In his typically incisive way, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was a great colleague on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, put his finger on the contradiction in the Government’s current position very effectively. I was pleased to hear his subsequent contribution on the issue.

The hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) has been a great colleague during his short time in Parliament so far, and I have been delighted to work with him on the all-party group. He has been a great advocate for higher education and students, and he has done sterling work on championing the cause of international students.

My concern and disappointment cross the House, and I know that the Minister will share my disappointment —he is not alone. From what we hear, the majority of the Cabinet share my disappointment. It is No. 10 that is saying no. Frankly, this is madness. The Government are shooting themselves in the foot. Just when we need to be building on our country’s success, the Government are torpedoing it.

Lords amendment 156 was thoughtfully drafted by Lord Hannay, who made it clear that it would take international students out of consideration as long-term migrants for public policy purposes. The Minister said that we have to count international students. The Government often cite the United States, where the Census Bureau counts international students, but the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for public policy on migration, does not treat them as migrants. That is the model we are looking for, and it is the model embedded in Lords amendment 156. If the amendment were agreed to, it would enable growth, generate earnings and create jobs in towns and cities across the country. The regional dimension is important, because the distribution of our universities across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom means that when universities succeed, that success is shared, quite uniquely, across the country.

We do not want to reduce the debate about international students to simple economics. International students enrich the learning environment of our campuses.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these international students add to the scholarly, research and investigative processes undertaken by universities in terms of academic freedom and the richness of our society?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She pre-empts me perfectly, because that was the point I was coming to. We are talking not simply about an extraordinary opportunity in an ever-smaller world for UK students to learn and study alongside those from many other countries, but about the contribution to research. I see that not only from our universities, but from my local businesses that benefit in Sheffield, and it is of huge importance.

To that list we should add the enormous benefits of the lasting relationships we build with those who study in this country. Last year I was talking to the high commissioner of a country that is one of our major trading partners and an important ally. He said to me, “Do you realise that more than half our Cabinet were educated at UK universities?” According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, 55 world leaders from 51 countries studied here. That is the sort of soft power that other countries would die for—political influence and commercial contracts based on the affection that people feel around the world because of their experience of studying in the UK.

All those things are in addition to economic benefits—almost £11 billion of export earnings. One would imagine that the Government would be celebrating that great British success and trying to make it stronger, but that is not the case. Throughout the last Parliament, to growing concern, the Government undermined our ability to keep up on international student recruitment. The Minister contests that claim and says that the numbers have stayed broadly level. I agree that largely they did—they dip off, and I will return to that point—but staying level in a growing market represents a failure. Holding level is not good enough when it means that we are reducing our market share, to the benefit of our competitors. As I said earlier, in 2014-15, the latest year for which numbers are available, new international student enrolments fell by 3%. He says that these things go up and down, but we can contrast that figure with the position in the United States, which has the biggest share of international students and where enrolments increased by 7%. The situation also contrasts with what is happening in Australia, where enrolments increased by 35%. Seeing our weakness, it put in place a strategy that was deliberately designed to take students from the UK. Canada is also planning to double its numbers, all at our expense.

Throughout the last Parliament, new measures introduced by the Government made the UK a less attractive destination. Those measures were put in place to help the Government to hit their net migration targets, and this is why the point made by the hon. Member for Bedford is so relevant. The problem is that the Government view international students as part of the migration debate, but that is not how the public see them. As he said, polls show that 75% of the public want international student numbers to stay the same or go up. It is also not the way this place sees them, because in the last Parliament an unprecedented five Select Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords called for change and for taking international students out of the net migration targets. These are challenging times for our country as we chart our course in the post-Brexit world. We need to win friends, not alienate them. As the Prime Minister’s trade mission to India last year demonstrated, many of those friends will put access to our universities at the heart of their discussion about our future trading relationships. We need to build on our successful sectors.

In terms of export earnings, universities are a huge success, but that is put at risk by Brexit. This is about not just the 125,000 EU students who are here, but the 30% of non-EU students who said that the UK would be a less attractive destination if we left the EU. We face losing up to half our international students if we do not get this right, and that will have an impact on the economy of every town and city across the country that has a university. As the Minister knows, it puts at risk critical courses, particularly in STEM subjects at a postgraduate taught level, which depend on numbers of international students.

A sensible Government and Prime Minister would look at those facts and say, “How can we strengthen our appeal to international students?” While our competitors are doing just that by developing recruitment strategies to win more students, the Prime Minister is saying no. There is no other sector in our economy that the Government would treat this way. The die is cast for this Bill but, as the hon. Member for Bath said, Members on both sides of the House will ensure that this issue will return in the next Parliament. Ultimately, common sense will prevail.

[Joseph Johnson]

With the leave of the House, I wish to say a few words of thanks to Members and others for their contribution to the development of the Bill and, most pertinently for this afternoon’s purposes, for the insightful points made during this debate. We have heard agreement that the Bill is an important one that has been carefully developed through dialogue on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in the other place, as well as through the extensive consultations dating back to the initial Green Paper in November 2015. It has benefited tremendously from thoughtful input from experts, reviews and independent reports. It was introduced right at the beginning of this parliamentary Session—perhaps even on its very first day—and it will still be going strong on its last day, so it is fair to say that no opportunity to scrutinise it has been missed. I am pleased that both sides of the House recognise that today’s amendments will strengthen the legislation still further.

I shall address briefly some of the questions asked during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about the role of the independent review with respect to the TEF. The independent reviewer will consider the devolved Administration providers as part of the review. The Bill will allow the devolved Administrations to continue to decide whether they wish to allow their providers to participate. She also asked about UKRI’s executive committee. As UKRI is established, we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. I can confirm that we amended the Bill on Report to require the Secretary of State to have regard to experience of working in the devolved Administrations when appointing the UKRI board. The executive committee is, though, an internal management committee for UKRI.

The hon. Lady also asked about post-study work for international students, a subject on which many Members focused. I reiterate that there is no limit to the number of international students graduating from UK universities who can move into skilled jobs in the UK. They do not count against the tier-2 limit and, actually, numbers have been rising year on year for the past three years.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked about the transfer of ownership of degree-awarding powers. The answer is that, yes, should a provider with no track record buy a provider with degree-awarding powers, a full review of the provider’s continuing eligibility for degree-awarding powers would be undertaken.

I thank the Members who have given such time and so much energy during the many hours of debate we have had. I particularly thank the members of the public Bill Committee, which sat in the autumn, and pay tribute to the Opposition Members involved, especially the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden).

Sale of Student Loans: Regulation

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of the sale of student loans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I think this is the first time I have been involved in a debate when you have been in the Chair. On your past record, I know that you will be fair and lenient.

I have two universities in my constituency, Coventry University and the University of Warwick. I have come across Members who have attended the University of Warwick, and some who have attended Coventry University. Many students at those universities have expressed concern to me regarding the sale of student loans. It is possible that to a certain extent, the Government are heaping more debt on students that they can ill afford, against a background of further education budgets receiving a 27% cut. The education allowance and the bursaries for midwifery have been abolished. Those things raise questions about the Government’s real intentions regarding skills, whether in the national health service or manufacturing.

On 6 February, the Government announced plans to sell off student loans taken out between 2002 and 2006. Conservative Governments have previously tried to introduce that policy, but they have never been successful. Indeed, the former Business Secretary, Vince Cable, scrapped the move in 2014, saying that it would not help the aim of reducing Government debt. Why are the present Government continuing to pursue the policy? With the sale of Royal Mail, we have seen how difficult it can be to achieve value for taxpayers. It could be argued that the taxpayer lost out in past privatisations. It can be controversial if the price paid seems too low, with short-term profit put ahead of the public interest. If the student loans are expected to be profitable, why are the Government not keeping them and helping the taxpayer?

The market has little experience of buying such debt, and it will be priced conservatively. It is therefore questionable whether value for money can be achieved. It has been widely acknowledged that the Government will make a loss on the sale. The price the loans are sold for is expected to be lower than the face value. It has been described by the Financial Times economic correspondent, Martin Wolf, as “economic illiteracy”. As I said, I have two universities in my constituency, so I am very concerned about the proposal, as are the students.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend knows that like him, I represent two universities. He is a powerful advocate for universities and students, and he will know that students are worried about the impact on their repayments. The Government have given assurances that the repayment terms will not be affected, but there is an enormous lack of trust given that they have already retrospectively changed those terms. Does he agree that the best way for the Government to reassure students would be to use the opportunity of the Higher Education and Research Bill to give a cast-iron guarantee in law that no retrospective changes to terms of repayment will be made?

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, retrospective law is always bad law. The three previous sales were of mortgage-style student loans. There have been no sales of income-contingent loans. In 2013, the Government announced that the final sale of outstanding loans had been made to Erudio Student Loans for £160 million. There have been problems with those loans and a number of complaints about their handling. Can the Minister guarantee that the loans we are discussing will not be resold to overseas buyers? What mechanisms will be put in place to protect students?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

There has been a process of engagement with the market, which has been conducted on behalf of the Department by a number of financial advisers, including Barclays and Rothschild among others. Our engagement has shown us that this is attractive to investors at a price that represents value for money for the taxpayer.

The private sector is willing to take on the risk and uncertainty of future repayment cash flows because it values this long-dated asset, while Government are looking to transfer that risk and generate cash for reinvestment in policies with greater economic and social returns. I hope hon. Members will therefore agree that there is a strong rationale for selling part of the student loan book. It is good financial management by the Government; it can help support policies with greater economic and social returns; and can be achieved without affecting the position of students or graduates.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), asked whether terms might be changed. I can tell them that investors have no rights whatever to change terms as a result of any sale process.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister will understand why students find his reassurances quite weak, given his track record. Would it not be easier simply to accept the amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill, which would embed in law a requirement to make no retrospective changes to the terms of repayment?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, as a result of this privatisation process, investors will gain no right to change the terms and conditions of the student loans they hold, so students will not be impacted by the sale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I cannot be held accountable for the views of the FT. The Government have made it clear that we will proceed with a sale only if it represents value for money. There will be a rigorous assessment, and, as per the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 passed by the last Labour Government, the Government will be obliged to produce a report to Parliament within three months of the sale explaining the whole process. Parliament will have an opportunity to assess that point in great detail.

The sale will comprise the future repayments on the outstanding balances on a selection of these loans, which have a total face value of about £4 billion. The retention value to the Government is lower and is calculated using the standard Treasury Green Book methodology that was developed for asset sales. It also accounts for Government subsidy of the student loan system. The loans that are being sold have already been in repayment for 10 years or more, and therefore much of their original value has already been paid back to the Government.

A securitisation structure will be used for the sale to enable the Government to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. Under that structure, the loans will be sold to a new independent English-domiciled company known as the issuer, whose sole purpose is to own the loans on behalf of investors. Investors will purchase notes issued by the issuer, and the issuer will make payments on the notes using the repayments made on the underlying loans. The sale is a competitive process open to all eligible investors. Market testing reassures us that the different tranches of notes are expected to be attractive to a range of potential investors, thereby promoting an efficient market and optimal pricing.

I emphasise that the sale will not affect the position of graduates or students. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Student Loans Company will continue to service loans in the scope of the sale on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. As I said earlier, investors have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or directly to contact people with student loans, including those in the scope of a sale.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Joseph Johnson]

I have dealt with that point.

The sale will categorically not result in private investors setting the terms or operating the collection of student loans. Furthermore, it will not alter the Government’s policies towards student finance and higher education. Under the current system of student support, whose framework has been in place since 2012, we will continue to offer a comprehensive package of financial support to eligible students. That is part of ensuring our economy works for everyone. The current system is and will remain fair and sustainable. That is why the OECD praised our student loan system and said that we are one of few countries in the world to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance.

I am happy to explain where we go from here. The sale process began on 6 February and will last for several months. The final timings and the number of loans in the scope of the sale remain subject to market conditions. As announced in last year’s autumn statement, the sale is expected to be the first in a series of pre-2012 English student loan sales, targeting £12 billion of total proceeds by the end of financial year 2021. Each sale will be subject to an assessment of value for money.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry South for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed sale of part of the student loan book. I am clear that it represents an opportunity for the Government to reduce fiscal pressures and invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns. I am unequivocal in my commitment that we will do it without the sale changing the position of students and graduates. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman and colleagues in this House in the coming months on this important process.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the EU: Science and Research

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Before I start to conclude the debate, it is worth noting that, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, while we have been debating this important issue, somebody has driven a lorry into a Christmas market in the heart of Berlin, killing nine people. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our solidarity with the German people at this time and our shared commitment to work together to oppose all those who challenge the democratic values that we share across Europe.

This is the third of our general debates on exiting the European Union, and I am sure that at some stage the Government will tot up all the hours we have spent in the Chamber and claim that it in some way represents the involvement of Parliament in the Brexit process. I see the Minister nodding. However, that misses the point. Although we have had a very interesting debate, in which Members on both sides have demonstrated their understanding of and commitment to the importance of science and research in the economic future of our country, we have not been much illuminated on the Government’s thinking or plans, which I had thought—perhaps naively—would have something to do with these general debates.

I welcome the many speeches that were made today, particularly the powerful maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). No doubt the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will pass on my view—which I am sure is shared throughout the House—that her speech demonstrated that she will add real value to this place. She rightly emphasised that we have become a divided country, and spoke of the need for leadership—a leadership which I think is sadly lacking at present.

As I have said, we are no clearer about how the Government aim to protect science and research in the Brexit negotiations. For example, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the Chair of the Education Committee, asked the Minister a relatively simple and straightforward question—whether the Government would seek associate country status in successor programmes to Horizon 2020—but we received no answer.

Members have pointed out throughout the debate that as we navigate our way in an increasingly competitive world, the future of our economy will depend heavily on research and innovation. Many have talked of our strengths, but there are also weaknesses which we need to recognise. A particular weakness is the lack of investment in research and development. We have slipped from leading the OECD countries in respect of spending as a percentage of GDP in 1979 to trailing behind all our competitors. The United States invests 2.8% of its GDP in R and D, and OECD countries, like the EU, average 2.4%, but the UK invests just 1.7%, less than half the 3.9% invested by South Korea, which, as a result, remains a major manufacturing nation.

As was pointed out by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), one of our strengths—and it is considerable—is the research capacity of our universities. However, that strength will be at risk if the Government get Brexit wrong. What does getting it wrong look like in relation to research and science? What are the risks? In an excellent report published by the Science and Technology Committee, its Chair, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), highlighted the five key issues: funding, people, collaboration, regulation and facilities. He also rightly expressed a fear that if we were not careful, science could be one of the casualties of Brexit. I am sure that all of us, throughout the House, share a desire for that not to be the case, in which context it would be useful if the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about when the Department would appoint a chief scientific adviser.

Because our universities are so good, as many have pointed out, we do disproportionately well from EU research funding, better per head than any other EU country. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), EU programmes provide nearly 15% of UK university research funding, and we can all agree on the importance of that funding. With it comes critical collaboration, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was right to refer to the pan-European collaboration that comes through involvement in Horizon 2020 and its predecessor programmes. All that will be at risk if research is not placed centre stage in the Brexit negotiations.

The second point made by the Chair of the Select Committee was about people. Again because our universities are so good, they attract great staff from all over the world. Some 28% of academics are non-UK citizens, and 15% are from EU countries. When it comes to key research staff, the proportion is much higher—more than half in some STEM subjects. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), we have all heard stories of jobs declined, or of those already here questioning their future in the UK because the Government will not give the assurance for which the House asked in July: a unilateral commitment that those who are currently in the UK will be able to stay when we leave the EU, on the same terms that they currently enjoy. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out, we should never forget that these are highly mobile people. They do not have to be here; they have lots of other offers available to them. They are not a drain; they are an asset to the UK.

If we leave the EU with no deal on the future movement of workers, we will fall back on current immigration rules which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) pointed out, will not work because there are tens of thousands of early-career academics and researchers who will not meet the tier 2 income threshold, which could create a crisis for our research community.

As with staff, so with students, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and others pointed out. Around 125,000 of our 436,000 international students are from the EU, and their future is uncertain. A survey before 23 June indicated that one third of non-EU students would find the UK a less attractive destination if we chose to leave. The worst outcome is we could lose more than half of our international students currently in the UK, costing billions of pounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) pointed out, highlighting the impact on her local economy, which will be repeated in local economies across the country. That will not only cost money and jobs, but will bring into question the viability of many courses, particularly postgraduate courses, and particularly in STEM subjects, which would no longer be available to UK students.

One would imagine that the Government would be seeking to mitigate this risk by setting out a clear strategy for maintaining our position as a destination of choice for international students. But instead the Home Secretary has, extraordinarily, put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration, making a bad situation worse.

What do we need from the Brexit negotiations? First, we need a plan. I am pleased that the House agreed, and we are looking forward to seeing it so that we can start some meaningful debates to replace the general debates we are enjoying so much at the moment. Clearly the Minister is not going to share the plan at this stage, but I hope he will share his views on a few key questions that will be central to it.

On funding, will the Minister give a clear commitment that the Government will prioritise research and innovation in the negotiations with our partners in Europe, with a view to ensuring continued UK participation in EU research programmes, not just for the full duration of Horizon 2020 but for framework programme 9 and successor programmes? Will he outline beyond the £2 billion already announced—which I think takes our R and D investment as a percentage of GDP from 1.7% to 1.9%, on a rough calculation—what plans he has to strengthen support for research and innovation more widely to mitigate any damage from leaving the EU?

On staff, will the Minister press for the earliest confirmation that EU nationals working in our universities and on research programmes in the private sector can remain on current terms without having to apply for leave to remain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) argued? Will the Minister go further and say what assurances the Government will give to those who join our universities during the pre-Brexit period until 2019, because if there are no such assurances, recruitment will be made significantly more difficult? What representations is the Minister making about future visa arrangements post-Brexit so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits of securing the services of the best researchers from the EU and the rest of the world?

On students, does the Minister agree that we need early clarity on fee levels and access to student funding for EU students? We have it for next year, but what about 2018-19, and will it apply to postgraduates as well as undergraduates? Does he agree that we need to confirm the immigration status of existing and prospective EU students and their right to remain in the UK for work and postgraduate study?

Among the many issues we face, these are relatively straightforward questions, but an awful lot depends on the answers. If the Minister cannot answer them fully tonight, I hope he will ensure that the answers are in the plan that we will see in the new year, because our economy and our future as a country depend on it.

Exiting the EU: Higher Education

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing the debate and for making a characteristically powerful and entertaining speech to set the context. She was right to highlight the absence of a Brexit Minister from the debate today, because that team is leading the negotiations. I join in the plaudits for the Minister who has joined the debate, and we are all reassured by his views on the issues, but we need to know that those views will be reflected in Government.

This is a hugely important debate about a vital sector, and I welcome the many contributions from all parts of the Opposition. It is disappointing—I am sure the Minister is disappointed—that so few Conservative Members are willing to speak up for our universities in such an important debate.

Our universities are a great British success story. Higher education exports are worth almost £11 billion. The wider value was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on universities’ success, and they provide the high-level skills that our economy needs. In a world in which our success as a country will be determined by our ability to innovate, the research capacity of our universities is central to economic growth, as my hon. Friend highlighted.

All of that is potentially at risk if the Government get Brexit wrong. What would getting it wrong look like? What are the risks? Let us start with students, who after all are the bread and butter of our universities. International students, as many have pointed out, are hugely important. About 185,000 of our 500,000 international students are from the EU. Their future is uncertain and, under the sort of regime that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talked about, many are unlikely to come to the UK.

We are not talking only about EU students. In a survey taken before 23 June, one third of non-EU students said that they would find the UK a less attractive destination if we exited. The worst outcome, therefore, might be that we lose half our international students—billions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of jobs, not only in universities, but across sectors that serve students in communities throughout the country.

We might imagine that the Government would seek to mitigate such risks by setting out a clear strategy to maintain our position as a destination of choice for the world’s students, but sadly not. Instead, the Home Secretary has put international students at the centre of her plans to cut net migration, making a bad situation worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton was right to highlight that net migration point.

The question of staff was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Because our universities are so good, they attract great staff from all over the world: 28% of academics are non-UK citizens, with more than 15% from the EU. For key research staff the number is much higher, accounting for more than half in some STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects. Those of us who represent universities have already heard stories about job offers refused and those here now questioning their future in the UK, because the Government will not give the assurance this House asked for in July on the position of EU nationals.

If we leave the EU with no deal on the future movement of workers, we will fall back on existing immigration rules, and for universities that will not work. Tens of thousands of early-career academics and researchers will not meet the tier 2 income threshold, creating a potential crisis for research and teaching.

Let us talk about research funding and the collaboration that goes with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) did so ably. Because our universities are so good, we do disproportionately well from EU funding. EU programmes provide almost 15% of university research income, and with that money comes critical collaboration across countries and disciplines. All of that is at risk if research is not put centre stage in the Brexit negotiations.

What do we need from the Brexit negotiations? First, we need a plan. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex to say that civil servants are playing catch-up, but the problem is that Conservative Members and Ministers at the heart of Government seem unable to agree on what that plan should be. As they struggle with each other, in the policy vacuum the tail is increasingly wagging the dog, giving rise to increasing talk of hard Brexit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton is right: this debate is a microcosm of a wider one on many issues. For universities, what would hard Brexit mean? Hard Brexit would mean losing students and staff, and cutting research—it would be a disaster. So we need reassurance from the Minister that the Government—not just him and his Department, but the Government—recognise the problem, and that they will put the continuing strength of our universities at the heart of the negotiations on exiting the European Union.

Among other key issues, we need clarity on fee levels and access to funding for EU students considering coming here until we leave the EU. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, we have that for next year, but frankly that is not good enough. What about 2018-19? Will the assurance apply to postgraduate students as well as undergraduates? What about the future? Will the Minister confirm his views on the immigration status of existing and prospective EU students and their right to remain in the UK after graduation for work or postgraduate study? Will he support the benefits accruing to UK students from the Erasmus programme by confirming that the Government intend to seek continued participation in it?

On staff, will the Minister press for the earliest confirmation that EU nationals working in our universities will be able to stay for the indefinite future on existing terms without having to apply for leave to remain? Will he go further—this is crucial—and extend that right to those who join our universities in the pre-Brexit period until 2019, because that will be critical for the ability of our universities to continue to recruit? What representations is he making about future visa arrangements post-Brexit, so that our universities are in a position to continue to enjoy the benefits of securing the services of the most talented academics from the EU and the rest of the world?

On research, will the Minister give a clear commitment that the Government will prioritise research and innovation in their negotiations, with a view to ensuring continued UK participation in EU research programmes not just for the full duration of Horizon 2020, as he has assured us in the past, but in all its successor programmes? Will he outline, beyond the announcement that we expect from the Chancellor this afternoon, what plans the Government have to strengthen support for research and innovation more widely to mitigate the potential damage from leaving the European Union?

One vice-chancellor recently described to me the challenge that our universities face as “existential”. If the Government get this wrong, it will be a calamity for the sector. If it is a calamity for the sector, it will be a calamity for the economy and the country. So will the Minister, by addressing the points that my hon. Friends have made and the questions that I have put to him, explain just how the Government will avoid that potential disaster and ensure the continued success of our university sector?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

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

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on new clause 7 and amendments 49 to 51, which are in my name. New clause 7 and amendments 50 and 51 cover ground we discussed at length in Committee so I will refer briefly to those points then talk a little longer on amendment 49.

New clause 7 provides for automatic review of degree-awarding powers where ownership of a university changes. This is rooted in experience of the sort of system the Minister is seeking to create in the United States, where a number of institutions with a reasonably well-established reputation changed ownership and fundamentally changed the product and service delivered to students. We need to learn from the mistakes made in the States by ensuring that, should we find ourselves in this new terrain with institutions in this country with degree-awarding powers changing ownership, that should automatically trigger a review of their status. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister on how he intends to deal with that issue, if not through this new clause. Otherwise we could find ourselves in the same situation as the States, and not only have the reputation of the sector damaged, but students let down and still carrying a fee-debt. So this is a crucial issue that we need some clarification on.

Amendment 51 covers terrain I have discussed with the Minister on a number of occasions. It simply seeks to require universities to introduce the integrated student enrolment system with voter registration, which is recommended by Universities UK, supported by the Cabinet Office and was originally and very successfully piloted by—I have to get this reference in—the University of Sheffield.

The Minister and I share a common objective of trying to improve the levels of voter registration among students. This has been a demonstrably effective way of doing that where we rolled it out not only as a pilot in Sheffield, with the support of the Cabinet Office, but in other universities—Cardiff, de Montfort and many others, which have gone on to introduce it. This seems like a good opportunity, as we are looking at the registration requirements of universities, to roll it out across the country to achieve objectives we both share.

I have discussed this with the Minister and also his colleague from the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). There was due to be a roundtable at which we were going to discuss it further tomorrow, but that has been cancelled and kicked into the long grass of sometime in the new year, I was told last week. Given the shared objectives in this area, I would like to hear from the Minister why we cannot simply use this opportunity to get this matter sorted out.

Amendment 50 reflects concern over the reliability of the metrics used to measure teaching excellence. I emphasise, as I did many times in Committee, that we all welcome the Government’s focus on teaching excellence, and we can all work effectively together on the principle of the teaching excellence framework. However, the metrics on employment outcomes, on retention and on the national student satisfaction survey have been identified by the Government themselves as a proxy for teaching excellence.

The amendment simply seeks to add to the Bill a requirement that the metrics used by the Government to determine teaching quality should have a demonstrable link to teaching excellence. This was the unanimous recommendation of the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, of which I was a member. We all agree that employment outcomes do not necessarily demonstrate teaching excellence. There are also enormous regional variations in employment outcomes and salary levels. The Minister will know that someone who comes from the right family and goes to the right school and university could have an awful teaching experience but still get a decent job. The converse is also true. People who do not come from the right family and who do not go to what many see as the right university could have an excellent teaching experience but not command such high salary levels. So employment outcomes are a crude and almost perverse proxy measure of teaching excellence. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s observations on why this simple amendment to introduce a demonstrable link between the metrics and teaching excellence would not strengthen the Bill and will not be accepted by the Government.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Should the demonstrable link involve a recognition of the experience and qualifications of lecturers? What does my hon. Friend have in mind when it comes to proving that teaching quality exists?

[Paul Blomfield]

Measuring teaching quality is difficult, but if we are going to do it, and if we are going to link fee increases to it, we should do it well rather than badly. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England is piloting some work on value added to determine how it can be demonstrated that good teaching has contributed to students’ learning outcomes during a particular period. That is the kind of research we should be looking at before we rush into establishing a teaching excellence framework that might end up measuring everything but teaching excellence.

[Roger Mullin]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree with Professor Jack Dowie’s view that the teaching excellence framework measures what it measures but does not measure the quality of teaching excellence?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed my concern exactly. This is the reason behind my amendment. There should be agreement across the House that the teaching excellence framework should measure the quality of teaching. That does not seem controversial to me, and I am therefore disappointed that the Government were unable to accept the unanimous recommendation of the BIS Committee. I want to press the Minister further today to find out his reasoning for this.

Amendment 49 raises new concerns that became clear only as the Bill progressed through Committee. It is apparently the Government’s intention—although I recognise that it might not be the Minister’s wish—to link the visa regime for international students to quality measures. There are Members present on both sides of the House who share my concern, so let me put it in context. The Minister will agree that international students are hugely beneficial to this country and to our universities. They enrich the learning environment of our campuses. In an even smaller world, in which we need to understand each other better than ever, it is a huge advantage for British students to learn in our classrooms and laboratories alongside students from around the world. International students add hugely to our universities’ research capacity, also strengthening local businesses, as I know from my experience in Sheffield.

We should add to that the huge benefits of the lasting relationships that we build with those who study here. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, 55 world leaders from 51 countries studied here. That leads to the sort of soft power that is the envy of other countries—political influence, commercial contracts, and so on.

[Dr Huq]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend because he is in full flow and making a powerful point, but does he agree that the Bill was conceived before Brexit and that the world has changed since then? I am holding a Westminster Hall debate on this subject on Wednesday and have received emails from academics and students from all over the country saying that this entire thing should be scrapped because the context is so different and everything has changed for higher education since the decision on 23 June.

[Paul Blomfield]

I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in Westminster Hall on Wednesday, because she makes a valid point—one that a number of us made in Committee. This pre-Brexit vision should have been parked and rethought as a result of the decision on 23 June because the challenge facing our universities is fundamentally different and of enormous proportions. We need to reconsider the proposals.

[Mr Hendrick]

On that point, many mainland European universities now offer courses in English. Our leaving the European Union will significantly disadvantage British universities in attracting foreign students, because degrees in some European countries are now offered in English, not necessarily in French, German or the native language.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend highlights a new dimension to the challenge facing our universities as a result of Brexit. My wider point about international students existed before 23 June, but we now face a situation in which the 185,000 international students, of some 500,000, from EU countries may no longer choose to come here. However—this is crucial in relation to my hon. Friend’s intervention—30% of the non-EU students who were polled before 23 June said that the UK would be a less attractive destination if we chose to leave the European Union. Our competitors in Europe, adding to the competition that we already get from Australia, Canada and the United States, are seizing the opportunity to teach English-language courses, which will become very attractive.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Coventry has two universities. A big concern following Brexit is that international students, in particular from countries such as India, are now looking at north America, given the difficulty they will have in coming to this country when they are treated as immigrants. They should be removed from immigration figures, because the benefits amount to just under £10 billion coming into this country. I hope the Government are taking that seriously.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is certainly testing my patience. It is one thing to come in and then ask a question, but it is another thing to stretch it into a speech. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central is being generous with interventions, but we do not want to get into a Brexit debate.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the intervention of my hon. Friend, because he is a strong champion of the two universities in Coventry and he makes, on every occasion, this strong point about the importance of international students. He is right. Many universities around the country will be in crisis if there is a significant drop in the number of international students. It will mean not only that their incomes will drop, but that many of their postgraduate taught courses, which are viable only because of the levels of income that are brought through our international students, will cease to be viable, cease to exist and cease to be available for UK students. It is a hugely important issue.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I entirely accept his last point about a number of these postgraduate courses. In an ideal world, as he knows, I would not have students in the immigration figures, but we are where we are and they will remain in those figures. Surely one of the lessons of Brexit is that this issue is of massive concern to many of our fellow countrymen. Therefore, it is incumbent on universities to ensure that we get high-quality students from abroad, and that is really the focus of what the Government are trying to achieve here. We need to ensure that those students who come here are the crème de la crème and will add the sort of experience to which he referred earlier in his contribution. By having a group of high-quality students, we will command the confidence of the public that we are getting only the brightest and the best, rather than a volume operation in our universities.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have worked closely on a number of these issues, and we do agree that international students should be taken out of net migration targets. On the point that he raises, I disagree with him. I know that we would come together in saying that our universities are a great British export industry, but I am genuinely puzzled why the Government do not see them as an industry in other terms. We do not put in measures to seek to discourage the automobile industry from selling cars; we try to encourage it to sell more cars. Similarly, on the point that he raises, we do not say, “Well, we just want you to sell Rolls-Royce cars. We don’t want you to sell Minis.” It is nonsense economically for our country and for the local economies that we all represent. That is the nub of the problem.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the way in which these issues are viewed by the public. International students are not viewed as a threat or as an issue on which the Government should be taking action. A recent poll showed that 75% of people wanted to see the numbers of international students either stay the same or go up, but the Government strategy, as he knows, is moving us in the other direction.

The Home Secretary, albeit against her will, made a speech to the Conservative party conference in which she put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that she was wrong to do that. She introduced a new tool, to which he has alluded, with which she planned to do it. It is by linking visa approval to the quality of courses. We need to reflect on that, because it is a very significant development, as we now have a policy objective of reducing international students—the Government did it by default in the previous Parliament.

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman should remind himself that international student applications have gone up 14%.

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, I would be interested to hear the Minister intervene again and say over what period, because he will know that, over last Parliament, the numbers flatlined and we lost market share.

[Joseph Johnson]

The answer is since 2010.

[Paul Blomfield]

We will probably disagree on those figures. I think I have heard the Minister say previously—if it was not him then it was his predecessors and previous Immigration Ministers—that there was no damage from the measures that were taken in the last Parliament, because numbers flatlined. From my point of view, flatlining in a growing market is a defeat. We would not say that the world is buying 20% or 30% more cars, but the great news is that our exports are flatlining. It does not make sense. However, I am sure the Minister will agree that international students are an extremely good thing for our economy. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Home Secretary put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration.

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. Can he imagine a scenario where higher education institutions are recruiting UK students on to courses, but sending a message to people from overseas that the courses are not good enough for them? What conclusion will UK students draw? If the courses are not good enough for international students, surely they are not good enough for home students.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I was about to make. If we were looking at a teaching excellence framework in parallel with our competitors around the world, and if we were together saying that we think the world market in international education needs such a tool and that in that world market it would be helpful to have institutions ranked as gold, silver and bronze, that would be one thing; but for us unilaterally to declare to the world that we are differentiating our institutions and saying that a good two thirds of them, perhaps, are less good than others, that can do nothing other than damage our ability to recruit international students and to earn the money that we do from them, as well as the jobs and support for our economy that that brings.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there may be not just reputational damage at home, but consequences abroad? My own university, Bangor, takes a large number of Chinese students, but its good name in Bangor enables it to have a site in China and a very successful operation there. There would be reputational damage of that sort as well.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not just the recruitment of students but the brand strength of UK universities, which is extraordinarily high, that is put at risk by the measure.

Last week in Westminster Hall I sought assurances from the Immigration Minister as to whether it is the Home Office’s intention to use the teaching excellence framework measurement of quality as a basis for its visa regime in an attempt to cut down the number of international students. I got no reassurance. I gave the Minister a couple of opportunities to say that the Government did not intend to use the TEF for that purpose and he failed to do so.

The amendment says that until we are clear about the Government’s intention in relation to differentiation by gold, silver and bronze grading, and following a proper economic impact assessment of what that might mean for our universities, we should not seek to differentiate the teaching excellence framework in this way and we should simply have meeting expectations or not meeting expectations ratings. I accept that it is not the Minister’s intention to damage our universities by the introduction of this differentiation, but it could be the unintended consequence of the actions of the Home Office, so we need reassurance on the issue.

As we have heard, these are challenging times for our country. Charting our post-Brexit place in the world will be a big job. We need to win friends, not alienate them. The prime ministerial trade mission to India recently demonstrated that many of those friends will put access to our universities at the heart of any discussion of our future relationship, even on the issue of trade. We will not be able to separate those. We cannot afford to put the sector and the export earnings that we get from international students at risk in this way. I therefore ask the Minister to think again.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 14 on post-study work visa evaluation, and I reserve the right to push it to a vote, if required.

The SNP continues to press for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa. The new clause would ensure we had an evaluation of how the absence of this key visa has affected the UK economy and how a new visa may be implemented.

As we have heard, the post-study work visa is an important lever for attracting the best international student talent. There is consensus in Scotland among business, education and every political party represented at Holyrood that we need a return of the post-study route to allow these talented students to remain and to contribute to the Scottish economy.

The outcome of the EU referendum makes it even more important that the UK Government honours the recommendation in the Smith report to explore a potential post-study work route to ensure that Scotland continues to attract and retain talent from around the world. The longer we wait for the Government to move on this, the more damage is being done socially and economically.

The current post-study work offer is not adequate for Scotland. We have offered to discuss the reasons behind that with UK Ministers and Home Office officials, but, disappointingly, UK Ministers appear to rule out a return of the post-study work visa— without meeting Scottish Ministers or the cross-party steering group that has been set up at Holyrood.

The current immigration policy poses a significant risk to Scottish universities. Data published in January show that Scotland saw a 2% increase in international entrants in the academic year 2014-15, compared with the previous year. On the face of it, that may appear positive, but by comparison, from 2013-14 to 2014-15 the number of international students entering higher education in the United States increased by 10%. Rather than being able to take advantage of this growth sector and use it to create economic growth locally, our numbers are expected to remain stagnant, which is simply not good enough.

The Home Office released details of a low-risk tier 4 pilot in July this year, which was—maybe “welcomed” is not the correct word—viewed with some interest. However, we are troubled that it was introduced without any consultation with the Scottish Government, Scottish institutions or, indeed, institutions from across the UK. Universities Scotland said:

“we’re disappointed that the opportunity of the pilot has been framed so narrowly to only four universities none of which are in Scotland. We’d argue that a broader pilot, involving a wider group of institutions, would have provided more meaningful lessons from which to build.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I, too, think that BT has a number of strengths as a company, but it is yet to be determined whether it is very good at running a university. We will only know that in due course. If BT runs a university, I want to ensure that it is a university as we would commonly understand it, not simply a company that offers a degree course.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) picked out the issue of five-a-side football, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a wider issue? This is the first major Bill on higher education for a generation, and it provides an opportunity to extend university title quite widely. Is not the nub of the problem the fact that no attempt is made to define what a university is?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I concur exactly with my hon. Friend. In Committee, the Minister said that he was setting

“a high bar that only high-quality providers will be able to meet.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 410.]

Unfortunately, at this point in time we have absolutely no idea what is meant by that high bar. I am hoping we will hear from the Minister exactly what he means by a university and what will be in the guidance, and that the quality and breadth of offer of our universities will be protected and will not be got rid of by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

The visit to India, which I was honoured to be part of, was a big success in that it gave us numerous opportunities to reiterate our strong message that we welcome genuine students. There is no limit on the number of genuine students who can come and study at our world-class institutions, and there is no better place than the UK to receive a higher education. We want to see more such students coming to study here.

[Paul Blomfield]

I assure the Minister that we are very calm about this issue, but he could calm us further by explaining what the Home Secretary meant when she talked about the use of quality in relation to the visa system, and in particular when she said that she would be

“looking at tougher rules for students on lower quality courses.”

What does that mean?

[Joseph Johnson]

High-quality institutions are compliant institutions. We want compliance to be a strong feature of our system. It is important that the sector should do all it can to be compliant with Home Office regulations. The ability to bring students in on tier 4 visas is a privilege, not a right, and it comes with an obligation to ensure that students who come to this country to study follow the terms of their visas. The sector should welcome that because it wants a high-quality system of international study. The Government will be bringing forward a consultation paper in the coming weeks that will enable everyone across the sector, including the hon. Gentleman, to contribute their views on how best this can be achieved.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister talks about compliance. Why did the Home Secretary not talk about compliance? She talked about

“tougher rules for students on lower quality courses”,

but there was nothing about compliance. What did she mean by that?

[Joseph Johnson]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Home Secretary’s speech carefully, he will see that she did mention compliance. She mentioned compliance and quality. High-quality institutions are compliant institutions; they are one and the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the opportunity to move new clause 2 and to speak to the other new clauses concerning student finance.

Millions of people across the UK have been mis-sold loans and will end up paying thousands of pounds more than expected as a result. The perpetrator of the mis-selling scandal is not an unscrupulous high street bank or a payday lender; it is our own Government. The victims are current students and graduates who were sold student loans on the basis of false assumptions and broken promises.

For the vast majority of students in England and the rest of the United Kingdom, Government-backed loans are an essential source of financial support to cover the cost of their tuition fees and the substantial costs associated with their studies, such as the rising cost of university accommodation, food and subsistence, course materials, and making the most of their student experience. In England, students are able to take out a tuition fee loan of up to £9,000 a year and an additional maintenance loan to cover living costs of up to £11,000 a year. As a result, English students now graduate with the highest levels of debt in the western world. Following the Government’s decision to axe non-repayable student grants for the poorest students, those from lowest-income households, scandalously, graduate with the most debt. It is a terrible iniquity in the system and one that I am glad to see the Opposition Front-Bench team addressing this afternoon.

Many students will not have forgotten that the decision to scrap student grants was not taken in this House, but down the corridor and up the stairs through a statutory instrument in a Committee of which most people have never heard. That is not how the Government should take major decisions on student finance. Students and their families were sold loans on the basis of a series of simple promises from Ministers: loans will be repaid only once students have left university; they will be repaid only after graduates start earning over £21,000 a year; graduates will repay 9% of everything earned above £21,000 a year; and the £21,000 figure will be uprated each year in line with average earnings from April 2017.

Around this time last year, however, buried in the fine print of the previous Chancellor’s autumn statement was an announcement that the repayment threshold will remain frozen at £21,000. As a result, graduates will end up paying more each month and thousands of pounds more over the 30-year lifetime of their loans. Worst of all, the change will affect not only future students, who can consciously decide to sign up to those repayment conditions, but thousands of existing students and graduates who took out their loans in good faith on the promise that the repayment threshold would increase from 2017. Not only does that retrospective change fly in the face of the principles of good governance, but it is deeply regressive. It is estimated that around half of graduates will never pay off their loans before their debts are written off by the Government. Such graduates, by definition on lower and middle incomes, will end up paying back thousands more over the lifetime of their loan, whereas the richest graduates will be able to repay their debts more quickly and accrue less interest.

Financial experts and advisers are rightly furious. In an astonishing performance in a Bill Committee evidence session, Money Saving Expert’s Martin Lewis described the Government’s decision to break their commitment to students as “abominable and disgraceful”. The Government will argue that the small print of student finance regulations makes the change entirely permissible and reasonable, but as Martin Lewis told the Committee:

“Looking at students as consumers, if they had borrowed money from a commercial lender, the Financial Conduct Authority would have struck out in a second the idea that, five years after announcing that the repayment threshold would go up from £21,000 in April 2017 with average earnings, that would be frozen.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 38, Q55.]

It is important to bear it in mind that the Government’s promise to students and applicants was not just in the marketing material of Government and of universities, which understandably assumed that the commitments would be lasting, but written in black and white by the former higher education Minister, now Lord Willetts. Having worked with Lord Willetts over a number of years, I have no doubt that he made that undertaking in good faith. He could not have possibly known that a future Chancellor, or a future Government, would not only break that commitment, but apply the change retrospectively.

Banks would not get away with mis-selling on this scale, and neither should our Government. I have teamed up with Martin Lewis to put forward amendments to the Bill. The amendments, which I am delighted to say have cross-party support, will prevent Ministers from making retrospective changes to student loans that would penalise existing students and graduates.

New clause 2 would put in place some architecture through the appointment of three independent advisers, who would look carefully at any proposals that, retroactively, make changes to student loan repayment conditions. They would apply a number of tests: is it to the benefit of the majority of graduates; do the Government believe that to be the case as a result of consultation; have the Government made a case that the proposal would be progressive in effect; and would it help some of the most disadvantaged students or graduates? If those conditions are passed, the Government might be able to proceed, because, clearly, this House would not want to prevent the Government from making positive changes that would benefit graduates. What those tests would do is prevent Ministers from behaving as the previous Chancellor did, which was to make changes in the small print of the autumn statement and apply them retrospectively after commitments have been made in good faith.

New clause 3 would also bring student loans within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority. Despite the existence of an independent student loans company, Ministers have still found ways to flout regulations for the benefit of the Treasury and to the detriment of students and graduates, which is really quite appalling.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case. Does he not think that, had this happened in another context, the behaviour might have been described as fraudulent?

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the student loans system should be brought within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority. Had a high street bank or a payday lender behaved in such a way, there would be outrage everywhere, including in this House. The Financial Conduct Authority would mount an investigation. The Treasury Committee, of which I am a member, would ask questions. It seems that a Chancellor can just decide to save a few quid in the autumn statement and make retrospective changes that would penalise existing students and graduates.

This is an issue not just of fairness and equity for existing borrowers, but fundamentally of trust. What is to stop future Governments making changes further down the line about all manner of things, including interest rates, repayment periods, tapers and thresholds? On that basis, how can current or prospective students have confidence that promises being made today will be kept tomorrow? To be honest, this is a very personal issue for me. Some years ago, Martin Lewis, from Money Saving Expert, and I agreed to work with the coalition Government on an independent taskforce on student finance information. Martin was invited to take part because of his widespread reputation as one of the most trusted people in the country when it comes to financial advice and saving consumers money. It was felt, quite rightly by Lord Willetts— then the higher education Minister—that Martin would be an independent voice on those matters and someone whom people could trust. Martin then asked me to work with him as his deputy, with Lord Willetts’ agreement, on the basis that I had recently completed my term as president of the National Union of Students.

Although I opposed the decisions that had been taken by successive Governments around higher education funding and student finance, I believed that it was critical to take part. I thought it would be appalling if a single student was deterred from applying to university on the basis of misunderstanding the information. If students look at the information and the student finance system and decide to make a different choice, that is for them, but I thought that it would be a travesty if a single student was deterred on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation.

We went round the country visiting schools, colleges and universities and we appeared in the media, promoting the Government system—not on its merit, but on the facts of the system. We served what I thought was an important public duty and purpose, but we were misled—inadvertently—which means that we therefore misled students and graduates up and down the country. We told them that the repayment threshold would go up in line with earnings from April 2017; that is what we were told by Ministers at the time. That is what students, teachers, parents, family members and advisers were also led to believe.

The Government need to reflect very carefully on what message it would send to each of those groups if future Governments can come along and retrospectively change the system to suit the Treasury. It is a terrible, terrible precedent that undermines trust not just in the student finance system, but in politics as a whole. We are not so far from a general election, or indeed from a referendum campaign, to know that trust in politics in this country is at rock bottom. People do not trust politics and they do not trust politicians. From my experience of this place in the past 18 months, I can say that, for all our disagreements, I have great pride in our political system and in the way in which it works. However, when it comes to decisions such as these, I completely understand why politicians are held in such low regard. On too many occasions, politicians have said one thing and done another. On higher education and student finance, politicians have said one thing and done another. Since the coalition Government put their reforms through, with cross-party agreement and with—to be fair to them —concessions to the Liberal Democrats in government, every single concession has been undone. Student grants have been scrapped. The emphasis on widening participation in a number of respects is now weaker. Now we find that many of the actual repayment conditions, which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) would argue were some of the more progressive elements of the system, are also being undone. This is an issue about trust not just in the student finance system, but fundamentally in politics as a whole. Martin Lewis says:

“If you sign a contract, both sides should keep to it. If you advertise a loan, the lender should be held to the terms it was sold under.”

It is a total disgrace that, although the UK is well regarded around the world for its excellent laws and regulatory environment, there seems to be one exception, which is student loan contracts. That is why I hope that, this week before this change kicks in, the new Chancellor will take the opportunity to reverse the decision in his autumn statement. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister could go some way to rebuilding trust in politics. I also urge the Government to support new clauses 2, 3 and 6, which would ensure that no Government could be tempted to behave in this way again. It is scandalous and unjustifiable and it sets a very dangerous precedent. That is why I hope that we will see some progress on this today.

--- Later in debate ---

“one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance”.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is talking about the affordability and sustainability of systems. Does he acknowledge that when the proposals to change the student funding system were put to this House back in 2012, it was on the understanding from his predecessor, Lord Willetts, that the resource and budgeting charge—the uncollectable level of student debt—would be at around 28%? That prediction was rubbished by many experts in the sector and from the Opposition Benches, and gradually, over the lifetime of the Parliament, the percentage went up into the 30s and the 40s, to the point where it became unsustainable. The unsustainability of the system that the Government created was then dealt with by imposing that burden on students by varying the charges and the deal on student loans in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) described.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Short interventions, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

That represents a decrease in the capital value of the loan book.

The cost of uprating by the consumer prices index, as new clause 10 proposes, would be less, but still significant. These costs would need to be paid for by taxpayers, many of whom will be earning less than the graduates who would benefit from the threshold increase.

New clause 10 relates to access to support for students recognised as needing protection. This is an important issue which was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in Committee, and is already addressed, as we have discussed, within the student support regulations. I am pleased to say that those who come to this country and obtain international protection are already able to access student support. Our regulations have for some time included provision for those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, and their family members.

Those persons entering the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and granted humanitarian protection, will be eligible, like UK nationals, to obtain student support and home-fee status after only three years’ residence in the UK. Persons on the programme are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they consider that they meet the criteria. Those with refugee status are uniquely allowed to access student support immediately, a privilege not afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. There is a distinction in international law between such status and that of those in need of humanitarian protection.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens, to be ordinarily lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student support. The amendment would allow people who may subsequently be required to leave the country to access taxpayer funding for their study.

The last group of amendments includes some technical Government amendments relating to alternative student finance. Unless hon. Members show an interest in them, I will move on to my conclusion.

This Government are committed to a sustainable and fair student funding system. We are seeing more people going to university than ever before, and record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and, with it, the cap on aspiration that it represented. I hope the Opposition can see that if their amendments were not pressed, the student funding regime would remain sustainable, working in the best interests of students and taxpayers.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister briefly addressed new clause 8, although in anticipating it, he understated and, to some degree, misrepresented the actual position. Let me therefore explain the new clause, for which I think there is support on both sides of the House—I think there was some discomfort on the Government Benches in Committee when it was voted down.

New clause 8 would allow all refugees resettled to the UK, as well as those young people who, having made an application for asylum, are granted a form of leave other than refugee status, to access student finance and home fees. It would be of particular benefit to Syrian refugees resettled to the UK under the Government’s own policy, so it is perhaps not surprising that there is support for it on both sides of the House. Only small numbers of people would be affected, but as those of us who have dealt with such cases know, it would have a huge impact for the individuals.

Let me explain the context. Currently, individuals with refugee status can access student finance and qualify for home-fee status from the moment they are awarded their protection. That is where the Minister was economical with the truth in his comments about the new clause, because those with a slightly different status—that of humanitarian protection—are treated differently: they have to be able to show that they have been ordinarily resident for at least three years at the start of the academic year to be able to receive financial support.

The group most affected by that different definition are those Syrian refugees currently being resettled to the UK under the vulnerable persons resettlement programme, as they are granted not refugee status but humanitarian protection. The result is that a young Syrian refugee who arrives in the UK today would not qualify for student finance until the start of the academic year in 2020. The only exception is if they are resettled to Scotland, where the Scottish Government—I commend them for this—have introduced a special fee status for resettled Syrians, allowing them immediate access to student finance.

Subsection 2(a) would ensure that all resettled refugees, no matter what status they are given, and no matter where they live in the UK, could access student support immediately. Subsection 2(b) would make student finance available for those who are granted humanitarian protection after making an application for asylum. As set out in the immigration rules, humanitarian protection is granted to people who face a real risk of suffering harm if they return to their home country. That includes the risk of facing the death penalty, torture or inhumane treatment, or their lives being at risk owing to armed conflict. Now, the future of those who are granted humanitarian protection after applying for asylum is clearly in the UK. If their future is here, they should be enabled to build their lives here. They should be allowed to access university education not simply to build their lives but to contribute fully to our society.

Subsection 2(b) would also provide access to student finance and home-fee status for people who have applied for asylum and then been granted another form of immigration leave. Again, in these cases, the Government have accepted that the immediate future of these individuals is in the UK, so they should be given every opportunity to contribute and develop, yet they face significant hurdles in doing so. The reason is that, in 2012, the last Government changed the rules so potential university students in this situation could no longer access student finance. They would also have been reclassified as international students, meaning they would face higher fees.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court found that the Government’s rules were discriminatory. I realise the Government have not been doing very well in the courts recently, but this is a slightly earlier case—the Tigere case. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling against the Government, the Government changed the rules and introduced the new criterion of long residence. What that means is that young people who have gone through the asylum process—including children who arrived as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—and who are unlikely to meet the long residence criterion, will have to watch their school peers go off to university, leaving them behind.

[Wes Streeting]

I have a constituent in just that position. They went through school, they did well, they were ready to go to university and they had a university place secured, but they were told that they had not yet met the residency requirements. They are going to be sitting around for another year or two, waiting until they do meet the residency requirement. That is a waste of their time, a waste of their potential and a waste of everybody else’s time. That is the perverse situation we are in, isn’t it?

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

[John Pugh]

I rise to add a brief footnote to new clause 10, which is in my name, and to say things that other people in the room possibly cannot say.

Liberal Democrats hesitate, for some reason, to talk about university fees. I have no particular embarrassment—I voted against top-up fees under Labour, and I voted against the increases under the coalition. In both cases, though, I made dire predictions about take-up, which certainly were not fulfilled, and take-up in both cases carried on. Unfortunately, I was right in my predictions about the political consequences of breaking our contract with the electorate. I believe we were tricked into that by a very clever Chancellor, and there was very little saving in the end to the Exchequer, contrary to what some of my colleagues supposed at the time.

It was a painful process, and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who introduced this section of the debate, pointed out that it involved a certain number of concessions to the Liberal Democrats. What we are looking at now is the elimination bit by bit, piece by piece of those concessions, starting with grants and moving on to access and so on. So the policy has clearly worsened, and what we have currently, with the raising of the threshold, is nothing short of a scandal. A contract has been broken; there has been a one-sided redefinition of the terms of the loan. In any other context, as Martin Lewis quite correctly said, that would lead to legal action. The only reason legal action is not possible in this case is the small print, which, as far as most undergraduates are concerned, was very, very small indeed.

New clause 10 is simply an attempt to avoid a repetition of that bad situation by defining a minimum level of earnings and a mechanism for adjusting it in a rational, open way. It would avoid partiality, exploitation, misunderstanding and—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this briefly—the lack of trust, which is absolutely crucial. That, surely, is the way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

It will be at least one person with experience of one or more of the devolved Administrations. To be absolutely explicit, the Government have tabled an amendment that places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of having at least once such member. For the individual councils, we think it right that UKRI be free to appoint the very best people for these roles, and we expect it to appoint candidates with the highest levels of relevant skills and experience from a diverse range of backgrounds, both nationally and internationally.

On new clause 11, I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) that there must be proper monitoring of the international diversity of the research sector workforce. We already take this very seriously and collect and discuss such data, but let me reiterate the Government’s position on the importance of international researchers. As I have said, we remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU, and we hugely value the contribution of EU and international staff. There has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or of UK citizens in the EU, as a result of the referendum. As the Prime Minister said in her letter copied to Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, only five days after she came into office:

“Our research base is enriched by the best minds from Europe and around the world – providing reassurance to these individuals and to UK researchers working in Europe will be a priority for the Government.”

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has articulated exactly the sentiments shared by Opposition Members—for us, too, this issue is a priority—but does he not recognise that in reality the Government are failing in that objective? Around the country, we are receiving reports of EU academics saying, “Our future isn’t here, because we haven’t had the reassurances we need.”

[Joseph Johnson]

There is no higher authority in the Government than the Prime Minister, and we have heard from her that it is absolutely our intention to provide the reassurance that EU scientists and researchers working in this country want and need. The Brexit Secretary has given similar assurances and reminded EU nationals living and working in the UK that those who have been here for five years are already entitled to indefinite leave to remain—I understand from his figures that that relates to about 80% of the group concerned—and that those who have been here for six years are entitled to apply for dual nationality. We want brilliant researchers from other European countries to continue to enrich our universities and student experience, and we have every expectation that they will be able to do so, as long as UK nationals in other EU countries receive reciprocal rights in those countries.