Higher Education and Research Bill

Roger Mullin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I feel as though we are already delving into the Bill Committee debate that will no doubt take place on this clause. I welcome the House’s engagement with the Bill. It is important to get it right, and we will have an important debate to make sure that it is properly structured. I look forward to the Bill Committee debate when Parliament returns after the recess.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will take one more intervention before I make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new post, and I look forward to her future briefings on the Scottish education system being more accurate. May I provide some insight into one aspect of collaboration, which could usefully be strengthened? Twenty-five per cent. of all students who enter higher education in Scotland do so through the college sector, and many colleges are in collaborative arrangements with universities. We have 2+2 arrangements, as we call them—two years in college, and two years in university—and so on. That is something that the English system could well have a look at.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman makes a further point about the need for universities to be part of their broader communities. It is probably worth my setting out how much I welcome the fact that the further and higher education briefs are now part of a broader Department for Education brief, which makes us well placed to look across the piece at how the institutions that help to develop our young people’s talent and potential can work effectively together, as well as with broader communities.

Thanks to the reforms we introduced in the last Parliament, the entry rate for young students from disadvantaged backgrounds is at a record level. In the final year of the last Labour Government it was around 14%, and today it stands at almost 19%. But we need to go further. As the Prime Minister said last week, this Government

“will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

This legislation supports the key principle that higher education should be open to all who have the potential to benefit from it, but this has to be about more than just accessing opportunity. Although application rates for students from disadvantaged backgrounds are at record levels, we want to ensure that those students are supported across their whole time at university. Too many disadvantaged students do not complete their courses, for various reasons, and universities can and must do more to help them to get across the finishing line. That will allow them not only to gain the degree that they set out to get, but to reap the career rewards of doing so.

Higher Education and Research Bill (First sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

[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.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

made a declaration of interest in that he is an honorary professor at the University of Stirling.

[Mr Marsden]

made the point that the Government’s failure even to consider students’ presence in the evidence sessions before being pressed to do so was deplorable, and that they could have accommodated students on the Thursday, as they had the SNP at late notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey]

Q How important is the Bill?

Pam Tatlow: The Bill is very important because the Government want to table it. It would not have been our most immediate priority, but there are regulatory things that need to be sorted out, as colleagues to my left have pointed out. You can undertake the teaching excellence framework without this Bill—we should be clear about that—and HEFCE is already making preparations to do so. We do not necessarily need the Bill to deliver the Government’s commitment to teaching.

Gordon McKenzie: I agree with Mr Kirkham that the Bill is essential. It was essential from 2011, when the Government made substantial changes to the fee regime. I think it is important to look at the Bill holistically. The essential part is the creation of the office for students and the ability to regulate all providers on a fair and equal basis, whatever their background and history. I have concerns that, in the approach taken—having the office for students on the one hand and UKRI on the other—some of the benefits of having a single body looking at higher education as a whole might be lost, but there are perhaps ways around that.

[Roger Mullin]

Q In terms of the panel members who have already commented on the regulatory framework, some people have been criticising the proposals as being overly summative and not formative enough to enable or encourage proper development. Would you like to comment on that?

Professor Simon Gaskell: I will come to your question in a moment. I just want to say, in terms of the need for the Bill, that clearly it is essentially replacing the 1992 legislation, which was appropriate at the time, although the times were quite different then. The argument for an upgrading of the regulatory framework for higher education is compelling.

Of course, it has to be admitted that throughout the coalition Government we survived on, frankly, a series of fudges, which nevertheless enabled the out-of-date legislation to allow the sector to continue. So one could not say that the Bill is absolutely essential, but it does have some important tidying-up aspects. The importance of the Bill derives largely from a measure advocated by Universities UK, which was to have a single entry into the sector through a well described and well regulated register of higher education providers. Whether one calls that a “level playing field” or some other term, that is an important aspect.

If I understood the most recent question correctly, it asked whether the Bill might perhaps be too permissive rather than directive in terms of its content. We at Universities UK and in our member institutions do have concerns about that. There are some aspects of the wording of the Bill which could be interpreted to enable directions from the office for students, or indeed from the Department for Education, that would allow measures to be taken which we think would not be in the best interests of the sector. These may be allowed rather than prescribed by the Bill. We are very aware of the need to get the wording and the detail right to make sure that something which may not be immediately intended would not be allowed by incautious phrasing in the Bill.

[Mr Marsden]

Q Since the Government presented the Bill, and indeed since it came before the House, we have had two major seismic shocks to the British political system. One of them, of course, is the impact of Brexit. The other, although perhaps not as seismic as Brexit, is nevertheless important for us: the changes to the machinery of Government which have moved this subject to the Department for Education rather than the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I wanted to ask the panellists if they would give us their views.

The Government have made certain commitments to underwrite funding which comes from the EU, particularly in the area of research, but have made no commitments about where we are going from there. I know very well from conversations with many university providers how concerned they are about this—not simply from the research side, but because community-based universities are worried about loss of funding from the European Social Fund and other things. I wonder if I could take a quick snapshot of whether you think that the Government are on top of this and doing enough about it already.

Pam Tatlow: There are 120,000 EU students studying in the UK. We have a commitment to access to the student loan system only for this admissions year—that is, for students entering higher education in 2016-17. Ministers are, quite correctly, encouraging us to get on the Brexit bus, if I can put it that way. We are slightly worried that the best might leave before we have got all the commitments that we need in place. I think that my colleagues in Scotland also raised this with the Minister in Scotland. The commitments we need include the commitment to EU student funding beyond this academic year, however it is delivered in each Administration. Of course, there are also fairly major issues about how those students will be classified in the future.

The final point I would raise is that there are universities which are very engaged in structural funds. We talked with one principal last week, and there is now £50 million worth of structural funding in the west of Scotland. It is very important that the Government address these things, and that they are addressed not only in DFE but in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for International Trade and the Home Department. We need a joined-up approach.

Professor Simon Gaskell: We could have a long debate about the effects of Brexit, which I am sure would be inappropriate in this forum. Just to add to the list of concerns, as it were, clearly we are concerned about the loss of EU students. We are concerned about the polls that indicate that overseas non-EU students now find non-EU Britain to be a less attractive place to study. I am particularly concerned not only about the loss of EU students and EU staff, but about the loss of UK students and UK staff, who are not as enamoured of the system and the environment as they were before.

Clearly there are important financial issues, but actually what is more insidious is the loss of talent, the loss of networking and the loss of engagement with European partners. That will be much less easy to quantify but, unless we are very careful, it will become quite a damaging development over the next few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q This is about seeing if we can have new providers in the sector. Mr Proudfoot, what is your assessment of the level of demand for new providers?

Alex Proudfoot: The level of demand is clearly significant because already between 250,000 and 300,000 students are currently studying with alternative providers. I do not foresee a deluge of new providers opening up the day after the Bill passes. At the moment we have 700 institutions in the UK which are not considered part of the mainstream framework. We need to be able to bring them into the mainstream framework and provide effective regulation for the benefit of students and taxpayers and provide information that students can use to make choices between the providers.

I think there will be some new providers interested in coming into the sector and some interesting innovations. Already we have seen in the past few years, for example, large employers starting their own colleges and higher education programmes, simply because they were not finding the graduates they needed to take the jobs they had available. That should be encouraged and the opening of overseas higher education institutions could, of course, be a positive effect.

Professor Joy Carter: Current demand requires an environment where bold, innovative, new higher education flourishes. The Bill allows us to do that, but we have to maintain the reputation of UK higher education and the autonomy which leads to that reputation.

[Roger Mullin]

Q The way in which discussions about diversity have been confused with the need for new entrants has been very unhelpful. I come from a Scottish tradition where I would say that quality enhancement of existing institutions is the way to create diversity. When I look at the landscape in Scotland with everything from the University of the Highlands and Islands to traditional universities such as Edinburgh and newer universities such as Stirling, there is plenty of diversity through quality enhancement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Do any other panel members wish to comment? No.

[Roger Mullin]

Q The clear concern is about some of the managerialist assumptions that are built into the Bill. Can the panel help me understand what they think the Bill will do to help their institutions enhance quality development?

[The Chair]

Any takers?

Sir Alan Langlands: I think having a national system of quality assessment is important and has proved to be important in recent times. It is only as recently as 2014 that the new UK quality code was published. I think it is a good model that works extremely well, within reason. It certainly creates within institutions a clear sense of responsibility for the quality of provision. People sometimes misunderstand the extent and depth at which institutions tackle this issue on a day-to-day basis. I come back to my point about standards. I do not think that interfering further in standards will help UK higher education at all. I think it will just be an extra administrative burden that will take us nowhere. Being content with the current benchmarked approach, as I outlined earlier, would from my point of view be a better way forward.

Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: In the main, what the Bill does within an institution such as Cambridge is about the broad statements that are made. There is the implication of trust in the autonomy of an institution. There becomes a partnership between the institution and the Government in trying to deliver an end outcome that is done on the basis of trust and not imposition. That is something that is implicit and really important.

Another statement the Bill makes is that diversity is valued. If you have new ideas for new courses and new areas, that is now going to be lauded and supported. That matters. The fact of dual support, and the positioning that those who work in universities will not be subject to an institute-driven direction in research, are an absolute recognition of the fantastic contribution which British universities make to research diversity.

On UKRI, the capacity to establish a voice in some of the major decisions the United Kingdom has to make about capital infrastructure for large-scale projects and programmes, and the capacity to be overtly engaged in some of those debates and discussions, are the take-away areas. Above all else, even in an institution such as Cambridge, we are hearing for the first time that teaching is as important as research. That goes to every higher education institution in this country. There are some very important statements in the Bill in the round, but I think that the specifics will have much less impact.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Second sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th September 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q I want to return to the student issue. The sell of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, is that opening up the sector will provide more diversity and more choice for students and that the TEF will deliver more information to students to help them make up their mind about where to go, which will add some transparency on the quality of teaching and provide a mechanism to relate it to fees. We know what the possible positives are, but the risks to students from the Bill are less clear. Have any of you thought through what some of the risks could be?

Alison Goddard: I have thought through some of those risks, and I am afraid that to my eye they extend far wider than risks to students. There are also risks to the future economic success and the cultural, scientific and diplomatic strengths of this nation. What we have here in the UK is a world-class system of higher education and research, which has taken hundreds of years to emerge—its roots lie before the formation of the modern state. Fundamental to that success is institutional autonomy. At the moment, universities are answerable to Parliament. Creating the office for students and enabling it essentially to override existing royal charters and previous Acts of Parliament will allow what is essentially a Government body to remove from universities the right to call themselves universities or to award degrees; it will make those Government functions.

If I can draw a parallel, the BBC is also protected by a royal charter at the moment. The Bill appears to enable removal of the protections of the royal charter; if that applied to the BBC, it would essentially make the BBC a body within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I really worry that, if the Bill is passed unamended, it will allow future Administrations to interfere with institutions and universities to the extent of damaging the future prosperity of the whole nation.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Q I am going to dare to ask a question similar to one that was asked of an earlier panel and that led to some hilarity. I have deep concern about the applied managerialist approach in the Bill. If you look at the institutional architecture and the metrics that are being used, I do not see how they are going to contribute very much to true quality enhancement, either for students or for research. Would you like to comment on that?

Sally Hunt: I will probably be picking up on some of the points Dr Blackman-Woods was asking about as well. If we are looking at a risk matrix, which is the same point phrased in a different way—“What does this actually do to enhance the sector or our ability to contribute to our nation’s economy or to a world-class reputation within higher education?”—there are real risks. If you start from where the student is being given information and the university is being given the funding stream, those become very narrowed by the Bill. They become narrowed for the student because the questions they are being schooled to ask—“What is your employability? What is the drop-out rate?”—are very narrow and do not necessarily give the right indications. To me, those things do not tell you the quality of the course; they tell you that there might be differences in your ability to go through three years, depending on your class, your type of university and the student intake, but that is not the same as saying whether the course is good or bad at providing a good foundation. They are too narrow and too opaque. They do not ask us to encourage the student to say, “What is the level of the teacher who will be giving me the education and the teaching I have signed up for?”

I think someone made the same point earlier: as the student, you are not being told at any point how many of the people who will be teaching you are on casual contracts, how many can guarantee they will be there in a year’s time, or how many will be able to say, “I have been paid enough that I can do proper preparation, teaching, feedback and all the stuff I ought to be doing to enable you to be confident of getting what you signed up for.” None of that is in the Bill as it stands.

There are some very practical points at issue. Alison’s point is really important. I think you should all be very concerned about the issues of governance and the lack of oversight given to Parliament by the Bill, because that is going to strip away the ability for us to guarantee and protect academic freedom, which is fundamental to student choice and student education and is important for our ability to develop critical thinking and difficult and challenging research areas. That is not there in the Bill. As it stands, the office for students is very much Government-driven; it does not have staff representation or enough student representation on it. All of these points need to be teased out. As I said at the beginning, that is set against a really stressful time for universities. They do not have the answers about student funding or about the stability of their staff, and they have big questions about their ability to deliver against the current environment, let alone if this is put in place. There are real problems alongside opportunities. We should all say that these opportunities are positive. We should all say that we are looking to increase quality, increase choice and increase knowledge, but I am not sure that the Bill is delivering at this point. I hope that that covers both the points.

Professor Les Ebdon: I am not sure that I entirely recognise the picture that has been painted. For a start, you can make a very strong case that increased transparency is not inimical to freedom. I welcome the requirements for increased transparency of data. You might argue with the particular data points specified in the legislation, but they are just indicative of the points that could be asked for. I have no problem with that transparency of data.

Of course, there is clear recognition within the Bill of the importance of academic freedom. The way that we approach access agreements at the moment is a good indication of how you can work with the grain, using the context of institutions. This could involve getting the institutions themselves to set their own challenging targets and negotiating with them to do this, and also giving them support, particularly through enhanced research and evaluation of what is happening. This would go with the grain of the institutions and build on the great strengths of our universities in terms of researchers and their interest in finding out what works to achieve the kind of success that we have. I do not see a tremendous threat to academic freedom in anything related to access and participation which, clearly, are the parts of the legislation that I have studied in detail.

[Roger Mullin]

Q I was not suggesting that, and I accept that it is not a threat to academic freedom. That was not the point I was making. Professor Ebdon, your response makes me more concerned, because you talked about data and the use of data. It is the metrics that I am concerned about, and the way in which they are moving away from a concern about quality development and quality enhancement. One of the great features, which I think Alison talked about in her earlier remarks, is that institutions have built up over centuries. They have developed cultures of engaging in different ways with the learning as well as the research in their institutions. That is just so difficult to capture through the kind of metrics that are applied in the Bill.

Professor Les Ebdon: I certainly understand the point that the data have to be interpreted in the context of the institutions, and I think that I was implying that in terms of the way that we approach access agreements. I do not have a problem with that information being in the public domain. I am surprised that in this day and age people do have a problem with that.

[Roger Mullin]

Q I do not have a problem with it. It is just that it is an inadequate way of looking at teaching in universities.

Alison Goddard: I think that there is always a danger that you end up with metrics looking at what can be measured, rather than what you actually wish to measure. That is a problem which pervades modern life.

[Amanda Milling]

Q The research excellence framework has been in place for some time now and is well established. Ms Hunt, you referenced TEF briefly. Do you recognise the need for greater emphasis on the teaching aspect of the sector? That is a question to all three of you. What will that ultimately mean for students?

Sally Hunt: We have always said that teaching ought to have greater recognition and greater celebration in terms of the funding streams for universities, because without that there has always been a mismatch between some universities and others depending on whether they have a stronger research stream and reputation. We have found from what our members have told us that that has never been about the quality of experience for the students. We have no objection whatsoever to teaching being raised up, being part of the standard by which a university is judged, alongside its research. In fact, we would say that that is a good thing. All we are questioning is how.

All we are saying—we have said it repeatedly—is that if you start this process, rather than using blunt instruments that do not necessarily address the core issue that we are all told this Bill is about, which is increasing the quality of teaching for students, you need to look at what is going on in the classroom and why. That means that you have to address the fundamentals of how teaching is delivered in most universities. In most universities, if you are an undergraduate student, particularly in your first year, you are going to have the least experienced, qualified and stable—in terms of their contracts— group of teachers in universities. That, I think, is the issue that has to be addressed, not simply the outcomes, which as I said, can be quite blunt in the way that they are interpreted. They are not themselves necessarily about the quality of the course or the teaching. But in terms of the principle, absolutely; teaching is as important as research in terms of how the quality of a university should be judged. That is something that should be welcomed in the debate that is starting to happen now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good. As there is a Scottish theme to this session, I think Roger should ask—[Interruption.]. Sorry, Carol wants to ask the first question.

[Roger Mullin]

Ladies first.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q Thank you very much for coming. I know you have come at short notice this afternoon, so we appreciate you taking the time to be here. One of our concerns is that at the moment Scotland’s quality assurance in higher education is distinct. We have concerns that that is not being recognised in the TEF. Do you think that Scotland’s distinct quality assurance is being considered fully and is there provision for further work to be done on that?

Alastair Sim: It might be helpful if I describe what the sector leadership is thinking about this. We think that the Bill has presented us in Scotland, with the TEF, with what one might describe as a bit of a cleft stick. On the one hand, we are not sure that the TEF is exactly right for Scotland; on the other, there are strong competitive pressures. If institutions are going to get markings for being very high quality in terms of their teaching in England, there is a competitive disadvantage to Scottish institutions in not being part of that. The reasons that we have reservations about TEF is because we think that what we have in Scotland is, in some respects, quite special. It is a very collaborative system, which involves students very much at the heart of assessing whether quality and enhancement is what it should be. It is very enhancement-driven; it is about institutions learning from themselves, from peers and from international panellists on enhancement review panels about how to make the system better and how to collaborate across the system—for instance, produce graduates that are more employable and respond to that sort of challenge. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that we want to protect the best of what we have, but we also wonder whether, given this competitive pressure, institutions will end up deciding to go into the TEF. We do not know the answer to that yet. Given that that is also a possibility, we are working with the Department for Education to make sure that as the TEF is engineered, it does not have metrics in it that are perverse to Scotland, that sufficient recognition is given to the way things are done in Scotland and that potentially an equivalence is drawn between an evolution of the quality enhancement framework in Scotland and the teaching excellence framework in England.

Dr John Kemp: To be clear, there is no intention to get rid of the Scottish quality system. We will retain a distinctive Scottish quality system. However, we are keen to make sure that the possibility exists, should institutions in Scotland and the Scottish Government wish, for Scottish institutions then to have the TEF. For comparative reasons internationally, and also because a substantial number of students at Scottish universities come from England, that might be valuable; but we have no intention of changing the Scottish quality system and replacing it with the TEF. The TEF would sit alongside, rather than replace it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay, we have a long list: Roger and then Valerie.

[Roger Mullin]

Q As a former student and teacher at Edinburgh University who is pleased to see us doing so well at the moment, I am a bit concerned about some the institutional architecture. I am sure it was without any malice whatsoever but the first draft of those called to give evidence did not include any representatives from Scotland. Carol and I intervened and we got plenty of co-operation to allow that to happen. My concern is that in some of the institutions proposed in this Bill, I do not see any place for formal representation of the Scottish sector which, as already indicated, has some particularly unique and important features. Do you have a view on that?

Dr John Kemp: Yes, we do. Clearly, because UK Research and Innovation—I presume you are talking about the architecture of UKRI—is UK-wide as regards some of its funding and because a substantial amount of research council funding comes north of the border, we think it is important that Scotland is part of that architecture and that somebody with knowledge of the Scottish research landscape is involved in it. It is also important that in the architecture of UKRI the distinction is drawn between the UK-wide parts and the England-only parts, which mirrors what is called “balanced funding” in the Bill: keeping the idea of a distinction between focused research council funding and wider RAE funding. It is important that the architecture keeps that distinct.

Alastair Sim: If I could pick up on what John Kemp has said, in our paper we suggested some specific ways in which the Bill could be amended that would address these concerns. It would be sensible for UKRI to be a under a general duty to discharge its functions for the benefit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Membership-wise, yes, the membership should be expertise-based but it should also be based on geographic balance so as to have people with experience from across the UK sitting on UKRI and on the councils within it.

Innovate UK presents a particular issue. As an agency it particularly relates to economic policy and given that there are different economic policies within the devolved jurisdictions, I think it is sensible for UKRI to have regard both to UK Government and to devolved Administration economic policies. Given that the devolved Administrations are themselves major research funders, when UKRI is developing a strategy or a Secretary of State is considering whether to approve a strategy, that should be the subject of consultation with the devolved Administrations.

Research England raises a bit of a special issue. Here we have an institution of England-only funding relevance sitting within a UK-wide UKRI. Culturally, that raises some issues that UKRI will need to address about how to make sure there is no unconscious bias that favours the institutions you work with most closely on a day to day basis through your Research England function. More for the legislation, I think it would be sensible for the whole of the UK for there to be a statutory firewall between the funding of UKRI’s UK functions and UKRI’s English functions, so that money is not leaching across without parliamentary consent and without devolved administrations being consulted about the UK functions of UKRI and the England-only functions of UKRI.

[The Chair]

The wind-ups are starting in the main Chamber and I do not want to keep our witnesses waiting through a Division, so perhaps we will carry on until the Division and perhaps we can have some quick questions and answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

Q But is that the same as abolishing them?

Dr John Kingman: I cannot imagine circumstances in which Ministers would choose to exercise that power without consulting widely.

[Roger Mullin]

Q Can you confirm, Dr Kemp, in terms of access in Scotland, that over 20% of students entering HE do so through the college sector?

Dr John Kemp: Yes, and the students entering HE in the college sector more or less exactly match the population, in terms of social background.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for some excellent testimony. We are very grateful.

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

Higher Education and Research Bill (Third sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that time is now beginning to press down upon us. Three Members have indicated that they wish to ask questions and we have to finish at 12.30. Should we finish earlier than that, there will be more time for the next set of witnesses. I call Roger Mullin.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Q Thank you very much for your evidence this morning. It has inspired me to ask a different question from the one that I came in to ask; it is about the wider policy context.

I have been listening carefully, and on quite a number of occasions you have talked about, for example, industrial strategy, social inclusion and economic policy with the assumption that there are such things in the United Kingdom. Of course, there are not because the devolved Administrations have increasingly different approaches to economic policy and the like. How do you see the Bill and your own functions as described in the Bill being able to accommodate the different policy contexts that are developing in the UK?

Dr Ruth McKernan: This is something that Innovate UK works through very successfully by partnering with the other enterprise agencies in the regions and nations. We are actually prototyping a process with Scotland. When we run a programme, the number of high-quality, fundable applications always exceeds our budget. We are working with Scotland to enable them to pick up some of those applications against their policy and preference, to the extent that they want to do that.

We would like to be able to roll that out. Being connected to the research environment helps us to put out the right sorts of competitions, which allows regions and nations to develop their own expertise and specialist skills and choose where they want to invest in proposals that come in at a national level against their priorities. We have a way of simplifying that. We have a way of working with different policies and values in different parts of the UK.

Professor Philip Nelson: Research Councils certainly engages strongly with the devolved Administrations; we are in dialogue across those Administrations. For example, I led a delegation to Scotland back in June. All seven research councils were represented. We had conversations with the Scottish Government and we visited Scottish universities.

We absolutely treat all those universities out there in devolved Administrations as part of the team, as it were. There is no question about that. How to deal with industrial strategy and perhaps different slants on how things should be developed in that way will be a challenge for us, but by working with Ruth, for example—this is another advantage of working closely together—we can absolutely address those challenges. We are definitely minded to do so. There is no difficulty in that.

Professor Ottoline Leyser: I agree that good interfaces, once again, are crucial, so Research England will be part of United Kingdom Research and Innovation, but the equivalent organisations from the devolved nations will not. Establishing really good relationships with those organisations and maintaining those, going forward, will be important.

I would say in principle that the research landscape, the research base, is the same, and it can feed into anybody’s industrial strategy. Exactly how that knowledge is used will depend on the Governments in the various Parliaments taking it, understanding it and using it to develop their own priorities. The fact that there will be one place which will have a better integrated understanding of what is going on in the research base will in principle help all those organisations. I do not see it as a conflict if that interface works properly. It is about an interface. There is not one at the moment and there needs to be one, and that is what this Bill will try to achieve.

[Roger Mullin]

Q A quick follow up, particularly to Professor Nelson. You will be aware, having consulted with the Administrations in Scotland and your partners there on the research side, that there is some anxiety about the Bill and the lack of formal representation in some of the architecture described in it. Would you like to comment on that?

Professor Philip Nelson: We did absolutely acknowledge the existence of those anxieties and said we would make it clear that we needed to do something about it. I know there have been proposals about representation on the board of United Kingdom Research and Innovation. I would have thought at the very least one would want to have a clear point of contact within United Kingdom Research and Innovation.

I do not know how we would do this but we certainly need to absolutely manage it, and those anxieties were very clearly expressed, but from the research councils’ point of view there is no need for concern. We place huge value on the Scottish universities’ contributions. There are some great institutions there doing great work, and we would continue to fund excellence wherever it is across the UK.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Q I have a question—mainly, I think, for Dr McKernan, but I am interested in other views. The UK has traditionally had a reputation for cutting-edge research, brilliant innovation and coming up with ideas, with the commercial exploitation taking place in other countries. Does the Bill mean that the UK manufacturing sector is more likely to benefit from the research that takes place here?

Dr Ruth McKernan: I do not think the Bill specifically addresses that, but indirectly I think there is a benefit from having business close to research such that the benefits of research and innovation could be more easily adopted in business and provide a competitive edge.

Some 50% of productivity growth comes from innovation, so to the extent that we can help businesses grow more quickly because we can help them innovate, they have a chance to be more globally competitive, although many other factors in terms of access to capital and the competitive environment come into that. The Bill can only ever relate to a small component of your question.

Professor Philip Nelson: An awful lot of our work is focused on doing exactly what you are asking and I think that we will continue to do that. I think, frankly, this country has got an awful lot better at converting its scientific output into application in the last 20 years, and I would hope we will continue on that upward path.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Hanson. I hope that this is not a private fight, and that the Committee does not mind a Scot intruding in this debate, which would seem rather strange to anyone who has been in receipt of university education in Scotland, because universities in Scotland have had students at their centre, in different ways, for centuries. Indeed, the amendments are extraordinarily modest in their intent.

Some may know that for centuries ancient universities in Scotland—the four ancients, as we call them—have had elected rectors. Only the students have been able to vote to elect rectors, who are chairs of the court. That has not led to an utter collapse in the system. Indeed, the other day we heard a professor saying how proud he was that his university was ranked 19th in the world. Over the years there have been some aberrations; in the early 1970s in Edinburgh, they elected a student as rector, who did go on to No. 10: a Mr Gordon Brown, I believe, who also used to be able to get elected as MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, but no more.

Having worked in the education sector at times, I know that students can show remarkably wise judgment: students elected me honorary president of Paisley University in the early 1970s for two years. More recently, when I was doing some work at Stirling University, I was invited to chair the students’ association as an external person. The engagement has been great, and there are many platforms for student engagement.

The serious point I would like to make about the nature of student engagement, however, is that we should look at some of the problems that we have on boards, not just in the education sector, but more generally in society. Look at what happened when the banks crashed. The Government regularly point out that part of the problem is group-think on boards—in other words, nobody on the board comes from a different perspective, able to challenge.

Although I respect many of the contributions we heard in evidence in the past two days, it strikes me that many of the people were talking with similar assumptions and in similar ways. We are just as likely to get group-think among well suited academics sitting together in a room as we are on the board of a bank. Student representation can provide a type of challenge, which is important. It is not even a problem if challenges are wrong, as long as there is challenge. To avoid group-think, there should always be someone willing to provide that challenge. That is where I think student representation has a particular role to play. If I correctly understood the hon. Member for Blackpool South to say that he intends to put his amendment to a vote, we will be happy to support it.

[Joseph Johnson]

I will respond to amendments 2, 122 and 3 together, as they all relate to student representation on the board. As I said earlier, students’ interests really are at the heart of the reforms. They are hard-baked into the Bill. They are clearly and explicitly, in black and white, in schedule 1, in which, as has already been made clear, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of the OFS board containing people with experience of representing students’ interests.

We will continue to engage with our partners as the implementation plans are developed. That will include ensuring that the student perspective is represented on boards and decision-making bodies. That is why, for the first time, we are setting up an office for students, with the intention, set out in primary legislation, that its members will, between them, have experience of representing such interests. I think it is fair for the Committee to acknowledge that that is progress. The current legislative framework, which was set up in 1992, did not have any requirements for the board of HEFCE or its predecessors to have experience of representing the student interest. It is also fair to acknowledge that putting students at the heart of the governance of the main regulatory body that will oversee the sector is a significant step in the right direction, even if that is not quite as hard-baked as the hon. Member for Blackpool South would like, in terms of prescribing the specific number of people on boards who are capable of representing the student interest, or prescribing that those involved be current students.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Sixth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

I echo those sentiments and ask the Minister to think very carefully about them in his response. The amendment is a really important step in reminding the OFS when it comes into existence that the need to promote adult, part-time and lifelong learning is a crucial part of things. We all know the old saying, “What gets measured gets funded”. This needs to be measured and it also needs to be funded.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not detain it long, but I want to make a couple of slightly different points on amendment 141. We have to recognise that all countries in the world face a particular challenge because of the changing nature of society, and that is going to impinge on educational challenges in particular. It was estimated that there were more researchers working in the last 25 years of the 20th century than in the entire prior history of the world. When that is put together with the processing power of new technology, the rate of change and the production of new ideas and research is accelerating apace. That itself feeds into real change that has been happening in the labour market. For example, it was suggested some years ago that those entering the labour market in the UK around the year 2000 could expect on average to have between eight and 10 career changes in their working life. We have therefore moved away from a world where it is only at a younger age that people are prepared for their future professional lives. There has to be better regard for lifelong learning and for how technologies and education systems will change to meet the challenge of the modern world. In that slightly wider context, I support amendment 141.

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

First, let me say that I can see the principles that hon. Members are seeking to address here. I entirely agree that it is very important that the strong reputation of the English HE sector is maintained and that there is confidence in both the sector and the awards it collectively grants. The OFS has a key role to play in that. I also agree that the OFS will need to determine and promote the interests of students, that providers should continue to collaborate and innovate, and that studying part-time and later in life brings enormous benefits for individuals, the economy and employers. However, the OFS is already required under clause 2 to have regard to the need to promote quality and greater choice and opportunity for students.

Our higher education sector is indeed world class, and one of our greatest national assets. I entirely agree that it is crucial that this strong reputation is maintained and that there is confidence in both the sector and in the awards made by its providers. We have heard the same arguments about letting in poor providers at every period of great university expansion. The expansion of the sector over the decades has been the story of widening participation and access to the benefits of higher education. The concerns that we have heard at every wave of expansion have successively proved to have been manageable and, eventually, unfounded.

There is no specific current legislative provision that places a duty on the regulator to maintain confidence in the academic awards made by HE providers. However, the OFS is already required, under clause 2, to have regard to the need to promote quality, and good quality is the key ingredient that inspires confidence. As the Quality Assurance Agency recently noted, it is the Government’s intention that,

“no higher education provider will be given DAPs”

degree-awarding powers—

“without due diligence around quality assurance and this responsibility is expected to be carried out by the designated independent quality body.”

The QAA also said that,

“the transition to a more flexible, risk-based approach to awarding DAPs and university title…will help underpin the government’s policy objectives to open the sector to new high quality providers, encourage innovation and offer more choice to students”.

In particular, the power to award degrees will remain subject to specific criteria which all prospective providers must meet. The detail of those will be subject to consultation in due course, but I do not envisage the criteria themselves differing much from the existing criteria, and certainly not in a way where quality and therefore confidence is undermined.

The criteria for degree awarding powers are currently set out in detailed guidance. That will continue to be the case under the Bill. The current criteria and guidance for degree awarding powers run to 25 pages; all the criteria go towards ensuring quality and therefore confidence. Current guidance describes in some detail what is expected of providers with regard to key aspects concerning, for example, governance and academic management, academic standards and quality assurance, scholarship and pedagogical effectiveness, and the environment supporting delivery of taught HE programmes. We intend to consult on the detail of the future guidance, but will in all circumstances seek to assure quality. That level of detail cannot be captured in primary legislation.

Through our new regulatory framework, we are giving the OFS the powers to ensure that quality and standards are maintained. That will ensure that all parties, be they students, employers or the wider public, can have confidence that an English degree remains a high-quality degree and that it will continue to be something that has real value.

Let me deal with amendment 136. For the OFS to function effectively in the student interest, students should of course be represented, and that is our intention. Student interests are at the heart of our reforms, and we will continue to engage with our partners as the implementation plans are developed. As has been seen, from the Green Paper onwards we have sought the engagement and thoughts of all involved in the sector; we have engaged directly with students and their representatives, and I have had numerous meetings over the past year with student representative bodies including the NUS and the Union of Jewish Students, as well as many meetings with individual students. We will be embedding that culture of engagement within the OFS across all its duties, not just access and participation plans.

The Committee has heard from Universities UK, GuildHE and MillionPlus, all of which agreed that the general principle of student engagement was right, but that goes further than just representation. There needs to be a variety of mechanisms to enable student engagement, rather than just prescribing in legislation how that is to be achieved. The Office for Fair Access, for example, already requires providers to include a detailed statement on how they have consulted students in developing access agreements. The director of fair access has regard to that statement when deciding whether to approve an access plan.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Ninth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I would like to say a few words about the TEF, rather than the amendments as such. I want to put on record my concern about the way in which people are being swept along, believing that the TEF is particularly meaningful. I had a discussion a few days ago with Professor Jack Dowie, who, as some Members may know, is considered somewhat of a world expert in judgment and decision making. As he put it to me,

“Some instruments measure something that exists independently, like a tumour, and the items in the instrument, like symptoms and signs, are used to reflect the construct”,

which is doing something meaningful.

“However, some instruments claim to measure something that does not exist independently, and university quality is one such thing.”

Two Middlesex University lecturers, Dr Maeve Hosier and Ashley Hoolash, have kindly sent me for review an academic article that has not yet been published. They have just completed a study of the six major league table ranking systems, which are based on different instruments of assessment, and have quite understandably found that they all come up with completely different rankings of universities dependent upon the instruments used. This is just a caution that people should not read too much into how meaningful these types of system actually are.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

To give one example, when I was teaching at Stirling University about 30 years ago, my feedback from one student said “Nice eyes and a gorgeous bum.” [Laughter.]

[Paul Blomfield]

Even from my position sitting in this Committee Room, I would not wish to assess that evaluation, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman might want to share that with the Committee. It highlights in a particularly graphic way how we know the NSS does not provide a satisfactory metric in that respect. However, as the Government said, these are proxies.

The amendment would ensure, as the Select Committee recommended, that the office for students has a responsibility, in overseeing the metrics, to ensure that they can confidently and accurately measure teaching quality and nothing else—not the personal features of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, not employment outcomes based on family background and school connections, but teaching quality. On that we are all agreed, and I therefore hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 13th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for his assurances, which go some way towards meeting the points made in the amendment. I ask him to reflect on the opportunities to cast the net slightly wider to other Select Committees as appropriate in the way that it suggests. With the hope that he will reflect on that, and reassured by his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 186, page 92, line 18, after “experience” insert

“in the higher education sector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

This amendment would ensure that the new research body, UKRI, would include appropriate membership from the devolved nations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 187, page 92, line 38, at end insert—

“(6) UKRI must, in appointing members of each Council, have regard to the desirability of the members (between them) having experience of research in the higher education sector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would ensure that the membership and strategy of the new research body, the UKRI, takes proper account of the policies and priorities of the devolved nations.

[Roger Mullin]

I declare that I have an interest as I remain an honorary professor at the University of Stirling.

During the earlier stages of debate on the Bill, I remained remarkably quiet for someone with my background. I have been saving myself for today because it is a vital one if there is to be proper and respectful consideration for the university sectors in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. When I first read the Bill, I thought Scotland must already be independent because there was absolutely no recognition of the sector’s importance—so too, perhaps, in Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Bill was clearly not written in the spirit of the Nurse report, which stated:

“There is a need to solicit and respond to distinct research priorities and evidence requirements identified by the devolved administrations…it is essential that the Research Councils should play a strong role in…shaping research priorities and promoting the distinctive requirements of UK research, including in association with the devolved administrations.”

It is clear that when drafting the Bill the Government ignored to a great extent such an injunction. As it stands, UKRI is accountable only to the UK Government with principally English interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister for his response, although I am slightly disappointed he has not gone further in saying that he would take the recommendation more seriously. We will have to return to this matter on Report.

I say to the Minister that the way in which he describes the role the devolved Administrations might be able to play in this regard sounds slightly complacent. If it were as precise and clear as he suggested, I wonder why he thinks Universities Scotland, the University of Wales, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and many others I have cited support the amendments and do not support the Bill as it stands. With the intent of bringing this matter back on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 247, in schedule 9, page 92, line 21, leave out “and new ideas” and insert

“, new ideas and advancements in humanities”.

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must, in appointing members of UKRI, have regard to the desirability of them having between them experience of the development and exploitation of advancements in humanities (including the arts), as well as the development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas. A similar amendment is made to clause 85(1)(c) in amendment 256.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Roger Mullin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome back for what I regret to inform Members will be the final sitting of the Committee. I remind Members that we finish at 5 pm precisely, which means we have to deal with any matters outstanding before then.

Clause 85

UK research and innovation functions

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 180, in clause 85, page 52, line 21, at end insert

“but must be exercised in such a way as to be for the benefit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would place a general duty on UKRI to discharge its functions under section 85 for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 181, in clause 88, page 54, line 4, at end insert—

“having regard to the economic policies of the UK Government, the Scottish Government the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive”

This amendment would ensure the specific duty of Innovate UK will be to have regard to the economic policies of the devolved administrations.

Amendment 326, in clause 89, page 54, line 33, after “appropriate” insert—

“including relevant bodies in the devolved administrations”

This amendment allows Research England to coordinate with its devolved counterparts.

Amendment 182, in clause 91, page 55, line 16, at end insert—

‘(4A) Before exercising his powers under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views in respect of any proposed research and innovation strategy.”

This amendment would place specific duty on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations before exercising his powers in relation to a research strategy in section 91(4).

Amendment 184, in clause 94, page 56, line 24, at beginning insert “Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B),”

See explanatory statement for amendment 183.

Amendment 183, in clause 94, page 56, line 34, at end insert—

‘(4A) In giving direction to UKRI, the Secretary of State must act in the best interests of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and, before giving such direction, must consult—

(a) the Scottish Government,

(b) the Welsh Government, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Executive

on research and innovation policies and their priorities.

(4B) Before giving any direction to UKRI under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek agreement to the terms of that direction from—

(a) the Scottish Government,

(b) the Welsh Government, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Administration.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State takes account of the views of devolved administrations, including different research and innovation policy, before giving direction to the UKRI.

Amendment 185, in clause 96, page 57, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Secretary of State must act in the best interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, having consulted—

(a) the Scottish Government,

(b) the Welsh Government, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Executive

before exercising these functions.”

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State that in exercising their functions in relation to UKRI they must consider the needs of the entire UK and consult the Ministers of the devolved jurisdictions

[Roger Mullin]

What a pleasure it is to see you, Mr Hanson —my favourite Chair—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—for a Tuesday afternoon.

The Minister is such a reasonable person that I am sure he is keen to accept amendments 180 to 185. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State that in giving direction to UK Research and Innovation regarding research priorities, it is incumbent upon UKRI and the Government to ensure that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are met and to consult with Ministers in all the devolved jurisdictions.

The Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Governments must have a formal role in providing input to the UK Government. Too often, the needs of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are forgotten. Allow me to give two examples related to the Bill—neither of which, I hasten to add, arose out of malice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I noticed a few days before oral evidence sessions were due to start that every major institution in Scotland had been omitted from the list of those being called to give evidence. I know the Minister, and I know the Whip. They are reasonable people. I know they did not exclude us out of malice, but that omission demonstrated that we were an afterthought in a Bill Committee where they knew there would be representation from Scotland. For Scotland to be treated as a mere afterthought shows the need at times to put into legislation the right to be consulted. Being an afterthought is just not good enough.

Let me give another example. Later today, we will discuss an amendment relating to post-study work visas—a matter that has been raised many times by Scottish Members in this House and by the Scottish Government as it is of great concern to us and of great importance to our economy and our universities. What happened a few short weeks ago? Suddenly, the UK Government announced a pilot that involves no university in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, nor any consultation with the Governments in the devolved Administrations. That is another example of us not being treated with any respect whatsoever. The amendment calls for formal recognition in the Bill that we will not be consigned to the role of a mere afterthought at the whim of this or any other Government.

The Scottish research sector has different priorities from much of the rest of the UK, and there is a concern that those priorities will be missed within the new UK-wide research body. For example, Scottish higher education institutions have been pioneers in research collaboration since the establishment of the first research pools in 2004. One of the key principles behind research pools was that they should support research excellence “wherever it is found”, which is sometimes in relatively small research groups in less research-intensive institutions. We are concerned that initiatives to encourage collaboration between mere institutions can sometimes exclude such pockets of excellence through, for instance, threshold criteria dependent on scale. Scotland’s higher education sector, as the Minister will know, is worth more than £6 billion to our economy, and we must ensure that that continues. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to harm Scotland’s world-renowned research.

The Minister and his Government need to ensure that devolved Administrations have an equal say and that their voices are heard within UKRI to ensure that this Bill will be of no detriment to any part of the United Kingdom. It is also critical to be able to take account of the different economic and social priorities of devolved Administrations. Mention was made of Brexit this morning—by the Minister, if memory serves me correctly—and it immediately brought to mind not the example of Scotland but that of Northern Ireland, where there are going to be particular challenges, not least in how cross-border trade, cross-border research collaboration and the movement of people will be handled. That presents a context in Northern Ireland that is not present in any other part of the United Kingdom. Its voice needs to be heard as well. Not to have proper input on these and other matters would potentially be not only disrespectful, but damaging. In Scotland our drive for innovation and growth and our highly distinct social agenda need to be factored in. I have no confidence that that will be possible without ensuring that a statutory duty is placed in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to move the amendment.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I wish to elaborate on my Scottish colleague’s comments, first by saying that you are my favourite Chair of all time, Mr Hanson, and not just for Tuesday—at least until someone else comes along and makes me a better offer.

Amendment 326 would allow Research England to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. I am very much in tune with the sentiments just expressed by the hon. Gentleman: nobody likes to be treated as an afterthought, though sometimes people are pleased just to be noticed. In these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman has put forward a powerful case. It is not a question of omission by design, we hope, but it is certainly omission by amnesia, to put it kindly. Rightly, he did not just put the case for Scotland, which he is bound to do, but referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. Those of us who can just about remember back to that steamy day of Second Reading, before the summer recess, will remember that there were representations from Northern Ireland Members on the Bill, not just about issues such as the teaching excellence framework and the future for Northern Irish students, but on some of the border issues. Since then those issues have come further to the fore.

It is a question of looking back as well as looking forward. The reality is that Research England will be inheriting, and will be challenged to perform on, the existing system. At the moment, the UK’s dual support system underpins an excellent research base. As Committee members probably know, it consists of two complementary streams: one targets specific discipline areas; the other is a block grant to institutions. Currently the former is disbursed by the seven research councils and the latter through the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its devolved counterparts, the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.

As we heard this morning from the Minister, the proposed reforms will bring the seven research councils and the England-only research functions of HEFCE in the form of Research England—if the Committee has not been lost by this point, it will be shortly—into UKRI. The Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland will remain sitting outside UKRI. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath rightly pointed out, it would be helpful to probe how UKRI will work with institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in providing strategic oversight of UK research.

I say gently to the Minister that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has made it fairly clear—I support his view, and if I was a Member from one of the devolved Administrations, I would feel the same—that on this occasion simply rehearsing the line that we can be assured that UKRI will take such things into account is not going to be adequate, either practically or symbolically. If the Minister is in any doubt, since we have mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am now going to mention Wales and quote the written evidence that the Committee received from Universities Wales about three or four days ago. I refer to the section about UKRI governance and operation. Very much in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Universities Wales says:

“In the past the legislation has relied heavily on the Secretary of State and the Research Councils to act in the interests of the UK as a whole. With the increased divergence as a result of devolution, however, we question whether this will continue to be effective in appropriately reflecting devolved policy and interests. We welcome the UK Government’s proposed amendment”—

that is referred to as new clause 3, which we will come to—

“to enable joint working between relevant authorities where this is more efficient or effective. We would like the legislative framework to be strengthened, however, so that it not only facilitates joint working but ensures”—

I think there is a difference—

“that interests of devolved nations are catered for appropriately. In particular we agree with Universities Scotland that the legislation as a minimum must ensure there is appropriate representation on UKRI’s Council and on the Councils’ boards. The legislation must also include appropriate duties for UKRI and the Secretary of State not only to consult with devolved administrations but also to have due regard to devolved policy.”

That is the nub of it, and that is what we have tried to embody in amendment 326, which would give Research England the facility to co-ordinate with its devolved counterparts. That is the basis on which we have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will not join the auction of flattery, Mr Hanson; I feel that it is unnecessary, and I am sure you do not appreciate it. I am, however, glad to have the opportunity to assure Members, in particular those from Scotland, that I share their desire to ensure that the UK operates for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Scottish and other devolved institutions are a vital part of our vibrant research base and have not been overlooked carelessly or by any other kind of omission in our preparations for these reforms or for the Committee. I know that it feels like a lifetime ago that we were sitting in Portcullis House listening to oral evidence, but I point out to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that representatives of UK-wide bodies were invited to give evidence to the Committee, including Research Councils UK, Innovate UK and Universities UK. Those bodies all represent the totality of the United Kingdom, including institutions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

I understand that all parties were invited to make submissions about who should give evidence before the Committee. We put forward a number of suggestions, as did the official Opposition. Relatively late in the day, Members from the Scottish nationalist party asked for additional people to be invited to give evidence, and we were delighted to accommodate Universities Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Funding Council to round out the evidence that we had already requested from those other representative bodies of the entirety of the United Kingdom. There was no omission. We were delighted to make time in the Committee’s proceedings to accommodate further Scottish voices, and we welcomed them, as we welcome them now.

[Roger Mullin]

I never suggested that there was any malice, but there was scope to have Scotland properly represented. The Scottish National party—I see there is still scope for education there, since the Minister does not know the name of the party that I represent—was not invited by the Government to give any suggestions about who should be invited, so I think it is fair to characterise it as an afterthought.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further clarification. I am always happy to be educated by him in lots of ways, but on this matter we will have to disagree. We gave opportunities to the Committee to submit names to give evidence before it. As I said, we had already invited significant representations from UK-wide bodies and were delighted to accommodate the further suggestions his party made. I think we have to move on.

Turning to amendments 180 and 181, the research councils and Innovate UK, within UKRI, will continue to fund excellence wherever it is found in the UK. UKRI has the ability to work with the devolved bodies and a statutory duty to use its resources in an efficient and effective way, meaning it will look for all opportunities to collaborate. It is also important than Innovate UK can operate independently to spot opportunities and to provide the right access to finance conditions for economic growth. To improve its understanding and response to economic policies in the devolved Administrations, Innovate UK will be appointing full-time regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast. That means that UKRI and its councils will have to consider the whole of the UK, ensuring that the current co-operation will continue.

Turning to amendment 326, on Research England consulting relevant bodies in the devolved Administrations on grant conditions, block funding of universities for research—so-called quality-related funding—is a devolved matter. It is therefore not appropriate to require Research England to consult its devolved equivalents, just as the devolved funding bodies are not required to consult HEFCE now. Our approach mirrors that taken in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Of course, that does not mean HEFCE has operated in isolation—in fact, HEFCE works closely with its devolved equivalents, such as the Scottish Funding Council, on areas like the research excellence framework. A Government amendment ensures that Research England can continue that joint working in the future.

Turning to amendments 182 to 185, on the Secretary of State consulting the devolved Administrations before taking key decisions that will have an impact on UKRI, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations now and UKRI will continue to work with them. However, we would not seek to bind UKRI into a restrictive process of consultation. Legislation must remain sufficiently flexible for the Government and for UKRI to react quickly to emerging issues, as the research councils acted earlier this year to promptly commission research into the Zika virus.

The amendments also require the Secretary of State to act in the best interest of all parts of the UK. As a UK Government Minister, I assure the Committee that that is already the case. That was recognised by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Sir Alan Langlands, in the evidence he gave last month:

“Even given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 26-27, Q40.]

I agree with Sir Alan. The research community functions remarkably well across the UK political landscape, not least because the UK Government and the devolved Administrations work together to make it do so. Therefore, recognising that the Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concern in ensuring that UKRI effectively serves the whole of the UK, I ask that he withdraws amendment 180.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister genuinely for his responses. I will not put the amendment to a vote, but I make two observations. I do not think establishing mere regional managers in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast, if I recall his statement correctly, are in any way sufficient to guarantee the type of high-level involvement that is being sought. There are examples—I gave one related to the post-study work visa pilot—of where decisions have already been taken by the UK Government without proper consultation of the devolved Administrations. I therefore beg to differ with the Minister on those two points, but I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

The Government amendments in this group will ensure that, in setting the terms and conditions of grants to Research England, the Secretary of State is under the same limitations as in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Specifically, amendments 263 and 265 provide that directions or terms and conditions of grants can be given only if they apply to every institution, or to every institution of a specified description. In addition, the specific requirements must be met before financial support is given. Amendments 264, 266 and 267 are consequential changes required by amendments 263 and 265, and will ensure that the purpose of clauses 93 and 94 remains clear.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister for indicating earlier that he was willing to allow me to say a few words on amendment 284 before he responds to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have been contacted by many institutions in the devolved nations about amendment 284 more than any other. They are concerned about the potential that hazard will be placed in their way because of the funding structure. The amendment would ensure separate funding allocations for the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England. It is supported not only by the significant number of institutions that I mentioned earlier, but by the Scottish Funding Council. I have had extensive discussions with Dr John Kemp, who is the acting chief executive there.

We know that Scotland performs well in attracting funding—grants, studentships and fellowships—from the research councils, although it does not do quite so well in attracting funding for research institutes and research infrastructure. We of course recognise that there is always scope for flexibility in funding, but there is a difference between building flexibility into something and building in something that will create a hazard to core funding. That is what particularly concerns me about the clause: as it stands, it will allow the Secretary of State or the UK Government, if they so wish, to alter the balance of funding among the research councils.

Any grant to UKRI is ultimately research project funding, which of course should be competitively available throughout the UK. It is therefore necessary to have transparency about what goes to UKRI and what goes to Research England, given that the funds distributed for research infrastructure by the latter body will be available only to English institutions. Separate financial allocations must be introduced for Innovate UK, Research England and the different research councils collectively.

We are extremely concerned, too, that there are no provisions in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State and the UK Government do not give directions to UKRI to move funds in year on its own initiative between constituent parts—especially to Research England. That would definitely not be in the spirit of the Nurse report, nor would it give Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland a fair and equal say in research allocation. If for whatever reason funds had to be moved between research councils and Research England or Innovate UK by the Secretary of State, that must surely happen only if the devolved Administrations gave their consent.

Amendment 284 would ensure that fairness and transparency were at the forefront of the reserved funding allocation to UKRI and the allocation to Research England. It would also ensure that the balanced funding principle was measured in relation to the proportion of funding allocated by the Secretary of State for reserved UK and devolved England-only funding, and that clarity was provided on when that might not be achieved. Many bodies that have talked to me are at a loss as to why the appropriate funding streams are not set out in the Bill. I am therefore particularly keen to hear the Minister’s response.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that it is now 3.27 pm and the Committee finishes at 5 o’clock. Although there is potential for further debate, Members should bear that in mind if they want to debate later issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I dearly wish that I could believe the Minister’s explanation. I am willing not to press amendment 284 at this stage, but I intend to go back to all those who have expressed such deep concern and potentially bring the issue back on Report.

Amendment 263 agreed to.

Amendment made: 264, in clause 93, page 56, line 22, at end insert—

“( ) In this section “specified” means specified in the terms and conditions.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 263.

Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

Grants to UKRI from the Secretary of State

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

Again, I thank the Minister for using the opportunity of our probing amendment to say a little more about how he envisages the Haldane principle being enshrined in the Bill. That has been helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 265, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—

‘( ) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in respect of functions exercisable by Research England pursuant to arrangements under section 89, only if —

(a) it relates to requirements to be met before financial support of a specified amount or of a specified description is given by Research England in respect of activities carried on by an institution, and

(b) it relates to every institution, or every institution within a specified description, in respect of whose activities that support may be provided.”—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State can only give a direction about the allocation of grants to UKRI in respect of the functions exercisable by Research England if the direction relates to requirements to be met before the financial support is given and if it relates to all institutions or institutions of a particular description.

[Roger Mullin]

I beg to move amendment 285, in clause 94, page 56, line 25, at end insert—

‘(1A) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall give a direction to UKRI to commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (1B) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before the House of Commons.

(1B) The evaluation under subsection (1A) shall consider—

(a) the effect of the absence of post study work visas for persons graduating from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom to be granted leave to remain in the UK on completion of their studies to work for up to two years for an employer on—

(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and

(ii) the UK economy, and

(b) how post study work visa arrangements, applying either broadly or to classes of students, disciplines and institutions, could operate in the UK and their effect of each on—

(i) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector, and

(ii) the UK economy.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post study work visas and how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.

I could easily spend the next two hours discussing this subject [Hon. Members: “Oh no!”]—but perhaps I will not. This is a probing amendment, but it is important none the less, particularly for Scottish representatives. It would require the Secretary of State to commission research from UKRI on the effects of the absence of arrangements for post-study work visas, how such arrangements could operate in the UK and their effect on the higher education sector and the UK economy.

If ever there were an issue before this Parliament that demonstrates the completely different economic and social priorities of Scotland and the rest of the UK, this is it. Historically, Scotland’s problem has been not immigration but emigration. In my own family, both my brother and sister emigrated many years ago. My brother could not find a job after graduating in the early 1960s, but by the age of 30 was secretary of the Science Council of Canada and went on to be vice-president of the International Development and Research Corporation. He wrote the first science and technology paper for the free Government in South Africa after meeting Nelson Mandela but could not find a job in his own land. He was only one of thousands of people over many generations who had to emigrate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. International student migration and post-study working arrangements are important issues for the HE sector and the Government. Brain gain is definitely the key to our sustained success as a knowledge economy, but I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for commissioning research into post-study work. The Bill is focused on creating the necessary structures that will oversee higher education and research funding for many years to come. The amendment proposes a short-term piece of research on an element of migration policy, and that is not consistent with the scope and functions of UKRI. That said, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain briefly the Government’s approach to student migration and to post-study working arrangements for international students.

The Government greatly value the contribution that international students make to our universities, including those in Scotland. We want our top universities to continue to attract the best students from around the world. The UK has a generous post-study work offer for overseas students who graduate in the UK. International graduates can remain in the UK to work following their studies by switching to several existing routes. For example, if they get a graduate-level job, they can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa. If they start a business, they can move to a tier 1 entrepreneur or graduate entrepreneur visa, or they can do work experience under a tier 5 temporary worker visa. There is no cap, as we have discussed previously, on the number of students who can switch to a tier 2 skilled worker visa and all degree students are potentially eligible to stay on for post-study work.

[Roger Mullin]

The trouble is that the requirements and criteria set for graduate-level work might well be appropriate for the south of England, but looking at the recent case of the Brain family and the amount of work needed to allow that family from Australia to get a tier 2 visa and stay and contribute in Scotland—thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—those requirements are not as suitable for our circumstances as the Government pretend. The Minister went on to talk about tier 1 visas; over the past year, in the region of 70% of applicants for tier 1 entrepreneurship visas have been rejected. It does not seem to me that that is adequate in providing for the future.

[Joseph Johnson]

We always want to ensure that our visa system is working well and we believe, with respect to people switching from tier 4—the student route—into tier 2, that it is working well at present. Certainly, at least looking at the numbers of people switching, under our current arrangements more than 6,000 international students switched from tier 4 into tier 2 in the UK in 2015; that is an increase from around 5,500 in 2014 and 4,000 in 2013. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tier 1 and the number of rejections. That reflects an element of abuse in the old tier 1 category, which was then the post-study work category, with a published Home Office assessment undertaken in October 2010 finding that three in five of the then tier 1 migrants were in unskilled work. That is the basis on which changes were made to our system.

Until 2012 there was a dedicated post-study work route under tier 1 of the visa system, as I just mentioned, which saw a significant number of fraudulent applications and graduates who were remaining unemployed or in low-skilled work. That is why we replaced it with a more selective system, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This reform to post-study work has not prevented the UK from attracting international students. Since 2010, applications to UK universities have gone up by about 14% and we remain the second most popular destination in the world after the US for international students.

I am therefore unconvinced that such research would add value, given that the current visa system provides generous post-study work opportunities and the Government will, in any case, shortly be consulting on these issues. As I have explained, the Bill is in any case not the appropriate mechanism for commissioning such research. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Roger Mullin]

I am happy to say I have made my point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 266, in clause 94, page 56, line 26, leave out “But”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.

Amendment 267, in clause 94, page 56, line 34, at end insert—

“( ) In this section “specified” means specified in the direction.”.—(Joseph Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 265.

Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Balanced funding and advice from UKRI

[Gordon Marsden]

I beg to move amendment 329, in clause 95, page 57, line 4, leave out “reasonable”.

This amendment seeks to establish what a reasonable balance between Quality Related funding and project-specific funding is and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by this legislation.

The amendment might seem perverse, but it is a mechanism to explore with the Government what a reasonable balance is between quality-related funding and project-specific funding, and to clarify how the dual support system will be protected by the legislation. Again, as with the Haldane principle, which we just discussed, the Bill seeks to enshrine dual support in legislation for the first time. This is welcome; it has been welcomed by many people in the sector. This is a probing amendment to clarify how it will be protected by the legislation or, in other words, to invite the Minister to comment on what he, his officials and any others who he would expect to make judgments would expect a reasonable balance actually to look like.

The dual support system underpins our excellent research base, and I will not go into all the ways in which it is disbursed—we have dealt with that previously—but it would be helpful to understand what would be a reasonable balance between the two funding streams.

As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has asked, how will the principle operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Government’s October paper on UKRI says:

“The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider the balance between these two funding streams ensuring that the dynamic balance that stakeholders have supported is protected and preserved.”

That is an interesting phrase, “the dynamic balance”. I am not sure what I think it means, but I know that concerns have been expressed not about the enshrining of the duty in the Bill but about precisely what teeth the enshrinement will have.

Chris Hale, the director of policy at Universities UK, wrote “The Higher Education White Paper—all you need to know” in May 2016, in which he said:

“At face value we will see for the first time dual support enshrined in a legislative arrangement (to date dual support has been largely a matter of convention), but the critical question is does this go far enough? While the Secretary of State may have to consider the balance under this new duty, this provision does not necessarily secure the health and dynamism”—

that interesting phrase again—

“of dual support. This is one to watch carefully and there may be scope to strengthen this in the Bill.”

Similarly, the Council for the Defence of British Universities has said that

“while the White Paper contained an undertaking…the requirement in clause 95 of the Bill that the Secretary of State should ‘have regard to…the balanced funding principle’ appears vague”.

The CDBU refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—both Oxford constituencies are getting a mention today—and his excellent speech on Second Reading, in which he aired some of the concerns of his constituents and, if memory serves, although I stand to be corrected, the University of Oxford on how the principle will be enacted.

The Minister referred to the Stern review earlier, and the CDBU says:

“An approach to strengthening the wording in the Bill is suggested by a passage in the Stern Review of the REF…which states that, in addition to competitive grant funding, the capacity of universities to sustain excellent research depends on ‘a long-term, stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research in ways which foster its future development’. If all funding streams are administered through one body (i.e. UKRI), as currently proposed, this endangers the separate purposes of the two funding streams.”

The Minister may or may not wish to dissent from that view, which is put another way by the Royal Society in its commentary. It says:

“The ‘balanced funding principle’ is the principle that it is necessary to ensure that a reasonable balance, suitable for maintaining the long-term excellence and efficiency of the UK research base, and preserving the values, customs, partnerships and practices that have underpinned these, including allocation based on both retrospective and prospective assessment is achieved in the allocation of funding…However, we are not convinced that the ‘balanced funding principle’ as currently defined in the Bill includes sufficient content to fully embody the dual support system. The ‘balanced funding principle’ should be defined to make it clear that it entails substantial portions of research funding being allocated both via the block grant and via Research Councils. We would suggest the definition of the principle of balanced funding should be strengthened to make explicit reference to maintaining the values and customs of the research base, including a balance of retrospective and prospective assessments.”

Those sentiments and that terminology are not far away from the concerns that the CDBU expressed or, indeed, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East mentioned on Second Reading.

I would be grateful if the Minister could muse—if that is the right word—on the appropriateness of the word “reasonable” and on what it means, and give us a bit more chapter and verse on how he envisages the dual support being carried out in practice through legislation, as opposed to the statement of good intent, which we welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I would like to say a few words in praise of the new clause. I have moved 10 amendments today. Many dozens of amendments have been tabled, but I think this is the most important one we face, because this is the one that speaks to who we are as a community and as a people. I would like to praise and thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work the Scottish Government have done in this field. I hope that any civilised society would see the need to support this measure.

[Joseph Johnson]

I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling this new clause, which relates to access to support for students recognised as needing protection. I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and recognise his commitment to this issue. It is one that is already addressed, however, within the student support regulations.

I am pleased to say that those who come to this country and obtain international protection are already able to access student support. Our regulations have for some time included provision for those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and their family members. In addition, we have recently amended the regulations to allow those who have been in the UK as a matter of fact for at least half their lives or at least 20 years to access student support after three years of lawful residence.

Those persons entering the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme and granted humanitarian protection will be eligible, like UK nationals, to obtain student support and home fees status after only three years’ residence in the UK. Those with refugee status are uniquely allowed to access student support immediately—a privilege not afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. There is a distinction in international law between such status and those in need of humanitarian protection.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the Government’s policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens, to be ordinarily lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student support. That important rule establishes that generally the student has a solid connection with the UK before they are entitled to support and home fee rates. The second part of the amendment would, in effect, break that long-established policy by extending support to asylum seekers who have been granted temporary leave to remain only and who have only a recently established and potentially temporary connection to the UK. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw the motion.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Roger Mullin Excerpts

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

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

The Minister referred to “an element”. The post-study work visa is not just the subject of “an element” of concern to universities in Scotland; it is of major concern, especially given that what the Home Office has proposed is a tiny and completely unrepresentative pilot. This is a matter of great importance to the university sector.

[Joseph Johnson]

Indeed. The Government fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that international students bring a lot to our higher education system. They bring income, valued diversity, and many other benefits to our universities. We welcome them, and we have a warm and welcoming regime to accommodate them.

Let me now deal with Government amendments 1, 12 and 13. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are keystones of our higher education system, and the Bill introduces additional protections in that area. In his evidence to the Bill Committee, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, said that he particularly liked the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy in the Bill. However, I wanted to make absolutely clear how important it is for the Government to protect institutional autonomy, which is why I proposed a further group of amendments to strengthen the protections even more.

I recognise the concerns expressed in Committee and in stakeholder evidence that allowing the Secretary of State to give guidance relating to particular courses might be perceived as leaving the door open to guidance calling specifically for the opening or closing of particular courses. One of the real strengths of our higher education system is diversity and the ability of institutions to determine their own missions, either as multidisciplinary institutions or as institutions specialising in particular areas such as the performing arts or theology. To avoid any confusion, I proposed the amendments to add an additional layer of reassurance regarding the protections given to institutional autonomy. They make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot give guidance to, or impose terms and conditions or directions on, the OFS which would require it to make providers offer, or stop offering, particular courses.

Our reforms place students at the heart of higher education regulation. I agree with Labour Members that it is important to build the student perspective into the OFS. Government amendment 21 clarifies beyond doubt that at least one member of the OFS board must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students or students generally.

Labour Members tabled amendments 36 and 48, which relate to higher education staff representation. We share the view that the OFS board should benefit from the experience of HE staff. However, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to appointing board members with experience of the broad range of different types of English providers in the sector. We are therefore confident that a number of OFS board members will be, or will have been, employed by HE providers, and we do not believe that we need to make an additional requirement in legislation.

Students make significant investments in their higher education choices, and it is right for them to be aware of what would happen if their course, campus or institution were to close. That is what Government amendment 4 will achieve. We expect all providers to make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot be delivered as agreed. The requirement for providers to produce student protection plans would be a condition of regulation. I listened to points made in Committee, and have reflected on the need to strengthen the power of the OFS to ensure that there is transparency in student protection measures, and that is exactly what the amendment does. It enables the OFS to require providers not only to develop student protection plans but to publish them, and we would expect providers to bring them to students’ attention.

The Government believe in opportunity for all and through the Bill we are delivering on that. We believe that transparency is one of the best tools we have when it comes to widening participation. Universities have made progress but the transparency duty will shine a spotlight on those institutions that need to go further. That is why I am pleased to propose amendments 2 and 3, which change the language in the Bill to make it clearer that the OFS can ask HE providers to publish and share with the OFS the number of applications, offers, acceptances and completion rates for students, each broken down by ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic background.

The Bill will also give the OFS the power to operate the teaching excellence framework. Thirty years of the research excellence framework and its predecessors have made the UK’s research the envy of the world but, without an equivalent focus on excellence in teaching, the incentives on universities have become distorted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

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

[Roger Mullin]

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

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Certain rogue institutions—particularly private FE colleges—have in the past not complied with visa regulations, but there is little evidence that the HE institutions in the scope of this Bill have any record of non-compliance, so I do not accept the points the right hon. Gentleman makes.

[Roger Mullin]

In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, I specifically challenged the Home Office Minister to name any institutions in Scotland that could be said to fall into the behavioural category the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) suggested, and he said he could not name one.

[Carol Monaghan]

The 19 higher education institutes in Scotland have a strong record in attracting international students and a strong record of compliance, so I agree 100% with my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Roger Mullin]

I hope not to detain the House for terribly long, but I would like to make several points. The Minister said in relation to our amendment 55, “The Secretary of State would not agree to the varying of money”. That strikes me as the nub of the problem. Although the Minister is someone who I know to be honourable, absolutely committed to the university sector and assiduous in his work—he has listened to us, hence the modest changes he has made, which are welcome—he will not be there forever and in future we may get someone with much less stable characteristics, like his brother, for example. Can you imagine the havoc that could be wreaked if his brother were to replace him? Therefore, we need to ensure that some of the requirements are enshrined in statute.

When we look at the needs of the different Administrations, we see that there is a great difference between the needs of the economies in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and the needs in England, particularly the south of England. I have had the great pleasure of working in Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University at different times, as well as in many Scottish universities and a few in England. The differences can be profound.

Take one of the universities in Scotland—the University of the Highlands and Islands, a multi-campus university that has grown out of the college sector and has research interests that are not shared by any other university in the UK. The same is true of Ulster University and, I am sure, although it is many years since I was there, Bangor University. There is a great variation is research interest. More than that, there is a profound difference economically, to which they have to respond. Their interests diverge in many ways. We only need to look at the debate about exiting the EU in Scotland, where 62% voted to stay. We and others are working hard to have as close a relationship as possible with the EU and all that that would bring. Look at the debate taking place in other parts of the UK, where precisely the opposite view is being taken. That will have profound economic consequences that need to be reflected, and they will not be unless there is proper consultation with the devolved bodies.

The Minister talked about bringing together, which I would welcome, research, innovation, the academic community and the business community and all that that involves. In the vast majority of cases, I would agree with him, but let me put in a word of caution. Some years ago, when I was chair of the joint departmental research ethics committee at the University of Stirling, we were faced with a situation where research programmes into smoking were being challenged by business, which was trying to get access through legal means to the original data that the academics had used, so that the tobacco companies could twist them for their own interests. Therefore, it is not always the case that there is a coincidence between academic and business interests. That is another reason why there needs to be much greater co-operation. The devolved Government in Scotland would have been much more sensitive to that matter than any other part of the UK.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Queen’s University Belfast—I must declare an interest; I graduated there—has a particular interest in precision medicine and has been trying to get funding from Innovate UK to pursue a particular project, but it is in direct competition with a university in Britain? However, Queen’s has a particular expertise in that area.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I was not aware of that, but she raises a situation where surely it would make sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination to understand the different economic and medical interests that exist.

I appeal to the Government: it is not too late to think and to improve the Bill. I ask the Minister to think about those points again.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend has mentioned, many people working in higher education in Scotland are very worried about these reforms and I do not blame them. The Brexit mess is already causing tremendous uncertainty over future research funding and international collaboration. We need to make certain that changes to governance do not put even more blocks on the road.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, the Scottish Affairs Committee recently had the privilege of taking evidence from Sir Tim O’Shea, the Principal of the University of Edinburgh. He was clear about the probable damage that Brexit would do to universities in Scotland and in other parts of the UK if a deal were not reached similar to the deal that the Prime Minister floated for the City of London. The Scottish research industry secured some €217 million from Horizon 2020 up to February 2016. That is 11.6% of total UK funding. Access to that funding will be lost unless agreement is reached between the UK and the EU, and that will necessitate the UK putting the money into the research pot in the first place.

Of perhaps more direct concern for the business in front of us, however, and a major concern about these reforms in Scotland, is that research councils will be sucked up into the new UKRI along with Research England, meaning the research funding pot for the UK could be too closely entwined with England’s funding council. We need clear lines and full transparency between UKRI and Research England. Scotland’s universities currently perform very well in attracting funding from research councils for grants, studentships and fellowships; we cannot allow the system to be skewed to their disadvantage, and we certainly look forward to seeing the Government guidance on this.

We also need more than lip service to be paid to consulting devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council need input into those decisions, as do the Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, so that their voices and priorities are not drowned out.

The Scottish research industry has different priorities from the rest of the UK, and there is a concern that this will be missed from a UK-wide research body. For example, Scottish institutions have been pioneers in research collaborations since the first research pools were formed in 2004. These are often in smaller, less research-intensive institutions, and there is a worry that the new criteria could leave such smaller pockets of excellence locked out of funding. In light of this, Government amendment 35 simply does not go far enough in assuaging the very real concerns that have been voiced long and loud by the Scottish higher education sector. To only

“have regard to the desirability of the members including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”

is simply not good enough. That is hardly a cast-iron assurance that the new structure will not affect our research priorities or damage our research funding.

These changes will affect Scotland. We will be keeping a close eye on their effects, and we can be sure Scottish universities will take full advantage of any edges they can find.

One final point: one likely consequence of the Bill, in its current state at least, is that Scottish universities will become far clearer in their national and international branding.