Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. As so many contributors to this excellent debate have said, we should be celebrating the enormous importance and success of our higher education institutions. They are places of learning; they are institutions of academic success; they have genuine global quality, respect and significance; they include many areas of research excellence; they are the source of ideas that help to boost our economy; and they are one of the bulwarks on which the stability of civilised democracy depends. This record of success faces unprecedented threat and turmoil, especially from the impact of Brexit and from the Government’s foolish proposed assault on the status of international students.

The Bill does little to address those challenges. It does a few useful things but I also have some grave concerns. I welcome among other things the recognition of the importance of teaching excellence—although not, I have to say, the specifics of the measures to encourage its achievement. I welcome the explicit encouragement of widening access and participation for students from less advantaged backgrounds, though that is of course fatally undermined by the removal of maintenance grants. I welcome the formal recognition of dual funding for research.

There are, however, many serious problems with the Bill. Linking teaching excellence assessment under TEF explicitly to fees is a retrograde step. Giving probationary degree-awarding powers to new commercial HE providers from day one is, frankly, alarming. Even in relation to the recognition of dual funding, there is no guarantee that the two streams of funding—from the research councils and from Research England—will remain separate, distinctive and allocated under their own evaluation. A guarantee of this kind should be built in.

I will concentrate on three things. First, the interrelationship of teaching and research is central to the success and standing of our universities. Engagement in research makes for better teachers, and the opportunity to participate in research is invaluable for undergraduates. The coexistence of postgraduate and undergraduate students in the same academic community is of huge benefit to both. The Bill fails to give proper recognition to this fundamental fact. It threatens to create a new binary divide between teaching and research. The Government’s recent framework document helpfully said that the Office for Students and UKRI would be expected to work together. The Bill must go much further by requiring collaboration and unequivocally asserting its importance.

Secondly, the position of postgraduate students, both in taught courses and in research degrees, needs to be clarified and supported. It would seem from the Bill that UKRI will have responsibility for research degree funding and the OfS for its regulation. Surely there is a danger in placing postgraduate degree-awarding power in the hands of the OfS when it is UKRI that will have the expertise, knowledge and ability to ensure its rational informed assessment. There is a welcome general provision now inserted in Clause 87, but the Bill needs to go much further. It should explicitly provide for the involvement of UKRI in any decisions relating to research degree-awarding powers.

Thirdly, as has been said by many noble Lords, there is the issue of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. There is a fundamental point here about academic quality, diversity and range of choice, and the encouragement of debate, challenge, inquiry and the rigour of thought that comes from the robust independence of our academic communities and institutions. This must never be put at risk of political interference or dictation.

The Bill makes various perfunctory references to academic freedom, but it goes nowhere near far enough. It should make much clearer the difference between threshold standards for students—rightly the purview of government—and academic standards beyond that, which must be the province of the university to determine. It should make explicit the separation between the assessment of standards and the assessment of quality by an independent body. It should ensure, at the very least, full parliamentary scrutiny and decision in relation to any powers exercised by the OfS or the Secretary of State over degree-awarding powers or university titles. The success, standing and independence of our universities must not be put at risk. This Bill could do just that unless it is substantially and explicitly amended in this House over the weeks ahead.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I entirely agree that there are some very interesting amendments later on, which may attract me, if not my Chief Whip.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. I support the amendment. We get the opportunity to legislate on higher education once every couple of decades. It is therefore really important that we get it right. It seems really sensible to put into the Bill a definition of what we are talking about. That is especially important because one thing the Bill does is give a fast-track procedure for new universities to be created. We ought therefore to be framing as part of that legislation a definition of what a new university should be committed to.

I have to say that I am taken by one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the precise wording of parts of the amendment. I think he has fastened on the one point where the amendment is weak; that is, in allying the word “must” with the extensive range of subjects. Actually, it is right to put “must” in the Bill in relation to the commitment of a university to academic freedom. If Oxford University were to abandon the principles of academic freedom, it would rightly be up in front of the court of public opinion or a court of law.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

On this specific point, I have read the amendment carefully and it does not say that a university must provide a range; it says that “universities must”. This is a very important and somewhat subtle point which needs to be taken seriously.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, I think that it would be important for the avoidance of doubt to ensure that there can be no doubt about the ability of a very focused university, concentrating on a particular range of subjects or type of subject, none the less to stand tall and clear as an accepted university. Laying aside the point about “must” and “extensive range”, the whole thrust of this amendment and the principles behind it are absolutely in the right direction. For heaven’s sake, let us put this into the Bill and then set about making one or two adjustments at a subsequent stage of our discussions to get it specifically right. The broad principles enshrined in the amendment are absolutely the right ones that we need to focus on. I make two observations in relation to that.

First, academic freedom and autonomy is not a luxury for a university; it is part and parcel of what a university is. It is rightly said that a university does not teach people what to think but how to think, and that happens through debate, discourse, discussion, research and the contestability of ideas. It arises from a clash of minds and, above all, from no one in a university being told by anyone—government or anyone else—what to think. Secondly, in the ghastly jargon of the age, we are, I fear, living in a post-truth society. Universities, par excellence, are about truth and evidence. They are about making sure that we pay attention to knowledge and reality. I particularly like the phrase in Amendment 1 about,

“the pursuit, dissemination, and application of knowledge”,

because a university absolutely has to do that: pursue knowledge and research, attend to it and discuss it, test it, then disseminate and apply it. It has a duty to its students, to itself as a research community and to wider society. This amendment gets it broadly right. It does not have every single word right, but let us put it in the Bill and then make it even better when we come to further stages of discussion.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, my declaration is simple: I am not a vice-chancellor, a chancellor or a master of a college but I join in the paean of praise for much of what is done in our universities today and I share many of the concerns.

If one seeks to define the open society, surely the role and status of a university in that society would be an essential part of it. Having lived for some years in a totalitarian society when I served behind the Iron Curtain in the 1960s, I saw the pressures on those universities, and I think there is a great danger that we take for granted the freedoms which we enjoy in our own university system.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that in Amendment 509 the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, and I suggest that in the areas of research degree awarding powers and so on, the decision should be joint. I have no particular objection to the amendments because they are about co-operation rather more generally than what we are dealing with, but I want to make it clear that in due course we will be pressing for our amendment. As the noble Baroness has just said, these are vital parts of many universities, although of course not all universities have a research capability. From the point of view of teaching, if students know that they are being taught by a person who is at the forefront of research, that is thrilling and can have quite an encouraging effect on them. However, I have no objection whatever, and I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has either, to co-operation of a lesser kind in relation to the ordinary business of these bodies.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of the interests I have previously declared. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I support Amendments 508A and 509A in particular, and of course we have Amendment 509 coming down the track at a later stage in our discussions, which seeks to put in place a rather stronger element of co-operation. However, I think that these two amendments would take us helpfully some way in that direction.

The fundamental starting point for this issue is a recognition of the very close interrelationship between undergraduate teaching and postgraduate research in a university. The fact that there is a community not just of undergraduates being taught but of postgraduates who are in many cases conducting really ground-breaking research creates a synergy arising from that inter- relationship that is of fundamental importance. Therefore, with the OfS having responsibility for students and UKRI having responsibility for research, they should be co-operating with and working together as intensively as they can, especially in those areas where the OfS is given powers to determine issues in relation to university research matters. That relates, for example, to the awarding of research degree powers and the assessment of the quality and value of research teaching and supervision.

In these matters, the research expertise that will fundamentally reside in UKRI must be brought to bear on the assessments and judgments made by the OfS. These two proposals—to reinforce the duty to co-operate and to have an exchange of board members between the two organisations—will certainly help to remind us, universities, and, fundamentally, the OfS and UKRI of the need to work together. I support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to those Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated in this short debate. It has raised a number of issues we will need to reflect on. I am comforted by many of the points made by the Minister when he responded, but I still think there are one or two issues. The problem lies with Clause 106, maybe inadvertently. Maybe we can be reassured by the words already given, but perhaps we can come back to that. If subsections (1) to (6) all said “must” not “may”, the issue would disappear because an unequivocal duty would be placed on the two bodies to work together. The fact that they say “may” but subsection (2) has “must, if required” is the problem. In other words, we would have to wait until it was clear, possibly from the publication of an annual report for the preceding year, that the two bodies were not working as efficiently and complaints were arising from that before the Secretary of State could exercise Clause 106(2) and issue a “must” instruction.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

Does this not identify one of the central problems we face with the Bill? We have very clear and honourable assurances from the Minister and from the Minister in another place, who I am delighted to see is here with us again. I have absolutely no doubt that it is their full and open intention that there should be close co-operation and joint working between the two bodies and joint decision-making in relation to degree-awarding powers. However, the Bill does not give us that explicit assurance. One of the things we are all trying to do is to make sure that the Bill accords with Ministers’ intentions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I could not have put it better myself. I agree entirely. Having analysed it so successfully there, there is not a solution, if the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is to be followed, by saying, “It is all very well having these aspirations and brilliant ideas, but it would be quite wrong to be overly bureaucratic, so we will just take a punt on it and hope for the best”. He did not say that, but that is not far from where we might be if the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is correct. I sympathise with the problem. I hope that this is not just listened to but taken account of, because a little more work on this might solve the problem and I think we are not very far apart in what we are trying to achieve here.

My issue, and the reason for Amendment 22 in my name—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has made the point again—is that, whereas in the current structure it is relatively easy to see the differences, and where there are overlaps there are provisions that make it work, this is new and quite complicated. It is not Brexit, but it is close to those sort of issues, in that this is different from anything we have seen before in terms of what we are trying to do. We are talking about students, research activity, degrees and degree-awarding powers, all of which have to be calibrated between two new institutions that have been created ab initio. It may be that for the first couple of years it would be sensible to be more cognisant of the problems that might arise and therefore expect them to be working, rather than hoping that they will and then going back in afterwards. That is where the issue lies.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the amendment is too specific about what is required. In a sense, this is a probing amendment—it was not intended to be taken forward—and it should be left to the bodies concerned to find their own rhythms and abilities to respond, but I hope the Minister will take away this slight worry. Even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that it would be quite good to see the evidence in practice of harmonious and effective working quite quickly so that we do not have to go to Clause 106(2) to implement. We will be able to come back to this on Amendment 509, which relates specifically to research degree arrangements, and have a broader look at it. I hope that between now and two weeks’ time, when we will probably get to that, it will be possible for the noble Viscount not only to have listened but to have taken account of what we have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I also express my strong, unequivocal support for my noble friend Lord Lucas and his amendments. I declare an interest as a senior associate member of St Anthony’s College, Oxford, which is a wonderful example of an international college. Many of our students come from countries all over the world, and many of them go back to senior positions of authority in government, the civil service and the diplomatic service—to many positions of leadership—in their own countries. They always look back to their days at St Anthony’s with pleasure and pride. We have the good fortune at the moment to have, in her last year sadly, a wonderful international warden, Margaret MacMillan, one of the great historians, particularly of the First World War. To those of your Lordships who have not read Peacemakers, or The War that Ended Peace, I commend them most warmly— I digress just briefly to say that.

What I want to do is to make plain my strong support and my, to be frank, incomprehension at the Government’s policy. This morning I sat on the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the EU Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, which received evidence from the Immigration Minister, Mr Robert Goodwill, and the Minister of State for the Brexit department, Mr Jones. Admirable people both, and in due course your Lordships will have a chance to read the evidence and to reflect on the report, but what I found completely difficult to accept was the fundamental contradiction in the arguments being put forward on the student front. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave, in his very brief but admirable speech, talked about the bogus colleges. If there was a justification for separating this, it was that, but even though others will crop up from time to time, the bogus colleges have gone, and we are now dealing with legitimate institutions of higher education, our universities in particular, to which students should be attracted from all over the world.

We were told this morning, and it has been said many times, that the Government place no limit on the students who come in. That is fine and good—we all agree with that—but if that is the case, why create a deterrent to those very students by lumping them in with those who seek to come as immigrants into this county? They have every right to seek to come, and I am deeply disturbed about all the aspects of Brexit, but that is another story entirely, and the fact is that students are different. They come not to stay but to study, and they go back to enrich their own economies and countries. Occasionally some do want to stay on for further education and some want to stay and work here, but what is wrong with that? What is the damage to our vibrant economy—which we were told about this morning by the two Ministers who came before us —in that?

My noble friend Lord Lucas has performed a signal service to your Lordships’ House in introducing his amendments as he did. It is quite clear from all those who have spoken so far that there is enormous sympathy for them. I do not want any votes tonight—I do not suppose any of your Lordships do—but I hope that if the Government cannot come up with a sensible way to accept the theme of the arguments we are putting forward tonight, your Lordships’ House will pass a suitable amendment on Report. We have not only a right but a duty to do that.

What the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, struck many a chord. This country, particularly after Brexit, is going to depend more than ever on its reputation as a centre of civilisation, a country to which all are welcome to come to contribute and learn and then go back to their countries. The respectable part of the imperial legacy is something in which we can all take pride. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging response today even though, clearly, we accept that he cannot give a commitment.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, in supporting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I cannot hope to match the eloquence of many of the contributions that we have already heard, especially those from the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Puttnam.

I shall focus on two brief points relating to the enrichment of the overall student experience that foreign students bring to our universities. First, we surely want, especially in our leading universities, to attract the very best students doing the very best work, challenging each other and their teachers in the most formidable way. If we put obstacles in the way of attracting those best students coming from overseas, we are going to be the poorer for it. Secondly, students learn not just from their teachers but from each other. They learn from discussion, debate, association, collaboration and taking part in all sorts of activities with their student colleagues. Having overseas students as part of that mix enormously enriches their experience, opens their eyes, widens their horizons and makes the experience of being at a university much more powerful than it would otherwise be. So not only do we as a country lose out in terms of our soft power and our influence, standing and reputation around the world if we make it difficult for overseas students to come, but we also diminish the possibilities and the experience for our own indigenous students by so doing.

I know the Minister for Higher Education knows all that; he is on our side in this. By passing this amendment or something like it in due course in our discussions in this place, we will strengthen his hand in the battles he faces with the Home Office and the rest of the Government. I suspect that we will be united across all parts of this House in seeking to do this, as we try to ensure that this country lifts its head just a little higher in its relationships with the rest of the world.

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about this matter. I add my support to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and those that go with it. There is a simple pragmatic fact that we seem to have got wrong here: many of the brightest students are actually of huge immediate financial benefit to this country. In Cambridge we have raised vast sums of money from overseas. Very famous people overseas like to see students come to this country. We look ridiculous in this extraordinary situation, which has gone on for years.

To bring up an anecdote, I was vice-chancellor at Cambridge at the time of 9/11. After that event the Americans threw up barriers against students by placing immigration restrictions on them. The silver lining was ours; all of a sudden, the students we would normally have lost to some of the great American universities were all flooding to our door. It was a very fast process. The American universities reacted to it very fast and cured that problem—rather too quickly for us, in fact—but it was a good example of how rapidly you can create damage in this field. I hope the Government come to their senses on this issue.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in urging the Government to think again about the way in which they reflect their intentions for academic standards in the Bill. This picks up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made, which I will come back to. In his recent letter of 11 January, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, helpfully clarifies several points, but again seems to muddle up “quality” and “standards”—and is not clear to which “standards” he is referring.

There are many other issues in the Bill that have attracted more attention. This is, however, possibly the single most significant issue. Those with long memories know that this is a subtle but significant red line in the relationship between universities and government. The distinction between quality and standards is often misunderstood or missed entirely, but it is one of the defining features of a system in which universities have the freedom to determine the content of the courses they offer, to differ from each other, to innovate and to offer variety to students. The current system requires universities to meet commonly agreed threshold standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, but avoids the straitjacket that is an inevitable consequence of defining standards across the board.

It is worth setting out why this matters. The disagreement with the Government reflected in this large number of amendments is not just a rather precious academic conceit; it is a fundamental underpinning of academic autonomy. Academic standards are the levels of attainment associated with specific awards and the grades required within those awards: in other words, how well Judy Doe has done against the requirements of her psychology course at, let us say, Reading, and whether she merits an Upper Second. It has to be that specific because different universities teach different curricula that reflect the specialisms of their particular institution.

These judgments are made by groups of academics who are subject experts and who are best placed to judge a student against academic criteria. The decisions against those standards are and have always been the prerogative of universities themselves, acting autonomously, freely and independently of any government or quasi-government interference. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said in last Monday’s debate, it is unfortunate that she was given such a disingenuous, rather flip answer to her question about degree classification by some academics involved in these judgments when they said that they trusted their gut feeling. In fact, their judgments are made within a clear framework of sector-owned national principles and are backed up by the external examiner system, although it has its weaknesses—as indeed the noble Baroness subsequently discovered.

That setting of academic standards I have just described is separate from the threshold standard or the minimum requirements that every degree course must meet in order to reassure students that they are studying at degree level. These requirements include the robustness of the processes that underpin them, and the design and delivery of courses. This process is driven by the Quality Assurance Agency through the sector-wide quality code. Here the Government have a role, in partnership with the sector’s designated body, in ensuring that a degree is worthy of the name.

It would be helpful if the Minister could put beyond doubt that when the Bill talks about “standards” it is referring to threshold standards and not to academic standards as they are normally defined and as I have described. In the other place the Minister did just that, very clearly—as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, indicated. Given that the Minister is in what is now his very familiar place, the Bar of our House, I do not want to quote him again. Since this clarity has not yet been reflected in the wording of the Bill, I hope that the Minster here will undertake to bring back amendments to achieve this. Amendments 136 and 167 offer ways of doing this, as do others.

UK higher education has an international reputation for excellence, due in no small part to the attention given to the management of both standards and quality. Governing bodies of institutions take both very seriously. They are, of course, interlinked: a high-quality learning environment is necessary for students to attain the levels of knowledge, understanding and skills required to obtain their awards, as the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education points out in its advice to governors on these matters.

“Quality” is a broad term, applied to the overall academic provision for learning, including teaching and assessment, student learning opportunities, the nature of academic programmes, the design of the curriculum and student engagement. It is worth remembering that each institution has its own agreed criteria for assessing the quality of learning and teaching. By international standards, as the former chief executive of the quality assurance body has said, mechanisms of internal control are really quite elaborate.

As yet the Government have provided little in the way of concrete reassurance that they understand the significance of the issues I have described. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill, we really need to see some evidence that the Government understand that it is precisely because universities have the freedom to determine the standards that they require of students in relation to the enormous range of programmes on offer that we have one of the strongest university systems in the world. The argument for greater comparability is superficially attractive but masks the inevitable consequence: a more limited range of provision, which is less open to change as academic subjects evolve. I cannot believe that the Government are deliberately doing that, given the high expectations they have of our universities to support innovation, to support local, regional and national economic priorities, and indeed to support social cohesion.

The higher education system is changing at an unprecedented rate, and the quality assurance system needs to change with it. That is surely what the Bill should seek to do. The challenge is to keep the best features of the current quality and standards systems but also adapt to the new conditions. There are some key principles that will keep reappearing in our debates: non-interference by government in what is taught, a high threshold for degree-awarding powers and university title, encouraging innovation to flourish, the provision of excellent public information and, in the case of this part of the Bill, autonomy over academic standards. This is one that the Government, through the Minister in the other place, have already explicitly accepted. It is one that the Minister in this House ought to be able to ensure is included in the Bill—and I urge him most strongly to do so.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, which I have already declared. I support the amendments in front of us, and I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Warwick, for so clearly setting out the tissue of issues around quality and standards. Unhelpfully, the Bill conflates the two at many points.

We are talking here about three different points. First, there are threshold standards, which are legitimately a matter for the Government on behalf of the British public in ensuring that there is a basic threshold, a sine qua non, in order to qualify as a university. Secondly, there are academic standards, which are surely a matter primarily for academics to determine, with a robust system in place to ensure that the process is testing, challenging and accurate. Thirdly, there is quality, and there must be a role for the Office for Students. Indeed, the entire Bill is largely focused on ensuring a proper assessment of quality. There must be a role for government in that process and we will doubtless be discussing this further on quite a number of occasions. Making clear the distinction between the three different things is very important, and the Bill sadly does not do so at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

I shall be very brief indeed. The comments of the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches hit the nail on the head. We have introduced a scheme that worked in Cambridge prior to its introduction. With the introduction of individual registration, we have complicated the scheme. We need to go back to why it was introduced: there was electoral fraud in a very small number of local authorities in the United Kingdom. To be frank, they were areas of the country with high ethnic-minority populations, where for cultural reasons it was felt acceptable within some of those populations to conduct elections in a way which proved fraudulent under the law of this country.

It was a Labour Government who introduced this scheme and we spent tens of millions of pounds—it must be much more than that now—implementing it out of political correctness to deal with a problem that should have been dealt with in individual communities where a particular problem arose. Now, of course, it is too late and we are left to pick up the damage that was done. This amendment, in its simple way, seeks to remedy at least some of the damage. But the only way of dealing with the damage that has been done through individual registration is to abolish the scheme and do what the Electoral Commission seems to recommend in its most recent report, which refers to taking action in specific areas, particularly those areas of the United Kingdom where there is a problem with electoral fraud.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I will reflect very briefly on what actually happened in Cambridge on 23 June last year. That fell at just the end of term. A lot of students were graduating and a lot of them were still in Cambridge. As the head of a college, I had spent rather a lot of time over the preceding two or three months encouraging students to register and explaining to them how they could register individually. For many of them, the decision made on 23 June was about their future. They were very strongly engaged with the issues. But quite a number of them ended up unable to cast a vote on 23 June because they had not got round to registering.

Yes, of course, it was their fault in not registering. They should have done so. None the less, we as a society ought to make it as easy as possible to ensure that every young person is registered and has the ability to vote. The amendment would solve the problem. I support it.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I support the intent of this amendment. When I was vice-chancellor at Aston University, we were not able to implement a system which allowed our students to opt in, but it was very simple to provide on the online registration page a reminder to students that they should register to vote and a link to the site where they could do so. Even if it were not possible to go all the way, as this amendment envisages, it would not create difficulty to require higher education providers to encourage students to do so, and to give students the ability to find the link from the university’s online registration site or through their virtual learning environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I wish to make a limited point. Why should it refer to “must” rather than “shall”? Both words seem to come to the same conclusion, but I would have thought that by and large the word “shall” has more of a legislative pedigree than the alternative. In saying so, I declare an interest as a former president of a Welsh university for 10 years and as the chairman of its council. I am sure that if one produced a friendly document entitled “Words and phrases judicially defined”, one would probably find “shall” and “must” in many Acts of Parliament, but I would have thought in this case that “shall” was probably far more appropriate than “must”.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I will forgo the opportunity to discourse the difference between “shall” and “must”; I would simply observe that both tend to be better than “may”. However, I commend the amendment. The mental well-being of students in our universities is hugely important, and is becoming even more so because of the increasing stresses on students in our universities. That is partly due to the increasingly competitive post-university market in getting careers and jobs; the determination to do well in order to perform well after university is now a very great pressure on our students.

However, I have to say that that impact is exacerbated by the increasing development of social media. Anything that is said or observed about a fellow student now becomes magnified a hundred times through the use of social media. The stress that can follow from that on individual students can be intense. It is incumbent on universities—“shall” or “must”—to provide not just detailed day-to-day pastoral care through a tutorial system for students but, if necessary, to have expert, trained counsellors available if things start to go seriously wrong. To those who would say, “This will cost money”, yes it will cost some money but it would cost far more if we did not do it and then things went seriously wrong for a number of our students. I urge the Government to give every sympathetic consideration they can to the points that have been made in this debate and to the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I want to further emphasise the importance of mental health support to the areas of access and progression. We appropriately attract more students who do not come from a family background where higher education is the norm, who do not have the support from home to ensure that they understand the experiences they are having and the ups and downs of their university careers. As we stress in the Bill, we want to see those students progress and succeed in their degrees. For this to be successful it is critical that universities provide mental health support to their students.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I, too, support this group of amendments. Rather bizarrely, just as this debate started—it is not because he knew that I was sitting in the Chamber or would be talking about higher education—I had an email from Professor Colin Lawson of the Royal College of Music to tell me that the Royal College of Music has just been rated second in the world for music education. He says, “Notwithstanding my disdain for these rankings, this is something I am very pleased with”.

There is a real issue here. To follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that you can assess arts teaching by this kind of approach of rankings. Music is interpreted in all sorts of ways. Just as art colleges are rather similar—I believe that drama colleges are as well—all sorts of endeavours such as this cannot be rated in the way that the Government propose. This is extremely dangerous, particularly for the conservatoire, which attracts a large proportion of its students from Asia and depends very much on them.

Perhaps I may briefly declare an interest. I am professor of science and society at Imperial College. The reason I was not involved so much in Committee is that I had been teaching in schools on behalf of the university in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincoln and Avon in the same week as the Committee stage and trying to get back to London in time on the train service, which is rather difficult. We teach practical science in the reach-out lab and have had PhD students coming through assessing the teaching. It is very clear that it is one thing to be able to assess learning, but teaching assessment is extremely complex. None of the ways in which we are doing this at the moment is nearly adequate. It is a major problem, because if we get it wrong the risk of damage in these cases is massive.

I shall give just one example, because I recognise that this is the Report stage. Some years ago, on two occasions, I ran a free communications course for students at Imperial College. The courses lasted for one and two days, students signed up on a first come, first served basis, and they were massively oversubscribed because undergraduates wanted to learn how they could communicate their science better. What was really interesting—I do not say this in my favour—was that the British and EU students almost universally gave us a rating of nine or 10 on the assessment of the course afterwards. The Chinese and other Asian students were not giving us anything like that rating: they gave us four, five or six, averaging about five. The reason for this, when we did a questionnaire with them, was that, unlike the British students, they said, “This is not going to get me a job anywhere; this is not going to be of any value to me commercially”. Yet, of course, in terms of the education of a student, it is vital.

I beg the Government to think about this rating system extremely carefully. If we get this wrong, we will damage not only the very top universities but other universities that are coming up at present. That would be a disaster for the United Kingdom and for our education.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments moved by the noble Duke and spoken to by the noble Lord. I declare my interest as Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge. I want to make three very quick points.

First, everyone on all sides of the House agrees on the importance of promoting the excellence of teaching in universities. The emphasis that the creation of the teaching excellence framework places on teaching to sit alongside research as the benchmarks of what universities should be all about is something that we all want to welcome, but the practicalities of how the Government are going about it leave, to my mind, something to be desired.

Secondly, there is going to be an inevitable crudity about the metrics that are used. The metrics that the Government are suggesting now are somewhat better than those that originally appeared in the Government’s Green Paper, but none the less they are still going to be a very crude measurement of how well a university is doing its teaching. The process of assessing research quality at universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, is detailed, analytical, nuanced and looks in a very serious way at the quality of research that a university does. The teaching excellence metrics that are proposed are totally different and they are crude.

Thirdly, there will be an inevitable crudity of perception about the ratings given. The noble and learned Baroness gave a very clear example of this. I use a very obvious analogy: the curse of star ratings in theatre reviews. When we look at the top of the theatre review, we look at whether it has one star, two stars, three stars, four stars or five stars and that is, in most cases, all we look at. We do not then look down and read the analysis of how good the play really was. Exactly the same is going to happen with universities. Are they gold, silver or bronze? If they are bronze, we are not going to look at them. This is, to my mind, an impossibly crude way of assessing, as we ought to assess, genuinely, what quality of teaching is being offered by our universities. I really urge the Government to think again about this imposition of ratings, which will have a perverse effect.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add a few words to what has already been said. I very much agree with most of the amendments in this group, and especially with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and other speakers said about gold, silver and bronze. I also support my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s amendment, which is a very thoughtful way of trying to approach an exceedingly difficult subject.

I will repeat what I have said on numerous occasions. It is vital that teaching is given the kind of support and effort that goes into research. One thing that we have perhaps got wrong in our universities is that we have been inclined to reward research much more than good teaching. One reason for that is that it is rather easier to measure. We have publications and all the metrics that go with looking at citations and so on, which do not exist for teaching. But if we are going to go down this route, we have to get it right, because if we fail we will abandon any kind of effort to improve teaching, and that would be a tragedy.

One thing that is wrong with the approach that the Government have taken is that it feeds what is, in my view, an insatiable need for grades and ratings. There is much too much of this, and it fails to look at the very important nuances of what constitutes good seminar teaching, good lectures, a good learning environment—whether it is laboratories or libraries—and good assessment and appraisal of students. That will get lost in these sorts of gradings.

There are a couple of things that have not been said, I think, by anybody in this debate. What is the impact of this on students? What happens to the students in a university who are suddenly told, “We are very sorry, but your university has been rated bronze”? This is not like going to Which? or a consumer advice organisation and deciding that you have made a mistake in the vacuum cleaner you have bought. You can go out and buy another vacuum cleaner, but these students are stuck in the same institution, which may or may not improve. Actually, I suspect that many of them will not improve because it does not motivate academic staff to be labelled in this way. People get better in response to praise, not this sort of rather crude criticism. I am rather taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, about it being fine to indicate those institutions or departments within them that have done extraordinarily well, because that is giving praise and those institutions should be asked to be role models and support some of their neighbouring institutions that are not doing quite so well.

It is a bad system that is being created for academic staff and students, let alone for universities in their international recruitment. Everything that has been said about that is absolutely right. People trying to decide where to study who live in a small Indian provincial city do not have all the information that might be available to potential students living in this country so these sorts of labels will have a very big impact, and they will last for a long time. Even if an institution gets better, it will be stuck with this label for a long time before it can escape from it.

Finally, this sort of crude denomination, labelling and grading will also affect employers, who, again, do not have all the information they might need to make the rather subtle decisions about the students they want to recruit and where they have come from. They will use this and decide that a student coming from a bronze institution is not going to be as good a recruit as a student from a gold institution. That, again, seems a very undesirable situation and will damage the students not only during their time at the institution but in terms of where they are going to go in their initial and early careers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear from today’s debate and those that preceded it that many noble Lords feel passionately about the teaching excellence framework, or TEF. Many noble Lords agree with the need for a renewed emphasis on improving teaching quality. Many noble Lords have also said that they agree that students need clear information to make well-informed decisions. These concerns are important motivational factors behind why the Government have chosen to introduce the teaching excellence framework and why it featured in the Conservative manifesto in 2015.

I understand that some noble Lords may feel that we have not listened to their concerns. I assure them that we have listened closely, considered carefully and responded thoroughly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his words and the general spirit in which this Bill has been handled across the Chamber so far.

Noble Lords expressed concern that the speed of implementation was too fast. In response, the Minister Jo Johnson committed to further piloting subject-level TEF for an additional year. Two full years of piloting is in line with the best practice demonstrated in the development of the REF. As with the REF pilots, these will be genuine pilots, involving a small number of volunteer institutions, with no public release of individual results and no impact on fees or reputation. Noble Lords expressed concerns, too, about the metrics and ratings and whether both would be interpreted appropriately. I shall return to this point later in my speech but, just briefly, the Minister has responded by committing to a comprehensive lessons-learned exercise, following the trial year that is already under way, to explicitly consider all those points.

I say again that we have listened and we have responded—but we must keep sight of the intended purpose of this policy. On that note, I turn to Amendments 62 to 66, 88 and 93 from my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. I reflected carefully on the point that my noble friend made about the use of the word “assessment” instead of “rating” in the drafting of the Bill. However, while these amendments are well intentioned, an assessment without an outcome will neither help to better inform students nor provide the incentives needed to elevate the status of teaching in our system.

I note that my noble friend raised the issue of the sector, specifically Warwick, buying into the TEF only because of the link to fees. However, I can cite contrasting views. I will quote no less an institution than Cambridge University as an example of the type of comments sent to us by the sector. We need to establish a balance here. Cambridge University states:

“Cambridge welcomes the Government’s desire to recognise teaching excellence, and supports the continued emphasis on a higher education system that embeds principles of diversity, choice and quality”.


I will expand on those points by turning to Amendment 72, which also features in this group and was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Amendment 72 goes even further than the amendments suggested by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and would turn the TEF into a pass or fail system. This amendment overlooks the fact that we already have a system that determines whether or not providers have or have not met baseline minimum expectations: it is run by HEFCE and the QAA and is called the quality assessment regime. It plays a critical role in maintaining standards and we do not need another system to do the same thing.

What the TEF offers is differentiation. In order to be eligible for a TEF rating of any kind, a provider must be meeting the baseline standards expected of a UK higher education provider. Therefore, a provider must at least “meet expectations” before they can receive a bronze award. Let me be clear that receiving a bronze award is not a badge of failure, as has been suggested by noble Lords today and during recent debates, including in Committee. I strongly reassure noble Lords that we are working closely with the British Council, Universities UK International and others to ensure that a provider that attains a bronze is recognised globally for its achievement. However, the Government are not complacent about the worries and concerns that—

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I am trying very hard to understand his argument. It seems to me that it may not be the intention of the Government or of the Office for Students that a bronze rating will be seen as a badge of failure. However, it is the perception of everyone else who looks at it that is the problem.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I take note of what the noble Lord has said. I will be saying more about this in a moment. I understand the concerns on this issue. I say again that the Government are not complacent about the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and others have. We have explicitly committed to consider the ratings and their international impact as part of the lessons learned exercise. Not all providers will be able to get a bronze award. The Government have listened to the concerns raised by this House and noble Lords and I am pleased to announce that the Office for Students will label providers without a quality assessment as, “ineligible for a teaching excellence award” on both the register and in key information for students. Let me be quite clear that this indicates to students, parents and employers that there is a level that sits below bronze.

In contrast, the implication of this amendment is that the vast majority of the sector will end up being labelled wrongly as “meets expectations”—unless the intention is that much of the sector will actually be termed a failure, as in pass or fail. Without clear differentiation it is impossible to tell students where the best teaching can be found. GuildHE and Universities UK wrote to noble Lords last week expressing their support for the Government’s approach. Steve Smith, vice-chancellor of Exeter University, said:

“Some of the most controversial aspects of the TEF are … essential to its success. Genuine, clear differentiation is critical if we are truly to incentivise teaching”.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was not able to speak to his amendment in Committee, but I supported a similar one moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have an ideal amendment before the House tonight. I declare an interest as a senior associate member for over 20 years of St Anthony’s College, Oxford. It is a wonderful example of an international postgraduate college, bringing in people from all over the world, many of whom go back to their native countries to occupy positions of influence and leadership. We must do nothing to deter that.

If we want evidence of the fragile state of feeling in our universities and academic circles, we need do no more than pick up this morning’s Times in which there is a letter signed by the vice-chancellor of Oxford University and the heads of 35 colleges. You may say—and you may be right—that some of their fears are exaggerated and misplaced. I sincerely hope they are, but they are nevertheless real. Anything that we can do, at this difficult stage, to reinforce confidence in academic circles must be helpful.

I do not doubt for a moment what my noble friend Lord Younger has often said. I have a high regard for him: he is a man of utter probity and integrity. However, it is not good enough repeatedly to say that there is no bar on students—that they can come as often and in as many numbers as they like—but then say, as other Ministers do, “But of course we have to look at immigration figures”. Those coming to this country as students conflate those two statements and believe that there is a risk. This evening, we can, to coin a phrase, prove at a stroke that there is not a risk by saying that they will be separately counted and not part of the overall figures. We should do no less. I very much hope that we will pass the amendment tonight and indicate to those in another place that we would like them to examine it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not claim any exclusive rights to the wording of his amendment but we want to see something, in one form or another, that echoes it to be incorporated in the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 150. At Pembroke College, Cambridge, where I have the honour of being Master, some 10% of our undergraduates and 30% of our postgraduates are international students from beyond the EU. They add enormously to the well-being and distinction of the college. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made the financial case very clearly; the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made the soft power case very clearly; the noble Lord, Lord Broers, made the industrial case very clearly. I would add that there is a very strong educational case as well.

Having international students among the mix of students at our university adds enormously to the quality of the students’ educational experience. They share with each other, learn from each other, associate with each other and hear from people of different backgrounds with different experiences and from different parts of the world. The education that comes from the ability to do that and from that richness could not be replicated by the best teaching. It comes only from being among, and sharing with, students from very different national backgrounds. That is an enormously important part of the value of our higher education in this country. Let us make sure that we keep that. This amendment is one way of doing it.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel compelled to respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I am a long-standing governor at the LSE, where I am now an emeritus governor. Recently, we have been rated second in the world as the most prestigious centre of higher education learning in the social sciences, and as the highest rated such place within the United Kingdom. I do not go much on league tables myself but I cannot help being proud of that statistic. The evidence speaks for itself. A very high proportion of our student community comes from overseas. Of course, it is a case not just of the atmosphere of a centre but of the quality of the education which benefits from the input of people with different insights from different parts of the world.

I fervently believe that a centre of higher education worthy of its name should be part of the international community and should recognise that Britain is inseparable from the rest of the world and cannot operate in higher learning without an international community and, indeed, international staff. They are a very important part of the LSE as well. What worries me is that it does not take very long for an impression to grow. We are hearing too much anecdotal evidence that people elsewhere in the world are beginning to wonder whether the UK is the place they want to come and pursue their studies. Indeed, one hears of academics who question whether they want to go on developing their careers in the United Kingdom because they are not certain that it is the sort of place in which they want to live and bring up their families. We have a huge challenge here and we have a great opportunity this evening to put it right.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Smith of Finsbury Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

194A: Clause 108, page 67, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) Where a decision to be made by the OfS or UKRI relates to—(a) the power to award research degrees; or(b) research students;the OfS and UKRI must make the decision jointly.”

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 194A, standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I remind the House of my interest as master of Pembroke College in Cambridge.

The Bill has been substantially improved over the course of recent weeks, and we are very grateful for many of the amendments the Government have brought forward. But one aspect of the Bill still gives rise to concern: its basic failure to understand the essential interrelationship between teaching and research. Research is not only important in universities of and for itself in pushing ahead the frontiers of knowledge and understanding, and vital for our economic future and success as a country; it is also important for the way it enriches, enlivens, illuminates and deepens the teaching universities undertake. Having postgraduate students alongside undergraduates enhances the undergraduate experience, provides added value to their learning and benefits the overall academic atmosphere of the university community.

The recognition of research degree-awarding powers is therefore of critical importance but the Bill fails to recognise that. It ultimately places the authority for the awarding of such powers solely in the hands of the Office for Students. As a result of government amendments, the Bill now helpfully requires the OfS to seek the advice of UKRI before granting, varying or revoking degree-awarding powers. That point was reinforced in the letter the Minister helpfully sent us this morning.

However, seeking advice is not enough. In Clause 108, the phrase “may co-operate” is not enough, nor are “may provide information” and,

“must, if required … by the Secretary of State”.

Our amendment seeks to put this right very simply by saying that the decision to grant, revoke or vary research degree-awarding powers should be made jointly by both the Office for Students and UKRI. The body that knows about students and the body that knows about research should both be intrinsically involved in that decision. It would be daft to leave open the possibility, as the Bill does at present, that the OfS could ignore the advice, knowledge, expertise and research experience of UKRI in deciding whether a university should be able to grant research degrees. Worse, if a decision to vary or revoke has been made, the university can make representations but only to the Office for Students. The OfS could deal with these representations unilaterally. An appeal could then be made to the First-tier Tribunal. At the moment the Bill envisages only an appeal relating to an Office for Students decision. Surely an appeal should be able to be made in relation to the views and decisions of both the OfS and UKRI. If it is a joint decision, there will rightly be subsequent joint accountability for that decision.

It is also worth pointing out that UKRI will be a major funder—post Brexit, quite possibly the major funder—of postgraduate research study. Are we seriously saying that it should take only a minor advisory role in ratifying a university’s degree-awarding status? I urge the Government to think again, support research, intertwine research and teaching to the fullest possible extent, bring clarity and firmness to the process and ensure that the best decisions are taken with the full expertise of UKRI intimately involved. This must surely be a joint process. I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I have my name on this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, for moving it so fully and eloquently, and I entirely agree with everything that he said.

It seems extraordinary, and I thought this at Second Reading, that the research knowledge and capability is at UKRI but—so far as I know, and I will be corrected if I am wrong—there is no requirement of any sort that the Office for Students should have any particular knowledge or experience of research or, for that matter, research degree-awarding powers. Therefore, the decision is to be taken by people who profess no particular knowledge of the subject matter of research degree-awarding powers. That is to be left to a matter of advice. The difficulty with that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has pointed out, is that when it comes to accountability all that the Office for Students can say is, “Well, we got this advice from UKRI. That’s our defence”. Surely, the people who should defend the advice that is the essence of the matter should be the people who give it. There is a difference between decision-makers and advisers, as we were authoritatively informed some years ago: Ministers decide, advisers advise. In this context, the decisions are to be taken by the Office for Students while UKRI, with all its expertise, is relegated to being an adviser.

I have interests in the University of Cambridge, in the sense that I am an honorary fellow of two of the Cambridge colleges and I am a member of the Council for the Defence of British Universities. However, my view, which I have expressed consistently since Second Reading, is that UKRI’s research capabilities mean that it should be involved in the decision-making process as a decision-maker, not merely an adviser. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, said, we got a letter this morning, which was followed up by an invitation to telephone. Naturally, I accepted the invitation to telephone as soon as I was free to do so. We had a considerable discussion, and I was asked whether the second part of the amendment was as important as the first, the second part being about research students. I said, “Not for me”; I thought the essential part was the first part. I thought, “This sounds good”. Your Lordships will no doubt wait with bated breath to hear what the answer is to that. Anyway, I expressed the view that the second part was not so important. Therefore, if at some stage the amendment is subject to further consideration, I would be perfectly happy—I think this goes for its co-mover as well—to forget about that. The essential part is the decision-making. Surely the Government recognise that there is a difference between a decision-maker—a person with some responsibility for decisions—and an adviser. I strongly support the amendment and feel rather disappointed that the Government have not seen the logic of its position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I rather fear that an irresistible force has met an immovable object on this occasion. That is a shame because we have agreed on so much in this part of the Bill and we all agree that the various amendments that have been made have vastly improved the Bill. I would argue that we have done 98% of the work required. Despite the very eloquent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, I feel we are somewhat dancing on the head of a pin on this issue. What is the difference between the two cases being put? On the one hand, my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, say that research degree-awarding powers should be made jointly by the OfS and UKRI, whereas the Bill says they should be made by the OfS with advice from UKRI. There is clearly a distinction between the two and I understand it, but we are not talking about a huge distinction this evening. It is important to bear that context in mind as we wind our way to the end of this debate.

I start by stating that the Government fully recognise the importance of a co-ordinated approach to supporting the pipeline of undergraduate and postgraduate talent and skills development. Let me explain briefly where responsibilities will lie across the two organisations, UKRI and the OfS. The OfS will be responsible for maintaining the quality of higher education in England, including postgraduate provision, and promoting the interests of students in English higher education providers, including students engaged in postgraduate research and study. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

UKRI will support the cost of postgraduate research degree programmes in English universities through Research England’s dedicated PGR funding stream. Support of this type is also a devolved matter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Additionally, the Government made an amendment in the other place that clarified UKRI’s ability not only to support postgraduate provision but to encourage it. At his appearance before the Science and Technology Select Committee last October, Sir John Kingman argued that these reforms would improve oversight of the research talent pipeline.

UKRI will be a major and influential advocate for the importance of maintaining a strong, healthy pipeline of research students. Crucially, it will have a strategic centre that can gather and analyse intelligence on the pipeline from across its councils and can work with the OfS and the devolved funding bodies to develop a more holistic and comprehensive picture of the landscape than is possible under current arrangements.

The Government are backing UKRI to succeed. In the Budget—funnily enough, very little publicity was given to this aspect of it, which is surprising given the importance I know noble Lords attach to it—the Government committed to spend £250 million over the next four years to increase the number of highly skilled researchers and develop the talent needed by British industries for a thriving and innovative economy. We also announced £100 million for global research talent over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK and help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in R&D. That was a very significant announcement. Let me be clear: UKRI will work closely with the OfS and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this vital part of the university system is protected.

I turn now to the amendment in front of us; there are two distinct proposals within this amendment. First, on the matter of research students, it must be said that the OfS is an England-only regulator, while UKRI is a UK-wide funder. It would be entirely inappropriate to give the OfS a decision-making power in relation to a research council’s doctoral funding for a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish university, for example. Secondly, each organisation will make countless decisions that relate to research students. Requiring them to make every one of these decisions jointly would result in a duplication of effort and, in many instances, simply not make sense. For example, the OfS will not be well placed to take decisions on where research funding should be allocated to fund doctoral training for the purpose of enhancing the UK’s research capability where this is outside the university sector—for example, in one of the UK’s world-leading research institutes. Conversely, this amendment would risk giving UKRI unnecessary decision-making responsibilities on regulatory issues which affect all higher education students, but where UKRI will have no particular remit or expertise, such as on ensuring institutions have appropriate student protection plans in place.

As we have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill, the OfS and UKRI can share information and will co-operate at all levels to ensure that the respective decisions they make regarding research students are appropriately informed by the expertise of the other organisation. This is a much more proportionate and effective approach. Clause 108 already enables this and, since both organisations have a duty to have regard to the need to operate in an effective and efficient way through Clauses 3 and 100, the Bill actively encourages such co-operation. In addition, this House has already agreed amendments that require the OfS and UKRI to detail in their annual reports how they have co-operated in the past year. We fully expect evidence of co-operation on matters related to research students to be included in these reports and, through provisions in Clause 108, Ministers can act to require this to happen should the evidence suggest otherwise. However, I put to the House that while co-operation and collaboration is appropriate, asking the OfS and UKRI to make joint decisions in every instance is not.

On research degree-awarding powers, we considered carefully the constructive arguments made in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that this should be a matter where OfS and UKRI should make decisions jointly. Having given this matter much thought, we do not agree that the decision itself should be a joint one between the two bodies, given that UKRI has no direct regulatory function in relation to higher education providers. Nevertheless, while we believe that the OfS as regulator of the sector is best placed to take the final decisions, we fully agree that it is important that the expertise of UKRI should be fully utilised in ensuring that the OfS makes well-informed decisions. Because of this, we put forward an amendment, which this House has already agreed, requiring the OfS to request advice from the designated quality body or committee on degree-awarding powers. This amendment ensures that the advice must be informed by the views of UKRI when it concerns research degree-awarding powers, and this advice cannot be ignored by the OfS. This gives UKRI a clearly enshrined role, securing its influence in decisions on research degree-awarding powers, which is much stronger than anything that has gone before in securing a guaranteed role for such advice to be given for matters concerning research degree-awarding powers. Through our reforms, we see UKRI having a bigger role than any research organisation currently has, or that HEFCE has now.

The new system that we have designed has clear accountabilities, and instituting joint decision-making in this way could give UKRI a role in matters which have nothing to do with an institution’s research capability. Further, the Government will also commit to giving UKRI an important advisory role when the department is preparing guidance on the criteria by which applications for research degree-awarding powers will be assessed. These are meaningful legislative provisions. The Bill does not prevent UKRI having a role in the appeals process when appropriate. We believe that it is a more practical and reasonable alternative to the amendment, taking into account the real-world operations of the two bodies, while crucially ensuring that any decisions are informed by the relevant expertise. The amendment as drafted would make it a legal requirement for the OfS to jointly take decisions about the number of doctoral training places to be supported by the research councils, about the funding of doctoral research training in research council institutes and facilities, and about the support given by UKRI for doctoral training in universities in the devolved Administrations. These things are the primary responsibility of UKRI and are outside the scope of the OfS’s responsibilities, and I believe it would be wrong to put them into legislation today. It is with those things in mind that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Smith, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

First, briefly to address the point from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, even though UKRI may have no direct funding responsibility in relation to conservatoires, it can none the less play a useful role in making a joint decision, and I do not think that diminishes in any way the research standing of the conservatoires.

[Lord Winston]

I do not want to delay this debate any longer, but I am still puzzled by this. A huge number of research degrees are master’s degrees with a research component. Of course, they are often not funded by research councils; sometimes they are, but sometimes they are not. Where do they stand with relation to this proposal? I would like a bit of clarity about it.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

I do not think that our amendment would make any substantive difference from the position under the provisions of the Bill. It simply means that UKRI is part of the process alongside the Office for Students.

In relation to UKRI, the Minister has shown in our discussions much wisdom and willingness to take on board points made from all sides of the House. This is only to be expected from an alumnus of Pembroke College. However, on this particular issue, about research degree-awarding powers, he says that we are dancing on the head of a pin. I do not think that we are. There is a fundamental difference between having a statutory duty to give advice and for that advice to be considered, and taking a joint decision. There is a world of difference between those two. The question is who has the ultimate authority, who has the subsequent accountability and whether we can, by making this a joint decision, give reassurance to many of our leading research universities, which have expressed concern. As I said earlier, the body that knows about students and the body that knows about research should both be involved in the decision about whether to give research degree-awarding powers, and they should make that decision jointly. It would be useful to test the opinion of the House.