Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria were used to
determine the award to Capita of the contract to administer the
Turing scheme after March 2022.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, the procurement was run in line with Cabinet Office
rules and bids were evaluated on the answers to four questions
relating to quality and social value, compliance with a range of
financial and corporate information tests and the cost of the
service. Scores were moderated and weighted in line with the
published evaluation model. Capita received the highest overall
score and provided the best plan to administer opportunities for
students to study and work abroad.
(CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the significant disquiet
within the HE sector about this contract, notably from the
University and College Union and the University Council of Modern
Languages, on the grounds that Capita has a track record of
failure on a range of other government contracts? The criteria
listed by the Minister do not convince me that due diligence
adequately covered the kind of experience and networks across the
sector needed to run the scheme, rather than just being a cheaper
alternative to the all-round stature and experience of the
British Council. What mechanisms are in place to ensure quality
assurance in the Capita contract?
(Con)
I am happy to try to reassure the noble Baroness. We are
confident that Capita has the capacity and the skills to
administer the Turing scheme. The delivery of the scheme is a
major DfE project and therefore subject to best-practice project
management principles. We have a dedicated delivery management
team that will work with Capita to make sure it is fulfilling its
contractual obligations. Looking at the quality aspects relating
to the scheme itself, there are performance metrics and financial
incentives around the key milestones to make sure that it
delivers a good service.
(Lab)
Capita may have been the lowest cost, but what experience does it
have of higher education and international student exchange? How
many fewer students do the Government expect to go to the EU as a
result of this change from the Erasmus scheme? In addition to
that, should we not see this in the context of the Government
seeking to reduce ties with the EU?
(Con)
Capita is administering the grants in relation to the scheme, and
it has huge experience of that. It works with 21,000 schools,
with almost all local authorities and closely with the Department
for Education. If I may say so, the scheme is intentionally
offering more opportunities to disadvantaged children who want to
go to countries where they do not have to speak a foreign
language. Over 60% of applications are for outside the EU.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that there is
considerable disquiet that Turing is not an adequate replacement
for Erasmus? It is not reciprocal in the same way, there is no
guarantee that we will receive a large stream of students from
abroad, and it is more indicative of insular Britain than of
global Britain.
(Con)
I absolutely cannot accept what my noble friend suggests. We have
had over 41,000 applications for the scheme this year. That
compares with around 16,500 under Erasmus+ in 2019-20.
Forty-eight per cent of those placements are from students from
disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to 37% under Erasmus. We are
aiming for global Britain and this reflects it.
The (CB)
My Lords, a huge concern is that Turing does not pay for tuition
fees. What assessment have the Government made of provision
within the 120 countries participating in Erasmus, since why
would such providers accept UK students when Erasmus will cover
the fees for those institutions?
(Con)
The noble Earl is right to raise the issue of tuition fees, but I
am sure he is aware that even under Erasmus+ half of mobility
placements were outside Erasmus+. Judging by the incredible
success of our universities announced yesterday, with 605,000
international students coming to our universities—a ratio of two
to one of in-placements to out under Erasmus—I do not think it is
our top concern.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the APPG for
modern and foreign languages. Removing the Turing scheme from the
British Council, which has a global reach and reputation, is
questionable. Awarding it to Capita, whose list of public sector
failures in England is extensive, is frankly incredible. How does
the Minister justify this decision? Is it based on an ideology
that, axiomatically for her, “public sector bad, private sector
good”, even in the face of evidence to the contrary?
(Con)
No, I tried to set out at the beginning how the decision was
taken but I can give the noble Baroness more detail. The criteria
for appointing the new provider were based 70% on quality and 30%
on cost. Within that 70%, 10% was in relation to social value and
Capita came out as the stronger provider on both counts.
(Con)
My noble friend touched on the extent to which disadvantaged
pupils are benefiting from the scheme. Are there any further
details that she can give the House?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. As I mentioned, 48% of
applications have come from students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. We have made it a great focus of the scheme and its
promotion geographically has tried to reach communities that have
not previously participated as strongly in these kinds of
international exchanges. We are making sure that the nature of
the placements and the financial model to support them
particularly encourage disadvantaged students.
(CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recognise that this issue
of a lack of reciprocity and places for overseas—not just
European—students in British universities is a serious failing of
the Turing scheme? The figures she gives are not very convincing
because we have always taken in more students to our excellent
higher education sector than we have sent to others, so that is
nothing new.
(Con)
I can only repeat for the noble Lord that funding has been made
available this year for over 41,000 placements. I appreciate that
they are not all comparable in scale to the previous ones but
41,000 young people will access this scheme, compared to 16,596
under Erasmus. I leave the House to judge.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is talking about how well the Turing
scheme started. She omitted to tell the House that the British
Council in fact set the scheme up and ran it for the first year
of its operation, having previously run Erasmus+. It has
absolutely unparalleled international contacts and networks, and
an understanding of student exchange. Is the Minister remotely
worried that it has taken one cut in funding after another? Does
she have any reservations about prioritising short-term savings
over supporting a major public institution, which is part of our
soft power around the world?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to pick me up on not
having acknowledged the British Council’s role in the set-up of
the scheme. We are very grateful to it, as we are for the way
that it and the new provider are working together to ensure a
seamless transition. The international network is less relevant
to this contract because it is about grant administration. It is
up to the institutions participating in the scheme to make those
international links.
(Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend not astonished that many of the
people now carping about how the scheme is run, even though it
has delivered two-and-a-half times more people, were not so long
ago telling us that if Erasmus disappeared there would be no
opportunities at all? Does she not get a bit tired of those
people still fighting old battles?
(Con)
I cannot comment on my noble friend’s final point but it is
important that we look at the data and the evidence of what
happens. As my noble friend has pointed out, the evidence is
extremely encouraging.
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Government guarantee adequate funding for
Turing beyond the 2022-23 academic year?
(Con)
I have stated that the Turing scheme is extremely important. It
is a real priority for us; obviously, we will look at future
funding as part of future SR agreements.
