Higher Education and Research Bill
Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016.
(Morning)
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Mr Hanson, is it in order for us to remove our jackets?
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Orpington)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 6 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 8 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 September;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 October;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 October;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Date
Time
Witness
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 10.30 am
Universities UK; GuildHE; Independent Higher Education (formerly Study UK); MillionPlus
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 11.25 am
Sir Alan Langlands, Vice-Chancellor, University of Leeds; Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor, University Cambridge; University of Alliance; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 2.45 pm
Which?; Confederation of British Industry; MoneySavingExpert.com; Professor Chris Husbands, Chair of the Teaching Excellence Framework and Vice-Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 3.30 pm
University and College of Football Business (UCFB); Condé Nast College of Fashion and Design; Further Education Trust for Leadership; Prospects College of Advanced Technology
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 4.15 pm
University and College Union; Alison Goddard, Editor of HE; Office for Fair Access
Tuesday 6 September
Until no later than 5.15 pm
Universities Scotland; Royal Society of Edinburgh; Scottish Funding Council; John Kingman, Chair of UK Research and Innovation
Thursday 8 September
Until no later than 12.30 pm
Research Councils UK; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Innovate UK; The Royal Society
Thursday 8 September
Until no later than 1.00 pm
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Department for Education
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 15; Schedule 3; Clauses 16 to 26; Schedule 4; Clauses 27 to 56; Schedule 5; Clauses 57 to 60; Schedule 6; Clauses 61 to 65; Schedule 7; Clauses 66 to 82; Schedule 8; Clause 83; Schedule 9; Clauses 84 to 104; Schedule 10, Clauses 105 to 110; Schedules 11 and 12; Clauses 111 to 113; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 October. —(Joseph Johnson.)
I am pleased to be here this morning to start the Bill’s passage through Committee stage. I thank everyone who has given up their time over the summer to make the arrangements for us all to be here today, the members of the Committee, those who have submitted volumes of written evidence, and those who will be giving evidence today and on Thursday, who include higher education mission groups such as Independent Higher Education and MillionPlus, and vice-chancellors such as Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz of Cambridge University and Sir Alan Langlands of the University of Leeds, whose universities are affiliated to the Russell Group.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
made a declaration of interest. She said that, given that the Bill created a new office for students, witnesses from student organisations such as the National Union of Students should have been called to give oral evidence, as should representatives of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Orpington)
said that it was open to all parties to propose witnesses, but that the Labour party had not proposed NUS representatives until so late in the process that they could not be accommodated within the programme motion. He commented that the Scottish National party had proposed witnesses representing Scottish higher education and that they would give evidence in the afternoon sitting.
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
made a declaration of interest in that he is an honorary professor at the University of Stirling.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
made the point that the Government’s failure even to consider students’ presence in the evidence sessions before being pressed to do so was deplorable, and that they could have accommodated students on the Thursday, as they had the SNP at late notice.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
commented that it was odd not to have witnesses representing students, either from the NUS or those who had participated in QAA audits.
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Orpington)
thanked hon. Members for their comments and said that he did not want the Committee to think that the Government had not been engaging with students.
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
made a declaration of interest as a member of the advisory panel for the University Partnerships Programme Foundation.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
asked whether there had been any discussions about how the change in the machinery of government would affect the Bill, given that it would be split between two Departments.
Jo Johnson (Conservative, Orpington)
stated that the machinery of Government changes had gone through in July and that the lines of ownership were clear.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
repeated his view that representatives of the NUS should be called as witnesses, stating that input from students was crucial, and this should be accommodated by the programming motion allowing half an hour on Thursday.
Examination of Witnesses
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Good morning. Thank you for coming to give evidence to the Committee. I have a really simple question to start with, and it would be good to get the views of each organisation represented, if not each panellist. Do you think it is right that there should be student representation on the governing body of every higher education institution, on the board of the office for students, on the board of the quality provider and the quality committee? Would you like to see the scope of the Bill extended to make that provision?
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Will you elaborate slightly on that final point?
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Finally, I am interested in the panel’s views about the fairness of either institutions or Government being able to alter the repayment terms or the conditions of student loans—whether those are tuition fee levels or repayment terms and conditions—after a student has enrolled on a course or while they are still repaying the loan as a graduate. Do you think that enabling universities or Government to tinker with the terms and conditions has the serious risk that when students sign up as applicants, they do not necessarily know what they are signing up for? That has real risks for fair access and for basic fairness to consumers.
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Is there a Universities UK view on that, Professor Gaskell?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
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 itQ ?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
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 importantQ ?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q How important is the Bill?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q In terms of the panel members who have already commented on the regulatory framework, some people have been criticising the proposals as being overly summative and not formative enough to enable or encourage proper development. Would you like to comment on that?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Since the Government presented the Bill, and indeed since it came before the House, we have had two major seismic shocks to the British political system. One of them, of course, is the impact of Brexit. The other, although perhaps not as seismic as Brexit, is nevertheless important for us: the changes to the machinery of Government which have moved this subject to the Department for Education rather than the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I wanted to ask the panellists if they would give us their views.
The Government have made certain commitments to underwrite funding which comes from the EU, particularly in the area of research, but have made no commitments about where we are going from there. I know very well from conversations with many university providers how concerned they are about this—not simply from the research side, but because community-based universities are worried about loss of funding from the European Social Fund and other things. I wonder if I could take a quick snapshot of whether you think that the Government are on top of this and doing enough about it already.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q May I press you, Professor Gaskell, on that particular point? Members of the Committee will probably have seen the poll about the reaction to Brexit, which I think said that something like 40% of people between the ages of 18 and 35 were thinking about leaving the country as a result. That addresses one of the points that you made.
May I press you on the particular issues and concerns that you as a Russell Group member and also UUK generally have pressed the Government on? They relate to the very mixed position in terms of funding for research. We have heard all these stories about people being edged out. We know that the Government have supported Horizon 2020, but what is the position with the support they are currently not giving or are giving for beyond the 2020 process, while we are still in the EU and able to bid for these things?
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
Good morning. I have a question for Mr Kirkham. I want to pick up on the point you made earlier about the importance of the single regulatory framework and creating a level playing field. I was wondering whether you could elaborate further on why that is so important and the benefits from your perspectiveQ .
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q Would the panel accept that, if we are looking at another playing field, we should consider something beyond regulation and maybe have a set of expectations about what institutions are actually delivering, so that, if it is a level playing field, it goes beyond regulation?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q Can I press a little further on the regulatory framework? I think there is a consensus that we need a new regulatory framework and it is welcome that the Government are bringing forward a Bill to enable us to debate that. The Bill has also been brought forward in the context of trying to change the terrain of higher education and encourage greater diversity of providers. In that context, do you think that the regulatory framework as presented in the Bill is fit for purpose? Are there any risks involved in the proposals before us?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
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.Q
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.
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
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?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
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.Q
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Technically in the sense that she is on maternity leave, but she is still part of it.
The Universities UK report on sustainability and the future of higher education regulation was recently a tangential part of the Science and Technology Committee’s review of the future provision of skills. How do you feel the Bill addresses the concerns you brought up in that report?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q In the interests of brevity, I shall push two questions together. As you know, the OFS will have a remit to cover standards as well as quality. Do you foresee any issues that might emerge from that? The Bill also puts in place provisions on market exit. Do you envisage many institutions exiting the market?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q I think the UK leads in the league table of Nobel prize winners, so we need to protect that.
On the split between education and research, do you think there is enough protection for, for example, postgraduates who do some of both? What are your views on the split between the two departments?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q A quick question about clause 2, which is on general duties. Subsection (1)(c) refers to
“the need to promote value for money”.
Do you know what that means and do you think it would help to include a public interest amendment there?
Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)
ThisQ is about seeing if we can have new providers in the sector. Mr Proudfoot, what is your assessment of the level of demand for new providers?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q The way in which discussions about diversity have been confused with the need for new entrants has been very unhelpful. I come from a Scottish tradition where I would say that quality enhancement of existing institutions is the way to create diversity. When I look at the landscape in Scotland with everything from the University of the Highlands and Islands to traditional universities such as Edinburgh and newer universities such as Stirling, there is plenty of diversity through quality enhancement.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q This is a very specific question for Mr Proudfoot, but other colleagues might want to comment briefly. Mr Proudfoot, you have expressed your exasperation with the present system. You must therefore be very pleased that the Government are preparing to give you most of what you want in being able to start off with university-like things from the beginning. Given the issues around security, what extras, representative of those organisations, do you think that alternative providers now need to put into the pot in terms of public interest? Specifically, do you think that issues around size and track record of new providers should be a contingent part of the registration process?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q And for track record?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q If I can ask the panel generally—we have already heard in the previous session about issues around Brexit and the impact that that is going to have. Do you think that the Government have taken sufficient cognisance of the issues around Brexit, particularly in terms of research but also in terms of the development of staff in your organisations?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
TheQ question is whether we have enough time. We are already hearing stories of researchers and people losing grants and things like that.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
SoQ they are on their own?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Just on that specific point: the issue around EU postgraduates is also important. Would it be helpful if the Government were to make some movement and some flexibility in terms of what those postgraduates themselves could do in this country to contribute locally to the economies?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q May I put one further brief question to the panel? It relates to the new institutions that have been developed and the Bills around research: there has already been concern about the overlap of responsibilities between the new institutions and UKRI—UK Research and Innovation. The devolved Administrations have raised that as well. Is this an issue for the competition between English-only funding and UK funding, and the impact on the UK brand internationally?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q Again, I would like to go the general and ask if you would tell us which are the most important parts of the Bill as far as you are concerned, and why the Bill is so important right now.
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
AreQ you happy with the Bill as it stands on that issue or would you like to see some form of change?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q Does the Bill make that more explicit? If so, does that help students who are applying to your organisation to understand more?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q One of the things that the Bill does is open up student data, including individual-level data, to a wider range of people, possibly taking the use of that data outside current research protocols. Do you see that as a problem and something that we should address as a Committee? Also, would it be helpful to have all the data in one place? There are lots of requirements on individual institutions to produce data, but would it be helpful to have all that data available in one place, for example in UCAS?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q I want to find out what your views are on the creation of UKRI, and your thoughts on whether it will bring a greater sense of oversight and more strategic direction as well. Professor McKellar, perhaps you can start off.
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q Do you agree with that assessment, Professor?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q Does the legislation as it currently reads enable that to take place?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
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?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Q You have answered my second question, namely: is there a requirement to have devolved Administrations represented on the board of UKRI?
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
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.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q To touch on the split between research and education—you have made your views clear—is there anything that would help the collaboration between the two parts? Obviously, there is still a big gap about where postgraduates fit between the two. We would like people, rather than having lots of discussions and meetings, to just get on and do their work. This is not a leading question, but is it your view—this is to all of you—that it would be better if it sits in one Department?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q Briefly, on science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, there is a great opportunity to put things into this Bill to protect certain subjects. You do not operate on a basis on which you can make a profit on things like that, because all those subjects operate at a deficit. There are laboratory issues that you have to work with, and medicine is a long degree. What can we do that is not already in the Bill to protect those subjects? To the best of your knowledge, how can we protect the strategically important vulnerable subjects—for example, chemistry and physics?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Moving to a slightly different area, do you think the reforms in the Bill will help to drive social mobility and widen participation? I am particularly interested in capturing the more mature people in our workforce to ensure skills are kept up throughout a working life.Q
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q May I pursue the issue of the regulatory framework a little further? Obviously, this is the first major discussion we have had on this for some time and it is important that we get it right. It is in the context of a Bill that is also seeking to encourage new providers. What thoughts do members of the panel have on how we should get it right and whether there are any ways in which the Bill could be improved in relation to the entry point of the new providers, the overall oversight of the system and the potential for market failure?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q I want to return to the issue of data, but not looking at the social mobility aspect. We know that students struggle to come to sensible decisions in their own eyes about which university to go to. Do you feel the Bill will address the level of data that is available to students to allow them to make better decisions about which universities to go to?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Would the duty put organisations such as UCAS in a better position to be able to translate the data and see what the worthwhile stuff is that students should perhaps look at first?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q The clear concern is about some of the managerialist assumptions that are built into the Bill. Can the panel help me understand what they think the Bill will do to help their institutions enhance quality development?
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Mary Curnock Cook, you said it was important for applicants to know what they should expect when they apply to university. Do you think that that also applies to student finance? What challenges present themselves from the Government or universities being able to tinker with repayment terms and conditions after students have entered university?Q
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Is it right that universities or Government should be able to alter the terms and conditions after a student has enrolled on a course or after they have graduated?
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q Nicely dodged. We have a few minutes left, so let me ask Professor Borysiewicz why the university council proposed to move in the wrong direction when it came to access and participation targets for low-participation neighbourhoods?
Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)
Q When the university council made its approach to OFFA, how did the target move from the moment you first engaged with OFFA to the agreement you reached? What was the difference, and how would you characterise that process of discussion?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Sir Alan, you said earlier that OFS was there to do what Ministers told it to do. I assume that you meant that that was the ministerial view, rather than the OFS view. Do you think that there are sufficient safeguards to the autonomy of the OFS in this legislation, in particular the autonomy of the director of the Office for Fair Access? This is very specific; you have had 20 years at the highest levels in these areas and you know that the devil is in the details.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Would the other panellists share that view?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
May I say at the beginning of this sitting that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward?Q 55
Let me turn to our colleagues. Can I start you off with a question about the issue of students as consumers? Obviously, the language of the Bill talks, significantly—as the Government have—about boosting the rights of students as consumers, yet the paradox is that, in the past few months, some of the main controversies have been about the way in which students as consumers seem to be getting a raw deal from the Government, who have moved the goalposts in certain areas. With that in mind, would you like to comment, first, on whether the Government are right to put so much emphasis on students as consumers and, secondly, on whether there are practical measures in the Bill that strengthen their position as consumers?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
No, I am almost speechless at that strong rhetoric that was used. I would like to press one—
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
The point that you touched on, Mr Lewis, is about the spirit of the proposals, as well as the letter of the proposals. It is in that spirit that I want to—
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Thank you, Sir Edward. Moving on from the consumer issue, I want to ask about where the panel sees the role of skills in the Bill. Mr Carberry, you have waxed lyrical on this issue on a number of occasions, but the fact of the matter is that the skills issues that affect us are, I would suggest, relatively untouched in the Bill. Are you concerned by that? Do other people have concerns?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
I want to move on to the alternative provider of student finance, which some of the panel have talked about heavily. Given that, over the years, a large number of religious students are not necessarily able to access that fundingQ , I was wondering in terms of the Bill itself whether you support what is being detailed and outlined here, or is there anything that should be enhanced or improved?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Since tuition fees were trebled in 2012, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been an improvement in either teaching quality or student satisfaction. Do you have concerns that we are tying in TEF to fees and that we could have a situation where there is no benefit for the students involvedQ ?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Q Are you confident that the metrics used within the TEF are going to tease out that quality?
Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)
If I may step back for a moment, picking a higher education provider is one of the most important decisions any of these younger people—or, indeed, older people—can take. Do you think that students have sufficient information at the moment on which to make such a life-changing decisionQ ?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Can I probe Chris a little bit more on the teaching excellence framework? WhenQ we conducted an inquiry on the Select Committee into teaching quality, there was uniform agreement that it is good for the Government to focus on teaching excellence, but concern about the metrics. It is welcome that Government thinking has been evolving and did so during the course of our inquiry. You were suggesting there is room for further evolution. I am thinking particularly about how satisfied you are with the pretty crude metrics around employment retention and the national student survey. There is also the balance between the quantitative metrics and qualitative assessment.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q You mentioned earlier a comparison with the REF. To get to the current stage with the REF took a considerable amount of time. Do you think we are rushing it with the TEF before moving on to stages two and three?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q Will you be able to take account of the work that HEFCE is doing on value added?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
I would like to know whether the changes we are making will provide our businesses with more qualified people with the right qualifications to enable our economy to grow. MrQ Carberry, is the CBI satisfied that the Bill does that?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q What else would you like? What is not there that you would like to see?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q Do your members think that once the Bill is implemented, they are more likely to get the kind of graduates that they need than they would have had previously?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
ReturningQ to the TEF, do you think it is going to raise teaching standards or is it going to provide a mechanism to increase fees? Could we end up with a very complicated system of fees, where the levels are changing from one course to another or from one year to another, leaving quite a difficult situation for students to comprehend?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q At the risk of making this a TEF love-in, I would like to pursue a final point with Chris. The elephant in the room on TEF, which has not surfaced today, although it has at many other meetings, not least the meeting of vice-chancellors with the all-party parliamentary group, is the basis on which the TEF is produced. If we go back to the consumer conversations we had earlier, if you were a consumer, you would not just want to know whether chocolate was good or bad for you; you would want to know whether dark chocolate or white chocolate was. This inevitably raises questions about whether you do the test on the basis of disciplines, which would probably be hugely complicated, or perhaps by schools of humanities, et cetera. Have you any thoughts at the moment? Have the Government given you any guidance on where they want you to go with that?
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
IQ too want to pick up on the subject of the TEF. This question is for Mr Carberry. We talked about metrics at length in the Select Committee. From a business perspective, what is your view of including employability in assessing teaching excellence?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q All the members of the panel are—I will not say not in the mainstream—not in the usual stream of what people think of as higher education. I want to ask two questions to two sides. To witnesses from what might broadly be described as the vocational and further education sector, do you feel that this Bill has enough for you? There has been a lot of talk about alternative providers, but there is not much detail in the Bill about skills or about how FE and vocational education can help with the promotion and expansion of HE.
To our other witnesses from UCFB and Condé Nast college, a further question. You operate at the moment as independent providers in a different field. Some of your fees, not least those of Condé Nast, are fairly eye-watering. How would you feel about your institution and others being brought into the central process, where you might be regulated more than you are at the moment?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q That is perfectly true, but it is also true that one of the aims of the Bill is to widen access and participation. The fees for your school are £27,000 per year. Clearly, at the moment you are probably not in a very good position to do that. If you come into a mainstream system, how will you be able to address that particular aspect of the Bill?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
It is a very niche offering.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q To be fair, perhaps I should bring in Philip to give us his perspective on that.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q But what do you see in the Bill that is actually going to change that? Is there much read-across from the Bill and, for example, some of the proposals from the Sainsbury review? When you look at the forecasts in the technical documents that go with it, the number of FE colleges that are guesstimated to be providing HE courses in 10 years’ time is more or less exactly the same as at the moment. The concerns of many people are that this is a Bill that is predicated for alternative providers, but the FE sector does not really seem to be at the table.
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
Q Good afternoon. I want to take a slight step back. Could you outline some of the barriers and challenges that new providers face in entering the market? How do you feel the Bill and the reforms will address these?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q One question that came up a number of times earlier today is about social mobility. We often hear in the media that we should be focusing on the red brick and Russell Group universities. We hear a lot about that, but obviously organisations and institutions in the same sectors as your own have a responsibility to do that, too. What I would like to hear, further to your reading and understanding of the Bill, is how that is going to be enhanced within your sectors as a result of this Bill being introduced.
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q I am glad you are but social mobility is not just about socio-economic factors; it is also around the public sector equality duty. In terms of BME for example, and in relation to women within STEM as a prime example of under-representation, do you see this Bill presenting new opportunities to enable greater participation in other areas, not just in socio-economic terms?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Any comments from anyone else?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q You made a very powerful point, and contributed to the discussion that we have been having around the TEF and its metrics. I wanted to raise a different point which is around part-time students, because whatever the other impacts of the 2012 changes to fees and student funding, which we could debate, the consequences for part-time students have been devastating—I think everybody agrees on that. Do you see anything in the Bill that addresses that issue?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q I wonder if it is entirely accurate to categorise universities as boarding schools, having no links with business and not having employability as part of their agenda. The picture of HE is actually quite diverse, and that is creating a bit of a problem for the TEF. I wonder whether some of the issues that you are raising could be addressed by making employability, for example, central to the TEF.
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q I want to ask the representatives of the independent sector here today how representative are you of the sector? How much bigger could the independent sector be once the Bill is enacted? Are you the tip of the iceberg, or are you just going to be able to grow a little bigger and do a little bit more than you used to be able to do?
Mark Pawsey (Conservative, Rugby)
Q Why is this Bill so important to you?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Both our colleagues from the FE sector have laid stress on the way that higher degrees can be delivered through very strong local connectivity. To be fair to the Government, the Government have banged on in the Bill all the time about higher skills but there are issues at the moment, I would suggest, around the implications of Brexit for funding. The figure that I had from the Government just before the referendum was in the region of £725 million of ESF funding.
We have heard from colleagues this morning about the support that the Government are giving to the university sector in terms of research. Are you concerned that a lot of that money that fuels the sort of work that you do will go west if there is not a renewed effort on that part by the Government?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q So you are looking for similar guarantees to the ones that the HE sector and universities have had?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q We have heard quite a lot already about a level playing field. For the independent sector, it is generally about regulation. Do you think that we should look at a level playing field in other ways? If a student goes to university, they have access to a whole range of cultural and sporting activities, they have intensive student support and they can exchange with other universities. Should not that be a set of demands that we also place on the independent sector?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q So is it not right then that you remain outside the main university sector and you are never categorised as that, and that it is clear to the students that, although they may be getting specialist education, it is not the same as getting university education?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
With respect, the point is that that is the classic definition of the freedom to dine at the Ritz.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Yes, if I may. We have heard this morning some spirited conversation from witnesses about the extent to which this is a Bill for students, the issue of representation and the office for students, for example, as part of that process. I wonder whether I could ask the witnesses to look more broadly than simply the issues in terms of students, and to look at all the people who make HE institutions tick. Obviously, that includes students, and it also includes big issues around the extent to which, for example, the director of fair access at OFFA is empowered more in this Bill than he or she is at present. To start us off, does the Bill do enough to put students more in the driving seat? Does it do enough for the people who work in our HE institutions?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Are you concerned that the specific and technical nature of the clauses that have been put in regarding where you sit in relation to the OFS and the Secretary of State do not give that clarity at the moment?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
IQ want to pick up on some points that you have made. I have not got the feel of a definitive answer from any of you as to whether the Bill puts students at its heart. Professor Ebdon, you have been doing the job around fair access. My view is that students think they are paying £27,000 net for higher education, and yet they are receiving bills for £45,000, which comes as a great shock to them. Also, I cannot see anything about lifelong learning here—the value of education throughout one’s life. Could you be a bit more definitive about whether you think this is a good, necessary Bill and whether it fulfils the function of putting students at the heart of it?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q I sometimes get responses like this from the Minister, who says lots of people are doing it, but if you drill down into the figures, that is not quite what I was asking you. I was asking, is the Bill necessary, does it put students at its heart, and does it address the issue of lifelong learning? After all, that is what education is about. We do not just do it at university, we go on—for example, the diversity, the part-time learning, that kind of thing. I do not want to deal with Brexit that much, but there is a change. We also have a change in the machinery of government. Are all those issues really addressed in the Bill?
Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)
Q May I ask about social mobility? Professor Ebdon, you rightly said that since 2006 there had been a 65% increase. This Bill contains a number of provisions requiring providers to publish more information about all sorts of metrics. Do you think it provides the architecture for us to move to the next phase of improving social mobility between now and the end of this decade?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q I want to return to the student issue. The sell of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, is that opening up the sector will provide more diversity and more choice for students and that the TEF will deliver more information to students to help them make up their mind about where to go, which will add some transparency on the quality of teaching and provide a mechanism to relate it to fees. We know what the possible positives are, but the risks to students from the Bill are less clear. Have any of you thought through what some of the risks could be?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
I am going to dare to ask a question similar to one that was asked of an earlier panel and that led to some hilarity. I have deep concern about the applied managerialist approach in the Bill. If you look at the institutional architecture and the metrics that are being used, I do not see how they are going to contribute very much to true quality enhancement, either for students or for research. Would you like to comment on that?Q
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q I was not suggesting that, and I accept that it is not a threat to academic freedom. That was not the point I was making. Professor Ebdon, your response makes me more concerned, because you talked about data and the use of data. It is the metrics that I am concerned about, and the way in which they are moving away from a concern about quality development and quality enhancement. One of the great features, which I think Alison talked about in her earlier remarks, is that institutions have built up over centuries. They have developed cultures of engaging in different ways with the learning as well as the research in their institutions. That is just so difficult to capture through the kind of metrics that are applied in the Bill.
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q I do not have a problem with it. It is just that it is an inadequate way of looking at teaching in universities.
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
Q The research excellence framework has been in place for some time now and is well established. Ms Hunt, you referenced TEF briefly. Do you recognise the need for greater emphasis on the teaching aspect of the sector? That is a question to all three of you. What will that ultimately mean for students?
Amanda Milling (Conservative, Cannock Chase)
Q In the Select Committee, we talked a lot about metrics and the balance between quantitative and qualitative metrics. Does the use of qualitative measures to evaluate performance address some of your concerns?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q The White Paper that gave birth to the Bill talks—in fact, it waxes lyrical—about the trials and potential successes, but also the downside, of the market. It talks about market failure. Particularly in respect of new providers and the proposals to lower the threshold at which they can come in—and, indeed, enjoy a form of university title almost from day one—what do the panel think the pluses and minuses of that process might be, in terms of both the teachers at those institutions and of the students? Obviously in your case, Professor Ebdon, if we have a large number of market failures, there are implications for what you are trying to do with the Office for Fair Access.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q What if they go bust?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q Going back to some of the points raised earlier by Professor Ebdon in relation to the independence of OFFA, how does the Bill deliver true independence and actually enhance independence?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q I was going to ask much the same question as Ben, so perhaps I could drive that home a bit further. Since you were not an uncontroversial appointment by David Willetts, you have been extremely successful. What do we have to hang on to from that success, in integrating the Office for Fair Access into the office for students?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Ladies first.
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Q Thank you very much for coming. I know you have come at short notice this afternoon, so we appreciate you taking the time to be here. One of our concerns is that at the moment Scotland’s quality assurance in higher education is distinct. We have concerns that that is not being recognised in the TEF. Do you think that Scotland’s distinct quality assurance is being considered fully and is there provision for further work to be done on that?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Q Alastair Sim, you mentioned the potential implications of what Scottish institutions choose to do. Can you expand on that?
Carol Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West)
Q Do you think there has been enough engagement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government or Scottish higher education institutions in the run-up to the White Paper and then the Bill?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
I am not sure how to take that.Q
As Carol and Valerie will know, part of what the Bill seeks to do is put the Nurse review into effect. Where there is some concern—if there is concern—it is about putting research and innovation together and ensuring that the innovation aspect continues to be complementary but also to work as well as it can. Dr Kingman, can you tell us how you envisage that working in practice and how you will safeguard the innovation aspect in particular?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Will you give us a sense of what that means in practice in terms of the measures that you approve of in this Bill that you mentioned but were not specific about?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q As a former student and teacher at Edinburgh University who is pleased to see us doing so well at the moment, I am a bit concerned about some the institutional architecture. I am sure it was without any malice whatsoever but the first draft of those called to give evidence did not include any representatives from Scotland. Carol and I intervened and we got plenty of co-operation to allow that to happen. My concern is that in some of the institutions proposed in this Bill, I do not see any place for formal representation of the Scottish sector which, as already indicated, has some particularly unique and important features. Do you have a view on that?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Dr Kingman, you are obviously quite interested in the science side of things and preserving that. I want to focus on the research element of UKRI and the teaching element given that postgraduates have to do the two. Do you think it will work having it separated like thatQ ?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q You will know the understanding and definition of dual funding. That definition has slightly changed in the Bill in clause 95, where it is called balanced funding. Do you understand that to mean exactly the same thing as dual funding and preserving dual funding?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q Why do you think there has been a change in wording?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
It is not actually funny, because it is not a legal question. This person will be the head of an institution that is going to try to understand what that is, so it is not funny. It is about money going to certain areas of science research. With the greatest respect, you should understand the difference.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
You were involved in the White Paper, weren’t you? Were you involved in the White Paper?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
He is a witness and I am entitled to ask the witness a question.
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q I understand your commitment absolutely and appreciate that. My question was why was there a difference in the terminology and do you understand the difference to be the same? Are you convinced that the change of words is going to protect dual funding?
Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)
Q One last question. I know you are a Treasury man. If I was a researcher I would be a bit terrified of this. You hope that the aim is making sure that we invest every pound wisely. Do you believe that is currently not taking place in UK research?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Q Do you think the measures in the Bill are sufficient to protect the excellence of research in the UK and enhance it, if that is possible, post-Brexit?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q There is an elephant in the room, and I am surprised that it has not yet come up. The Sutton Trust report which came out earlier this year—this is more of a question to Mr Sim—it stated that Scottish 18-year-olds from the most advantaged areas are still more than four times more likely to go straight to university than those from the least advantaged areas, compared with 2.4 times more likely in England. First, why do you think that is the case? Secondly, we were talking about experiments earlier on: how long is an experiment that is causing a reverse trend in social mobility going to continue?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
Q So you have identified the problem, and you have come up with what is almost a small tweak to the system. Surely, with a four-times disparity, that requires fundamental change in the system itself?
Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath)
This is not comparing with the UK.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q I have a fairly quick question to Mr Kingman. You have talked eloquently about where you want to take UKRI. I am sure that your senior roles in the Treasury will equip you in many ways for that task, but you are going to be doing it at a time when there is going to be a flux between the development of HEFCE and QAA and finally the OFS. As someone said earlier, that may mirror the time it takes us to operate Brexit. How are you going to promote the UK brand, which you need to do, when you have the OFS coming up, which may in decades come to be a sufficient substitute for the Privy Council brand internationally but certainly will not be initially?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q Okay. You are optimistic about this, but I have a supplementary. There is a great queasiness—I put it no more strongly than that—in the representations that I and others have had from the research community about the powers that this new Bill will give the OFS, and by implication the Secretary of State, in relation to research councils. Are you queasy about the fact that research councils could be abolished under this Bill, without it having to come to the Floor of the House?
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Q But is that the same as abolishing them?
Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Q Can you confirm, Dr Kemp, in terms of access in Scotland, that over 20% of students entering HE do so through the college sector?