Higher Education and Research Bill Consideration of Lords
amendments Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel) I must draw
the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is
engaged by Lords amendments 23, 138 and 139. If agreed by the
House, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the
Lords...Request free trial
Higher Education and Research Bill
Consideration of Lords amendments
-
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that
financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 23, 138
and 139. If agreed by the House, I will cause an
appropriate entry to be made in the Journal. I also remind
the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords
amendments will be certified as relating exclusively to
England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If
the House divides on any certified motion, a double
majority will be required for the motion to be passed. I
also alert Members to the fact that an additional paper has
been published today containing three additional motions to
disagree to Lords amendments 183, 184 and 185. I am sure
that the Minister will explain this further to the House.
The first motion to be taken is to disagree with the Lords
in their amendment 1, with which it will be convenient to
consider the other motions and amendments as on the
selection paper. I call the Minister to move to disagree
with Lords amendment 1.
3.29 pm
-
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and
Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords
amendment 1.
-
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendment
1.
Lords amendments 2 to 11.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 209, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 210, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords
amendments 12, 209 and 210.
Lords amendments 13 and 14.
Lords amendment 15, Government motion to disagree, and
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 16 to 22.
Lords amendment 23, Government motion to disagree, and
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 24 to 70.
Lords amendment 71, Government motion to disagree, and
Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 72 to 77.
Lords amendment 78, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 106, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendments (a) to (h) in lieu of Lords
amendments 78 and 106.
Lords amendments 79 to 105.
Lords amendments 107 to 155.
Lords amendment 156, Government motion to disagree, and
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 157 to 182.
Lords amendment 183, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 184, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 185, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 186 to 208.
Lords amendments 211 to 244.
-
The Higher Education and Research Bill sets out the most
significant legislative reforms of the sector for 25 years.
The world of higher education has changed fundamentally
since the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, leaving a
regulatory system that is complex, fragmented and out of
date. The sector has consistently called for new
legislation to update the regulatory framework and just
yesterday the two main sector groups, Universities UK and
GuildHE, reiterated their full support for this important
legislation.
Given its scale and importance, this Bill has
understandably received robust and constructive debate as
it has progressed through this House and the other place. I
would like to put on record my thanks to all Members and
noble Lords who have engaged with it during the process,
throughout which we have listened, reflected and responded.
This group includes no fewer than 240 amendments agreed in
the other place which strengthen and improve the drafting
of the Bill. They cover a range of issues including
institutional autonomy, the inclusion of collaboration and
diversity of provision in the Office for Students’ duties,
student transfer and accelerated degrees. The other place
also agreed amendments to strengthen the research
provisions in the Bill, including putting the Haldane
principle into legislation for the very first time. Today,
I am pleased to show once again that we are willing to
engage and respond. I hope that hon. Members will bear with
me if I speak at some length: there are many important
points that I would like to set out clearly.
Turning first to Lords amendment 1, we listened carefully
to the debate in the other place about the role and
functions of universities. At its heart was the importance
of protecting institutional autonomy, which we fully
support. We responded to this with a significant package of
amendments designed to provide robust and meaningful
protection of institutional autonomy across the whole of
the Bill, which I was pleased to see receive support from
all parties. On the definition of a university, in a
limited sense a university can be described as
predominantly a degree-level provider with awarding powers.
If we want a broader definition, we can say that a
university is also expected to be an institution that
brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and
self-critical academic community to provide excellent
learning opportunities for people. We expect teaching at
such an institution to be informed by a combination of
research, scholarship and professional practice. To
distinguish it from what we conventionally understand a
school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a
place where students are developing higher analytical
capacities: critical thinking, curiosity about the world
and higher levels of abstract capacity in their analysis.
Further, the strength of the university sector is based on
its diversity and we should continue to recognise that a
one-size-fits-all approach is not in the interests of
students or of wider society. In particular, small and
specialist providers that support, for example, the
creative arts, theology and agriculture have allowed more
students with highly specialised career aims the
opportunity to study at a university. Indeed, as we have
said in our White Paper and throughout the passage of the
Bill, the diversity of the sector and opportunities for
students have grown as a result of the important changes
introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2004,
including the lifting of the requirement for universities
to have students in five subject areas and to award
research degrees. No one would want, and we would not
expect, to go back on the specific changes that the party
opposite made.
To protect the use of university title, we have tabled
amendments (a) to (d) to Lords amendment 1 to ensure that
before allowing the use of that title, the Office for
Students must have regard to factors in guidance given by
the Secretary of State, and that before giving the
guidance, the Secretary of State must consult relevant
bodies and persons. This consultation will be full and
broad. It will reference processes and practice overseas,
for example in Australia, and provide an opportunity to
consider a broad range of factors before granting
university title. Those factors might include a track
record of excellent teaching; sustained scholarship;
cohesive academic communities; interdisciplinary
approaches; supportive learning infrastructures; the
dissemination of knowledge; the public-facing role of
universities; academic freedom and freedom of speech; and
wider support for students and pastoral care.
In the other place, we tabled an amendment based on a
proposal from requiring the Office
for Students to take expert advice from a relevant body on
quality and standards before granting, varying, or revoking
degree-awarding powers. I can confirm that the role of the
relevant body will be similar to that of the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s advisory committee
on degree-awarding powers, and the system we are putting in
place will build on the QAA’s valuable work over the years.
Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 71 further
strengthens that provision. Specifically, the amendment
makes it clear that, if there is not a designated quality
body to perform the role, the committee that the OFS must
establish to perform it must feature a majority of members
who are not members of the OFS. Further, in appointing
those members, the OFS must consider the requirement that
the committee’s advice be informed by the interests listed
in the proposed new clause, which will ensure that the
advice is impartial and informed. The amendment also makes
it clear that the advice must include a view on whether the
provider under consideration can maintain quality and
standards, and it requires the OFS to notify the Secretary
of State as soon as possible after it grants
degree-awarding powers to a provider that has not
previously delivered a degree course under a validation
arrangement.
I also confirm that I expect the Secretary of State’s
guidance to the OFS on DAPs to continue to require that a
provider’s eligibility be reviewed if there is a change in
its circumstances, such as a merger or a change of
ownership. The OFS has powers under the Bill to remove DAPs
from a provider where there are concerns as to the quality
or standards of its higher education provision following
such a change. We expect the OFS to seek advice from the
relevant body on any such quality concerns before taking
the step of revocation.
In the other place we made amendments providing additional
safeguards on the revocation of DAPs and university title,
recognising that those are last-resort powers. Amendments
were also made relating to appeals against such decisions.
Amendments (a) to (h) in lieu of Lords amendments 78 and
106 achieve the same aims as the Lords amendments but will
align the wording more closely with terminology used
elsewhere in legislation. The amendments allow an appeal on
unlimited grounds, and permit the First-tier Tribunal to
retake any decision of the OFS to revoke DAPs or university
title.
Over the course of the Bill’s passage we have seen complete
consensus in both Houses on the importance of teaching in
higher education. We have always been a world leader in our
approach to higher education in this country, but we cannot
and should not be complacent. The teaching excellence
framework offers us the opportunity to safeguard the UK’s
best teaching and to raise standards across the sector. For
the TEF to work properly, however, there must be
reputational and financial incentives behind it. We propose
to disagree with Lords amendments 12 and 23, which would
render the TEF unworkable.
Almost 300 providers took part in the first round of
assessments, and we have received vocal support for the TEF
from the major sector representatives. The sector has voted
with its feet and has demonstrated real confidence in the
framework. It would not be appropriate to stop or
fundamentally alter the TEF now.
-
(City of Durham)
(Lab)
I hear what the Minister is saying about the TEF, but does
he accept that, although there might be widespread consent
across the sector for a TEF-type exercise, the sector is
not happy about the traffic light system and wants to see
the review he is establishing?
-
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point, which enables
me to discuss the amendment that the Government have tabled
precisely to address those concerns.
I am pleased to present to the House a series of amendments
that demonstrate our continued commitment to developing the
teaching excellence framework iteratively and carefully. We
have consulted widely on the TEF, and we want to continue
drawing on the best expertise as we develop this important
scheme. That is why I am pleased to have tabled amendment
(c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23, as it requires the
Secretary of State to commission an independent review of
the TEF within one year of the TEF clause being commenced.
Crucially, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to
lay the report before Parliament, ensuring parliamentary
accountability for the framework as it moves forward.
The report must cover many aspects that have concerned
Members of this House and the other place, including
whether the metrics used are fit for use in the TEF;
whether the names of the ratings, to which the hon. Lady
alluded, are appropriate for use in the TEF; the impact of
the TEF on the ability of providers to carry out their
research, teaching and other functions; and an assessment
of whether the scheme is, all things considered, in the
public interest. I am happy to confirm that the Secretary
of State will take account of the review and, if he or she
considers it appropriate, will provide guidance to the OFS
accordingly, including on any changes to the scheme that
the review suggests might be needed, whether in relation to
the metrics or any of the other items the review will look
at.
We have also heard concerns about the impact of the link
between TEF and fees. We recognise the important role of
Parliament in setting fee caps. That is why I am also
pleased to propose amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of
amendments 12, 209 and 210, which amend the parliamentary
procedure required to alter fee limit amounts, to ensure
that any regulations that would raise fees would be
subject, as a minimum, to the affirmative procedure. That
provides a greater level of parliamentary oversight on fees
than the measures originally put in place under the Labour
Government in 2004. I have also today bought forward a
further motion to disagree with Lords amendments 183 to
185, which are no longer required as a consequence of these
amendments. That is a purely technical change as a result
of the wider set of amendments regarding fee amounts.
Furthermore, today’s amendments demonstrate our commitment
to a considered roll-out of differentiated fees. Amendments
in lieu (c ) and (d) will delay the link between
differentiated TEF ratings and tuition fee caps, so that
this will not come in for more than three years, with the
first year of differentiated fees as a result of TEF
ratings being no earlier than the academic year beginning
autumn 2020.
-
Dr (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
If I have understood it correctly, the linking of the TEF
and the fee level is just being postponed, and these things
are not being completely decoupled. I wonder whether he
might be able to provide reassurance to the University of
West London in my constituency, which has 17,000 students
who are worried about this. They like Lords amendment 156,
which relates to international students, and fear that they
are going to go completely bankrupt if things are not kept
as they are in the Lords amendment.
-
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are committed to
ensuring that universities are able to increase their fees
in line with inflation, provided they can demonstrate that
they are delivering high-quality outcomes through the TEF.
We are going to be introducing this scheme gradually and we
are not going to be differentiating according to the fee
uplift that institutions are able to get before the
academic year starting August 2020; until that point there
will be no differentiation of fee uplift based on
performance in the TEF.
This means that differentiated fees will not be introduced
until after the independent review has reported to the
Secretary of State and to Parliament. Until that point all
English providers participating in the TEF will receive the
full inflationary uplift. It will be up to devolved
Administrations, as before, to determine whether they are
content for their institutions to participate in the TEF
and what impact participation may have on their fees. I can
confirm today that the ratings awarded under the TEF this
year will not be used to determine differentiated fees,
unless a provider actively chooses not to re-enter the TEF
after the independent review. In practice, this means that
this year’s ratings will only count towards differentiated
fees if, after the review, a provider does not ask for a
fresh assessment before their next one is due—that is an
opportunity that will be open to all participants.
Before moving on to our other amendments, I would like to
reiterate our commitment that the TEF will evolve to assess
the quality of teaching at subject level, as well as
institutional level. We recognise that subject-level
assessments are more challenging, which is why I have
already announced an extension to the roll-out of
subject-level TEF pilots, with an additional year of
piloting. This follows the best practice demonstrated in
the research excellence framework, and means the first
subject-level assessments will not take place until spring
2020.
3.45 pm
In both this House and the other place, we have heard compelling
arguments about the importance of student electoral registration.
I commend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield)
for his passionate work on that issue. Having worked closely with
my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution, I am pleased to
propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords
amendment 15. Our amendments will improve the electoral
registration of students by permitting the Office for Students to
impose a condition of registration on higher education providers
that requires their governing bodies to take steps specified by
the OFS to facilitate co-operation with electoral registration
officers in England. The amendments place that requirement firmly
within the new higher education regulatory framework while,
equally importantly, maintaining unaltered the statutory roles
and responsibilities of EROs for ensuring the accuracy of the
electoral register. The provisions will complement EROs’ existing
powers.
In implementing the condition, the OFS will be obliged to have
regard to ministerial guidance issued under the general duties
clause, which will lay out what the Government expect in relation
to the electoral registration condition, alongside expectations
about other functions of the OFS. There are many excellent
examples from across the sector of methods of encouraging
students to join the electoral register, including the models put
in place by the University of Sheffield—in the constituency of
the hon. Member for Sheffield Central—that provide an example of
good practice.
Through the Government’s amendments, the OFS will have a specific
power to impose an electoral registration condition to deal with
HE providers that are not doing enough to co-operate with
electoral administrators. When a condition is imposed, it takes
effect as a requirement—it will oblige action to be taken. The
clear aim is for the OFS to look across the sector and, when
needed, ensure that necessary action is taken. The condition can
require particular steps to be taken so that higher education
providers work with EROs to facilitate registration. As with any
registration condition, non-compliance is enforceable, including
through OFS sanctions.
-
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comments on the work that we
have done on this issue. The Cabinet Office has been
extremely helpful from the very start in supporting the
initiative with the University of Sheffield. Nevertheless,
does the Minister recognise that the critical game-changer
is the seamless integration of electoral registration and
student enrolment? When other universities—not only
Sheffield—have taken that up, they have seen levels of
registration that the simple promotion of the voter
registration portal, or giving direction towards it, have
not succeeded in achieving. In monitoring the effectiveness
of the Government’s proposals, will the Minister look at
effective outputs? If universities’ outputs through methods
of co-operation with electoral registration officers do not
deliver the sort of 70% mark that integrated systems have
delivered, will he expect them to be pushed in that
direction by the Office for Students?
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued and thoughtful
engagement with this issue. We look forward to continuing
to work with him as we develop the guidance that will be
given to the OFS. As we have said previously, we do not
expect that there will be a one-size-fits-all approach. We
need an approach that recognises the particular
circumstances at different institutions. We look forward to
continuing to engage closely with the hon. Gentleman in the
coming weeks and months, subject to the results on 8 June.
It is vital for this country that we have a healthy
democracy that works for everyone. The Government share the
aim of increasing the number of students and young people
who are registered to vote. It is vital that the views of
students and young people are taken into account in the
democratic process, and our amendments will help to deliver
that.
Last but by no means least, amendments (a) to (c) in lieu
of Lords amendment 156 relate to international students. I
reiterate that the Government value and welcome
international students who come to study in the UK. We
recognise that they enhance our educational institutions,
both financially and culturally, enrich the experience of
domestic students, and become important ambassadors for the
UK in later life. It is for those reasons that we have no
plan to limit the number of genuine international students
who can come to study in the United Kingdom. I need to be
very clear that that commitment applies to all
institutions. We have no intention of limiting any
institution’s ability to recruit genuine international
students. We have no plans to cap the number of genuine
students who can come to the UK to study, or to limit an
institution’s ability to recruit genuine international
students based on its TEF rating or on any other basis.
-
(Bedford)
(Con)
Can the Minister explain the logic of including in a
statistic which the Government wish to limit a statistic
that they have no desire to limit?
-
I can reassure my hon. Friend that this Government welcome
international students, who deliver huge value to our
institutions, our economy and our learning environment.
However, it is also important to recognise that the
independent Office for National Statistics classifies
students as part of migration. The ONS has an independent
status and it applies that definition accordingly. It is
appropriate that the matter is treated in the way that it
is at present in our immigration system.
-
(Stroud) (Con)
I thank the Minister for these amendments, as they reflect
very well what the Education Committee said in its recent
report on the university sector and implications of leaving
the European Union. I, like the Minister, believe that it
is important to ensure that our sector—this very important
sector—is attractive abroad.
-
Indeed. No one would disagree with that. It is good news
that the UK continues to be a highly attractive place in
which international students can come to study. Numbers of
international students are running at record highs, and we
have more than 170,000 non-EU entrants to UK higher
education institutions for the sixth year running. The
latest Home Office visa data show that, since 2011,
university-sponsored visa applications have risen by around
10%.
-
Several hon. Members rose—
-
I will take one more intervention—[Interruption.] I will
take two more interventions on this subject.
-
(Ilford North)
(Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he is
being rather selective with the statistics, because the UK
is losing market share across the world when it comes to
international students. In fact, the Higher Education
Statistics Agency shows that the UK has seen a reduction of
more than 50% in students coming to the UK from India. More
than half of international students in the UK say that they
do not feel welcome. Does he recognise the scale of that
problem?
-
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is being selective. I can easily
point to the 8% increase in visas from Chinese nationals in
2016. Overall, if we look at the numbers since 2011, visa
applications are up by 10%, but let us not get distracted
further. I will take a further intervention and then I
shall move on.
-
(Bath) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been a great advocate on this issue for
a long time. I personally thank him for delivering these
amendments. Given that there will be a new duty on
institutions to give out their numbers of international
students, what will happen to institutions that, for any
reason, do not give that information to HESA under the
terms of the enforcement powers?
-
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We would
expect all higher education providers on the OFS register
to be compliant with the duties and conditions imposed on
them. If they are not, the OFS has a range of regulatory
tools at its disposal to deal with such eventualities.
-
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
-
For the last time.
-
I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand his
discomfort on the issue. He talked about numbers, but does
he not recognise that in the latest year for which numbers
are available—2014-15—new enrolments of international
students fell by 3%, so he cannot say that the numbers are
going up?
-
We can certainly say that visa applications have risen by
around 10% since 2011, although there might be fluctuations
from year to year. That has been the case for many periods
in the history of international students coming to study in
this country. There has not been a story of continued
growth; there have been ups and downs. Since 2010, which is
a longer timeframe, we have seen applications up by around
10%.
Lords amendment 156 could do real damage. For example, it
would prevent international students being treated as
long-term migrants. The internationally recognised
definition of a long-term migrant is anyone moving
countries for a period of more than a year. If we were not
able to apply to international students the key features of
our work immigration regime, such as the need to obtain a
time-limited visa that specifies the terms on which the
migrant can come and a requirement to return home upon
expiry of the visa, that could undermine our whole student
migration system. I cannot advise the House to agree to
that amendment.
Secondly, the Lords amendment would prohibit any change to
the future student migration regime that could be
interpreted as more restrictive than that in force when the
Bill is passed. Any future changes—even minor technical
changes—would require fresh primary legislation rather than
being made by immigration rules laid before Parliament. I
do not believe that that would be sensible or helpful,
particularly given how crowded the forthcoming legislative
programme is likely to be.
That said, I recognise the strength of feeling on the
issue, so I am pleased to ask the House to support
amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 156. The
Bill already creates for the first time a requirement for
information on higher education providers to be published.
It also puts in place a statutory duty to consider what
would be helpful to students on higher education courses
here, prospective students and higher education providers.
Our amendments expressly extend that important new duty to
cover what information would be useful to current or
prospective international students in higher education and
to the providers that recruit them or are thinking of doing
so. They will also specifically require a consideration of
the publication of international student numbers. All this
is designed to help to ensure that as much information as
possible is available about the UK’s offer to international
students. We have a good story to tell and the Government
are keen to ensure that it is told.
The Bill is long overdue. It will streamline the higher
education system’s regulatory architecture. It will give
students more choice and opportunity. It will strengthen
our world-class research and innovation capabilities, and
it will enhance the competitiveness and productivity of our
economy. I thank all Members for their constructive
engagement throughout the Bill’s passage.
-
(Blackpool South)
(Lab)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak on these
amendments this afternoon. I join the Minister in thanking
the various teams of drafters and Clerks for all the work
they have done. He and I have had some intense discussions
in the past three to four days, and they must have put
great pressure on the Clerks to produce the substantial
amendments that are before us today. I want to give special
thanks to the Public Bill Office. Most people who have been
in opposition, of whatever party, know that it is very
much, in terms of resources, a David and Goliath process
and we are enormously grateful for the professional work of
the Public Bill Office in assisting us.
I want to place on record, because we are talking about
Lords amendments, my gratitude and that of many in the
House for the robust exercise by the House of Lords of its
historic privilege, which is to revise, to remind and to
warn. It has done all three things with this raft of
amendments, which, combined with the intense pressure that
was applied across the sector by numerous groups, the work
that we have put in and the Minister’s co-operation in
recent days, has brought us to where we are today.
I am sorry that the Minister, in his measured presentation,
did not find time to talk about the contribution of the
people who work in universities. Their contribution is just
as important as that of students and teachers, because
without them we would not have universities or other higher
education institutions. I place on the record also my
thanks to the various sector groups who have assisted us:
the National Union of Students, which delivered thoughtful
and trenchant critiques that helped us get to where we are
today, as did the other unions involved—the University and
College Union and Unison—and the Council for British
Universities, as well as the whole range of universities,
modern and traditional. I must not forget the submissions
from the further education sector and the Association of
Colleges, because as I frequently remind the Minister, 12%
and rising of higher education in this country is provided
by further education colleges.
This process has been about the dialogue with university
vice-chancellors and junior lecturers. We are in a much
better place because of the specialist critique and the
Lords amendments that the Minister has accepted on UK
Research and Innovation, and on research. As the hon.
Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is in the
Chamber, I pay tribute to her and her team for the points
they made about the importance of the devolved
Administrations.
4.00 pm
Let us turn to the amendments that the Government wish to remove;
I was going to say tamper with, but that would be churlish. The
Government’s concession on university title is welcome and
necessary, and, my goodness, it has been a long time coming. From
the beginning, there have been strong concerns about this across
the sector from people who work within it—people concerned about
the nature of their employment and about the quality of their
teaching—and, as I have said, from the students who increasingly
have to pay more and more.
We should not forget that the Bill is being wound up in the
context of a world-class university sector that is now facing all
the challenges of Brexit that have not been not included in the
Bill in any shape or form. We have to protect our world-renowned
brand of universities in as many ways as possible, so we are
content that the Government have now committed to holding this
full and wide-ranging consultation on university title. As the
Minister said, once that consultation has finished, as a result
of the discussions that we have had with him, the Secretary of
State will have to issue guidance to the Office for Students on
the criteria to be applied when awarding university title, to
which the OFS must have regard.
-
Dr
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. I agree that it is
good that the Government have recognised the challenge to
university reputation that could come from the extension of
university title without safeguards in place. Does he agree
that the Government’s proposals are a watering down of
Lords amendment 1 and that it will be necessary to look
carefully at the guidance in due course to ensure that it
adequately protects university title?
-
My hon. Friend, the esteemed chair of the all-party
parliamentary university group, is absolutely right. She
makes precisely the same point that so many people want to
make to the Government. Edmund Burke famously said that the
price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Well, the price of
extracting these concessions from the Government today—if,
by any chance, they get back into office after 8 June—will
be at least very severe, if not eternal, scrutiny. Whatever
the situation is, not just in the House but outside it,
that scrutiny has to happen.
The agreed process is not a tick-box one, but one where
there must be a big conversation. My hon. Friends the
Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), for
Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Ilford North
(Wes Streeting) and all sorts of other people have made
this point. I pay tribute to Baroness Brown for pursuing
the matter. I hope that the penny has finally dropped for
the Government. As MillionPlus said,
“strong safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that
any body that is awarded degree awarding powers…has met the
criteria to do so, and will not put student interest at
risk, or potentially damage the hard earned reputation of
the entire higher education sector in the UK.”
That is why it is so important that the Government commit
to that full and wide-ranging consultation.
I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed, as we
discussed, that the consultation will look at international
examples, such as Australia, in granting university title.
It is crucial that the Government look at the range the
Minister talked about: excellent teaching, sustained
scholarship, cohesive academic community, learning
infrastructure, knowledge exchange and—often
forgotten—pastoral care, with universities actually
supporting students to learn and not simply being part of
some vague online community. As Research Fortnight said
last year,
“the title of university needs to be seen as a
privilege…not an automatic entitlement”.
That is why this consultation and the subsequent guidance
are so important, with the market being open to new
entrants, and that is why we will continue to press
Ministers on this issue.
Let me move on to the granting of degree-awarding powers.
As we have said from the beginning of proceedings on the
Bill, that is at its heart significantly about trust, or
the lack of it, and that was nobly elaborated and
strengthened by the amendment tabled in the other place by
, who is a fantastic
advocate for the HE and FE sectors and who knows of what
she speaks, which is why the Government have had to move on
this issue. We have said right from the beginning that the
Government need to make things very clear to allay some of
the concerns that we, along with a number of people across
the sector and the noble Baroness and others in the other
House, have had about the principle of independence. Giving
providers the option from day one to build up
degree-awarding powers is potentially dangerous, and we are
potentially taking a gamble on probationary degrees from
probationary providers.
I do not want to reopen our debate on this in Committee,
and I want to say very strongly that we are not against
private providers or new providers as such, but the premise
must be to strengthen the public sector and to ensure that
new providers can demonstrate that they provide
high-quality education—including robust governance that
maintains academic quality, protects the student interest
and has a demonstrable track record of delivering
higher-quality education—before they are granted
degree-awarding powers.
We know only too well from the issues that have arisen in
the United States with private providers, from the
criticisms has levelled at a
similar process in Australia and from the issues involving
BPP and the Apollo group three or four years ago why the
safeguards being put into the Bill are entirely necessary.
The Council for the Defence of British Universities said
exactly that in its submissions.
We are therefore pleased that a significant degree of
scrutiny will now be put in place and that, when granting,
varying or revoking degree-awarding powers, the OFS must be
advised by the independent designated quality body—the
Government have conceded that—on a provider’s ability to
provide and maintain HE provision of an appropriate quality
and standard. It is crucial that there is a traffic light,
if I can dare to use that expression, saying “Caution” and
providing a guarantee of the process. It is important that
the OFS is advised in the way I have described; after all,
in the first few years of its existence, it will—whether we
take the term neutrally or not—be a creature of the
Government, but one that is on probation and on trial.
There are known quantities in this process, which is why I
was pleased to hear the Minister praise the QAA for what it
has done, but, as he said, things change with time. That is
why we had to press the Government so hard to come forward
with a new mechanism if the QAA were no longer to be the
appropriate body. That is reiterated in the concession of
an automatic review by the designated quality body if there
is a change of ownership or a merger at a university. We
know what can happen, just as people in the sector know—the
people employed there and the people being taught in
inferior conditions because of what has happened in the
past. We therefore need these steps, alongside a
consultation and guidance on university title, to protect
our brand of HE providers.
This is about not just the letter but the spirit of these
proposals, and that is reiterated by the automatic review,
which will prevent university title and degree-awarding
powers being purchased without the protections of quality
assurance. We remain concerned that, should no independent
designated quality body exist, the OFS must set up an
independent specific committee. We were determined to
encourage the Government to take that fall-back position.
Their concession of an independent specific committee with
a majority of members with no previous involvement with the
OFS is crucial. It is also crucial that this body remains
independent of Government and of the OFS, for the reasons
that I have described.
I want to move on to the teaching excellence framework, and
Lords amendment 23 and the amendments that the Government
have tabled in lieu. The Minister said that the importance
of teaching excellence was accepted across the House.
Indeed, who would be against teaching excellence? However,
the devil is always in the detail. In this case, the detail
is that it took nearly six years to take through the
research excellence framework process. We are therefore
wise to think and to pause, particularly on the potential
to differentiate fee levels at higher education
institutions, which has been a major concern for many
across the sector. We have expressed serious fears from the
start, not least in the context of the ridiculously titled
“gold, silver and bronze” scheme, which was no doubt
dreamed up in the Minister’s office by someone in a
post-Olympics euphoria back in the autumn.
People are concerned that any sort of link is bound to
affect student decision making adversely, particularly in
deterring students from low-income families from applying.
Those concerns have been expressed right across the sector,
from unions such as the UCU and Unison to a number of other
groups. The Minister quotes somewhat selectively on
occasion the groups that he wishes to quote, but I can
assure him that a number of universities and university
groups, including some of our most revered and aged, remain
concerned about this. That is why it is crucial that the
Government put in place a legislative commitment to a full
independent review before the TEF could be used to
differentiate fees and why it is right that that has been
accepted and aided by the work that the Lords has put in.
It gives us a different direction of travel from the
rubber-stamping technocracy the Government previously had
in mind for us.
The Government’s agenda on higher education has
consistently hit students hard, particularly those from
disadvantaged backgrounds. As we have always said, we will
do everything in our power to resist the TEF being used as
a Trojan horse for the escalation of fees. We know from the
Sutton Trust and from the various surveys about the
daunting mountain of debt that is being imposed on students
as a result of how this Government and their predecessor
have gone forward on this: what an impediment to their
hopes and dreams. Now that inflation is leaping,
post-Brexit, to the sorts of levels that will bring in
increases in future, we are right to be concerned that
there should be a proper process in how we take this
forward.
Along with the unions involved and many others in the
sector, we feel very strongly about any sort of link that
affects student decision making adversely—particularly, as
I say, with regard to low-income families. The NUS and the
UCU have strong concerns that the TEF would create a
high-stakes, multi-tiered system and increase pressures on
teachers, as well as incentivising universities to cut
teaching in subjects that score less well. Sally Hunt, the
general secretary of UCU, said last December:
“If the Government really wants to improve teaching
quality, it”
also
“needs to think…about whether staff are supported”
enough
“to deliver their best teaching.”
It is therefore vital that the Government have now finally,
on the back of the strength of the concerns of our
colleagues and the people who really know what is going on
in the sector, found the courage to put in place a
legislative commitment to a full independent review before
the TEF could be used for differentiating fees.
I was grateful to the Minister for spelling out so clearly
the chronology of that process, because it is not simply
about the extra year, but about the process itself. We
would have preferred—and we will still campaign—for the
link between the TEF and the fees to be removed altogether,
but we know that we have entered a process where we have to
do the best we can with this Bill.
4.15 pm
A full independent review would give us much more capacity to
challenge any issues. It is clear that the review would cover
specific areas, including whether the process by which ratings
are determined is appropriate for use by the scheme; the names,
which the Minister has referred to; the scheme’s impact on the
ability of providers; and an assessment of whether it is in the
public interest. A good, strong independent reviewer would dig
those things out, and then the Government, whoever they are, will
be held to account.
-
Dr
Does my hon. Friend agree that the review is welcome but
that it would have been really good to hear the Minister
say this afternoon that he would definitely want to act on
its outcome, not simply ignore it, which could happen in
the future?
-
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot be responsible for the
Minister’s mood music. I can only respond to what he has
committed to do in the Bill, and its commitment to an
independent review is very important. A whole raft of
people, not just the Lords, are concerned. The combined
efforts of an outside challenge, the wisdom of the Lords,
who constrained the Minister by inserting the original
amendment, and our determination have resulted in welcome
concessions.
-
To reiterate what I said in my speech, I am happy to
confirm that the Secretary of State will take account of
the review and, if he or she considers it appropriate, will
provide guidance to the OFS accordingly, including on any
changes to the scheme that the review suggests are needed,
whether they be in relation to the metrics or any of the
other items that the review will look at.
-
I am grateful to the Minister for that important
clarification. It is also important that all fee
regulations under the Bill that were previously subject to
negative procedure will now be subject to affirmative
procedure. That puts daylight on issues related to
rocketing fees, and I believe that it will be entirely
possible that the Secretary of State, whoever it will be,
will have to listen to a dogged independent statutory
review that says, “This ain’t working. Either it won’t ever
work, or it certainly won’t work for the time being.” It is
in all of our interests to make sure that that statutory
review is as potent as we wish it to be.
I welcome the Government’s electoral registration
amendment, which strengthens the current position to some
extent. We would have preferred a full commitment to
ensuring block registration, but nevertheless we
wholeheartedly welcome anything that will facilitate
greater student interest in and awareness of political
affairs. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of my hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and to the pilot
work undertaken at the University of Sheffield and the
University of Bath. I also praise my fellow member of the
Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North,
and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and
Acton (Dr Huq) and for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), all
of whom have concerns about students and feel very strongly
about the matter. It is important to note that we are not
just relying on nudges. The Minister was kind enough to
refer to the involvement of the Cabinet Office in this
regard, and there will be specific powers to impose an
electoral registration commitment to deal with HE providers
not doing enough.
Finally, let me turn to the amendments on international
students. I praise and welcome the doggedness with which
pursued this matter
with the coalition that worked across Parliament to insert
the original amendment. I hoped and thought that the
strength of that coalition might have moved the Government,
but unfortunately it is not a question of the warm words,
values and welcomes which the Minister talked about and to
which, I am sure, he signs up—he was a dedicated remainer
before the election. Unfortunately, he has a Prime Minister
who has been at best curmudgeonly and at worst obstructive
on this issue. The sharp questions from the hon. Member for
Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the contribution of the Chair
of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for
Stroud (Neil Carmichael), show where we are on this matter.
At a time when Brexit is throwing up fresh problems for the
higher education sector, the Government’s stance is
threatening both the sector and our reputation worldwide.
Those new issues are about whether we will be able to stay
in Erasmus or get funding for beyond Horizon 2020, and
about European structural funding, but the university and
HE sector has enough to contend with without having a Prime
Minister who appears to wrinkle her nose and, sometimes,
attach manacles to her colleagues in Cabinet every time
they suggest a different path.
-
(South Down)
(SDLP)
My hon. Friend is making compelling points. In Northern
Ireland there are two universities, Queen’s University,
Belfast and the Ulster University. They both rely on
Erasmus and European social funds to develop cross-border
educational research programmes with higher education
institutions in the Republic of Ireland. The impact of
Brexit in the context of this debate is therefore
particularly important to us; does he agree with me on
that?
-
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes a further point
about the Government’s still having a long way to go in
understanding and realising what that international sector
is all about. That is why it is so disappointing that the
Minister will not go further—in fact, the truth is that he
cannot go further. He and his colleagues have been sat on
from a great height by No. 10 and by the Home Office. That
is the reality. The Tory party and its members are split
down the middle on this issue. It is an unedifying shambles
that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is
retiring, presciently commented on in The Times today. It
is a shambles that Labour, in government, would have no
part in.
During this election campaign, we will continue to press
for the removal of students from net migration statistics
for public policy purposes, and although I genuinely
welcome the new designated body that the Minister has
talked about, the truth is exactly as the hon. Member for
Bedford said: it leaves the Minister without a visible
means of support in delivering the objective that he will
no doubt fervently wish could be delivered under that
process.
The problems and weaknesses of the Bill have been
substantial, not least as regards the wilful obtuseness of
the Government to do anything to make a pre-Brexit
Bill—conceived when the Minister and the Government at the
time assumed that Brexit would fall—fit for a post-Brexit
world. They could have put it out to pre-legislative
scrutiny, but they did not. They could have paused it. That
was quite rightly argued for by the University and College
Union, the Council for the Defence of British Universities
and others, including distinguished figures across the
sector and in this House, not least the Chair of the
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon.
Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—but they did
not.
It has been left to us—by us, I mean not just the Labour
party, but the other opposition parties in this House and
in the House of Lords—to make the arguments in this place.
A concerted effort has been made by cross-Benchers, Lib Dem
peers, the noble and the small but
important group of Conservative peers, including , who have wrinkled
their noses at, and fought ferociously against, the
technocratic complexities and central dictation in the
Bill. Those things risk blunting the creativity and
dynamism of our HE sector, whether delivered at an old
university such as Oxford or Cambridge, at the many dynamic
new universities which MillionPlus celebrated at its 25th
anniversary last night, or in the further education sector.
I pay tribute to the Government for extending HE awarding
powers to the FE sector, not least because my college,
Blackpool Fylde College, will be one of the first to
benefit.
The Americans have a saying that goes something like, “When
you get lemons, you have to try to make lemonade,” and that
is what we have all tried to do. We have tried to make a
flawed Bill better fit for purpose, and to help, not
hinder, the dynamism that I have talked about. We have had
a decent thrash at it; without that decent thrash and the
work of the House of Lords, I think it would have been a
very poor Bill indeed.
-
You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my
remarks in this debate will be short. I think all hon.
Members have something else to do right now.
I have championed universities for the last six years, and
I have debated with many different Members from across the
House. In the last two years, it has been a great privilege
to be vice-chair of the all-party group on students,
together with my friend the hon. Member for Sheffield
Central (Paul Blomfield). I wish him every success, and I
hope to be able to join him in continuing to represent
students in Parliament after 8 June. I have 23,000 students
in my constituency, spread across two universities: Bath
Spa University and the University of Bath. Both
universities have a large complement of international
students, who are absolutely vital. We have had debates in
this place for years about how much they contribute to our
local and national economies.
I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced. The student
community and the higher education sector as a whole have
called for such legislation since 2011, when introduced new law
in this area, and I hope that this Bill will receive Royal
Assent later today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the
Minister for all his work on the Bill. He has been a great
champion of the higher education sector and international
students, and the Bill is testament to all his work.
I turn quickly to Lords amendment 156 and Government
amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu. As has been said, it
is incredibly welcome that the Minister and the Department
for Education have listened to a campaign group of MPs and
placed on the Higher Education Statistics Agency, or the
designated body, a duty to report on the number of
international students. That makes a massive difference,
and it represents a significant change in the Government’s
tone. I thank the Minister for listening to us and
delivering that amendment.
I want to give a bit of a shout-out to Members who have
made a big contribution to the campaign, particularly my
hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), for
Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), for Portsmouth South (Mrs
Drummond), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Bedford
(Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friends the Members for
Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
They are great champions for their student communities and
for international students. I pay tribute to Opposition
colleagues who have also championed that case.
I am delighted that the Department for Education has
produced the amendment. If the outcome of the election on 8
June is favourable, I guarantee not only to the Government
but to my constituents that I will continue—in
collaboration with Universities UK, the Russell Group and
MillionPlus—to make the case for taking international
students out of the overall immigration figures. It is very
peculiar that they are still included. If I am around after
8 June, as I hope to be, I will make such representations
along with colleagues. I hope that they will all be
re-elected, too, so that we can make this final carve-out
in the interests of my constituents, students,
international students and the UK’s reputation overseas. I
wish everybody a huge amount of luck in the forthcoming
general election.
4.30 pm
-
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
Last July, when the Bill was first brought to the House, I
spoke about the issue of pushing ahead with it following
the Brexit vote and questioned whether the time was right
for this particular Bill. There are still some issues,
including those raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool
South (Gordon Marsden), with regard to Brexit, and I will
come on to them in a little while. I pay tribute to the
hon. Gentleman for his tenacity, and for collaborating with
those from across the House on all aspects of the Bill. I
also pay tribute to the Minister for Universities, Science,
Research and Innovation for the huge amount of work that he
has done on the Bill.
We welcome Government assurances that the decision about
whether Scottish higher education participates in the TEF
will remain in the hands of the Scottish Government. That
was one of our key asks, and it is very important to us.
There should not be any system that is detrimental to
Scotland’s world-renowned higher education sector, which is
currently worth over £6 billion annually to our economy.
-
Ms Ritchie
The hon. Lady will be well aware that Northern Ireland,
where both education and higher education are devolved,
does not have any political authority at the moment due to
the lack of political institutions being up and running.
That is particularly damaging for us, with Brexit looming,
because our universities rely on EU migrants both for their
teaching and student populations. Does she agree that the
resolution of both issues is needed to ensure that further
and higher education continue to be the pumps that fuel the
local economy?
-
SNP Members have of course been consistent in our calls for
EU workers and EU students, both in universities and in our
local communities, to be given the assurances they need.
This is not about them getting assurances that they are
allowed to stay; it is about them getting assurances that
they are welcome to stay and that we appreciate the
contribution they make.
We agree with subsection (4) in Lords amendment 23 that any
assessment system should not be used to create a single
composite ranking of higher education providers, which
would skew prospective students’ opinions about whether to
attend a particular institution. Scottish higher education
already has its own quality assessment process, which
includes inputs not just from students, but from teaching
professionals across the sector. The enhancement-led
institutional review is highly regarded, and we would not
want a UK-wide system to replace or threaten Scotland’s
current system. The UK Government do not have any
jurisdiction over the Scottish HE sector, and therefore the
Secretary of State alone should not be creating an
assessment system for Scottish education. We are looking
for assurances that the Scottish Government will be allowed
to play a full part in the development of any system that
could be made to apply, without full consultation, to
higher education in Scotland.
On Lords amendment 156, it is positive to hear the
Government reiterating their commitment that there are no
limits on international student numbers. However, the
Government’s amendments in lieu, which place a duty on
higher education institutions to publish information
relating to international students, do not go far enough to
allow this sector to thrive. Current immigration policy
poses a significant risk to Scottish universities, and we
are losing out to key competitors in attracting
international students.
-
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her hard work on the
Bill. Picking up on what she said about Scottish
universities, Heriot-Watt University in my constituency,
which has an outstanding international reputation,
particularly in the fields of science and technology,
recently announced cuts and redundancies. It specifically
cited the Brexit effect, the Government’s immigration
policies and the Government’s messaging on immigration.
Does she agree that without Lords amendment 156, UK
universities will continue to suffer adverse effects as a
result of Brexit, the Government’s immigration policy, the
ridiculous inclusion of international students in the net
migration figures and the lack of protection for university
staff from the strict immigration controls?
-
My hon. and learned Friend speaks passionately about her
constituency and Heriot-Watt University, but the picture
she has painted of Heriot-Watt could be applied to any of
our universities. They are all feeling those effects very
strongly at the moment. This is not so much the case with
established professors, but students and early career
researchers are extremely mobile. When they move, we could
potentially lose our position in the university world
rankings.
Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that
Scotland saw a 2% increase in non-EU international entrants
in the academic year 2014-15, compared with 2013-14. There
was an increase in the number of entrants from some
countries, including India, Pakistan and Nigeria. Although
we welcome those slight increases, there remains a
significant fall in the number of entrants from those
countries since the academic year 2010-11. The number of
Indian students has reduced by 59% since 2011, which is
causing devastation across the sector. In comparison,
between 2012-13 and 2013-14, the number of international
students in higher education in Canada increased by 11%. It
is able to capitalise on this market, which we are failing
to do.
-
I visited Canada recently with a parliamentary delegation
from the Scottish National party. Does my hon. Friend agree
that Canada’s immigration policies, which encourage people
to come to Canada and stay to contribute to the Canadian
economy, could be a great model for the UK, rather than the
very narrow path that the Government are intent on going
down?
-
Absolutely. The UK is becoming an increasingly hostile
environment for international students and they are being
enticed to competitor countries with the promise of a more
attractive route to post-study work options.
In Scotland, international students make an important
contribution to the economy. The UK Government have focused
their migration policy on control, rather than having
effective policies that allow for flexibility and support
in the area of migration. The loss of the post-study work
visa is a blow to many students, but also to our local
economy, which is missing out on those skilled people.
-
Mr (Coventry South)
(Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and apologise for
coming in during her speech. International students are
worth something like £7 billion to the economy. We have two
very successful universities in Coventry and Warwick.
-
In Scotland, the value is estimated to be £1 billion
annually, so it is very significant. That is something we
need to consider. There are not only benefits to our
economy, but benefits to our community, such as the
diversity that international students bring.
We call on the UK Government to take international students
out of the net migration target. We look forward to seeing
that in the next Queen’s speech. As the UK leaves the EU, I
assume that EU students will be classified as international
students. The effects of Brexit on Scotland’s world-class
universities and research institutes cannot be ignored. If
we do not get the immigration policy right, long-term
damage will be done to our vital HE sector and the wider
economy. As was pointed out earlier by my friend the hon.
Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), we need guarantees for
EU nationals, both those working in higher education and
prospective students at our universities.
Our problem in Scotland has always been emigration, not
immigration. It is time for the Government to face the
facts and take international students out of the net
migration target. We need skilled people, and I hope very
much that the Government will take a serious look at
Scotland’s needs when considering future immigration
policies. It is great to see that the Minister for
Immigration is present; I hope that he has listened to some
of the points that have been made today by Members on both
sides of the House.
I understand that Lords amendments 229 to 240, which relate
to schedule 9, have not been selected for debate, but I
hope that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research
and Innovation, if he is re-elected—or, indeed, the
Department for Education—will clarify the role of UK
Research and Innovation’s executive committee and its
impact on research priorities. We will seek assurances that
the committee will not prove detrimental to Scottish
institutions by removing funding streams or allowing a
large number of research priorities—and, therefore,
funding—to stay in England.
SNP Members tabled a number of amendments in Committee and
on Report. In particular, we wanted the devolved nations to
be represented on the board of the UKRI to ensure that
consideration would be given to research priorities
throughout the United Kingdom. When we return, we will seek
clarification on the composition of the board and
assurances about the impartiality of board members.
Higher education is at a crossroads, and the United Kingdom
is at a crossroads. I hope the path that we choose to take,
both today and in the weeks, months and years to come, will
protect this vital sector of the Scottish and the UK
economies. It is important to all our futures that we get
it right.
-
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow
North West (Carol Monaghan). She made a number of points of
principle with which I have a great deal of sympathy,
especially about the long-term indications for our getting
immigration policy right for our institutes of higher
education.
Let me take this opportunity to praise my hon. Friend the
Minister for Universities, Science, Research and
Innovation. In the best of circumstances, this Bill would
have required deft handling, compassion, understanding and
compromise to resolve the issues in not just this House but
the other place. Moreover, given the truncated procedure
that has become necessary, the fact that we have reached
this point is, I think, due to my hon. Friend’s significant
abilities and dexterity in the management of different
interests.
It is also a great pleasure to see that my hon. Friend the
Minister for Immigration is in the Chamber—I can be nicer
to him today. I will say of him that he is a true man of
Yorkshire. I know that the principles of securing our
borders and ensuring that the systems work effectively is
at the core of everything that he has done as Immigration
Minister, and those two great points of view have come
together in amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords
amendment 156.
I support the Government amendments, because although I
personally believe, like the hon. Member for Glasgow North
West, that the long-term goal should be to exclude student
numbers from the immigration statistics, I also think that
we need precision first. The truth is that many of our
immigration statistics are represented on sample sets.
Information about immigration may be available to the Home
Office in very specific circumstances, but out there in the
great blue yonder—trust me, it is a great blue yonder—there
will be a lot of misunderstanding about what immigration
really is.
People have a very sensitive understanding of different
types of immigration. We should not treat immigration as a
single clump, because that is not how the population think
of it. People understand that it can be good for the
country, particularly when it comes to the transfer of
skills and the transfer of people who will contribute in
the long term to the economic vitality of our country. In
that context, I think that the Government’s proposal is
worthy of support, because it will establish a structure
within which we can secure precision and that will be
understood not only by the Government, but by the
institutes of higher education. I think that that would
provide a firmer basis for the future direction of the
control of student immigration numbers that we seek.
-
Mr
I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but
including student numbers in the statistics totally
distorts the true immigration figures. People therefore get
the wrong impression about immigration, and that causes
confusion.
4.45 pm
-
The hon. Gentleman is both right and wrong. It is a bit of
a stretch to say that the student numbers distort the
overall immigration numbers, because the net implication of
student migration is quite small, but his comment about the
signal that this sends takes us to the point. As I said in
an intervention on the Minister, there is a conundrum—an
illogical position—when we include within a number that we
wish to control a number that we do not wish to control.
That epitomises the tension that exists as we wrestle with
the way in which we communicate our message about
immigration. What the British public want, of course, is a
Government who are prepared and able to control migration
in total, as this Government are, but I would hope that the
Government also want to send a signal to the rest of the
world that we are open for people to come here and study
hard at our universities. While student numbers are
included in the immigration statistics, the problem for our
institutions of higher learning is that instead of having a
green light, they have, at best, an amber light. They are
always going to be looking over their shoulder and trying
to work out if they are pushing things too far or have
really kept themselves within the goal of the Government.
At some point—practically speaking in the next Parliament,
when the institution frameworks that the Government are
putting in place have had time to bed in—we should look
again at taking out the student numbers, because ultimately
they should not be in the immigration figures. However,
this proposal is a good way of getting precision for now.
The second reason why this compromise is important is
perhaps more of a point of philosophy about the
Conservative party. The party is at its best when it looks
towards the light. In politics there are things that
inspire us and move us forward, and there are things that
make us fearful and cautious. That light can be on issues
of trade and enterprise, of acceptance of culture and
diversity, or of research and learning.
The Conservative party must ensure that it will be pointing
towards the light in the next few years. By the very nature
of the name of our party—Conservative—we do not always get
there first, but it is surely to the benefit of our country
as a whole that we always have a positive view about what
our country represents. We are a beacon for many around the
world who are finding that their freedoms—perhaps their
social freedoms or their freedom of expression—are
restricted, so there is a responsibility on our party to
look at the issue, particularly in relation to our
world-class universities, and to say that the next
Conservative Administration will be looking towards the
light and making ourselves an open and international
country, because that is where the best interests of our
country lie.
-
I am delighted to be in the Chamber for the conclusion of
proceedings on the Higher Education and Research Bill,
having been involved in the Public Bill Committee. We might
not be entirely confident about the contents of the Bill,
but we can say with absolute confidence that it is in a
better shape than it would have been were it not for that
Committee and the Bill’s consideration in the other place.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Shakira
Martin on her election as president of the National Union
of Students. The NUS and students unions can be proud of
their contribution to the debate about the Bill, and the
Bill is better for it.
In considering the Bill, I have taken a particular interest
in the question of student voice and student
representation. That issue is close to my heart, and it is
particularly important in the light of where higher
education finds itself today. We have not addressed in this
debate the fact that UK universities are now the most
expensive in the world. Students at UK universities are
graduating with higher levels of debt than those anywhere
else in the world. It is a disgrace that in the past two
years we have seen maintenance grants for the poorest
students abolished and the scrapping of the NHS bursary to
support student nurses, midwives and allied health
professionals. We have also seen a nosedive in the number
of students applying to study nursing. Thanks to the
decisions taken by this Government, many people who are
working in our national health service—and in other areas,
including our universities—are wondering whether the UK is
really the place for them to work, even though they make an
extraordinary contribution to our civic, economic, social
and political life.
As we enter the election process, I hope that we will bear
in mind the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is a constant source
of frustration to me that although young people often have
more at stake in an election or referendum than anyone
else, because they are the people who are stuck with the
consequences for the longest period of time, they are the
least likely to turn out and vote. My message to them, as
they look at what Conservative-led Governments have done
over the past seven years, is that their future is on the
ballot paper. We have seen a trebling of university tuition
fees, and the abolition of grants for the poorest students
and of the education maintenance allowance, which supported
the poorest students through sixth form and college. Those
are not policies that champion the ambitions and
aspirations of young people in this country, but policies
that seek to cap those aspirations.
International students make an enormous social and academic
contribution to our universities, as well as an enormous
economic contribution, generating some £26 billion for our
economy. They also provide long-term soft power benefits to
the UK. It is unfair to criticise the Minister in this
regard, but it is a constant source of astonishment to me
that, despite all that, we have a Prime Minister who is so
short-sighted and narrow-minded in her world view that she
cannot see either the short-term or long-term benefits of
welcoming people from across the world to work and study in
our universities. If she had understood that, she would
have not only followed the advice of Ministers around her
Cabinet table and Opposition MPs, but listened to public
opinion, because the majority of members of the public
understand the contribution that international students and
staff make to our universities. I do not know why the Prime
Minister does not understand it.
I very much look forward to debating such issues over the
next six weeks. I hope that every young person in this
country, whoever they choose to cast their vote for, will
recognise that when young people do not turn out to vote
and make their voice heard, other people will make
decisions for them, and those decisions are often not in
their interests. Every young voter in this country should
bear that in mind on 8 June.
-
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, although I regret
the fact that this Bill has been caught in the wash-up,
because we would have had a better and more structured
opportunity to discuss these Lords amendments if we had had
more time. I pay tribute to the many Members of the other
place who have contributed so much during their
consideration of the Bill.
I welcome a number of the concessions that the Government
have made, especially by accepting an independent review of
the teaching excellence framework, although big questions
remain about the metrics and the process involved. In
previous debates, people have often cited the research
excellence framework as a model for the TEF, saying that if
that model worked for research, there was no reason why it
should not work for teaching. That principle is right, but
it took many years to develop the REF into its current
form. A real fear was expressed in Committee, as well as in
the Chamber, that we were rushing into a TEF in a way that
could create unintended consequences. The idea of an
independent review and the way in which that has been
framed are welcome.
I am grateful for the concessions that were made in the
Lords on strengthening the role of the Director of Fair
Access, which I talked about in Committee. I am also
grateful to the Home Secretary for responding to points
that we discussed in Committee about extending to refugees
who had been granted humanitarian protection the
opportunity to access higher education as though they had
been granted refugee status. I recognise that that the
group does not capture everyone, but it was a significant
move by the Home Secretary.
On voter registration, in which I have become boringly
engaged over many years—
-
No.
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman for disagreeing with me. This
measure is a step in the right direction, but we will find
that it will not go far enough unless we embed electoral
registration seamlessly within university enrolment
procedures. For many reasons, I hope we can continue to
work on that together in the next Parliament.
I welcome the strengthening of provisions on
degree-awarding powers, but I retain one concern—the
Minister might wish to cover this either in an intervention
or in his concluding remarks—about the transfer of
ownership. I heard his comment that the Office for Students
will be expected to review degree-awarding powers when
there is a transfer of ownership, but I am concerned about
the nature of that review if ownership is transferred to an
organisation that has no track record as a provider. In
those circumstances, will we effectively press the reset
button and have a comprehensive review as if we were
talking about a new provider? I would be grateful if the
Minister responded to that point.
Having said all that, I am bitterly disappointed that there
has been insufficient movement on the issue of
international students, and I say that as co-chair of the
all-party group on international students—I share that job
with . My disappointment is
evidently shared by Conservative Members. In his typically
incisive way, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller),
who was a great colleague on the Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy Committee, put his finger on the
contradiction in the Government’s current position very
effectively. I was pleased to hear his subsequent
contribution on the issue.
The hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) has been a great
colleague during his short time in Parliament so far, and I
have been delighted to work with him on the all-party
group. He has been a great advocate for higher education
and students, and he has done sterling work on championing
the cause of international students.
My concern and disappointment crosses the House, and I know
that the Minister will share my disappointment—he is not
alone. From what we hear, the majority of the Cabinet share
my disappointment. It is No. 10 that is saying no. Frankly,
this is madness. The Government are shooting themselves in
the foot. Just when we need to be building on our country’s
success, the Government are torpedoing it.
Lords amendment 156 was thoughtfully drafted by , who made it clear
that it would take international students out of
consideration as long-term migrants for public policy
purposes. The Minister said that we have to count
international students. The Government often cite the
United States, where the Census Bureau counts international
students, but the Department of Homeland Security, which is
responsible for public policy on migration, does not treat
them as migrants. That is the model we are looking for, and
it is the model embedded in Lords amendment 156. If the
amendment were agreed to, it would enable growth, generate
earnings and create jobs in towns and cities across the
country. The regional dimension is important, because the
distribution of our universities across the regions and
nations of the United Kingdom means that when universities
succeed, that success is shared, quite uniquely, across the
country.
We do not want to reduce the debate about international
students to simple economics. International students enrich
the learning environment of our campuses.
-
Ms Ritchie
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these international
students add to the scholarly, research and investigative
processes undertaken by universities in terms of academic
freedom and the richness of our society?
5.00 pm
-
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She pre-empts me
perfectly, because that was the point I was coming to. We are
talking not simply about an extraordinary opportunity in an
ever-smaller world for UK students to learn and study
alongside those from many other countries, but about the
contribution to research. I see that not only from our
universities, but from my local businesses that benefit in
Sheffield, and it is of huge importance.
To that list we should add the enormous benefits of the
lasting relationships we build with those who study in this
country. Last year I was talking to the high commissioner of
a country that is one of our major trading partners and an
important ally. He said to me, “Do you realise that more than
half our Cabinet were educated at UK universities?” According
to the Higher Education Policy Institute, 55 world leaders
from 51 countries studied here. That is the sort of soft
power that other countries would die for—political influence
and commercial contracts based on the affection that people
feel around the world because of their experience of studying
in the UK.
All those things are in addition to economic benefits—almost
£11 billion of export earnings. One would imagine that the
Government would be celebrating that great British success
and trying make it stronger, but that is not the case.
Throughout the last Parliament, to growing concern, the
Government undermined our ability to keep up on international
student recruitment. The Minister contests that claim and
says that the numbers have stayed broadly level. I agree that
largely they did—they dip off, and I will return to that
point—but staying level in a growing market represents a
failure. Holding level is not good enough when it means that
we are reducing our market share, to the benefit of our
competitors. As I said earlier, in 2014-15, the latest year
for which numbers are available, new international student
enrolments fell by 3%. He says that these things go up and
down, but we can contrast that figure with the position in
the United States, which has the biggest share of
international students and where enrolments increased by 7%.
The situation is also in contrast with what is happening in
Australia, where enrolments increased by 35%. Seeing our
weakness, it put in place a strategy that was deliberately
designed to take students from the UK. Canada is also
planning to double its numbers, all at our expense.
Throughout the last Parliament, new measures introduced by
the Government made the UK a less attractive destination.
Those measures were put in place to help the Government to
hit their net migration targets, and this is why the point
made by the hon. Member for Bedford is so relevant. The
problem is that the Government view international students as
part of the migration debate, but that is not how the public
see them. As he said, polls show that 75% of the public want
international student numbers to stay the same or go up. It
is also not the way this place sees them, because in the last
Parliament an unprecedented five Select Committees of the
House of Commons and the House of Lords called for change and
for taking international students out of the net migration
targets. These are challenging times for our country as we
chart our course in the post-Brexit world. We need to win
friends, not alienate them. As the Prime Minister’s trade
mission to India last year demonstrated, many of those
friends will put access to our universities at the heart of
their discussion about our future trading relationships. We
need to build on our successful sectors.
In terms of export earnings, universities are a huge success,
but that is put at risk by Brexit. This is about not just the
125,000 EU students who are here, but the 30% of non-EU
students who said that the UK would be a less attractive
destination if we left the EU. We face losing up to half our
international students if we do not get this right, and that
will have an impact on the economy of every town and city
across the country that has a university. As the Minister
knows, it puts at risk critical courses, particularly in STEM
subjects at a postgraduate taught level, which depend on
numbers of international students.
A sensible Government and Prime Minister would look at those
facts and say, “How can we strengthen our appeal to
international students?” While our competitors are doing just
that by developing recruitment strategies to win more
students, the Prime Minister is saying no. There is no other
sector in our economy that the Government would treat this
way. The die is cast for this Bill but, as the hon. Member
for Bath said, Members on both sides of the House will ensure
that this issue will return in the next Parliament.
Ultimately, common sense will prevail.
-
With the leave of the House, I wish to say a few words of
thanks to Members and others for their contribution to the
development of the Bill and, most pertinently for this
afternoon’s purposes, for the insightful points made during
this debate. We have heard agreement that the Bill is an
important one that has been carefully developed through
dialogue on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in the
other place, as well as through the extensive consultations
dating back to the initial Green Paper in November 2015. It
has benefited tremendously from thoughtful input from
experts, reviews and independent reports. It was introduced
right at the beginning of this parliamentary Session—perhaps
even on its very first day—and it will still be going strong
on its last day, so it is fair to say that no opportunity to
scrutinise it has been missed. I am pleased that both sides
of the House recognise that today’s amendments will
strengthen the legislation still further.
I shall address briefly some of the questions asked during
the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol
Monaghan) asked about the role of the independent review with
respect to the TEF. The independent reviewer will consider
the devolved Administration providers as part of the review.
The Bill will allow the devolved Administrations to continue
to decide whether they wish to allow their providers to
participate. She also asked about UKRI’s executive committee.
As UKRI is established, we will work closely with the
devolved Administrations to ensure that the UK’s research and
innovation base remains one of the most productive in the
world. I can confirm that we amended the Bill on Report to
require the Secretary of State to have regard to experience
of working in the devolved Administrations when appointing
the UKRI board. The executive committee is, though, an
internal management committee for UKRI.
The hon. Lady also asked about post-study work for
international students, a subject on which many Members
focused. I reiterate that there is no limit to the number of
international students graduating from UK universities who
can move into skilled jobs in the UK. They do not count
against the tier-2 limit and, actually, numbers have been
rising year on year for the past three years.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked
about the transfer of ownership of degree-awarding powers.
The answer is that, yes, should a provider with no track
record buy a provider with degree-awarding powers, a full
review of the provider’s continuing eligibility for
degree-awarding powers would be undertaken.
I thank the Members who have given such time and so much
energy during the many hours of debate we have had. I
particularly thank the members of the public Bill Committee,
which sat in the autumn, and pay tribute to the Opposition
Members involved, especially the hon. Member for Blackpool
South (Gordon Marsden).
-
The Minister will recognise that on such occasions certain
things have to be said, and said forcefully, but I put on
record how courteous he has been to me and the rest of our
team.
-
I am grateful for that. It has been a pleasure to work with
the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, including the hon.
Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I also pay
tribute to the devolved Administrations who have played a
full part in the scrutiny of this Bill, especially the
members of the Scottish National party, including the hon.
Member for Glasgow North West who has been tireless in her
scrutiny of the measures.
The other place has excelled itself, with extensive and very
thoughtful debate on this legislation. I thank all those who
have given their time and energy to this Bill, including the
very large number of highly distinguished academics, former
Ministers and those who have extensive experience of the
university and research sectors in the other place. Their
passion for the sector has been clear to all those who have
followed these proceedings.
I also add my thanks to those more widely in the sector,
including the two main representative bodies, Universities UK
and GuildHE, which have given their time in abundance to
ensure that the sector’s views have been fully heard and
understood and reflected in this legislation. That explains
why they have repeatedly expressed their support for passing
this Bill into legislation.
There is absolute agreement on the importance of our world
class HE sector and our globally leading research. I am
pleased that we in this House have agreed a Bill that finally
fits this important sector for the 21st century, putting
students, choice, value for money and global competitiveness
centre stage.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (d) made in lieu of Lords
amendment 1.
Lords amendments 2 to 11 agreed to.
Lords amendments 12, 209 and 210 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (g) made in lieu of Lords
amendments 12, 209 and 210.
Lords amendments 13 and 14 agreed to.
Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords
amendment 15.
Lords amendments 16 to 22 agreed to.
Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords
amendment 23.
Lords amendments 24 to 70 agreed to.
Lords amendment 71 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 71.
Lords amendments 72 to 77 agreed to.
Lords amendments 78 and 106 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (h) made in lieu of Lords
amendments 78 and 106.
Lords amendments 79 to 105 and 107 to 155 agreed to, with
Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords
amendments 138 and 139.
Lords amendment 156 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords
amendment 156.
Lords amendments 157 to 182 agreed to.
Lords amendments 183 to 185 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 186 to 208 and 211 to 244 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to
be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments
183 to 185.
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee.
That be the Chair of the
Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrew
Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
