Higher Education and Research Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

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

See the explanatory statement for amendment 101.

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

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

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

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

““relevant supported higher education provider” means—

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

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

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

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57

Power to require information from unregistered providers

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

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

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I believe that clauses 56 to 59 have been certified under the English votes for English laws procedure. Are you able to shed any light on that?

[The Chair]

I am told that the EVEL certificate is published on the Bill website. The Clerk’s advice is that it is not a matter for the Committee. I hope that that is satisfactory. I always try to satisfy the hon. Lady if I can.

[Carol Monaghan]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I understand that clauses 56 to 59 have been certified under EVEL, so I think it is best that I remove myself from the room and return later when other clauses are being discussed.

[The Chair]

I am told that the hon. Lady does not need to remove herself, but it is entirely up to her. She is very welcome to stay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I am trying to keep up, but I am not sure I understood all of that. On the regulation of a new provider that could be higher risk than a more established university or higher education provider, something was mentioned about the matter depending on the size of the institution. Will there be a risk element associated with that in terms of the fees the institution has to pay?

Higher Education and Research Bill (Ninth sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

[Joseph Johnson]

I am delighted to move these amendments. One of the strengths of our higher education sector is the way it operates across the whole UK. Though education is devolved, that has not stopped us working together for the benefit of all. This is no different for the TEF. My officials and I are working closely with our counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we have set out in our White Paper that that has led to higher education providers across the whole UK being able to participate in the first year of the TEF. We have had positive discussions with the HE sectors themselves to ensure that year 2 of the TEF takes account of the different approaches in each nation and ensures that every provider is assessed on a level playing field. I am delighted that all three of the devolved Administrations have now confirmed that their providers will be allowed to take part in year 2 of the TEF if they so wish.

As Alastair Sim of Universities Scotland said, when giving evidence to the Committee,

“the engagement with the Department for Education has been constructive and creative about how the metrics of the TEF might be configured in ways that take account of Scottish interests.” —[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 67, Q103.]

These amendments allow that kind of collaboration to continue so the OFS can, subject to the consent of the relevant devolved Government, receive applications for TEF assessments from providers across the UK. Amendments 37, 40, 112 and 113 will enable Ministers in the devolved Governments to decide whether to opt in or out of the TEF scheme. Even if a devolved Minister gives their consent, participation in TEF will remain voluntary for individual providers, as it is in England.

I am keen to address the points made in the evidence sessions about the need for the TEF to recognise the distinctive approaches to higher education across the UK, and we have ensured that the devolved nations are fully represented in the governance structure for the TEF going forward. Amendments 41 and 108 ensure we are using the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish definitions of “higher education course” for the purposes of the TEF. Amendment 109 amends clause 80 so that, where Welsh Ministers exercise their existing powers to set maximum fee loans in Wales, they can do so by reference to matters outside of regulations. That could be the list of providers and their relevant tuition fee limits, based on their TEF ratings, which will be published by the OFS.

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

I will raise some of the issues and concerns that Scottish institutions have with the TEF. The Minister has rightly said that Scottish institutions now have the ability to participate in the TEF, but Scottish institutions already have their own quality assurance under the enhancement-led institutional review. That is a collaborative quality assessment that looks at improving standards across the board, whereas the metrics within the TEF at the moment seem to lower standards somewhat. The problem that Scottish institutes have if they do not participate in the TEF is that when they compete in the international market students can look at somewhere with a high TEF rating and compare it with Scottish universities that might not have participated. If some do and some do not, there is a two-tier process.

We would look for some benchmarking of Scotland’s quality assurance against the TEF, so that institutions that choose to participate in the TEF do not disadvantage others or do not have to undergo a double level of quality assurance. We ask that the enhancement-led institutional review should be recognised as meeting the requirements of TEF year 1, to avoid any detriment to Scottish higher education.

[Joseph Johnson]

Let me reiterate that these amendments provide enabling powers for the OFS to run a TEF scheme that includes higher education providers across the UK subject, as I said, to the consent of Ministers in those Administrations. I am delighted that my devolved counterparts have agreed that they are content to allow their providers to participate in TEF in year 2. We welcome the commitment of Scottish Ministers to allow their universities—their higher education institutions—to participate if they wish to do so. We certainly take on board all the points made by the hon. Lady.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of sense. There is also a danger that university courses that are tougher or potentially tougher could be dropped because they would have student leakage. I am talking particularly about science, technology engineering and maths subjects, such as physics, where there are great shortages. We should be protecting against anything that causes losses in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady knows that I completely agree that the metrics should be developed over time. We have heard on many occasions the teaching excellence framework compared with the research excellence framework. Getting the REF right has taken several years. My concern—shared by the Select Committee, I think—is that we should not blunder into a scheme that will measure universities inaccurately when it is such an important flagship for the Government’s policies. I also agree that there is a basket of metrics, but the Government’s focus in all their publications and all the commentary has been on just three. I was simply highlighting the concerns that I think she will agree the Select Committee had about those three, which are at the heart of the basket.

The third metric, of course, is the national student survey. I will say at the outset that I think the NSS has been an extremely positive tool to engage universities in focusing on teaching quality, and I think it is fine to build on it in many ways. For example, universities’ consistently poor rating for assessment and feedback in the NSS has led to real change in the relationship between teachers and students. The NSS itself is quite positive, but in the Committee we heard clearly that there is, as I think everyone in the room would recognise, a difference between measuring general satisfaction and measuring teaching quality. There is a difference between the satisfaction of students and knowing confidently that they are well taught.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. As a former teacher, I know well that what comes back in such surveys can often be personality driven and has no bearing on the quality of teaching. We have to look at student satisfaction with a degree of caution.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady is right. As we all know from our university days and school days, there can be a huge difference between enjoying a class—having a great time with a particular teacher and liking that person enormously—and being well taught.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

No, I am not giving way, thank you very much. We believe that the TEF has the potential to enhance the reputation of UK higher education.

[Carol Monaghan]

Does the Minister understand the difficulty faced by HE providers in the devolved Administrations? They are now in a difficult situation whereby if they participate in the TEF, they have to go through two different systems of quality assurance, but if they do not participate in the TEF, they have no badge so they will be disadvantaged in the international market. They have been placed in a difficult position.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to speak exactly to her points about how the TEF will work in Scotland and in the other devolved Administrations. It is right that HE providers across the whole UK have access to the TEF and the benefits that it will bring. I am delighted that my devolved Administration counterparts have confirmed that they will allow their providers to participate in TEF should they wish to.

I appreciate that how the sectors operate in the devolved Administrations differs from how the sector operates in England. It is crucial that the TEF takes into account those differences so as to recognise excellence in teaching in whatever form it takes. To that end, officials in the Department for Education have been working closely with officials in the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations. Our officials met with representatives of the Scottish HE sector in June and August.

I remind the hon. Lady of what Alastair Sim said in his evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago, when he noted that

“engagement with the Department for Education has been constructive and creative about how the metrics of the TEF might be configured in ways that take account of Scottish interests.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 67, Q103.]

The TEF framework for year 2, which was published on 29 September, was been adjusted to ensure that it can fairly assess the distinctive nature of HE provision in each of the four nations of the UK. That will allow the TEF to operate fairly across the UK, something the whole sector was keen to see.

I feel I have addressed the substance of the points raised, and I therefore ask the Committee to support the clause.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Of course the team that carries out the reviews in Scotland—the enhancement-led approach—is a team of six reviewers, including one international reviewer, three senior UK-based academics, one co-ordinating reviewer and one student. Should we be looking to Scotland here?

[Wes Streeting]

I have long admired the quality enhancement approach of the Scottish higher education system and think the Scottish higher education sector has often led the way on student engagement in the quality enhancement process. The committee for QAA Scotland includes the head of Student Partnerships in Quality Scotland, the organisation that brings the sector together with student representatives to look at quality enhancement, and it does address the concern.

I have heard in some quarters—this comes to the point the hon. Member for Bath was trying to make in the Chamber yesterday—the argument that if there are students on the board of an institution, that somehow diminishes the need to engage students elsewhere within the institution. In the Quality Assurance Agency, there are two student representatives on the board, there are students represented elsewhere on committees in it, there is a whole committee dedicated to student engagement, and there are students involved in quality assessment as part of institutional review teams—not just in Scotland but in England as well, following the Scottish lead. That is a great model because the QAA has recognised, both in principle and through the benefit of experience, that involving students in a meaningful way in the quality assurance process has benefits for everyone. The student voice has to be involved and engaged. It is critical for helping to measure quality and making sure students get what they are promised.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Tenth sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling the amendment. It touches on a subject to which we are giving much careful thought, as I indicated when we discussed it briefly earlier in our proceedings.

Supporting students who wish to switch to another higher education institution or degree is an important part of our reforms. It is vital that we make faster progress in this area, and I share the general sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It is disappointing that we have not managed to put in place an effective mechanism of the sort proposed up until this point. The sector can do more to offer flexible study options to meet students’ diverse needs, and it can do more to support social mobility by doing so.

There is an obvious link between withdrawal rates and students not being able to transfer between providers. The amendment refers to a credit rating service. Although we want to enable credit transfer, we want to do so in a context of institutional autonomy, which is crucial to the reputation and vibrancy of UK higher education. We want to avoid a universal approach that undermines that by inadvertently homogenising or standardising provision, which would risk the loss of the great diversity that is one of the key strengths of our sector.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Government called for evidence on credit transfer and accelerated degrees. We were pleased to receive more than 4,500 responses and we are in the process of analysing all of those carefully. There are a number of issues that we need to consider before moving forward, including the extent of student demand and awareness of the issue, the funding implications that the hon. Gentleman touched on, and external regulatory requirements. We expect to come forward by the end of the year with our response to the results of the call for evidence that we have conducted.

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

I can see another issue if we use student retention as one of the metrics of the teaching excellence framework. If students change institutions, will that be taken into account? Will leeway be given to institutions that allow students to transfer credit?

[Joseph Johnson]

That is an important point that the TEF panel assessors will take into account. It has been factored into the development of the teaching excellence framework metric, but that is obviously an important point to bear in mind.

Although I understand the reason for the amendment, there are powers already in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to require the office for students to report on matters relating to equality of opportunity in either its annual report or the special report that I mentioned before, and any such report would have to be laid before Parliament, so there is no need explicitly to require reporting on the establishment of a national credit rating and transfer service as a means of improving access to and participation in higher education. The measures in the Bill support our ambitions on widening participation in general. As I said, we are giving the call for evidence responses very careful thought. In the meantime, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I am going to make some progress, because I have got a fair amount to get through.

Universities UK, the representative body, has said it welcomes the Government’s intention to allow new providers in the system to secure greater choice for students and to ensure appropriate competition in the higher education sector. Paul Kirkham pointed out in a speech earlier this year that

“there are many reputable APs out there, providing specialist, bespoke education and training to students who, lest we forget, consciously choose such an alternative.”

The story of those new entrants and of diversity and provision has been one of widening participation. We want them to be able to compete on a level playing field.

As we discussed earlier, the world is changing fast, and the higher education sector needs to change too if it is to meet the needs of 21st-century learners, yet in a 2015 survey of vice-chancellors and university leavers 70% of respondents said that they expected higher education to look the same in 2030 as it does now—largely focused around the full-time three-year degree. The risk is that, given their position, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know, for example, that the share of undergraduate students in English higher education institutions studying full-time first-year degrees—the traditional model—has increased from 65% in 2010-11 to 78% in 2014-15. Allowing the vested interests of incumbents to continue to protect what is effectively a one-product system that promotes only the three-year, full-time, on-campus undergraduate university course as the gold standard comes with considerable risk. It is a high-cost and inflexible approach, and given that in excess of 50% of the population wish to engage in higher education, it cannot be the only solution. That system of validation is curbing innovation and entrenching the same model of higher education.

As Paul Kirkham said in evidence to the Committee:

“There are significant risks to student and taxpayer of a very static, non-changing universe of providers and way too much emphasis on the three-year, on-campus degree.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 13, Q15.]

As Roxanne Stockwell, the principal of Pearson College, said in her submission:

“It is clear that the dominance of the one-size-fits-all model of university education is over. Fee rises have transformed students into more critical consumers and the government is right to recognise this in their reform package. Students are calling out for pioneering institutions offering alternative education models and an increased focus on skills that will prepare them for the careers of the future—with the mind-set and agility to fulfil roles that may not even exist yet.”

We must not be constrained by our historical successes.

[Carol Monaghan]

I do not recognise the picture of higher education that the Minister is painting. It has changed greatly, even in the past 10 to 20 years. There is a massive focus on skills, and students are now leaving university with much greater abilities, and the problem-solving, business and employability skills that are required. I simply do not recognise the picture of traditional HE that the Minister paints.

[Joseph Johnson]

I urge the hon. Lady to recognise that huge value has been added to the sector by the arrival of new entrants. New providers have tapped into unmet demand, and that is why they are springing up. They are surviving the test of the marketplace and meeting a need that is not presently being met. That is why they are coming into existence; they are providing value and succeeding and thriving in the marketplace. We should welcome what they bring rather than denigrate it.

As a report on international experience by the Centre for Global Higher Education found, private providers can

“swiftly provide courses to meet unmet demand, and deliver them in convenient ways, such as online or in the evening and over the weekend.”

We also know that they offer greater flexibility to potential students by having different course start dates throughout the year. Alternative providers are already supporting greater diversity in the sector, which we should all welcome. Some 56% of students at alternative providers are aged 25-plus—I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool South cares greatly about mature students—compared with only 23% of students at publicly funded institutions. They have higher numbers of black and minority ethnic students, with 59% of undergraduate students at alternative providers coming from BME ethnic groups compared with 21% at higher education institutions overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

They are as robust as they need to be, and they will ensure that only high-quality, well managed, stable institutions that deliver high-quality higher education enter our system.

As I have set out, current would-be new entrants typically rely on competitors for a foothold in the sector. It is hard to think of another sector—including those involving major once-in-a-lifetime decisions, such as mortgage or pension providers—where one provider is beholden to another for market entry in that manner.

Inevitably, the nature of our validation requirements has a moulding effect on entry into the system. New providers may feel forced to adopt practices, habits and mentalities of incumbents in a way that can stifle innovation or even cede some of the new entrants’ competitive advantage. For example, we can read in the evidence provided by Le Cordon Bleu how that can happen. It chose not to offer a UK degree via the validation process, as it felt it would be required to hand over its recipes, techniques and individual culinary style to another institution in order to have its courses validated.

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Lady will let me.

In the case of Le Cordon Bleu, the intellectual property of its course would be free for the validating institution to redistribute as it saw fit. We have heard a fair amount from Opposition Members about for-profit providers, and the idea that for-profit institutions would not act in the interests of students. That is simply not true.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Fifth sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

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

I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 1, page 65, line 31, at end insert—

“(1A) A joint committee shall be established by UKRI and OfS, which must—

(a) consist of representatives of both UKRI and OfS, and

(b) produce an annual report containing details on—

(i) the health of the higher education sector,

(ii) work relating to equality of opportunity,

(iii) the health of different academic disciplines,

(iv) research funding,

(v) the awarding of research degrees,

(vi) post-graduate training,

(vii) shared facilities,

(viii) knowledge exchange,

(ix) skills development, and

(x) maintaining the public interest.

(1B) The report must be sent to the Secretary of State who shall lay it before Parliament.”

This amendment would ensure that the two major bodies, UKRI and OfS, do not work in silos and that the work of each organisation is complementary to the other.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. It is a beautiful day, but I can assure you that for someone from northern climes, these temperatures present quite a challenge.

Amendment 158 is a probing amendment that will hopefully elicit from the Minister some more information about how oversight of the whole sector will work, particularly with regard to the OFS and UK Research and Innovation. As the Committee knows, a great many witnesses, including MillionPlus, the University Alliance and almost all of the research bodies that gave evidence, were concerned about how the OFS and UKRI will work together. It is essential that there is overarching oversight to guarantee the continuing success of the sector. This amendment would require the OFS and UKRI to establish a joint committee that would produce an annual report each year about the higher education sector in its totality, which would be reported to the Secretary of State and be put before Parliament. The amendment would add an additional layer of scrutiny and give parliamentary oversight to the whole sector.

When Pam Tatlow from MillionPlus gave evidence to the Committee, she said:

“I think we should be looking at the Bill in a holistic way. There is a real risk that we look at the Bill in terms of a silo—the office for students, and then UK Research and Innovation. What we have got at the moment through the Higher Education Funding Council for England is some holistic oversight over the whole of the sector”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 9, Q6.]

That is the point that people are making. There is additional concern that the separation of responsibilities for research and teaching could mean that the interests of postgraduate research students, in particular, are lost.

I would like the Minister to reassure us about where PGR will sit, and about some of the other issues on the list, including the health of the sector, work relating to equality of opportunity, research funding, shared facilities, knowledge exchange, skills development and maintaining the public interest. Where will those issues sit, and how will they be reported on?

As I said, this is largely a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

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

We support this amendment in principle but, because the research element of the Bill has implications for Scotland, a copy of any report that is produced should also be made available to the Scottish Government. More generally, any report produced as a result of this Bill should also be made available to the Scottish Government.

[Gordon Marsden]

I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, and I commend her for her argument. I would spare her blushes, but as chair of the all-party universities group she is in an admirable position to take soundings from across the sector on this matter, which are of considerable concern. Before I address some of them, I endorse what the hon. Member for Glasgow North West just said about the Scottish dimension. When we debate part 4 of the Bill, we will discuss the new structure of research, about which there was rightly some sharp questioning in the evidence sessions. Given what I called in the evidence session the variable geometry of the Bill in relation to UKRI, the OFS and the research councils, it is essential that there is co-operation to ensure confidence and good relations between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government. I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady and her colleague, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, have said.

On committees, again they can be set up to be what we want them to be: a token, a sop, or something that does some useful good. In the modest but nevertheless substantial way in which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has phrased her amendment, she has struck the right balance.

I will not be outwith the subject of the Bill when I refer to the situation that occurred in 2007, because it is relevant. I will not get into the issues relating to the machinery of government today, because we will debate them properly under part 4—the implications for this and the issues to do with research in connection with the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as opposed to the Department for Education, are complex, and we will want to discuss them later.

To go back to the machinery of government changes that took place in 2007, before what became BIS and the Department for Education were set up, I was on the Select Committee that questioned David Bell—Sir David Bell, as he is now—the chief executive officer about the relationship between the two organisations was to be. He said that he would continue as chief executive of DFE, Ian Watmore would continue as chief executive of BIS and they would have regular discussions. I said that sounded as if they would have two or three pleasant but meaningful lunches during the year to chat about things, and they would get on very well.

The crucial thing, however, is what happens lower down the food chain, if I may put it that way. Unless there is co-operation and collaboration between the people who do the day-to-day work in the two Departments, the co-operation will not work properly. That is directly relevant to my hon. Friend’s amendment. If the committee is established, it is important that it is not simply two or three agreeable lunches between the high-ups, but a meaningful, continuing and regular communication between UKRI and the OFS.

As I have said, the views of what I might describe as the higher education fraternity and sorority are pretty strong. My hon. Friend has already referred to the evidence given by Pam Tatlow of MillionPlus. Cambridge University, in its written evidence to the Committee, stated:

“The Bill in its current form gives some recognition to the relationship between teaching and research”,

and this is the other broad issue, apart from the desirability of getting the new research structures right and in co-operation; it is also important to get the relationship between teaching and research right.

Cambridge University’s evidence went on to state that

“the Office for Students…and UK Research and Innovation...must work together if required to do so by the Secretary of State, and must also share information”,

with an important caveat:

“However, this provides no burden of responsibility for collaboration outside of any specific request from the Secretary of State. There is also little indication of how oversight will be given to the entire university…portfolio… This risks creating an artificial separation of functions”.

As my hon. Friend also touched on, the university declared that it had

“a particular concern regarding oversight of postgraduate students. Although there have been some assurances from Government that UKRI will have responsibility for funding and OfS will be responsible for their regulation, this is unclear in the legislation.”

Universities UK has offered similar concerns in its note to Committee members and, more widely, on 25 August, when it stated that there was a “substantial need” for collaboration between the OFS and UKRI, and that there was a “lack of clarity” as to which one would lead on cross-cutting institution or sector-wide issues, such as knowledge exchange. Also, since science and education are in separate Departments for the first time—this goes back to the point I made about the machinery of government changes—there is particular need for strong planning. The document that Universities UK circulated expands on that further.

Other organisations have also commented. It is particularly important to look at what some of the key research bodies have said. The Wellcome Trust expressed its concern that the separation of the functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which is what will happen in the process of setting up UKRI and the OFS, could break the links between teaching and research if not well handled. There is no suggestion that that is the deliberate policy of the Government—why would it be?—but you and I, Sir Edward, have been in this place for long enough to know the perils of unintended consequences. When new structures are set up with lots of grand words and gestures, the peril of the unintended consequence is not putting in place the safeguards and the detail that would allow the two newish departments to co-operate. We are trying to be helpful to the Government by flagging up the concerns from the various bodies that have written to us all.

Whatever the Minister says about the specifics of the amendment, I hope that he will go into some detail—if not today, perhaps in future weeks with a letter to members of the Committee—spelling out what he has said today and reassuring all those who want the new structure of UKRI and the OFS to work. We will talk about the broader issues with the research structure in part 4, but we would like some reassurance now that the image of the two agreeable lunches and not much else happening further down the food chain, which I evoked in 2007, will not be replicated in the relationship between the OFS and UKRI.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Third sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

Before the Minister responds, are there any other comments on the motion?

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

I echo the comments of the other Members and thank the Minister for making the time available.

[Joseph Johnson]

I have reduced the time that I had been allocated to give evidence to the Committee by 50%, going down to 15 minutes, and I feel it is important, before we get into the line-by-line, nitty gritty scrutiny of the Bill, that we have the opportunity as a Government to give an overview of what we are trying to do, the context for the Bill and the core measures that we propose to achieve those objectives. If we shorten the time much further, I am afraid we would lose the ability to give a coherent sense of what we are trying to do overall. I would prefer to be left with the 15 minutes to which I have already reduced my slot.

Question put and agreed to.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Ruth McKernan, Professor Philip Nelson and Professor Ottoline Leyser gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I remind colleagues that we only have until 12.30 and there is a lot of interest in questions from Members, so brief questions and succinct answers will be very helpful.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q Elements of this have been mentioned by all the panel. Dr McKernan, you are talking about working together with the research councils and how this should be more easily facilitated under this Bill. Is there a conflict, first between the different role of Innovate UK, which is looking to competition to market, and the research councils? You spoke about needing to see the results of the research but, as we know, in some of the best research the results, implications or applications are not found for 20 or 30 years. Do you see a conflict there and, if so, how do you intend to work with the research councils to make that relationship smooth?

Dr Ruth McKernan: I think this is one of the fundamental challenges that the Bill has faced and most of the discussion I have had has been around maintaining the business focus of Innovate UK. Our funding goes to businesses and research is included to the extent that it delivers what the business needs. We must make sure that business focus is maintained. We are a UK-wide organisation and we work very closely with enterprise partners in the regions and the nations. Provided that the Bill really does ensure that at the board level we have the aspiration to link up business and science better and has a sufficient business expertise and input, that would really help. I also feel that ensuring that we work very closely with partners who also support businesses will help us to keep our business focus.

Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would dispute that it is a conflict. There is obviously a budget and it has to be spread but, in my experience, businesses are enthusiastic about blue skies research that will not have any obvious application for 20, 30, 40 years. At the same time, the scientists conducting that kind of research are interested to know what the current challenges are facing business.

More effective communication across the system can support all parts of the system and ensure that the movement of people and knowledge to and fro within that community is increased and enhanced, so that we can capture the benefits as quickly as possible, take the excellent blue skies research that is widely acknowledged as essential to fuel the system, and turn that into economic or societal benefit.

Professor Philip Nelson: I would agree with that completely. The current state of affairs is very much that the research councils do have very effective engagements with industry already. It is not as if we do not do that. I think something like 60% of my own council grants are done collaboratively with some partner or another.

We get very good leverage. We in fact do get industry, as Ottoline rightly said, interested in quite basic research, and some of the bigger more sophisticated companies, as you might expect, do invest in really long-term projects, so it is a spectrum of activity. Getting the big picture clearer and looking at the relative activities across that whole range is going to be an important function for UKRI, and making the strategic interventions that we think are the most important to propel the economy forward.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q Professor Nelson, since you are talking about people looking for grants and getting funding from different organisations, potentially somebody looking for a grant here could be getting all of their money from the one institution—from UKRI—because they will be going to a research council, the funding council and Innovate UK. Is there a problem that everything could be coming from the one body?

Professor Philip Nelson: I do not see that. The roots will still be distinct. For example, when it comes to the dual support system, it is clearly being protected—in fact, enshrined in legislation for the first time. It is clear that the QR money as it is called—the quality-related money—that currently comes from the Higher Education Funding Council for England is still going to be delivered via Research England. That is a clearly separated and different funding stream from the research council funding stream. I do not think there are any intrinsic difficulties because the Bill deals with that clear separation.

Dr Ruth McKernan: With Innovate UK grant funding, it is all matched funding. Businesses or private investors have to put in an equal amount and there are regulations that surround how businesses get their funding—state aid rules. One reason we are keen to use more financial tools is to ensure that we use public money to the extent that it is useful but also encourage private investment. With our business-facing mind we need to ensure that we use private investment as much and do not expect people to rely wholly on UKRI for funding.

Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would say that basically it is all taxpayers’ money, apart from the stuff that comes in through business; if we think of it in those terms.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Q Looking at that connection between business and research and charities, which is of particular interest to me, and building on the opportunities that we have got there, would you welcome the protection of the dual support in the Bill, helping to provide long-term confidence to both universities and charities in order to drive some of that innovative work forward?

Professor Philip Nelson: I would certainly welcome it, as I said in my opening remarks. Dual support was absolutely key to us in terms of sustaining the effective system that we have, mainly because the QR money—the HEFCE money—takes that sort of retrospective view of performance, whereas research councils are looking prospectively at what might be achieved. So I think it is critical that that balanced funding, as it is called in the Bill, is properly maintained and retained.

Professor Ottoline Leyser: Absolutely. Dual support is a key strength of the UK Research and Innovation system, and not just because of the charities. We are really excited that it is now going to be in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Mr Blackstock, do you have any views on Mr Howlett’s question?

Douglas Blackstock: On the specifics on student finance—we do not have a brief for student finance. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q With the increased marketisation that the Bill will create—potentially, we could have new providers popping up all over the place—what needs to be done to keep students and their higher education safe?

Sorana Vieru: Two things are really important to consider with the increased image of higher education right now. The first is student protections. If we are opening the door to more providers and the shape of the sector is increasing, it is really important to protect students and their education and to ensure a quality education.

Student protection plans are very important in the case of a course or of a private provider closure. A full indemnification for students will be required should that happen, but student protections need to go beyond what is reasonable and fair in terms of financial compensation and to look at the reasons why students enter higher education—that is, in order to get a degree. It is about looking at ways in which we can ensure that students will complete the degrees, or a similar kind of degree to the one that they signed up to—so looking at transferring to new providers—and at the interplay that the Bill has with the consultation on credit transfer and lifelong learning, which is extremely crucial.

In this case, when we talk about student protections, we are talking about worst-case scenarios. It is also important to put in place student representation systems. It is important that new providers have established student representation systems that are autonomous and independent from the institution to allow the student voice to come through.

Douglas Blackstock: We already have a diverse higher education system. The QAA has reviewed more than 600 providers, and 170 or 180 degree-awarding bodies, 220 further education colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and more than 200 private alternative providers are still under our remit since we took on work first for the Home Office, then for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and now for the Department for Education on tier 4 licensing and cost designation for student finance.

We have a diverse sector. The Bill is bringing in measures that will strengthen the system. We particularly welcome the creation of a single register so that students—UK students and overseas students—can check that this is a bona fide institution that has actually gone through a series of checks. It also strengthens checks on financial sustainability, management and governance.

To pick up on Sorana’s point, it is really important for student protection that if we have providers that exit the market—and we have already experienced that, particularly through some of the work we have done with colleges that have failed the QAA reviews—there should be a permanent register of the qualifications that those students have obtained so that if they apply for a job in the future, an employer can check that that is a bona fide qualification that was awarded at that time.

[The Chair]

I am bound by the programme order to 12.45 pm. We have six Members and nine minutes. People need to bear that in mind so that we have short questions and short answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

Q Good afternoon, Minister. On Tuesday, Professor Gaskell said that Universities UK had advocated a well-regulated register of higher education providers. Do you feel that the Bill will enable that?

Joseph Johnson: Yes—one of the centrepieces of the Bill is the creation of the register. For the first time we are going to have a unified list of institutions that are recognised, that meet a defined quality standard and that are able to assure students that the institution that they are going to has been through a quality threshold. This is a really important unifying mechanism that creates coherence in what is currently a very fragmented regulatory architecture, where HEFCE regulates a number of publicly funded institutions, BIS directly regulates alternative providers and there is a third huge universe of providers who are outside of both regimes altogether.

For the first time we will have a register, which Mary Curnock Cook, the chief executive of UCAS, said on Tuesday would be of huge benefit to people applying to university and wanting to have some kind of assurance that the institution they were thinking of going to had been through some basic sanitary and hygiene checks.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q Having heard from the witnesses over the past couple of sittings, can you tell me what the current position is on representation of devolved Administrations on the board of UKRI?

Joseph Johnson: UKRI is a body that will represent science and research across the United Kingdom. That is in the name. We want to ensure that excellence is well represented on the board, that there is a proper understanding of the systems that are operating in all parts of the UK.

We want to ensure that there is a proper ability for the devolved Administrations to have their specific needs well understood by the board of UKRI. As you know, in the research council system there is no ex officio membership for the devolved Administrations on the boards of those bodies. We have a reserved settlement in which science and innovation are presently reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We would not want to unpick our devolution settlement in this bit of legislation on its own.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Why structure rankings by provider and not by subject?

Joseph Johnson: You are referring to the teaching excellence framework?

Higher Education and Research Bill (First sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

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

[Wes Streeting]

Q Is there a Universities UK view on that, Professor Gaskell?

Professor Simon Gaskell: The basic principle is that it must surely be right that students know what they are signing up to when they start their course. That places obligations on both institutions and Government. The general principle is that the terms of engagement, as it were, should not be changed after a student has started on their course and made a commitment to a university, as the university has made a commitment to them. The idea that the terms of engagement should not change seems to me to be a basic principle.

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

Q Professor Carter and Professor Gaskell said that student representation is important and beneficial. Can I ask you to give us a quick example of how student representation has been beneficial and why we should have it?

Professor Joy Carter: It is about not so much representation, but the holistic sense of student engagement, of which representation is a part. If I can answer the question from a more holistic perspective, in my own institution—to give you one example—we have a student fellows scheme. Students work in partnership with members of staff on projects of their choosing to enhance the quality of the higher education that they are receiving. At any one time in my institution we have got 60 to 100 of those enhancement projects—real partnerships between students and staff—going on. The quality of enhancement that is achieved is beyond measure.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Q To ask a broader question, how important do you think this piece of legislation is, given that there has not been any legislation for more than 20 years? Which part of the Bill, from your perspective, is the most important?

Paul Kirkham: As an independent provider, working with a very fragmented regulatory system for many, many years has been an absolute nightmare, so having a simple, straightforward, single regulatory system is absolutely crucial. The most important part is that we have a level playing field whereby providers are treated equally and correctly.

Pam Tatlow: I think we should be looking at the Bill in a holistic way. There is a real risk that we look at the Bill in terms of a silo—the office for students, and then UK Research and Innovation. What we have got at the moment through the Higher Education Funding Council for England is some holistic oversight over the whole of the sector, in terms of reporting. Therefore, there are issues around OFS, and some of the hard corners need to be taken off the regulatory framework. We look at the Bill as a whole, because one impacts on the other. Teaching impacts on research and innovation, and vice versa.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Q One of the key areas of regulation proposed in the Bill obviously relates to participation, and for a long time social mobility has been lacking in many areas of the regulatory system.

I want to unpick a bit, following on from the last question, your views on the Government’s ambitions for improving participation and also the regulatory framework around improving participation.

Professor Simon Gaskell: I speak as head of an institution where two thirds of our students are from ethnic minorities and 89% are from state schools, so I can speak with some authority on this. That of course is a set of achievements of which we are very proud and that have been achieved in the current framework—regulatory and otherwise.

My personal view is that widening participation is not enough. We need to do much more and indeed we are doing more at Queen Mary to ensure that students not only get into university and succeed academically while they are at university but, despite a lack of social capital in many cases, succeed after university. There is a lot to be done and we are doing it in universities. I do not think it needs legislation to enforce it.

We have had encouragement through the Office for Fair Access, which has been entirely aligned with our aspirations as an institution. Other institutions have perhaps needed more encouragement in that direction. Fundamentally, I think some universities at least, including my own, are leading the way in recognising what needs to be done in social mobility. Widening participation is not enough.

Pam Tatlow: We support the Government’s ambitions 101% and we would add that experience to that of board members to be taken into account.

We think clause 9, which deals with some of the participation figures and information, does not go far enough and, in fact, it should discuss some of the protected characteristics. It does not talk about age: one in three higher education students enter university for the first time when they are over 21, often entering modern universities. That must be reflected in the diversity of the sector. We are proud of that and should do more about it and, therefore, I think more could be done on clause 9.

Professor Joy Carter: Widening the market to alternative providers is often good for widening participation students, because many alternative providers focus on WP students and offer products and prices that are particularly attractive to them. That is good.

My concern about the marketplace and the effect on WP is about the work at primary school and the work of individual institutions at primary school. There is a lot of research that says young people are made or broken at that age and lots of universities already do fantastic work with primary-age children. In the new world allowed by the Bill, how much of that will continue?

Paul Kirkham: Obviously we support this ambition. Independent providers are, traditionally, very good at this in the main. Where you have a fee cap of £6,000 you have two choices: either you deliver a different kind of experience or you have to charge cash, up front, to students, which is not exactly a widening participation exercise. In many cases, we are disadvantaged in the work we can do when we would like to do it given that we have that fee cap of £6,000, but we understand the reasons why that is there.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q The OFS as the regulating body will be funded by subscriptions from higher education institutions. New providers or new entrants, by their nature, will be a higher risk than the more established institutions. Is it right that all institutions pay the same amount of subscriptions or should there be some sort of sliding scale?

Professor Simon Gaskell: Some thought needs to be given to this because you are right, not every institution will require the same degree of scrutiny. You could argue that the most established and most reliable institutions should pay least. To be fair, there is some offset against that, building on my earlier point: we are all concerned with the reputation of the sector and we all have an interest in the sector. I would not suggest an exact proportionality, but some system that takes note that the greatest demands on the OFS will come from the providers who represent the greatest risk seems to me a reasonable principle.

Pam Tatlow: I understand there will be a consultation if this remains in the Bill, but the more general point is that this is a direct switch from funding from what is now the Department for Education to universities and the average would be about £62,000. If you look at the White Paper, it shows that over several years, the bulk of funding for the OFS will come from providers.

Paul Kirkham: To be clear, not all independent providers are new and pose that kind of risk. Many have decades, if not hundreds of years, of experience in provision. My second point is that it should be equitable in terms of the cost. Many of the incumbent universities’ perceived lower risks have been achieved through decades of taxpayer support and I think it would be grossly unfair if a sliding scale were applied on the basis of some form of perceived risk.

Gordon McKenzie: As well as risk, it is also important to take account of a university or a provider’s size and resources.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Q This is a question specifically for Professor Gaskell. I should begin by declaring that my wife is technically a student at Queen Mary University London.

Professor Simon Gaskell: What does technically mean?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Q Following on from that, I am looking at clause 84(2), which appears to give the Secretary of State the authority to add or remove a council from UKRI. Does that concern the panel at all?

[The Chair]

Does anybody wish to comment?

Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: It is a very important measure. Clearly, that would be debated in the public context and among the scientific community. The question is, at what level within the Bill would the Secretary of State have to account for that to Parliament? It is a moot point. Also—still speaking as a Welshman—the role of devolved Administrations is important. A lot of investment goes on locally, not just in the devolved Administrations but in the regions, to ensure that the research enterprise can work. How that can all be brought together and, at the same time, have a body that is not so unwieldy that there are 100 members sitting round a table—which means that it can decide nothing—is very important. As my colleague Alan Langlands said, it is very much down to the individuals leading this organisation, who will have to be engaged, inclusive, and listen hard, both to the research community and communities outside the UK, if we are to sustain Britain’s enviable leadership in this area. Let us not forget that that is the real prize that UKRI has to fight for. We are in a fantastic position internationally; despite everything else, we really want to make sure that that is retained.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q You have answered my second question, namely: is there a requirement to have devolved Administrations represented on the board of UKRI?

Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: That is an interesting one. If you are going to have a manageable board of 12 individuals—and I note that the Russell Group is proposing that the chair of each of the research councils sits on it, with which Cambridge would not agree—there would be little opportunity for additional input. If you have all four devolved Administrations represented, it tends to load the committee with particular areas. So the choice of members of that committee will be absolutely vital. These will have to be individuals who are broadly respected across the devolved Administrations, the different elements of research across industry and the different players, so that they are genuinely seen to be acting in the interests of UK research and our international positioning, first and foremost.

Professor Quintin McKellar: It is a really good point. The research councils have evolved into the shape they are in over a period of time and that has helped to deliver extraordinary success for the UK. What we would not want to see is any of the particular areas of research activity weakened as a consequence of one of the research councils or the remit of one of the research councils disappearing. As you have heard, that would be debated long and hard before it actually happened. The fact that there is legislative power in the Bill to remove the title of one of the research councils presents a challenge, but one that can be dealt with.

Sir Alan Langlands: I was the vice-chancellor of a Scottish university for nine years. It was absolutely critical that we were part of the UK-wide discussion and that we had access to UK-based charities and the UK research councils. Even given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that. It is very precious: the Scottish universities and the universities in Northern Ireland and Wales make a huge contribution to UK research output. Damaging that would be something we do at our peril.

[Amanda Milling]

Q Good morning. I want to go back to the creation of the single regulatory system. I want to understand how important you think it is, and why—the benefits, but also any points you want to raise in the context of the system.

Sir Alan Langlands: I think it is important, because for some time, through the growth of student numbers, the introduction of higher fees, the creation of the Office for Fair Access and the changing arrangements in relation to quality assurance, everything has been very untidy. Having sat at HEFCE for four and a half years, I would say that it was very difficult when something went wrong—sometimes things did go quite badly wrong in higher education—to find a locus for intervention. There needs to be a bit of sorting out. I think the Government have struck a reasonable balance, and putting students at the centre is sensible, but we need to be careful not to go too far, because the whole system is based on institutional autonomy. We already have a hugely diverse higher education system in this country, and one set of rules does not apply to every institution around the country; many of them have very specialist needs. My sense is that, yes, it is the correct thing to do, but we must be very careful, and I am particularly concerned about some of the changes that might begin to eat away at institutional autonomy.

I have three specifics to mention quickly. The first is clause 2; I really do not understand why the Secretary of State’s guidance need

“in particular, be framed by reference to particular courses”.

Equally, in clauses 13 and 23, which deal with quality and standards, I am not sure that the current definition of “standards” in the Bill sits comfortably with the requirements and the dynamic of an autonomous institution. I would like to see that softened a bit; the Russell Group and others have suggested amendments to that part of the Bill. I hope we are talking about threshold standards, because there are some very clear benchmarks already in place for each subject. It is often a complex area, and we cannot move ourselves into a national curriculum mindset. There still has to be flexibility and innovation in how universities design their own programmes. We also often have to take account of external regulators in the development of professional programmes: regulatory bodies for engineering, for example, or the General Medical Council for the way we design medical education. There are many parts to this jigsaw, and universities are very good at it, in the main. The notion that another body, removed from the action, would somehow second-guess universities on standards and on the quality of their degrees needs attention.