Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

T4. Recent Government figures show that UK funding from Horizon 2020 dropped significantly last year. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he is going to do to address that alarming fall in funding, and will he commit to participating in Horizon 2020 beyond March 2019 should the UK leave the EU then?

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

UK participation in Horizon 2020 has held up remarkably well since June 2016. We remain one of the strongest performers across the EU system. As the hon. Lady will have seen, last Friday’s joint report between the Commission and the UK Government painted a very positive outlook for our continued participation in this valuable programme.

Student Loans Company

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope the Minister appreciates that the problems at the SLC go beyond the actions, or lack of them, of the previous chief executive. The Jenkins report pointed to “bad behaviour” among the whole of the executive leadership team. Will the Minister tell us what that bad behaviour is, how long he has known about it and what action is being taken to stop it?

[Joseph Johnson]

The SLC board has taken prompt action to address the shortcomings in the leadership of the company that were identified in the two investigations that I have mentioned: the Government Internal Audit Agency report and the report by Sir Paul Jenkins. I have every confidence that the new chief executive we have put in place, Peter Lauener, who has worked successfully across a range of Department for Education partner organisations including the Institute for Apprenticeships, will do the job that we need him to do.

Higher Education Funding

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was the increase in tuition fees that enabled us to take the limit off student numbers and release student number controls. That change is what has driven the sharp increase in participation in higher education by people from lower socioeconomic deciles. It has driven a huge expansion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds getting a chance to go through university and higher education. The Labour party’s policies would reverse all that progress.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is right that the Government have frozen tuition fees, but I wonder whether I could nudge the Minister to go a bit further and get rid of this unsustainable fees system altogether. When is he going to guarantee that universities and their funding will not be adversely affected in any way by the changes the Government are proposing?

[Joseph Johnson]

Universities are well funded. As I said in my opening remarks, funding per student per degree is up by 25% since the reforms the Government introduced in the previous Parliament. We are confident, having assessed the financial position of our institutions, that they can sustain a freeze in the level of fees for this coming financial year and that is the policy the Government set out.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

The Higher Education and Research Bill sets out the most significant legislative reforms of the sector for 25 years. The world of higher education has changed fundamentally since the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, leaving a regulatory system that is complex, fragmented and out of date. The sector has consistently called for new legislation to update the regulatory framework and just yesterday the two main sector groups, Universities UK and GuildHE, reiterated their full support for this important legislation.

Given its scale and importance, this Bill has understandably received robust and constructive debate as it has progressed through this House and the other place. I would like to put on record my thanks to all Members and noble Lords who have engaged with it during the process, throughout which we have listened, reflected and responded. This group includes no fewer than 240 amendments agreed in the other place which strengthen and improve the drafting of the Bill. They cover a range of issues including institutional autonomy, the inclusion of collaboration and diversity of provision in the Office for Students’ duties, student transfer and accelerated degrees. The other place also agreed amendments to strengthen the research provisions in the Bill, including putting the Haldane principle into legislation for the very first time. Today, I am pleased to show once again that we are willing to engage and respond. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I speak at some length: there are many important points that I would like to set out clearly.

Turning first to Lords amendment 1, we listened carefully to the debate in the other place about the role and functions of universities. At its heart was the importance of protecting institutional autonomy, which we fully support. We responded to this with a significant package of amendments designed to provide robust and meaningful protection of institutional autonomy across the whole of the Bill, which I was pleased to see receive support from all parties. On the definition of a university, in a limited sense a university can be described as predominantly a degree-level provider with awarding powers. If we want a broader definition, we can say that a university is also expected to be an institution that brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and self-critical academic community to provide excellent learning opportunities for people. We expect teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of research, scholarship and professional practice. To distinguish it from what we conventionally understand a school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a place where students are developing higher analytical capacities: critical thinking, curiosity about the world and higher levels of abstract capacity in their analysis.

Further, the strength of the university sector is based on its diversity and we should continue to recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is not in the interests of students or of wider society. In particular, small and specialist providers that support, for example, the creative arts, theology and agriculture have allowed more students with highly specialised career aims the opportunity to study at a university. Indeed, as we have said in our White Paper and throughout the passage of the Bill, the diversity of the sector and opportunities for students have grown as a result of the important changes introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2004, including the lifting of the requirement for universities to have students in five subject areas and to award research degrees. No one would want, and we would not expect, to go back on the specific changes that the party opposite made.

To protect the use of university title, we have tabled amendments (a) to (d) to Lords amendment 1 to ensure that before allowing the use of that title, the Office for Students must have regard to factors in guidance given by the Secretary of State, and that before giving the guidance, the Secretary of State must consult relevant bodies and persons. This consultation will be full and broad. It will reference processes and practice overseas, for example in Australia, and provide an opportunity to consider a broad range of factors before granting university title. Those factors might include a track record of excellent teaching; sustained scholarship; cohesive academic communities; interdisciplinary approaches; supportive learning infrastructures; the dissemination of knowledge; the public-facing role of universities; academic freedom and freedom of speech; and wider support for students and pastoral care.

In the other place, we tabled an amendment based on a proposal from Baroness Wolf requiring the Office for Students to take expert advice from a relevant body on quality and standards before granting, varying, or revoking degree-awarding powers. I can confirm that the role of the relevant body will be similar to that of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s advisory committee on degree-awarding powers, and the system we are putting in place will build on the QAA’s valuable work over the years.

Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 71 further strengthens that provision. Specifically, the amendment makes it clear that, if there is not a designated quality body to perform the role, the committee that the OFS must establish to perform it must feature a majority of members who are not members of the OFS. Further, in appointing those members, the OFS must consider the requirement that the committee’s advice be informed by the interests listed in the proposed new clause, which will ensure that the advice is impartial and informed. The amendment also makes it clear that the advice must include a view on whether the provider under consideration can maintain quality and standards, and it requires the OFS to notify the Secretary of State as soon as possible after it grants degree-awarding powers to a provider that has not previously delivered a degree course under a validation arrangement.

I also confirm that I expect the Secretary of State’s guidance to the OFS on DAPs to continue to require that a provider’s eligibility be reviewed if there is a change in its circumstances, such as a merger or a change of ownership. The OFS has powers under the Bill to remove DAPs from a provider where there are concerns as to the quality or standards of its higher education provision following such a change. We expect the OFS to seek advice from the relevant body on any such quality concerns before taking the step of revocation.

In the other place we made amendments providing additional safeguards on the revocation of DAPs and university title, recognising that those are last-resort powers. Amendments were also made relating to appeals against such decisions. Amendments (a) to (h) in lieu of Lords amendments 78 and 106 achieve the same aims as the Lords amendments but will align the wording more closely with terminology used elsewhere in legislation. The amendments allow an appeal on unlimited grounds, and permit the First-tier Tribunal to retake any decision of the OFS to revoke DAPs or university title.

Over the course of the Bill’s passage we have seen complete consensus in both Houses on the importance of teaching in higher education. We have always been a world leader in our approach to higher education in this country, but we cannot and should not be complacent. The teaching excellence framework offers us the opportunity to safeguard the UK’s best teaching and to raise standards across the sector. For the TEF to work properly, however, there must be reputational and financial incentives behind it. We propose to disagree with Lords amendments 12 and 23, which would render the TEF unworkable.

Almost 300 providers took part in the first round of assessments, and we have received vocal support for the TEF from the major sector representatives. The sector has voted with its feet and has demonstrated real confidence in the framework. It would not be appropriate to stop or fundamentally alter the TEF now.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister is saying about the TEF, but does he accept that, although there might be widespread consent across the sector for a TEF-type exercise, the sector is not happy about the traffic light system and wants to see the review he is establishing?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point, which enables me to discuss the amendment that the Government have tabled precisely to address those concerns.

I am pleased to present to the House a series of amendments that demonstrate our continued commitment to developing the teaching excellence framework iteratively and carefully. We have consulted widely on the TEF, and we want to continue drawing on the best expertise as we develop this important scheme. That is why I am pleased to have tabled amendment (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23, as it requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the TEF within one year of the TEF clause being commenced. Crucially, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament, ensuring parliamentary accountability for the framework as it moves forward.

The report must cover many aspects that have concerned Members of this House and the other place, including whether the metrics used are fit for use in the TEF; whether the names of the ratings, to which the hon. Lady alluded, are appropriate for use in the TEF; the impact of the TEF on the ability of providers to carry out their research, teaching and other functions; and an assessment of whether the scheme is, all things considered, in the public interest. I am happy to confirm that the Secretary of State will take account of the review and, if he or she considers it appropriate, will provide guidance to the OFS accordingly, including on any changes to the scheme that the review suggests might be needed, whether in relation to the metrics or any of the other items the review will look at.

We have also heard concerns about the impact of the link between TEF and fees. We recognise the important role of Parliament in setting fee caps. That is why I am also pleased to propose amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of amendments 12, 209 and 210, which amend the parliamentary procedure required to alter fee limit amounts, to ensure that any regulations that would raise fees would be subject, as a minimum, to the affirmative procedure. That provides a greater level of parliamentary oversight on fees than the measures originally put in place under the Labour Government in 2004. I have also today brought forward a further motion to disagree with Lords amendments 183 to 185, which are no longer required as a consequence of these amendments. That is a purely technical change as a result of the wider set of amendments regarding fee amounts.

Furthermore, today’s amendments demonstrate our commitment to a considered roll-out of differentiated fees. Amendments in lieu (c ) and (d) will delay the link between differentiated TEF ratings and tuition fee caps, so that this will not come in for more than three years, with the first year of differentiated fees as a result of TEF ratings being no earlier than the academic year beginning autumn 2020.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

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

[Joseph Johnson]

In relation to new clause 4, we intend to keep the processes relating to the scrutiny of applications for degree-awarding powers—which have worked well to date—broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element of independent peer review for degree-awarding powers applications. I said as much in Committee. The processes are not currently set out in legislation to avoid being tied to a static process, and we intend to keep it that way. We have published a technical note on market entry and quality assurance that sets out more detail on the operation of the quality threshold.

Turning to new clause 7, our policy is that degree-awarding powers cannot be transferred or sold for commercial purposes, and we do not see that changing. If the holder of degree-awarding powers were involved in a change of ownership, or if complex group ownerships change, the provider would be expected to inform the OFS and to demonstrate that it remained the same cohesive academic community that was awarded degree-awarding powers and that it continued to meet the criteria for university title. We intend to consult on the detailed circumstances for when degree-awarding powers and university title might be revoked, including instances of changes of ownership, so there is no need for this new clause.

Turning to amendments 40 and 41, the OFS is already required under clause 2 to have regard to the need to promote quality when carrying out its functions. The OFS will therefore have regard to the need to promote quality when authorising providers to grant degrees. I reassure Members that we will, as now, ensure that the high standards that providers must meet in order to be able to make such awards are retained. One of the key criteria for obtaining degree-awarding powers is the ability to set and maintain academic standards, and we expect that to continue. As now, we want all criteria to set a high bar, and we plan to set them out in departmental guidance to which the OFS must have regard. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give the House some idea of when that guidance might be available?

[Joseph Johnson]

We plan to put out guidance in the coming months. The hon. Lady will be the first to receive it when it is ready.

Turning to amendment 58, we are absolutely committed to protecting the quality and reputation of our universities. We are not changing the core concept of what a university is and are not planning any wide-ranging changes to the criteria for university title. As now, we want only those providers with full degree-awarding powers to be eligible. Students make the choice where to study based on many factors—not only the qualification they will receive, but the cultural and social opportunities—and one size does not fit all. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education providers are best placed to decide what experiences they want to offer to students and the local community. Like now, we intend to set out the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title in guidance, not in legislation. We plan to consult on the detail prior to publication.

Several interesting points have been made in the debate on this group of amendments. Let me conclude by thanking hon. Members for their responses to the amendments that we have brought forward to enshrine the OFS’s duty to monitor and report on financial sustainability, to ensure there is always an OFS board member to represent or promote the student interest, to promote institutional autonomy further, and to compel providers to publish student protection plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

UKRI and the OFS are under an obligation to act efficiently and effectively, and to deliver value for money. That will inevitably mean that when collaboration would deliver those objectives, they will also be under an obligation to work together.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That seems a bit convoluted.

A number of universities are still raising issues. We have just heard from the University of Cambridge, which says that

“the Bill itself does not contain any specific duty on the OfS to consult with UKRI towards the award of research DAPs. We believe that this should be specifically provided for in the Bill.”

I agree. I think that we would all like the Minister to include a specific requirement for the OFS to consult the UKRI and other bodies before granting degree-awarding powers. That, we think, would be a major step towards ensuring that decisions are effective and appropriate.

Amendment 59 suggests that one way of ensuring that the OFS and UKRI work together would be to establish a joint committee consisting of representatives of both organisations and requiring them to produce an annual report on the health of the higher education sector. They would have to report on, for instance, post-graduate training, research funding, shared facilities, skills development, and the strength of the sector. The amendment is intended to obtain—even at this late stage—a bit more information from the Minister about how he envisages the two organisations working together, and, in particular, how he will ensure that there is holistic oversight. That issue arose again and again in Committee. There was widespread concern, expressed in our amendments, that the split into two organisations would lose some of what HEFCE had provided for the sector. This amendment suggests just one way in which the two could be made to work together more effectively; there are others.

The Minister has provided us—rather late in the day—with framework documents that help to establish how the Government envisage collaboration between the organisations, and I thank him for that. I found it interesting reading. I hope that the Minister appreciates that I read the document immediately. It sets out a number of things that the OFS and UKRI may do. It says, for example, that the OFS and UKRI may co-operate with one another in exercising any of their functions and that the OFS may provide information to the UKRI. I just reiterate the point—why not just say “must” or “shall” where appropriate, and then we are all absolutely clear that those two organisations have to work together in a particular way?

I want to emphasise one thing about the amendment. At the end of it, it says that the UKRI and the OFS should have to publish a report on

“measures taken to act in the public interest.”

I am not going to go through again all the things we would expect to see from two organisations working in the public interest, but it would be helpful to have some understanding from the Minister about how the UKRI and the OFS are going to comment and report on the public interest as expressed by institutions and the work that they are carrying out.

On amendment (a) to Government amendment 17, the Minister is right that clause 104 says that the social sciences should be covered by the term “sciences” and arts by the term “humanities”. I tabled amendment (a) so that I could ask why, as only a few additional words would have to be added, “social sciences” cannot be added to the provision. We will all remember that arts is covered by humanities and social sciences by sciences because we are considering the Bill, but once the list is out there will be a danger of both the arts and social sciences falling out of everyone’s memory. I make a plea to the Minister: may we have the words “arts” and “social sciences” added to the provision?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

8. What priorities her Department has identified for higher education in the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

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

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that our universities get the best possible deal from the negotiations with the EU. We recognise the key issues for the sector as being the ability to recruit EU students, the student financial support to which they have access, EU programmes and funding streams and the status of UK students studying abroad. The future arrangements on all those issues will have to be considered as part of the wider discussions about our future relationship with the EU.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the Minister knows, the higher education sector contributes a massive £73 billion to the UK economy, including £11 billion of export earnings, yet the Department for Education has no representation on the EU Exit and Trade Committee or Sub-Committee. What reassurances can he give the House that the priorities for the sector, such as growing the number of students and sustaining research funding, are being identified and protected in the Brexit negotiations?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Department has moved rapidly to provide significant reassurances to the sector in a number of respects, particularly on the continuity of the funding arrangements for Horizon 2020 resources. The Treasury will make up the continuing obligations on payments that fall due after we have left the EU. We have made it clear that EU students will be able to access our loan book and home fee status for the duration of their course of study if they start in the 2016-17 or 2017-18 academic year.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the amendments. We share the same objectives, but I point out that it is not only newer entrants into the sector who require us to have these powers; there have also been instances in what we may regard as the classic university sector that have made it necessary for the powers to be introduced. I draw to his attention some cases we have seen in that part of the sector, which is by no means immune from the kinds of problems we want to ensure we stamp out.

One high-profile case that the hon. Gentleman may well remember in the sector funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England was that of London Metropolitan University, which provided inaccurate data returns to HEFCE, resulting in it receiving significantly more funding than was due. The investigation into concerns about the university was hampered by access issues. HEFCE subsequently decided to recover access funding of £36.5 million over the three years up to and including 2007-08. So I would steer the hon. Gentleman away from the black and white picture of “alternative providers bad, classic sector good”, because it is not as simple as that, as he well knows.

The amendments will ensure that the powers of entry and search are effective and proportionate. I commend them to the Committee.

Amendment 89 agreed to.

Amendment made: 90, in clause 56, page 33, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) A “linked institution” in relation to a supported higher education provider means an institution which acts on behalf of the provider in the provision of a higher education course by the provider.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment extends the power of entry so that it applies to premises occupied by institutions that are linked to supported higher education providers as defined in the amendment. Amendments 89, 91, 92, 94 and 95 are consequential on this change.

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Powers of entry and search etc

Amendments made: 91, page 77, line 11, after “provider” insert

“or a linked institution in relation to such a provider”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 92, page 77, line 17, after “provider” insert

“or a linked institution in relation to such a provider”.—(Joseph Johnson.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 290, page 77, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) the justice of the peace is satisfied that the use of entry and search powers is the only practicable way for the matter to be investigated.”.

This amendment would allow search and entry powers to be used only in cases where a justice of the peace is satisfied that there was no other practicable way forward.

It is a great pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir Edward.

I say to the Minister at the outset that amendment 290 is a probing amendment to test whether he thinks sufficient safeguards are in place for universities on powers to search and enter premises of higher education providers. I am sure we all agree that where incidents of fraud, financial mismanagement or other illegal behaviour have or are suspected to have occurred, it is exceptionally important that there is a power to investigate allegations in a timely and efficient way, and in some circumstances the use of search and entry powers will be necessary to carry out those investigations. However, there is some anxiety in the university sector that there might not be sufficient safeguards in the Bill on the court process to approve powers of search and entry. The amendment is simply to ask the Minister whether sufficient safeguards are in place, or whether it would be possible to add an additional safeguard of more court oversight.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment and for clarifying its probing nature. I reassure her that her intention is already achieved by schedule 5, which states that in order to issue a warrant a justice of the peace must be

“satisfied that…entry to the premises is necessary to determine whether the suspected breach is taking place or has taken place”.

A warrant may be issued only in relation to a suspected breach that is

“sufficiently serious to justify entering the premises”

and where entry to the premises would be refused or requesting entry would

“frustrate or seriously prejudice the purpose of entry.”

That means, in effect, that a warrant will be granted only when necessary and when it is not practical to enter or request the information on a consensual basis.

The hon. Lady asked what further safeguards there are. Further safeguards are built into the powers of entry and search, including that entry must be

“at a reasonable hour”,

that the warrant must

“identify, as far as possible, the suspected breach of a registration condition or funding condition”,

and the premises may be searched only

“to the extent that is reasonably required for the purposes of determining whether there is, or has been, a breach”.

Warrants granted under the powers will not allow for individuals to be searched. We are confident that those are strong safeguards that effectively ensure that the powers of entry and search can be used only if necessary and if that is the only practicable way for a matter to be investigated.

I agree that it is vital that proper safeguards are in place to ensure that those powers are always used appropriately. I believe that the strong safeguards set out in schedule 5 as drafted achieve that, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have heard the Minister’s extremely helpful clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 291, in schedule 5, page 77, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment has the effect that the power of entry cannot be exercised in relation to a breach of an initial registration condition.

Amendment 94, in schedule 5, page 78, line 7, after “provider” insert “or linked institution”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 95, in schedule 5, page 78, line 20, after “provider” insert “or linked institution”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 96, in schedule 5, page 79, line 1, after “the” insert “relevant”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

Amendment 97, in schedule 5, page 79, line 2, leave out “occupying the premises”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

Amendment 98, in schedule 5, page 79, line 7, after “the” insert “relevant”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

Amendment 99, in schedule 5, page 79, line 8, leave out “occupying the premises”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

Amendment 100, in schedule 5, page 81, line 36, at end insert—

““linked institution”, in relation to a supported higher education provider, has the meaning given in section56(3);”.

This amendment defines “linked institution” for the purposes of Schedule 5.

Amendment 101, in schedule 5, page 81, line 36, at end insert—

““relevant supported higher education provider” means—

(a) in the case of premises occupied by a supported higher education provider, that provider, and

(b) in the case of premises occupied by a linked institution in relation to a supported higher education provider, that provider.”—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment defines “relevant supported higher education provider” in order to identify such providers where a linked institution is occupying the premises. Amendments 96, 97, 98 and 99 are consequential on this change.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57

Power to require information from unregistered providers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Does the Minister intend to table regulations or guidance that would make obvious the set of circumstances in which HEFCE might arrange for a study into the efficiency of an organisation? This is not a carte blanche power to go in because it decides on a whim to do a study on a particular institution, because there are grounds for concern that would trigger a study being carried out on a particular institution. Alternatively, is his intention that this should be a carte blanche power and that the OFS can decide one day that it is not sure an institution is being as efficient as it could be, so it will commission a study to look into it? Where is the trigger information, so that we can better understand the use of this power?

[Joseph Johnson]

We would not expect to set out the precise circumstances governing the use of this power in the Bill, but they will be subject to guidance from the Department to the office for students in the normal manner in due course.

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister asks me yet again to trust in the sentiment of what his Department has done, but the answer, I fear, is that there was no specific or distinct assessment of the sort for which I have asked. Nevertheless, I have heard what he has to say. We will see how the transfer operates, and on that basis I am content to leave it at that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Other fees

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Amendment 239 would add another subsection to clause 64 to give higher education institutions a guarantee in the Bill that costs would not be applied to them, through the fee regime, that should not be borne by them. For example, if a problem in one institution meant that the OFS had particularly burdensome costs, it could not in some way average those costs out across other institutions—ones that were not “guilty” of whatever the activity was. It is not absolutely clear in clause 64 that higher education institutions would be protected from that sort of practice, and I am not sure that schedule 7 protects them, either, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten me further about that.

The Minister will know that this concern was raised by the University Alliance. In its written evidence to the Committee, it was clear that it thought that it would be very unfair for well managed and high performing HEIs to pick up costs relating to others that might be in breach of a particular provision. With the amendment, we are asking that it be explicit somewhere in the Bill that only fees relating to the activities of that institution can be applied to it.

Amendment 240 would amend the Bill so that the Government, not universities, were responsible for the set-up and running costs of the OFS. The reason for that is primarily that so much of the income that goes into universities now comes from students themselves. Often when Government Members are talking about universities, there seems to be a belief that there is this huge body. I am not saying that public money does not go into universities. Of course, some public money does, but it is now only a fraction of the running costs of universities.

One reason why the Minister has argued for putting up fees is that universities need more income from fees if they are to be able to run properly. Most of their income comes from fees, so if the OFS is funded by universities, actually students are paying for it or a huge part of it—not only for the set-up costs, but the running costs. If students were asked whether they wanted the costs of the whole regulatory regime for universities and everything else that goes with the OFS to be borne by them, or substantially borne by them, they would not be very happy. I hope that the Minister is open to listening to the case for a much fairer system. Students already have a lot of costs.

Interestingly, according to the screen in the room, the Government are asking universities to put a lot of money into setting up and running grammar schools and all sorts of other schools. Who is paying for that activity? It will be borne predominantly by students. I do not mean the running costs of the schools, but the setting-up cost will be borne largely by students because students are largely funding the sector. It seems totally unfair that the Government have come up with this new regime but do not seem happy to put their hand in their own pocket and pay for it. That is not a reasonable course of action.

The Government are not clear in clause 66 or schedule 7 what the Secretary of State will actually be making grants for. I suggest the Minister tells his right hon. Friend that if the Government are serious about making the system work properly and not putting additional costs on students, who are already carrying a very big burden of paying for university, a very good use of money would be ensuring that grants were made available to the OFS on a regular and timely basis to cover running and set-up costs.

[Joseph Johnson]

The OFS has the power to charge other fees beyond the registration fee, in recognition of the fact that it may deliver specific services and one-off processes that would not apply to the majority of providers. That is a fair approach, meaning that providers that require a particular additional service are those that will be charged for it. As an example, the OFS may look to charge for the process of commissioning a registered higher education provider to validate other HE providers’ taught awards and foundation degrees.

Ultimately, the exact detail of what other fees may pay for is to be determined, but we have made clear that fees should be charged only on a cost recovery basis. I would also like to assure Members that any other fees made via the provision would be part of the overall fee regime, on which we will be consulting this autumn. As such, they would require Treasury consent and be included in regulations subject to the negative procedure before they could be brought into force.

On amendment 239, let me start by assuring Members that there is no intention to use the powers under clause 64 to charge other fees for a different service or activity that is not related to the particular service or activity for which the other fee has been charged. However, it is important that we allow the OFS sufficient flexibility in setting charges for each individual additional activity or service that attracts other fees, so that it is either able to set a flat rate where that makes most sense administratively or to vary fees according to the size of a provider, where there are grounds for doing so on the basis of access and affordability.

Subsection (3) enables cross-subsidy between charges relating to the same services or activities. In doing so, it is clear that the clause does not enable cross-subsidy between additional charges for different services or activities. Amendment 239 would prevent the OFS from charging on any basis other than the specific costs incurred by each individual provider and might affect the OFS’s ability to build cover into the fee regime for overhead costs relating to the specific activity being charged for. That clearly works against the rationale for enabling a fair element of cross-subsidy within the main registration fee under clause 63.

On the hon. Lady’s points about set-up and transition costs, I entirely sympathise with the principle that students should not pay for the set-up costs of the OFS. Let me assure the Committee that we will consider areas where Government may provide supplementary funding to the OFS, including to ensure that students do not incur the additional costs associated with transition to the new regulator. That will form part of our upcoming consultation on registration fees.

It is, however, our intention that once the new system is in place, providers will share the running costs of the new regulator with the Government, which will bring the model into line with that of other established regulators that are co-funded through a combination of fees charged on the sectors they regulate and funding from Government. It will also make the funding of HE regulation more sustainable, reducing the reliance on Government grant, and create an incentive for providers to hold the new regulator to account for its efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, that is exactly right and I have already given some examples of some of the areas in which the Government will want to be making a contribution towards the overall costs of the regulatory framework.

I assure hon. Members that the power under clause 66 is about enabling the Government to express their funding priorities. This recognises that in a world where we set maximum fees, Government need to ensure that they can direct money to some high-cost courses to ensure it remains viable for providers to teach them. Amendment 240 would prevent this. It would also have a further particularly unwelcome, and I am sure unintended, effect in that it would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make teaching grant to the OFS and replace it with an ability to make grant only for the OFS’s set-up and running costs. That would remove the OFS’s ability to fund activity such as high-cost science, technology, engineering and maths courses or widening participation.

Amendment 240 would undermine the sustainability of our HE funding system, to the detriment of students. Further, we are taking the opportunity in this legislation to refresh the protections for academic freedom so that they are appropriate for today’s circumstances. I ask the hon. Member for City of Durham to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

If I heard the Minister correctly, he confirmed that I am right to be anxious about what is happening with regard to clause 64. I think he said that there would be overhead charges arising from the activity of all the institutions that would then be borne by each one individually. So there could be additional charges in that overhead fee because it proves extremely difficult to get information from some institutions or the OFS wants to have a lot of specific projects relating to specific institutions. Perhaps that is not what the Minister meant, but it seems that subsection (3) is being used to allow some cross-subsidy—that is the term he used. I am extremely concerned about that, as are a number of institutions.

What is the limit on that cross-subsidy? That is an incredibly unfair and probably, in the long run, unworkable system. I expect that a lot of HEIs will not be happy at all to be charged what they see as a fairly high overhead charge for services or activities that have nothing to do with them as an institution. I am happy for the Minister to correct me, if he wants to.

[Joseph Johnson]

I am happy to try to provide further reassurance on this point, if I did not do so sufficiently the first time round. It is our intention that the registration fee will be fair, proportionate and affordable for providers. With that in mind, we will explore options for Government funding to supplement the fee income that the OFS receives from providers. We have already committed the OFS to fund, for example, the teaching excellence framework.

An element of cross-subsidy can be a sensible means of achieving a balanced approach to cost recovery across the sector and is well established in other charging systems. For example, subscription fees paid to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education currently pay for more than the benefits providers receive and cover other costs, such as running and infrastructure costs and international work conducted by the QAA on behalf of the sector. Having this element of overhead covered by charges is therefore something that the sector is familiar and comfortable with.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Yes, but the QAA is about quality assurance; it is not a regulator in that sense. The point I am trying to make with amendment 239 is that institutions need to be protected from bearing costs created by one or a group of other institutions. At this point, the types of activity that will feed into the overhead charge are not clear.

Rather than labour the point, I would like the Minister to take on board these anxieties—which are, after all, not only ours, but have been put in written evidence to the Committee from one of the university mission groups—and see if anything could be added to the Bill or come subsequently in regulations that would give institutions more assurance that they will not have charges levied on them that are created by some other group of institutions or another individual institution. I will beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 239.

The exact wording of amendment 240 might not be exactly right, but the sentiment behind it is that students should not be paying substantially for the OFS, which is what they will do. The Minister might think it is in students’ interests for them to pay for the OFS, but I do not. It is in students’ interests that the OFS is there and operates effectively and efficiently, but it is quite a big leap to say that they should therefore pay for it. Student loans are already an onerous charge for our students. They often come out of university with debts in excess of £40,000, and simply putting up the fees in order to pay for more and more of the whole sector is not something we should support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

No, I will keep on going. Creating the office for students is about improving the regulatory system and creating a stable, level playing field for providers. The OFS will operate on a sector-funded model, with co-funding from Government, bringing the funding approach in line with that of other regulators. The Bill will enable that, granting the OFS the powers to charge providers registration fees and other fees to cover the costs of its functions.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

No, I think we have had enough on this, so I am going to carry on. The OFS’s power to charge other fees under clause 64 will allow it to charge for specific services and one-off processes that would not apply to all providers in a registration category.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 162. One interesting thing about the Bill is that in a number of provisions—clauses 2, 35, 66 and 69 and schedule 1—it seeks to include some protection for academic freedom. It says that

“the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect academic freedom, including, in particular, the freedom of English higher education providers…to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed…to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of academic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, and…to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.”

That is all very well, but this set of circumstances is interesting in that it is very limited and therefore does not embrace the whole of academic activity.

The reason why I have tabled the amendment, which is actually to clause 77, is to ensure that there is a definition of what the Government mean by “academic freedom” in the Bill. It may be that the Minister thinks that that is clear enough or it has been dealt with elsewhere. I am suggesting with the amendment that academic freedom could be defined by using section 43 of the Education (No. 2 Act) 1986, because it says:

“(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies”—

that includes universities—

“shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes…the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—

(a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or

(b) the policy or objectives of that body.”

The Minister may not like that definition, but I am very open to his bringing forward other definitions. The point that I am trying to make is that the set of circumstances described in the Bill is too narrow to give sufficient reassurance to all academics and visiting lecturers that they will have some protection for academic freedom.

I appreciate that this is a difficult area, and it is becoming more and more difficult because universities have to balance protecting academic freedom with ensuring that there is no incitement to hatred on any of the grounds that are unlawful. I appreciate that it is not easy, but when we are talking about academic freedom in primary legislation, we must all be clear about what we mean by academic freedom and the totality of the circumstances to which it will be applied.

I also say to the Minister that many academics, particularly from European countries, are feeling very anxious. They are particularly concerned at the moment that their activities will be subject to a level of scrutiny that perhaps will not apply to others and that it might be grounds for asking them to leave. They are just feeling very insecure, so anything that the Minister can do to help them to feel more secure, to balance the very difficult situation that I have identified and to put something helpful in the Bill, would be very much welcomed.

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

Academic freedom is one of the fundamental strengths of our higher education system. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Blackpool South to find the best way of protecting it, and I sympathise with the motivation behind amendments 299 and 301, which seek to enhance the protections for academic freedom already in the Bill.

The language used in the Bill is based on the protections in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which have successfully ensured for nearly a quarter of a century that HE institutions can develop and teach entirely free from political interference. That approach has proved to be robust over time and, in our view, it is the best way of ensuring that academic freedom is protected in the future. The Bill preserves academic freedom as a broad general principle, with specific areas of protection explicitly and unequivocally set out. By contrast, defining academic freedom too tightly would risk limiting its meaning and, by extension, limiting the Bill’s protections.

The Bill imposes the first statutory duty on the Secretary of State to

“have regard to the need to protect academic freedom”

whenever he or she issues guidance, conditions of grant or directions to the office for students. It introduces a set of protections for academic freedom that apply comprehensively to the ways in which the Government can influence how the OFS operates. It refreshes and reinforces the current protections for academic freedom, ensuring that they are fit for our HE system today and are sufficiently robust to last for decades into the future. Although I completely agree with the intention behind the amendments, I do not think that they add anything practical to the Bill’s thorough and comprehensive approach to protecting academic freedom.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South raised the question of staff. The Bill supports the academic freedom of staff at HE institutions by giving the OFS the power to impose a public interest governance condition on registered providers, as we discussed when we debated clause 14. Providers subject to such a condition will have to ensure that their governing documents include the principle that academic staff have freedom within the law to question received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial opinions without fear of losing their job or their privileges. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is a vital principle, which is exactly why the Government have ensured that it must be included as a component of the condition set out in clause 14.

Amendment 162 would define academic freedom differently, by referencing section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which is a provision about freedom of speech and in particular about the obligation of certain HE institutions to

“take…steps…to ensure that freedom of speech…is secured for…students and employees…and for visiting speakers.”

Defining academic freedom in that way would introduce a lack of clarity and would not adequately capture what the Bill seeks to protect.

Our approach in the Bill is absolutely clear that academic freedom must be protected. It also sets out comprehensively the areas in which the Government must not interfere:

“the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed…the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of…staff…the criteria for the admission of students”

and the application of those criteria in particular cases.

I remind the Committee what Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, stated in his evidence on this point:

“I also particularly like the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22-23, Q32.]

Amendment 162—inadvertently, I am sure—would actually weaken the protection the Bill provides for academic freedom. I ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw his amendment.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his considered and measured response to amendment 299. It was helpful of him to elaborate some of those key issues in the way he did. As I have said previously, I am mindful of the fact that these things are extremely difficult to define comprehensively on the face of a Bill, but I welcome the direction of travel in respect of the issue we have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham can speak for herself, but the Minister is right to say that she has raised a separate issue. As I am satisfied with the Minister’s response to my amendments, I am content to withdraw them.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I listened to what the Minister had to say. I am not particularly allied to that specific form of words, but, as the Bill mentions academic freedom so much, there should be something in it about what it encompasses. I leave the Minister to reflect on that.

I have one further question. The clauses that refer to academic freedom mention the courses and

“the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed”.

If they are taught in part through a programme of visiting lecturers, does freedom of speech apply to those lectures? The point of my question was to ascertain whether the Bill should to go beyond academic freedom to include freedom of speech. If the intention was to limit that because of other legislation, which is absolutely right and fair, there should be some clarity from the Government on that.

[Joseph Johnson]

I assure the hon. Lady that, yes, the Bill would cover the circumstances she described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 71, page 42, line 38, leave out “in” and insert “for”.

This amendment clarifies the language in relation to qualifying research.

The amendment is minor and technical. It ensures that the language in the clause reflects the clear intention to use application-to-acceptance data for the purpose of qualifying research as defined in subsection (4). That is consistent with our stated policy intention.

Amendment 107 agreed to.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 306, in clause 71, page 43, line 13, after “Secretary of State” insert

“providing that it demonstrates a potential public benefit.”

This amendment means that the Secretary of State can only require a body to provide research if is in the public interest to do so.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 28, page 17, line 16, at end insert—

‘( ) The OfS must, in deciding whether to approve a plan, have regard to whether the governing body of an institution has consulted with relevant student representatives in producing its plan.

( ) In this section “relevant student representatives” means representatives who may be deemed to represent students on higher education courses provided by the institution including, but not limited to, persons or bodies as described by Part 2 of the Education Act 1994.”

This amendment would ensure that when higher education providers produce an Access and Participation Plan, they must consult with students and student representatives, including – but not limited to – the students’ union at that higher education provider.

This amendment would add a new subsection to clause 28, to ensure that before a participation and access plan is approved, the institution in question can demonstrate that students have been consulted in the drawing up of that plan. It is a positive step forward that, through measures in the Bill, institutions will be required to produce participation and access plans. I know that a number of organisations, including the National Union of Students, welcome and support those provisions. However, as the Minister will be aware, much of the excellent access and outreach work at universities is done by students, often co-ordinated by their students unions. The amendment would therefore recognise the work of students and ensure that they are involved when their university produces the access and participation plan. The amendment would give student representatives the chance to discuss their views on their university’s plan and ensure that it reflects the interest of current and future students.

We had a long discussion in this morning’s session about student representation, but I hope that the Minister can be a bit more forthcoming about student involvement in the plan. Frankly, it is hard to envisage how a plan for widening access and participation could be drawn up without speaking to current students and involving them in what that plan ultimately looks like. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Lady has again raised the important issue of student representation and involvement, this time in the development of access and participation plans. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to set out how students are already involved in the development and monitoring of access agreements, including through students unions or associations.

The Office for Fair Access expects providers to include a detailed statement on how they have involved and consulted students in the development of their plan. For example, providers are encouraged to set out where students have been involved in the design and implementation of financial support packages. Some students unions run information, advice and guidance sessions to explain the support packages, to ensure maximum take-up from eligible students. That approach, which has been in place for over a decade, has been successful. All providers produce statements on consultations with their students, and the director of fair access has had regard to those when deciding whether to approve a plan. Over time, the quality of engagement with students has improved. Some providers include text written by their student representatives as part of their access agreements, and some student groups send in their own separate submissions. Although that approach has worked well, we will reflect on the hon. Lady’s comments and consider how best to ensure that students can continue to be engaged in this area in the future. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I shall continue in the same vein as my hon. Friend. Amendment 235 queries whether the OFS should have the sole power and control over who can grant research awards. Giving the OFS the sole power would mean that it would not have to work with any research funding bodies, or indeed any other relevant agencies, in coming to a decision about whether to grant an institution research degree-awarding powers. There are two significant problems with that. First, the OFS granting research degree-awarding powers without reference to other bodies diminishes the level of expertise going into the decision-making process about whether a specific institution should have those degree-awarding powers. In addition, given that UKRI, Research England and the national academies and learned societies also have responsibilities for providing research funding, it seems to be a major error not to consider what role they would have in the granting of research degree awarding powers. Apart from anything else, it could affect funding decisions that those bodies make.

Consulting UKRI and Research England, among others, on whether to grant research degree-awarding powers would allow for a variety of opinions to be aired and would ensure that the OFS is not acting in isolation. It is really important that the Minister looks at that. He helpfully produced a paper, which we got a couple of days ago—I am not sure when it was produced—which talks about how UKRI should work in partnership with other bodies. Unless I have missed it, though, we do not seem to have had a similar exercise on who the OFS needs to work with.

Particularly with regard to research degree-awarding powers, it would be helpful if the Minister gave some thought to the full range of institutions that need to be involved, not least because this is the second really important point. As the system stands and is described in the Bill, it lacks oversight and checks and balances from the research sector. There is nothing to be gained from the OFS working alone, but a lot to be gained from it working in collaboration. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Joseph Johnson]

I am grateful that hon. Members have raised the role of UKRI in the authorisation of the granting of degrees. Our reforms are designed as a single, integrated system that reduces complexity, eliminates barriers to close working and delivers clear responsibilities, especially for the protection of the interests of students. To deliver that integration and close co-operation, it is vital that the OFS and UKRI are empowered to work together. For that reason, clause 103 makes provision to ensure that they do that in a way that enables them to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently.

One key area in which the OFS and UKRI should work in close co-operation is the assessment of applications for research degree-awarding powers, and the provisions in clause 103 will facilitate that. I am satisfied that the provision for co-operation between the OFS and UKRI will address the concern that the hon. Gentleman rightly touches on in his amendment.

The Secretary of State will have powers to require that co-operation to take place if it does not do so of its own accord. We intend to make it explicit in the Government guidance on degree-awarding powers, which we plan to publish, that we expect the OFS to work with UKRI in that way. On that basis, it is not necessary to capture that point in clause 40 as well, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Would the Minister accept that, if the Government are serious about wanting more people to have an experience of higher education, that can be done through expanding the current institutions or in a more measured way of bringing alternative providers into the system? My anxiety has grown over the afternoon, because making it easy for alternative providers will not necessarily guarantee sufficient safeguards for students or the public.

[Joseph Johnson]

Of course we want high-quality provision to expand, whether through the entry of new institutions or the expansion of existing institutions that do well in the quality assurance frameworks that we have in our system—the research excellence framework and the TEF that we are introducing for teaching. They will get more resources and will be able to expand high-quality research and teaching activities. That is how we see the market developing in this country.

The system needs to have informed student choice and competition among high-quality institutions at its heart. Competition between providers in higher education—indeed, in any market—incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better-quality products and services. The Competition and Markets Authority concluded in its recent report on competition in the HE sector that aspects of the current system could be holding back competition among providers, which needed to be addressed. That is what we are doing with the provisions in this and later clauses, including those covering validation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 46, page 26, line 5, leave out

“authorised taught awards and foundation degrees”

and insert

“taught awards and foundation degrees that the provider is authorised to grant”.

This amendment is technical and is needed because clause 46(5) defines “authorised” by reference to a registered higher education provider rather than a taught award or foundation degree.

The clause enables the OFS to commission registered degree-awarding bodies to extend their validation services to other registered providers, if, for example, there is a mismatch between supply and demand. The OFS can commission providers to extend their validation services only if that is allowed by the provider’s degree-awarding powers. The OFS cannot bestow new powers on degree-awarding bodies via the commissioning ability. However, the current language in this clause, which refers to

“authorised taught awards and foundation degrees”,

is a little unclear. The amendment seeks to clarify what we mean by an “authorised” award by using clearer, simpler language. It puts it beyond doubt that the OFS can commission a provider to validate only the taught awards and foundation degrees that the provider is authorised to grant. This is a technical amendment and does not change the scope, purpose or effect of the clause.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 46, page 26, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) Such commissioning arrangements shall include commissioning the Open University as a validator of last resort.”.

This amendment ensures that the Open University rather than the OfS itself is the validator of last resort.

This is a probing amendment to test the Minister’s easy-going, laissez-faire attitude about which courses can be validated and by whom. It is far from clear in clauses 46 and 47 what sort of institution the Minister has in mind for the OFS to use as a validator and, in particular, a validator of last resort. The Opposition are a little bit worried that new providers—or indeed existing providers—could be touting their degrees around different institutions just waiting for one that will validate them, and that the OFS will support that. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

It is essential that along with the direct entry route to the market, which we discussed earlier in relation to clause 40, new providers should be able to choose to access first-class validation services if they feel that would be the right choice for them. We know from the Green Paper consultation responses that validation arrangements can be mutually beneficial for new providers and incumbents alike. They can enable new providers to draw on the knowledge, skills and expertise of more well established providers in the design and delivery of their awards, while building up their own track record of performance. For incumbent providers, validation can serve as an additional revenue stream and enable them to offer complementary HE provision to their own students. However, validation arrangements can also be one-sided, as the power to enter into, and charge for, a validation agreement lies with the validating body. In the extreme, as we have heard, that could lead to incumbent providers essentially locking new providers out of the system indefinitely, or making it prohibitively or unreasonably expensive.

I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the important role that the Open University already plays in providing validation services, and I also welcome its general support for the need for the provisions in the clause. Furthermore, I thank the Open University for the way it is already engaging with the QAA and Independent HE to consider how to improve validation services and remove some of the barriers that new providers currently experience. However, I do not think it is right or necessary to include a role for the OU in legislation, as the amendment would have us do.

I would expect the OFS to need to adopt a purely voluntary, open, fair and transparent approach to any commissioning arrangements, so that all providers understand how they can get involved and what would be expected of them. The OFS must be able to set out the terms of the commissioning arrangements and choose the most appropriate registered higher education provider at the time, to ensure that it can continue to stimulate the development and reach of good-quality validation services. If the OU wanted to enter into commissioning arrangements to offer validation services with the OFS, the Bill would not prevent that from happening, but it would not be appropriate to prescribe a role for one registered higher education provider over another in legislation.

Turning to the intent underlying the amendment, we of course expect the parties with which the OFS enters into validating arrangements to be of similar stature to the Open University and to offer the same kind of high-quality provision. I therefore ask the hon. Member for City of Durham to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think it would help us if the Minister provided some further clarity on the guidance or regulations that will underpin commissioning arrangements, so that we can be absolutely certain that a high-quality provider will ultimately be commissioned as the validator of last resort. Will the Minister reflect on that and bring some further reassurances back to us? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Validation by the OfS

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 26, line 42, after “authorise” insert “authorised”.

This amendment and amendment 77 limit the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the OfS to authorise registered higher education providers to enter into validation arrangements on its behalf. The providers are required to be “authorised” (defined in the new subsection (6A) added by amendment 78), both to grant the taught awards or foundation degrees to which the arrangements relate, and to enter into the validation arrangements to which the arrangements relate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

The amendments will make some clarifications to clauses 49 and 50, which amend the unrecognised degree provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988.

Amendment 79 will ensure that we take a consistent approach to the offence of providing unrecognised degrees. Degree awards made by the OFS and by persons wrongly purporting to be the OFS will also fall within the scope of the provisions concerning unrecognised degrees.

Amendments 80 to 83 and 85 to 87 will ensure that when an English body is included in a recognised body order, it will not be presumed able to grant any or all degrees if its powers have been granted under the Bill. To see what degrees it can grant, it will be necessary to refer to the order that gives or varies its powers to grant degrees. Such orders and regulations will be statutory instruments and should be published accordingly. These provisions are part of the steps that we are taking to ensure, for example, that an English provider that is given only the power to grant bachelor degrees can be caught by the unrecognised degree offence if it grants a masters degree.

Amendment 84 is corrective in nature. It reflects that providers with degree-awarding powers that enable them to validate are free to enter into validating agreements with other bodies without needing further authorisation under the Bill to approve a course. Any validation agreements whereby courses are approved will still need to be in accordance with that body’s academic governance arrangements.

Amendment 88 makes it clear that existing orders relating to degree-awarding bodies remain valid. The status of providers listed on those orders will only be affected if the OFS subsequently varies or revokes their degree-awarding powers.

Amendment 79 agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Unrecognised degrees: supplementary

Amendments made: 80, in clause 50, page 28, line 36, at end insert—

“( ) For subsection (1) substitute—

(1) The appropriate authority may by order designate each body which appears to the authority to be a recognised body within subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c).

(1A) For the purposes of sections 214 and 215, any body for the time being designated by an order under subsection (1) as a recognised body within subsection (4)(c) is conclusively presumed to be such a body.”.

This amendment and amendment 86 amend the power of the OfS, the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers under section 216(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to designate those bodies which appear to them to be authorised to grant degrees or other awards. In the case of bodies authorised under the Bill to grant awards (i.e. English higher or further education providers or the OfS) or bodies permitted to act on behalf of such bodies to grant awards, designation does not result in a conclusive presumption that they have power to do so. Whether an award granted by such a designated body is a “recognised award” and so exempt from the offence under section 214 of the 1988 Act will depend upon whether the body is authorised to grant the award in question.

Amendment 81, in clause 50, page 28, line 37, leave out “subsections (1) and” and insert “subsection”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.

Amendment 82, in clause 50, page 29, line 13, leave out

“falling within paragraph (za) or (zb) of section 214(2)”

and insert

“within subsection (4)(a) or (b)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.

Amendment 83, in clause 50, page 29, line 16, leave out “that paragraph” and insert “subsection (4)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.

Amendment 84, in clause 50, page 29, line 18, leave out from “body” to end of line 19.

This amendment amends one of the new requirements which clause 50 adds to section 216(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for being a body listed under subsection (2) of that section. The new requirement enables a body to be listed where it provides a course in preparation for a degree to be granted by a recognised body with degree awarding powers under the Bill. The course must be approved by the recognised body. The amendment removes the requirement that the approval has to be authorised by the recognised body’s degree awarding powers.

Amendment 85, in clause 50, page 29, line 20, leave out

“falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of section 214(2)”

and insert “within subsection (4)(c)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.

Amendment 86, in clause 50, page 29, line 22, leave out from “subsection (4),” to the end and insert

“after ‘means’ insert

‘—(a) a body which is authorised to grant awards by—

(i) an authorisation given under section40(1) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”),

(ii) an authorisation varied under section43(1) of the 2016 Act, or

(iii) regulations under section47(1) of the 2016 Act,

(b) a body for the time being permitted by a body within paragraph (a) to act on its behalf in the granting of awards where the grant of the awards by that other body on its behalf is authorised by the authorisation or regulations mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) ’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 80.

Amendment 87, in clause 50, page 29, line 22, at end insert—

“( ) In the heading, after ‘awards’ insert ‘etc’.”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80.

Amendment 88, in clause 50, page 29, line 33, leave out

“by the Secretary of State”.—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 80 and makes clear that no orders made under section 216 of the Education Reform Act 1988, whether by the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers, before the coming into force of clause 50 are affected by the amendments made by that clause.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Use of “university” in title of institution

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 51, page 30, line 16, at end insert—

“(2A) The power may be exercised as to include the word university in the name of the institution only when it can demonstrate that—

(a) it offers access to a range of cultural activities including, but not restricted to, the opportunity to undertake sport and recreation and access to a range of student societies and organisations;

(b) it provides students support and wellbeing services including specialist learning support;

(c) it provides opportunities for volunteering;

(d) it provides the opportunity to join a students’ union; and

(e) it plays a positive civic role.”

This amendment ensures that a broad range of activities and opportunities are available to students before allowing a higher education institute to use the title of ‘university’.

The Committee has already gone round the houses on this issue, but the amendment specifically addresses what sort of institution can use “university” in its title. We previously discussed whether something that was not a university could be called one. The amendment would ensure that if something has “university” in its title, it is actually a university, not an institution that is delivering either a single subject—as appeared to be the case in the Minister’s earlier example—or a range of subjects but with nothing else that would enable any of us to recognise it as a university.

Our universities have an excellent reputation not only for providing high-quality education but for delivering all sorts of other things alongside it, such as access to a range of cultural activities, sporting and other recreational activities, good-quality student support, access to health and wellbeing services, specialist support where necessary, opportunities for volunteering and the opportunity to join a student union. The institution itself plays a positive civic role. From clause 51, it appears that absolutely none of that will be necessary in the future for an institution to be called a university. If that is not massively dumbing down our university system, I do not know what is.

I see no justification for allowing an institution to use university in its title when it is clearly not a university and does not provide the range of services associated with a university. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to assure us that he will uphold the quality and excellence of our higher education sector and ensure that all students get not only a chance to have those higher level skills, but an opportunity for personal development and sporting development in a place where their specialist educational needs are supported by the institution.

[Joseph Johnson]

We return to the criteria that we expect providers to meet in order to obtain a university title, which we discussed quite extensively at an earlier stage in the proceedings. As I have said before, we only want providers with full degree-awarding powers to be eligible for a university title. That process tests, among other things, academic standards and whether there is a cohesive academic community. It is a high bar that only high-quality providers will be able to meet. We are clear that we want to maintain that high bar in the future.

The amendment highlights the breadth of opportunities offered by participation in a higher education course. I welcome the idea behind it, but I do not believe such a prescription is desirable in legislation. There are many examples of extracurricular activities and experiences offered by higher education institutions, such as sporting groups, the arts, associations and exchange opportunities, and many providers play an important role in their local communities in that respect. I agree that in many cases these activities contribute greatly to a student’s learning and personal and professional development and can be as much a part of their education as traditional lectures. When a student is deciding where to study, they are making a decision based on many factors, for example, the qualification they will receive, the cultural and social opportunities, the student organisations they could join and what support is available to them. One size does not fit all and student populations vary hugely in their requirements, as we discussed before. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education institutions are themselves best placed to decide what experiences they may offer to students and what relationships they have with other local organisations, without prescription from central Government.

[Joseph Johnson]

That is their duty under the Equality Act 2010—they have to ensure that students are not discriminated against if they have mental health issues and so on—and also their duty of care. That is an important part of what universities do in supporting students, who they have autonomously admitted, through their studies. Having taken that decision, it is important that universities make sure that those students have the academic and the counselling support to enable them to get through their courses of study.

As now, we intend to set out in guidance the detailed criteria and processes for gaining university title, and we plan to consult on the detail before publication. The OFS will then make decisions having regard to that guidance. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments. Allowing the possibility of university title being granted to a single-course institution with no supporting services or extracurricular activity is not setting a high bar; it is setting an extremely low bar. The reality of clause 51 is that an institution—a single-course institution—could become a university with no additional services or offers whatever to students.

I heard what the Minister said about guidance and I assume that that guidance will address the specific concerns that I raised previously in Committee and this afternoon. On the basis of the fact that the Minister will produce guidance and, presumably, will let us have some idea of what is going to be in that guidance before we finish our deliberations on the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Evennett.)

Higher Education and Research Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment on a subject that he and I have discussed on many occasions over the last year or so. I am sure we will continue to do so for some time to come.

The summary of our position is that excellent teaching can occur in many forms. There is no one-size-fits-all definition of teaching excellence, but great teaching, defined broadly, increases the likelihood of good outcomes, and metrics are crucial to measuring those outcomes. Chris Husbands, the TEF chair and vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, has noted that the TEF’s approach is realistic about the difficulty of assessing teaching quality. He wrote:

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

In developing the metrics, we and the Higher Education Funding Council for England have listened carefully to the consultation feedback. We have used a set of criteria to decide which metrics to use: that they must be robust, valid, comprehensive, credible and current. We wanted to use tried and tested data sets that are already widely established in the sector, not least to avoid the need to collect new data and impose a burden on institutions. There is currently a limited set of metrics that meet those criteria, but those metrics do allow for differentiation across providers. For example, on retention and student outcomes, many providers are well above or below the current sector-accepted benchmark. Quality teaching clearly makes a difference. To quote Chris Husbands again, his

“sense is that as the system matures, the metrics will also mature, but it is difficult to argue that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are not the right places to look to make an assessment.”

We consulted extensively on the metrics as part of the year 2 technical consultation and made further improvements to the way the metrics were handled. The sector has welcomed our changes. For example, on the publication of the TEF year 2 documentation, Maddalaine Ansell, the chief executive of University Alliance, said:

“There are decisions here that we strongly welcome, such as a broader approach to benchmarking…and a more granular system for looking at performance differences… We remain confident that we can work with government to shape the TEF so it works well as it develops.”



Let me turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and other hon. Members made on the metrics proposed and on widening participation. Essentially, the question was, “Won’t the TEF metrics and the TEF process itself encourage providers not to take people from disadvantaged groups?” The answer to that question is clearly no. Providers will be required to demonstrate their commitment to widening participation as a precondition of taking part in the TEF. Assessors will consider how the provider performs across all modes of delivery and its effectiveness at meeting the needs of students from different backgrounds. The assessment process will, however, explicitly look at the extent to which the provider achieves positive outcomes for disadvantaged groups, and the metrics will be benchmarked to prevent the TEF being gamed and to ensure that no institution is penalised for having a large cohort of disadvantaged students.

It is worthwhile reflecting on what a current vice-chancellor says about this aspect of the TEF in relation to widening participation. Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent, recently wrote:

“Emphasising widening access, selecting these metrics, and connecting TEF and fee flexibility will prompt, if pursued rigorously, ever more serious consideration within universities of the ways in which young people from poorer backgrounds get in, are supported in staying, and get decent jobs when they leave. These are just the conversations that we ought to be having in universities more often and with greater results.”

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure it is always possible to find one vice-chancellor who might agree with the Government’s approach, but the Minister must have had representations from a range of universities, including the Open University, that are really concerned about the weight that is being attached to things like retention. I know they have raised that with Committee members; I would be astonished if they had not raised it with the Minister.

[Joseph Johnson]

I think the hon. Lady is trying to present the TEF metric as being in conflict with widening participation. It is not; it is supportive of it. It is a precondition of participating in the TEF that institutions need an access agreement, and that sets an increasingly high bar for their commitment to widening participation. Research by the Social Market Foundation, for example, has found that there is no link between increased widening participation and worsening continuation rates. The hon. Lady and her colleague are setting up an Aunt Sally or a straw man; there is no evidence of the link that they are asking the Committee to consider.

While non-continuation rates are higher among the most disadvantaged students, some institutions are clearly successful at keeping those low as well. This cannot just be because some institutions are selective and have enrolled the most qualified and motivated students from disadvantaged groups. The Social Market Foundation research points to a number of institutions, with different profiles, that are making a success of the student experience. They include City University, St Mary’s Twickenham, Aston, Bishop Grosseteste, Lincoln and Kingston, which have among the highest retention rates of all institutions for the most disadvantaged students.

It is also worth hon. Members listening to what Les Ebdon, the director of fair access, had to say on this matter, because he probably knows more about it than anybody in the business. To quote his response to the TEF year 2 publication:

“The minister has made it clear that he sees fair access as being integral to the TEF, and I welcome the publication of the year 2 specification. The links to fair access have been further strengthened, following clear support from the sector in their consultation responses. It is especially pleasing to see specific measures on positive outcomes for disadvantaged students, and clear instructions to TEF panellists that they should consider disadvantaged students at every stage.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. A lot of the information underpinning the metrics in the TEF has already been collected. Did the Department do any modelling of what the outcome would be, particularly for the gold-silver-bronze regime? Was there any attempt to measure the reputational damage that could be done to the sector if universities somehow slip inadvertently into the bronze category? Higher education in the UK has an excellent national and international reputation, which could be seriously impeded if the Government are not careful. Has any modelling been carried out?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. HEFCE has been developing the TEF on behalf of the Department and will have undertaken considerable analysis of how it will operate across the system. We are clear that the ratings are the reflection of the tough quality standards that we expect of our providers. We have a world-class HE system. The ratings will provide recognition on top of the tough quality standards that are imposed on all providers in return for securing entry into the system. I would not agree with any assessment that a bronze rating would be lowly; it would be a significant achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Again, we have had a good debate on the importance of student involvement in the HE sector and its systems and structures. I certainly agree that the quality body will need to represent the diverse interests across the HE sector, including those of students.

Hon. Members will be pleased to note that that there is already good practice established by the QAA of building student representation into the quality system. To summarise, the QAA includes two student representatives on its board of directors, has established a student advisory board to provide support, and includes students in its review and scrutiny processes for degree-awarding powers. Crucially, however, this is not set in legislation. It happens because it is considered to be an effective way of making an informed assessment of quality—an approach I hope will continue. The arrangements for the two student board members are set out in the QAA’s articles of association, and this is a more appropriate level for such stipulations to be made than in legislation itself.

The conditions set out in paragraph 4 of schedule 4 are there to ensure that we can establish an effective co-regulatory approach with the sector, as recommended by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. It is not designed to prescribe specific interests, but instead to make clear that the quality body should represent and have the confidence of a broad cross-section of the sector. I am keen that paragraph 4 remains flexible and not prescriptive, to guard against the risk that at some point in the future a suitable and well qualified body could be disbarred from designation on a technicality. This does not, however, prevent a designated quality body from involving student representation as an effective way to carry out its quality assessment functions.

Even without legislation, when future Secretaries of State come to a view on whether a body is capable of performing the assessment functions in an effective manner, I would imagine that they would look at a range of matters. These may include whether the student interest was represented within the organisation and whether that representation or lack thereof would have an impact on its capability. However, I recognise that hon. Members are making clear the importance of continuing this level of student engagement within the quality body. I also appreciate the strategic level on which amendment 232 in particular asks for this to be considered, rather than over-specifying the membership of the independent quality body itself. However, I remain confident that any designated quality body would include such representation without the law having to specify it. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady is reassured, and ask that she withdraws her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have to say to the Minister that I really do not follow his logic at all. What is being argued is that the reason we are going through the whole assessment of quality is so that students get information that will help them to understand more about the quality of teaching in an institution. Yet somehow the student voice is not being put in the Bill as a group of people who must have confidence in the body that is being set up. That seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary. It does not make any sense at all.

[Joseph Johnson]

Part 2 of schedule 4 states that the OFS must consult with people representing a broad range of students before recommending a suitable quality body, so we will be consulting students. The OFS itself, as we have discussed previously, will include on its board people who must have experience of representing the student interest.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have heard what the Minister says, but unfortunately because of the way in which paragraph 4 is constructed it is very clear about the body representing a broad range of higher education providers and having the confidence of the higher education providers. We are not saying that that is unimportant, but it is equally important that students have confidence in the body and are represented on the body. I do not think that we are going to resolve this issue at the moment, but I ask the Minister to take this issue away, look at it again, and see if he can come up with a form of words that would keep everybody happy. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment—

Higher Education and Research Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 8th Sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the way in which the wider experience of university contributes to the overall student experience. Indeed, a necessary part of that student experience is universities ensuring that there is adequate student support and a range of wellbeing services, and that specialist learning or special needs are met through the university learning support system. It seems a little odd, to put it mildly, that in the list of “other initial and ongoing registration conditions” in clause 13, there is absolutely nothing about the range of services that an institution should provide; it is all about regulation. It is important that the sector is properly regulated, but that is not sufficient.

A few months ago, I was standing where my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South is sitting now, questioning the Housing Minister about starter homes. I made the point to him—this is directly relevant—that a starter home was not affordable housing just because the Government legislated for it to be affordable housing or thought that it was affordable housing. Clearly, a £450,000 house in London, or a £250,000 house outside London, is simply not affordable. Alas, that Minister did not take my advice and went ahead with legislation that said that such houses were affordable, when clearly they are not. Now, of course, the Government are having to revisit that legislation and what they are doing on starter homes, because it was absolutely obvious that they could not simply legislate for something to be what it is not. I fear that the same will happen with the Bill, and the Government will say about a college or specialist provider, “It is a university if it meets these regulation conditions,” when in any other context it would be considered not a university but a specialist provider.

I am trying to help the Minister to avoid falling into the same trap of legislating for something that clearly is not what the Government try to make it out to be by suggesting that it would help us all in our deliberations—indeed, it would help some of us to negotiate our way through the clauses dealing with registration conditions—if the Minister clarified what he thought a university should be and the range of services that an institution should provide before it is able to use “university” in its title. We really do not want students to think that an institution provides a certain range of services when it clearly does not and has no intention of ever providing the range of services or opportunities that one would normally associate with a university.

It would be helpful to hear what the Minister thinks a university is and what range of services he would like to see universities normally provide. Can he reassure us that no institution will be able to call itself a university when it clearly is not one?

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

It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I do not want to delay the Committee for long with what might risk turning into an abstract and philosophical conversation about what a university is. After all, that question has occupied theoreticians of education through many books and learned articles. At its most literal, a university can be described as a provider of predominantly higher education that has got degree-awarding powers and has been given the right to use the university title. That is the most limited and literal sense. If we want a broader definition, we can say that a university is also expected to be an institution that brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and self-critical academic community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people, the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of research, scholarship and professional practice. To distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a place where students are developing higher analytical capacities—critical thinking, curiosity about the world and higher levels of abstract capacity in their thinking. In brief, that is my answer to what a university is.

Let me turn to the nitty-gritty of the hon. Lady’s amendment and her suggestions for how we can improve the registration conditions. Her amendment highlights the breadth of opportunities offered by participation in an HE course, and it is welcome in doing so. However, I do not believe that putting that into legislation would be desirable. There are many excellent examples of extracurricular activities and experiences offered by higher education institutions—sporting groups, arts groups, associations of all kinds and exchange opportunities. I agree that, in many cases, those activities contribute greatly to a student’s learning and personal and professional development. As the hon. Lady said, they can be as much a part of a student’s education as traditional lectures.

When a student is deciding which institution to study at, their decision is based on many factors, including the qualification they will receive, the cultural and social opportunities presented to them, the student organisations they can join and the support available. Higher education institutions think very carefully about the range of extracurricular activities they offer and the additional opportunities for students on or around campus. They are tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of their particular student bodies. One size does not necessarily fit all, and student populations vary hugely in their requirements. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education institutions are best placed to decide what experiences to offer without prescription from the Government.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

In our deliberations, we have heard, particularly from the possible new entrants into the sector, that they wish to have a level playing field. Part of the point of this amendment is to genuinely make it a level playing field. We do not want to take diversity out of the sector; we just want to ensure that all institutions that could become a university provide a basic level of services.

[Joseph Johnson]

There may be high-quality institutions based in, for example, urban locations that cannot offer the broad range of services that campus-based, big institutions can. That does not mean they are lesser institutions; it just means that their student populations have their own purposes in coming to that particular institution and want their needs to be met in a way that is relevant to their institution. For those reasons, I do not believe that a one-size-fits-all, prescriptive approach is the best way to achieve the hon. Lady’s goals.

[The Chair]

I am sure we are all grateful for the Minister’s definition of a university. He said it is about high levels of abstract thinking—I learned a lot about that in the union bar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling her amendments. They would require that evidence must first be provided to the OFS that a provider has breached its registration conditions before a sanction may be imposed, such as a monetary penalty or removal from the register, or a suspension placed on the provider’s registration.

The Bill as drafted states that the OFS may take such actions if it appears to the OFS that a breach of conditions has occurred. The test of “it appears” needs to be read alongside the rest of the clause and schedule 3. Regulations will set out the factors to which the OFS must or must not have regard when deciding whether to impose a monetary penalty. They will be subject to consultation and targeted at ensuring that the OFS can impose a monetary penalty only when there is good reason to do so. In addition, the hon. Lady will be aware that the OFS, as a public body, must act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with general public law principles.

I recognise the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. Although I understand and respect the intentions behind them, the OFS will be a public body acting in accordance with public law. It is clearly the case that

“if it appears to the OFS”

requires the OFS to make a judgment and take responsibility for its decisions, which seems to me to be the right approach. If we accepted the amendment, the changed wording

“where evidence is provided”

would be more passive, almost implying that, provided the OFS has received some evidence, it could trigger the sanction without applying a rigorous approach. We surely want a more engaged OFS than that, applying its judgment flexibly, sensibly and proportionately.

Clause 2 is clear on that point, too, making it clear that the OFS must follow the principles of best regulatory practice, including that its regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. The hon. Lady might take further assurance from the fact that any intention to impose a suspension or monetary penalty or to remove a provider from the register must have clear processes, described in the Bill, that allow for a minimum period of 28 days for providers to make representations to the OFS. The only exception to that rule is where the OFS considers that a suspension should take effect immediately because of an urgent need to protect public money. Those provisions create important safeguards for providers. I am clear that any compliance action proposed by the OFS must be based on well founded concerns, and I am confident that the Bill as drafted makes the necessary provisions.

I add that clause 2 requires that the OFS, when performing its functions and duties, must have regard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. I assure Members that if the OFS is not acting in a reasonable and proportionate manner in respect of the issues raised by the amendments, such guidance will be given. On that basis, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. If I have got it right, although “appears to” might be rather loose language, subsection (3) means that regulations will set out the types of evidence that the OFS might consider. In addition, if the regulations are not considered to be sufficient or have not been adopted properly by the OFS, additional guidance will be given by the Secretary of State to assist the OFS in its decision making. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 15, page 9, line 22, after “interest” insert

“, and

(d) the retention of sums received”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 33.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 7th Sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment, because it gives me a chance to express our support for her underlying intention to encourage more innovation and a wider variety of provision in the sector. As I have indicated, the Government are wholly in agreement on the need for that and we are actively encouraging it in all our reforms of the higher education system. We do want to encourage more accelerated and flexible provision—in fact, that was a specific manifesto commitment at the 2015 election.

The Bill, as we have discussed before, will help us towards our goals by levelling the playing field for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialist and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees are a particular strength of new and alternative providers, and they will help us to ensure that students can access learning in the form that suits them. I can give a few examples: Buckingham, BPP, Condé Nast College of Fashion & Design—it gave evidence before us—and Greenwich School of Management are all the kinds of newer institutions that offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree over two years, meaning that the student incurs less debt and can enter the workforce more speedily having completed the same amount of study.

We are determined to do more to support flexible provision and that is exactly why we issued a call for evidence earlier in the summer, seeking views from providers, students and others. That resulted in more than 4,000 responses, the vast majority of which, as the hon. Lady may expect, came from individual students. We were delighted to see that level of engagement. Many of the students expressed an interest in exploring the idea of pursuing an accelerated degree, so, as she identified, this is clearly an important issue.

We certainly sympathise with the underlying intention of the amendment. We believe the Bill will help ensure more students are able to choose to apply for accelerated courses. We are currently analysing the full range of the many responses we received to our call for evidence. I assure the hon. Lady that we expect to come forward with further proposals to incentivise the take-up of accelerated provision by the end of the year. On that basis, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That was a very positive response from the Minister, although he did not clarify whether we might get something at later stages of the Bill or whether it will come after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I am reassured that the Government are looking to see what they can do to help not just new entrants, but all universities to deliver their courses more flexibly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 10, page 6, line 36, after “means a” insert “higher education”.

This amendment and amendments 30 and 31 ensure that the courses which can be subject to the fee limit registration condition in clause 10 are confined to higher education courses - but excluding postgraduate courses which are not courses of initial teacher training. “Higher education course” is defined in clause 75(1) as a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

There is nothing in schedule 2 to suggest that as there is now a link between teaching quality and fees the additional fee income will be used to further enhance teaching quality. Will the Minister deal with that point?

[Joseph Johnson]

Such incentives will play a powerful role in rebalancing universities so that they focus more on teaching than ever before. We do not have marginal funding allocated towards teaching in our funding system for universities at the moment and this will be a powerful driver of change in that respect.

It is right that only providers that demonstrate high-quality teaching will be able to access tuition fees up to an inflation-linked maximum fee cap. We expect the TEF to deliver additional income for the sector of £16 billion by 2025 and it will also allow providers to reinvest in teaching methods that work. As the Sutton Trust said,

“we need to shake the university sector out of its complacency and open it up to a transparency that has been alien to them for far too long. It is good that they are judged on impact in the research excellence framework, and that the teaching excellence framework will force them to think more about how they impart knowledge to those paying them £9000 a year in fees.”

The fee link has been welcomed not just by individual vice-chancellors but by the sector. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central challenged me to reference a body representative of the sector and I am very happy to do so. Universities UK said:

“Allowing universities to increase fees in line with inflation, on the condition of being able to demonstrate high-quality teaching through an effective TEF, is a balanced and sustainable response to these two objectives.”

Let me reassure the Committee that, as I set out in the White Paper, our proposed changes to the fee limits accessible to those participating in the TEF will at most be in line with inflation—fee caps will be kept flat in real terms. Let me also reassure the Committee that, should the upper or lower limits be increased by more than inflation, which is certainly not our intention, it will require regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which require the approval of Parliament. That is in line with the current legislative approach to raising fee caps and we have no desire to depart from those important safeguards, so Parliament will therefore continue to retain strong controls over fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I merely want to emphasise to the Minister the extent of NUS concern about this issue. I met NUS representatives recently, and they understood that the Bill allows for new entrants into the sector and creates a registration system, which means that in future some institutions might fall foul of that system. The NUS does not have an issue with that, but with what protection there would be for students if a course closes or if the institution itself closes.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said, this is a modest amendment, but it seeks to put something on the face of the Bill to include information about how students will be recompensed if their course or institution closes. Furthermore, NUS anxiety is based on experience of course closures, in which it has taken a long time for students to get their particular issues sorted out, such as transfer to another institution or on to another course. What reassurances can the Minister give to students who are really worried about that matter?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am happy that we are back on more consensual aspects of the Bill, and we share all the hon. Members’ interests and concerns in that respect. I am extremely keen to use this opportunity to set out our intentions for student protection plans. I hope that the Committee members found it helpful to read the explanatory note that we put out yesterday, although I appreciate that they will not have had much time to look at it. It is, however, available for their further perusal.

Student protection plans are not a new concept, and some providers already have them. The current approach across the HE system, however, is entirely voluntary, and coverage is far from consistent across the sector. What the Bill does, importantly, is give the office for students the power to require registered providers to put student protection plans in place. All approved providers and approved fee cap providers in receipt of public funds will be expected, regardless of size, to have a student protection plan approved by the OFS. That is new, and the measure has been welcomed by the NUS in its written evidence to the Committee. I have met the NUS on a number of occasions. If it has continuing concerns, following our publication of this preliminary clarifying material, I would be happy to meet again to discuss how we can go further, if necessary.

The plans as we have set them out will ensure that students know from the outset what kind of support would be offered to them if a course, campus or institution was at risk of closure, or if some other material change at their provider left them unable to continue their studies. Providers will be expected to make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot be delivered to students as agreed. Those plans will be proportionate and in line with the risk profile of the provider. We expect the OFS to require student protection plans to be implemented before a provider’s financial position becomes unsustainable. They will be triggered by material changes, to be specified by the OFS in guidance. The guidance will also provide further details on what the OFS expects to be covered in a plan and we expect that that will be subject to full consultation by the OFS. As a result, the Bill rightly does not prescribe the type of events or mitigations that should be included.

I can reassure Members that we fully intend for student protection plans to set out information, options and any remedial actions students can expect in any event where a material change occurs that could affect their continued participation in study. That is an important step forwards in the protection of the student interest in higher education. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

We envisage publishing the framework documents once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but I intend to write to the Committee to provide more detail about the co-operation arrangements that we envisage coming into existence as a result of the co-operation and information-sharing provisions in clause 103. For that reason, I believe it is undesirable and unnecessary to be prescriptive in the Bill. As I have said in relation to other amendments, the legislation must remain sufficiently flexible for the Government and organisations to be able to respond to the circumstances of the time. We would not want to restrict the areas in which the OFS and UKRI should work together, and the list proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham of the important areas raised by the community is not actually comprehensive now, and nor is it likely to be at points in the future.

Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members, the first of which was about postgraduate students. As now, the councils, through UKRI, will fund doctoral students, while the OFS will be the funder for masters courses, providing, for example, top-up teaching grant for high-cost subjects only. The OFS will be the regulator for all students, including all postgraduate students. As I have said, the Bill proposes safeguards to protect joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information between those two bodies, reflecting the integration of teaching and research at all levels.

Each organisation will be required to produce an annual report detailing its activities that will be laid before Parliament. To ask them to produce an additional annual report would, I believe, be duplicative and unnecessary. The Secretary of State also has powers to request any further information from those organisations if such reporting does become necessary.

Let me turn to the changes to the organisation of HEFCE and to the machinery of government. The OFS and UKRI will have distinct missions and it would not be workable to create one large body responsible for all the regulatory functions, as well as a specific focus on the student interest, while simultaneously acting as a funding body for the full range of research funding. The research funding role that HEFCE played now sits better with UKRI, a body explicitly tasked with bringing a coherent approach to funding research, than it would with the OFS, an economic regulator for the student interest.

Higher education and research policies are no strangers to changes in the machinery of government. Prior to 2007 they were also in separate Departments, with higher education in the Department for Education and Skills and research and science in the Department of Trade and Industry. Our partner organisations are already adept at working across departmental boundaries. For example, HEFCE has effective relationships with the Department for Education’s own National College for Teaching and Leadership and Health Education England as well as with the devolved Administrations. The OFS and UKRI will be no different.

Turning to the devolved Administrations, the White Paper is clear that it is our policy intent to ensure that Research England, as part of UKRI, can work jointly with devolved funders. That will mirror the effective working relationship HEFCE currently has in respect of the operation of the research excellence framework, for example, which it runs on behalf of the devolved funding bodies.

Research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate throughout the UK. We will work closely with the devolved nations as UKRI is established to ensure that the UK’s research and innovation base remains one of the most productive in the world. I welcome the opportunity to provide assurances on joint working. I will write to the Committee to provide further detail ahead of the publication of the important framework documents that will formally govern those relationships. In advance of that, I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the Minister for his response. I would point out that clause 103 states that the OFS and UKRI “may co-operate”; it does not actually direct them to do so. I heard what the Minister said about providing the Committee with more information about the nature of the framework and what might underpin an MOU.

There is one other point that I want to make to the Minister. I do not see any reason why UKRI or the OFS cannot work together to produce a single report that would really help the sector at large to understand what is happening across the whole of it. It would be helpful if he could consider that when putting the framework together. On the basis of what I have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

They are all important duties, which is why they are all on the face of the Bill. As I said, we would not want to give them on the face of the Bill an equal weighting, because that would restrict the flexibility of the OFS board to take into account the different circumstances it might face at any particular point in time.

Before I get into the detail of the amendments on competition duty, I want to touch on collaboration, which hon. Members have raised. We will talk about it more when we come to the next group of amendments, but we may as well start now. Members are concerned about the scope of the competition duty in part because they worry it might stifle collaboration. I want to make it clear that I see promoting collaboration as an important part of the OFS’s role. I do not see competition and collaboration as being inherently in tension with each other. Competition between businesses that are also competitors is common practice in other sectors when there are mutual benefits to be gained from it. I want the OFS to support such collaboration where it is in the interest of students. The OFS will recognise the importance of collaboration between providers, especially, for example, where it might enable efficiencies.

The Bill does not prevent collaboration. The OFS does not need a separate duty on collaboration, as it has a general duty already to have regard to the student interest, and such collaboration would be in the student interest. Collaboration can take many forms, and we do not want to be prescriptive about what it should look like or create an expectation that the OFS should formally regulate this type of activity. That would be unnecessary. It is, however, part of the general overview of the sector and of the role of providers that we would expect the OFS to have, and we can make that clear in our guidance to the OFS.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to question the Minister a bit more about everything being in the interest of students. Ultimately, everything universities do will eventually help students, but they often act in the interests of a local community, wider society, the wider economy and how Britain is viewed internationally. It seems a bit strange that nothing in the general duties acknowledges the wider context in which decisions are made. Of course, we have something in the Bill about encouraging competition, but there is nothing at all in this clause about working in collaboration or acting in the public interest.

[Joseph Johnson]

We absolutely recognise the important role that universities play in society. As the hon. Lady says, as well as often being large local employers, HE providers need to be well connected with their local business community and other education providers. They often provide additional services and facilities that are important to local communities, but we do not want to be prescriptive about what that wider role should look like or create an expectation that the OFS should formally regulate this type of activity. That is unnecessary. It is part of the general overview of the sector and of the role of providers that we would expect the OFS to have, but we will make that clear in our guidance, if that is of any comfort to the hon. Lady.

The OFS’s general duty to have regard to encouraging competition recognises that higher education is a market and needs a regulator suited to dealing with that reality. The Competition and Markets Authority concluded in its report on competition in HE that aspects of the current system could be holding back competition among providers and needed to be addressed. Currently, as we heard in the evidence sittings, the sole option for providers new to the UK sector, or too small or specialist to gain their own degree-awarding powers, is to have their degree validated by an incumbent provider. Not only does that appear to frustrate competition, it stifles innovation and results in the entrenchment of the same model of higher education.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

I will happily come back to the Committee with an intended date of consultation. We are moving full speed ahead with the introduction of the part-time maintenance loans, which will be an important feature of the new system. We are transforming the funding environment for part-time students and the consultation will take us one step towards our objective.

It is essential that the OFS works collaboratively with the Institute for Apprenticeships, which will play a significant part in accomplishing the agenda. Although I support the principles behind amendment 141, the changes sought by the hon. Members are more than adequately achieved by the current text. We would do well to keep the OFS’s duties and responsibilities more open to future-proof the new body against unforeseeable economic challenges. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary. We should avoid limiting flexibility. By doing so, we ensure that our education system remains responsive to change in the labour market and to the needs of our economy in the future. On that basis, although I understand the intentions of hon. Members, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the Minister for recognising that the excellent reputation of our higher education sector must be protected. However, promoting quality and maintaining confidence in the sector are not exactly the same thing. I will give a brief example. Let us say that 30 new providers are allowed to come into the sector as new universities, and that then there is a regulatory framework that says, “Oh, sorry, the bar wasn’t set quite high enough to begin with and you’re now going to be closed.” That could damage the reputation of the sector hugely even though it was, in fact, “promoting quality”.

I am not suggesting that we do not promote quality. I am suggesting that safeguards are needed in the Bill to ensure that the reputation of the sector is protected in addition to promoting quality. We may need to go away, look at the guidance that might be relevant to the issue, and return to it again once we have considered that in more detail. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

With this amendment I want to test the Minister on how extensive he thinks the powers of the OFS and the Secretary of State should be. Large portions of clause 2 appear to have been transferred from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, but of course the context and consequences of the powers are now very different. Under the 1992 Act the powers related specifically to conditions attached to grant funding, and successive Secretaries of State and Ministers, including the current ones, have been able to use the powers to advise the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support some elements of provision, but that guidance has not covered courses. Instead, grant letters from HEFCE have focused on strategically important or high-cost subjects or matters such as employer engagement.

The Bill proposes to include these powers in the OFS’s general duties. Accordingly, the power provided to the Secretary of State by this clause no longer pertains to the direction of funds, which are in any case reducing, but is potentially focused on the decisions that institutions make on course provision. As it stands, the clause gives the Secretary of State extended powers to make decisions about course provision, including course opening and closure. That appears to completely undermine the autonomy of institutions and providers in course provision, which is one of the most successful outcomes of the 1992 Act because it allows universities to innovate and respond to new and emerging markets and to employer and student interest without ministerial direction or interference.

It is also difficult to see how those aspects of the clause align with the Government’s pro-market approach to the sector, or indeed with what the Minister has said about not wishing to be prescriptive. This measure could be highly prescriptive about what individual institutions are able to do. Perhaps that is not the intention of the clause, but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say so that I can get a better feel for what he thinks are the powers of the Secretary of State.

[Joseph Johnson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, which has been raised by a number of Members and by people beyond this Committee. For 25 years the Government have issued guidance to HEFCE on what are high priority and strategically important subjects, such as STEM. The Bill enshrines that guidance in law while simultaneously creating new protections to safeguard providers’ academic freedoms and institutional autonomy, which are, I believe we all agree, the cornerstones of our higher education system. In his evidence to this Committee last week, Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, praised the protections we have included in the Bill, saying that he particularly liked

“the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy, as originally proposed by Robbins and Dearing”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 23, Q32.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Pam Tatlow, chief executive at MillionPlus, agreed in her evidence to the Committee that,

“we have got to protect quality and standards for our students. We have also got to maintain a system in which we can maintain confidence”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 12, Q11.]

As a result, the Bill makes explicit mention of standards in order to ensure there is no uncertainty about the ability of the OFS to provide these assurances.

Amendment 161 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to refer to particular courses in her guidance to the OFS. There would be no ability for the OFS to have regard to the Government’s overall priorities and strategy for higher education where this relates to specific subjects; the amendment would remove that ability from current and future Governments. This would deviate from current practice, whereby the Government continue to issue strategic guidance in this way. I therefore strongly resist such an amendment.

Further, the Bill sets clear limitations on the Government’s powers to direct the OFS in order to protect academic freedoms and institutional autonomy. For the first time, it is made explicit that it cannot refer to parts of courses, their content, how they are taught, who teaches them or admissions arrangements for students. I hope that I have addressed the Committee’s concerns on these points and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the Minister for that full response. I am reassured by what he has said. Providing that clauses 4 and 5 are implemented in the way he suggests, they should give enough reassurance to the sector that its autonomy is being protected. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

The register

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have a few questions for the Minister and am seeking some reassurances from him. One possible reading of the clause is that it could lead to dumbing down of the higher education sector by allowing a lesser form of regulation for colleges of a particular type, whether a small FE college, a private provider or a small university.

Given what the Minister said earlier, I am sure that he wants to uphold the excellent reputation of the sector, so he will not want to put in place a regulatory system that could expose the sector to accusations of the quality not being uniform across all the players. I cannot see anything in the clause as drafted that will guarantee an equally rigorous approach across all the different types of institution, regardless of their track record. For example, a college might be good for a couple of years, but then have a poor principal or adverse market conditions, resulting in it being not such a good provider. I am not exactly sure how, if we are going on a particular track record in a particular period of time in terms of the regulatory system, that is going to be captured. These are really a series of questions that I am posing to the Minister. Perhaps some of the detail in the regulations will help us to understand better what the clause will do in practice, but I have huge anxieties about it as drafted. I hope that the Minister is able to address those and help me to feel better.

[Joseph Johnson]

Let me try to explain clause 7 and provide some of the clarity that the hon. Lady seeks. As we have said, risk-based, proportionate regulation is at the heart of how the OFS will operate. The particular characteristics of the higher education sector mean that proportionate regulation is needed to protect the interests of students, employers and taxpayers. We need a single regulatory system that is appropriate for all providers, and to stop treating institutions differently based on incumbency—how long they have been around—and corporate form, and instead ensure that the regulation is tailored to fit their individual needs and demands.

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes—helping to spread best practice throughout the sector will be at the heart of the OFS. That is why this system of proportionate regulation will enable all institutions to see the advantages that come from being a high-quality provider and the diminished regulatory burden that high-quality providers live with, and see all the advantages of moving up and enhancing the quality of their provision.

This clause underpins clauses 5 and 6, ensuring that the OFS operates a fair and flexible regulatory system. It specifies that the OFS must ensure that the initial and ongoing conditions of registration are proportionate to the OFS’s assessment of the regulatory risk posed by the provider. The OFS will also have a duty to keep under review the initial and ongoing conditions of registration that it applies to institutions. That means that where and when the OFS considers it appropriate, it will adjust the level of regulation to which a provider is subject, to reflect the level of risk it presents at a given point in time. Accordingly, where the OFS considers that a provider is of particularly low risk, the effect of the clause should be that the OFS will make appropriate changes to their conditions to reflect that and to ease the burden of regulation. Similarly, where the OFS considers that a provider, through its performance and behaviour, starts to present a greater degree of risk, the clause should ensure that the OFS will increase the extent of regulation.

This approach will enable and incentivise high-performing, stable and reliable providers to start and grow, increasing student choice of high-quality higher education. It will mean that institutions that pose little risk to students or the public purse can spend more time focusing on doing what they do best. Equally, institutions that present a higher risk will undergo more scrutiny and be subject to more measures to protect students, the public purse and English higher education. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am not sure that I am entirely reassured by the Minister, but I suspect that we will return to this particular issue.

[Joseph Johnson]

May I draw to the hon. Lady’s attention, in case it has escaped her notice, the fact that I recently published a technical note that set out in some detail how quality will be built into the regulatory system at every stage, from the way we regulate new entrants to how we deal with poor-quality provision. It was quite a comprehensive note, to assist the Committee, and if she has not had a chance to read it I shall happily provide her with a copy later.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think when we get to the detail of that technical matter it will be helpful. However, the issue is one that we will return to at a later stage in Committee and I will leave it there for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Why can the Minister not ask institutions to forward the data to UCAS, which would make it much easier for it to then collate and publish them?

[Joseph Johnson]

We can certainly consider that, but as things stand we could not rely on UCAS publishing the information, which is why we are requiring universities to do so.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move,

That, the Order of the Committee of 6 September be varied so that the following is added at the appropriate place in the table—

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for responding positively to our request.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

It could easily include students who are presently at university, but we would not want to put that in the legislation, because that might exclude people who are quite capable of playing that role. Many NUS executives, for example, could occupy the position, but they are often not actually studying, as I understand the NUS’s arrangements. They take leave of absence or years out from their university. They sometimes perform these important functions shortly after they have stopped studying. Putting in legislation the kind of requirement that the hon. Gentleman wants would prevent many of those kinds of people from contributing their valuable experience. We would not want to exclude them by putting in a requirement that they be existing students. It would perhaps not be in the student interest to do so, because we want to make those skills available.

It is essential that the individuals who are eventually appointed be able to act on behalf of the wider student interest that I spoke about. Students are a highly diverse group, and we want representatives on the OFS board who can represent the rich diversity of the student population—mature, part-time, minority ethnic and distance learners, as well as many other forms of learners. We want the OFS board members to be able to represent more than one type of student. It is very possible that we can recruit members with several of the criteria that we are looking for.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

May I help the Minister out by suggesting that he looks at having the president of the NUS, or an immediate past president of the NUS, as a member of the board—somebody with a very up-to-date knowledge of a wide range of issues relating to students and the higher education sector more widely?

[Joseph Johnson]

We have made it clear that we want the student voice prominently represented in the governance structures of the main regulatory body. We would not want to set out in legislation that the holders of particular positions in the NUS or other student unions had ex officio places on the board of the office for students. That would tie the hands of the board of the OFS in a way that would be entirely undesirable in primary legislation.

I want to pick up on one or two points that the hon. Member for City of Durham made. She said that the way in which the higher education market had evolved to cause students to be regarded as consumers was regrettable, and she also regretted the withdrawal of the state from the financing of higher education. I would like to point out that that is not true: the taxpayer still makes a considerable contribution to the funding of the system. Taxpayers fund it directly, and also often subsidise the loans that underwrite students’ studies. That is a critical feature of a progressive higher education system that has enabled many people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university and benefit from it.

As I was saying, schedule 1 is progress. It includes a requirement that is not found in current legislation. The student voice and the student interest will be represented in the main regulatory body; that has not previously been the case. The Committee should welcome that, even if some want the types and specific characteristics of the student representatives to be set down even more clearly.

Higher Education and Research Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Johnson of Marylebone

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 6 September) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 September;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 8 September;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 September;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 September;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 October;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 October;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

made a declaration of interest. She said that, given that the Bill created a new office for students, witnesses from student organisations such as the National Union of Students should have been called to give oral evidence, as should representatives of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

[Joseph Johnson]

said that it was open to all parties to propose witnesses, but that the Labour party had not proposed NUS representatives until so late in the process that they could not be accommodated within the programme motion. He commented that the Scottish National party had proposed witnesses representing Scottish higher education and that they would give evidence in the afternoon sitting.