21/11/2016 House of Commons

think we need to give credit where it is due due. If that practice is

going on, I will be very happy to look into it. Order. Urgent

question, Lisa Nandy. To make a statement on the leadership,

staffing and budget and structure of the independent inquiry into child

sexual abuse. Mr Speaker, the inquiry was set up to look at the

extent to which institutions in England and Wales failed to protect

children from sexual abuse. We know the terrible impact that abuse has

on survivors, sometimes for many years. As the House knows, following

the resignation of the previous chair, my honourable friend the Home

Secretary appointed Alexis Jay. She has a distinguished career in social

work. She led the independent inquiry into child sexual

exploitation in Rotherham where she scrutinised the work of social

workers and proved her capability to uncover failings across institutions

and professions. She is the right person to take this work forward.

Taking the work forward is vital for creating a sense of certainty for

victims and survivors. The inquiry is set up 13 strands of

investigation, made two hundred and 50 formal requests for information

from over 10 institutions. -- 120 institutions. With 164,000 documents

submitted. They have referred eighty cases a week to the police. It has

rolled out the Truth project, allowing survivors to tell the

inquiry what has happened to emthchlt -- to them. The inquiry has

adequate resources to undertake its work and we will support the inquiry

with what they need. The inquiry remains independent. Which mean ps

it is not part of government and is not run by a government department.

Professor Jay is mindful of the scale of the task and the need to

move forward with pace that. Is why she has instigated a review of the

inquiry's approach. Exploring new ways to develop its work, whilst

remaining faithful to its terms of reference. She has made clear that

if any changes are proposed the views affected by those will be

sought. We expect the outcome of this review soon. It is crucial that

we now give the inquiry the space and support it needs to get on with

its job. Getting to the truth for victims and survivors and I urge

everyone in this House to do just that. Where is the Home Secretary

and why is it nobody from the Government has sought to come to

this House and provide reassurance about the serious events. Has the

Home Secretary met survivors' groups and what steps has she taken to

establish the chair and the panel have the skills to succeed. Have

anyone nvred while lawyers have cited concerns. Is the former chief

legal counsel still being paid and if so why, what action is the Home

Office taking to establish there was a disclosure of sexual assault and

is she satisfied that disclosure was dealt with properly by the inquiry

and can she give me a personal assurance that the intelligence

services are standing by the commitment to hand over all files?

And that that this is not being obstructed. We have heard and

professor Jay's review for the first time in August. Is where is it. This

is the second time I have asked ministers to account for these

failings. They have lost seven senior lawyers and several survivors

groups. It is now impossible to see that this inquiry is still

operating. This maybe the last chance that the Prime Minister and

her Home Secretary have to reduce the inquiry that she set up. Will

she stop hiding behind independence and recognise she has responsibility

for this inquiry's success and get a grip on it? Thank you. I'm

delighted, as the minister responsible for vulnerability,

safeguarding and counter extremism, to be here to answer this question.

It is absolutely at the core of this government's priority to safeguard

children in our country. The Home Secretary was in this House as

recently as October 17th answering questions in detail, the Home

Affairs Select Committee has asked questions of permanent Secretary of

Home Office. The the honourable lady is wrong in asserting there is some

sort of smoke screen and hiding behind independence. It is essential

that this inquiry is an independent inquiry. The terms of reference of

this inquiry were shaped with the voices and the opinions of the

victims. And it is very important that this independence is

maintained. Now, the honourable lady asked a series of operational

questions. All of those questions are for if chair and the leadership

of the independent inquiry. For me to answer those questions here would

be wrong, because we one intervening in the independence of the inquiry.

I am confident, as is the Prime Minister, as is the Home Secretary,

in the ability of professor Jay to lead this rink. I think it is

important that we all get behind the inquiry so they can get on and do

their really important work, making sure they get to the truth and

deliver for victims. May I tell my honourable friend that I don't for

one moment... Underscore or undervalue the intentions of those

who set up the inquiry and those who are working with it, albeit it has

had a rocky road. Nor do I underestimate for one moment the

trauma that those who have been affected by sex abuse, child sex

abuse, has had upon them. I have acted in a number of criminal cases

in which I have seen with my own eyes the terrible consequences for

adults of what happened to them as children. But I want to ask her a

question from a different angle. I have a constituent who since the

early part of this century has been left in limbo and does not know

whether he is an accused person, whether he is a witness, what is his

status in relation to this inquiry? And he, like the victims, needs to

be told when this is all going to finish. Both for him and for the

victims. Would my right honourable friend make inquiries of inquiry to

ensure that this man can either be prosecuted, or set free.

I thank my honourable friend for his customary thoughtfulness in the way

he asks his questions and the way he's reflected on the importance of

this inquiry, because as he quite rightly points out, it can have a

devastating impact and as he quite rightly points out, not always just

on the victims but also on those people who are caught up in

inquiries. My honourable friend is referring to a particular case,

which will be an operational matter for the police. While I can

understand why he wants to bring this matter to a swift concollusion

on behalf of his constituent, these are operational matters for the

police. Of course, quite rightly they are independent of the Home

Office. This inquiry is on its fourth chair. Every time ministers

have come to the House and asserted that the current chair is the right

person to take the inquiry forward. For the fourth time of saying that,

why do they expect this House, the public and, above all, the survivors

to be reassured? Of course, as the minister has said, this is an

independent inquiry. In particular as to its conduct and its find gds,

but that doesn't mean that the office can take no responsibility at

all. On the question of the Shirley Oaks survivors in the Lambeth

children's home, I've heard the minister say that she won't answer

operational questions, but she knows their concern about having a social

worker as overall chair of the inquiry. They have said they would

accept a vice chair for their strand who wasn't a social worker, have

ministers put that to Alexis Jay? And above all, I hope the minister

won't dismiss this as a operational question, the Shirley Oaks survivors

want to know what the office involvement in the monitoring and

supervision of Lambeth children's homes over the period when the

historic child abuse occurred? Ministers cannot let this inquiry

just run into the sand. The public expects better. This House expects

better. And the survivors expect better. I thank the honourable lady

for her question. I can absolutely assure her and every other member in

this House that we will absolutely not let this inquiry run into the

sand. It is vitally important to the whole protection of children in our

country that we understand the failings of the past, that we seek

remedies for the victims and what we use that intelligence to better

improve safeguarding anningments for children today. The right honourable

lady asked questions about operational details, which she knows

full well it would be completely inappropriate for me to answer,

absolutely inappropriate for me to answer. But I can assure you that

the chair of the independent inquiry regularly meets with the survivor

groups and I'm sure that she will be listening to the concerns raised by

the Shirley Oaks survivors association. She is undertaking a

review to make sure that the inquiry is properly focussed to address the

really serious concerns its raising. While I appreciate this is an

independent inquiry, my honourable friend must understand how these

victims groups have become upset, disturbed about the Fayure of it and

-- nature of it and how long it's going to take. Can at least my

honourable friend assure me that the scope of the inquiry will not be

reduced and can she also assure me that whatever funds are required by

the inquiry will be delivered by the Home Office.

I thank my honourable friend for that comment. I quite understand

that the victims who have been abused will feel disappointed about

some of the issues that have been happening with the inquiry. I quite

understand that. But it is vitally important, as he says, that the

independence of the inquiry is absolutely maintained. And that the

chairman is meeting, is engaging with survivors organisations and

individuals to make sure that the inquiry absolutely delivers on its

terms of reference, which they actually shape themselves. I think

going back to my statement, the fact that 80 cases a week are being

referred to the police, that over 500 people have come forward to

participate in the truth project shows how valuable this inquiry

already is to those victims. Mr Speaker, we all know that this

inquiry's been dogged by setbacks and rock legals. So it's

disappointing to -- problems, so it's disappointing to learn of the

latest withdrawals and expressions of concern from groups representing

victims and survivors. I'm sure all want to see this inquiry succeed. We

want it to meet its purpose of investigating historical allegations

of child sexual abuse. Above all we want justice for those people whose

lives have been harmed by abuse. To do so, we need to restore and secure

confidence in this inquiry and its findings. Mr Speaker,

notwithstanding the minister's reluctance to address what she

considers to be operational matters, can she tell us when she anticipates

a suitable legal counsel will be appointed? Following the resignation

of the previous chair in August, does she know whether internal

procedures for resolving complaints about staff and panel members have

been established? And most importantly, this is categorically

not an operational matter, what does the minister plan to do to restore

trust in the proceedings for those survivors of sexual abous and to

regain their support? I thank the honourable lady for her series of

questions and to take the last point first, in terms of confidence. I

think there's a huge amount that we can do in this House, that is

actually to get behind the inquiry. It is open for business. I think

it's worth getting in perspective while I'm disappointed that one

victims group has decided not to engage with the inquiry, at the

current time, that is really disappointing that's the case. But I

am hopeful they will re-engage in the future. We must remember it is

one, the inquiry is getting on with its work. In terms of the legal

council, that is for the chair and the leadership of the commission.

It's their responsibility to make sure that they appoint the people

necessary to undertake the task. I'm sure that the chair understands the

concerns raised by members in this House, by victims' organisations to

make sure that she gets on, resolves these issues, so that we can all see

the very important work that the inquiry's doing, comes to a swift

and really good conclusion. Mr Speaker, would the honourable lady

agree with me that the role of the Home Secretary or any Secretary of

State under the inquiries act is to appoint the chair and the panel and

to agree the terms of reference with that chair. That for a member to

come to this house with an imperious and list of questions like that we

heard from the honourable lady does not help the inquiry and totally

fails to understand the law. I thank my honourable friend for such an

insightful question. Of course, he would know as a lawyer. It is very

disappointing that members opposite are coming to the House, making

these claims when really what we need to do is get behind this

independent inquiry so that they can do the job for victims and make sure

we all learn what more we can do to keep children in our country safe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I say to the minister that it is not just

minister constituents who are members of the largest survivors

group, Shirley Oaks, over 600 members, who have said they no

longer have confidence in the chair of the inquiry. It is also the white

flowers alba group, and lawyers representing numerous other

survivors too. I was appalled on Friday to see in response to the

withdrawal of support of Shirley Oaks a suggestion that they should

be compelled to provide the evidence that they have gathered to this

inquiry. They are survivors of child abuse. These are not criminals. Can

I ask the minister, after millions has been spent with no public

cross-examination of witnesses yet, senior lawyers, the most senior

resigning month after month, does this not reinforce a need for a

change of leadership which is within the purr view of Home Office

ministers? We need a senior judge of High Court standing or above to lead

this inquiry. Why don't they act? I thank the honourable gentleman for

his question. He is an assiduous constituency MP. He's quite right to

raise concerns of the victims based in his constituency. But can I just

say the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary could not have made it

clearer about their confidence in the chairman of the Independent

Commission. It's really important that we carry on with the inquiry,

that we absolutely let them get on with their vitally important job of

getting to the truth and making sure that we learn the lessons to keep

children in our country safe. Mr Speaker, does my honourable friend

agree that to have any degree of public confidence, no-one should

pre-empt the outcome of this inquiry before it begins? I thank the my

honourable friend for her question. She's quite right. We set up an

independent inquiry so that it can get on with its work. She shaped the

terms of reference with the victims themselves. As we've seen from my

statement, they are making good progress.

Mr Speaker, it's a bit rich for people on that side of the House to

call for patience, understanding and so on. 18 years ago in this House, I

had to bring business to a stop for two nights running in order to get

allegations about child abuse in my own constituency put on the record.

Then the Waterhouse inquiry was set up. That took years. Then there have

been subsequent inquiries, one after another. Now the children in my

constituency, one of them committed suicide, before we ever heard any

results of an inquiry. So it's absolutely essential that the

survivors of abuse need to have the results, need to have confidence in

what is being done. I'm afraid, it's taken all these years in North

Wales, for example, for chief Superintendent Anglesey to be put on

trial and sentenced. Of course, that involved North Wales child abuse.

It's only good investigative journalism, not inquiries, that got

to the root of his particular case. I appeal to the minister, don't ask

for patience from this side. We've been patient long enough. I thank

the honourable lady for her question. I pay tribute to the work

that she has done. So assiduously campaigning for justice for her

constituents, but I want to reassure her and everyone here that those

lessons have been learned from the past. The inquiry is an incredibly

important part of what this Government is doing to learn the

lessons from the past, to make sure that we're learning and taking

everything that we can to keep children in our country safe.

Through people coming forward to the inquiry, as I said in my statement,

over 80 referrals a week are being made to the police, so that where

there is information, where there is evidence being gathered by the

inquiry, it is being used to seek the prosecutions, just like the lady

described, that absolutely need to be made.

This inquiry is doing incredibly important work. Does the minister

agree with me that the most important aspect is it is

independent of Government? That is the first word of its title. Does my

right honourable friend friend agrow therefore that the best thing we can

do on all sides of this House to support its work is to give it the

space it needs to do that work and do it independently? I'm very

grateful to my honourable friend for absolutely hitting the nail on the

head. For any of us as constituent MPs will have met people who are the

victims of domestic abous and violence and children involved in

sexual exploitation. We know how devastating this is. It's really

important we do everything we can to support them and encourage them to

come forward to the inquiry and wherever the evidence takes us, we

will seek those solutions and seek those prosecutions. Given it's taken

35 years for Gordon Anglesey to face trial at mould Crown Court where he

was convicted last month and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment,

could the minister, whilst recognising the inquiry's

independence, just tell the House when the first evidence sessions in

public are likely to be, so that my constituents and others can give

their evidence of that level of abuse? I thank the honourable

gentleman for his question. What I would say is if he has got any

evidence or his constituents have any evidence whatsoever, then they

should go to the inquiry right now. We're not waiting for the end of the

inquiry to take action. As I've said before, over 80 cases are sent to

the police every week so that action can be taken. It's really important

that people engage with the inquiry, support their constituents to do so,

so that we can seek justice for those victims. I'd like to pick up

On Tour a point that the minister has made -- pick up on a point that

the minister has made that this plays a vital part in protecting

vulnerable children for the present and future. Could she put the

inquiry into the context what have else this Government is doing.

He is right, this inquiry is incredibly important, but it is part

of a strategy where we want to do everything we can to keep children

in our country safe. We are seeing a record level of prosecutions and a

huge investments into supporting victims and really making sure that

we take apart the culture of secrecy and cover up, that contributed to

the delays that we have heard from the members of sit. -- sop sit. --

opposite. After the inquiry was set up as a panel inquiry, it was turned

into a statutory inquiry, but wasn't the make not in setting up a royal

commission, as they have in Australia, that is pursuing this

issue and has the confidence and the interests of the victims at its

heart. Although royal commissions and they can be important, they tend

to take a long time. It was the view of the Government that than

independent inquiry was the best way we could learn the lessons and

secure the justice that the victims were looking for. Thank you. There

has been speculation over the weekend about the way that the

inquiry is taking place in Wiltshire and there is a significant risk when

events might have happened a long time ago and evidence is difficult

to corroborate and high profile figures are involved that things

should be left. Would she assure the House that when victims give

evidence, though it might be difficult to corroborate that

evidence and might have taken a long time ago that our chief Chief

Constable should go where the evidence takes them and will she

ensure that sufficient resources are available so that every day policing

is not affected. My honourable friend makes a very powerful point

and I can give him the assurance that he is looking for that we must

go where the evidence takes it and this can be you know very painful

for people to revisit terrible things that happened. But I will

encourage them, like my honourable friend pis, to come forward and, go

to the police, give that evidence and in terms of resources for

polices, it has been given, the status of one oft most important

police functions in our country and the police do have the resources to

be able to support investigations into historical sexual abuse of

children. Thank you Mr Speaker, there is no question on this side of

the House that the inquiry is independent and the inquiry must be

independent. But this is a question of confidence and confidence is not

an operational matter. And there seems to be an attempt to dismiss

the Shirley Oaks survivors as just one group of survivors. They

represent 600 survivors of abuse and have underfaken two years --

undertaken two years worth of high quality research on behalf of their

survivors and they have powerful evidence. I have raised concerns on

their behalf, the member has raised concerns and the committee and those

concerns have not been answered. It is not good enough for the minister

to demand our unswerving confidence when the legitimate questions we

have raised have not been answered and I ask the minister again will

she intervene to make sure we have the confidence in this inquiry to do

the job it needs to do? I absolutely want to put on record that which

take every victim's story seriously, every vifbg Tim's voice must be

heard -- victim's voice must be heard. If I was to intervene it

would no longer be an independent inquiry. It is absolutely essential

that it maintains its independence. Professor Jay #45z has a long and

established record and did an excellent job in Rotherham F you

were to speak to the victims in Rotherham, you would hear the

confidence they placed in her and what a good job she did there. I

would encourage people on the other side of the House to go back to

their victims' organisations and encourage them to reengage with the

independent inquiry to reengage with the chairman, so we can move

forward. Thank you. I could say I don't think this has been the best

question from that side of the House. There has been a lot of noise

and not a lot of clarity from them. As they're proving at this moment in

time. Would the minister agree with me one of the most important things

is relook after potential child victims of abuse now and isn't the

simplest thing you, that the Government could do, would take

responsibility of child victim of sexual abuse, especially those

internally trafficked away from local government and make it an

independent responsibility of Home Office. Too many children are

retrafficked into abuse. I thank my honourable friend for his very

helpful question and to bring us up-to-date with the incredibly

important work that we are doing to make sure that we are keeping

children safe in our country and addressing historical issues is

important, but we leave no stone unturned in our determination to

make sure that children are safe, including those children who might

be trafficked, who are victims of modern slavry and we keep under

review our care for those children. Thank you, can I remind the minister

the purpose in setting up this inquiry was to find out the truth

and to allow the victims of child abuse to get closure. In order to do

that, they have to have confidence in the inquiry. If the inquiry alone

cannot have, command confidence, the Government does still have a role to

play here. She or the mopest Home -- Home Secretary should be hearing

from the groups and hearing their concerns, seeking their remedies, if

this is going to be an inquiry which does the job that we set it up for

in the first place. I thank the honourable gentleman for his

question. It is the case that we do have confidence in this inquiry. I

would urge everyone in the House today to get behind this inquiry to

make sure that it does work for victims. We have had more than 500

victims come forward. That is leading to cases going forward, to

the police to take action. It is really important that we send out a

strong and united message from the House that we all think that this

independent inquiry is vitally important for victims and survivors

and we will all do our best to support their work. Thank you, over

a month ago when I brought up with the Home Secretary in this place the

loss of survivor testimonies by the independent inquiry, into child sex

abuse, she suggested that I engage with the inquiry in a more positive

manner and write to her about the incident. Since I have yet to

receive a response to the detailed letter I sent and as the Home

Secretary is not here today herself, could the minister answering perhaps

up the House now as to what investigation has since taken place

over these lost testimonies? I thank the honourable lady for her

question. What I will agree to do today is to make sure she does get a

response to her letter and the details that concerns that she has

raised. There is never been an official Welsh representative on the

inquiry, despite appeals from the Social Services minister.

Considering this is an England and Wales inquiry, will the minister

give assurance there are open lines of communication with the Welsh

Government so this can be discussed and that the interests of Welsh

victims are adequately protected. Thank you. Of course, it is

important that people living in Wales, as it is vietdally important

for - vitally important for other people, they have the opportunity

for their voices to be heard. Its an independent inquiry, so I ask the

the honourable lady makes the representations to professor Jay so

make sure she is satisfied the victims in Wales feel they're being

listened to. For years I worked supporting victim of sex abuse, it

is clear to everyone in this House that the seemingly endless cover ups

and delays will be frau Mattick for the victims. -- traumatic for the

survivors. How will she restore trust in the rink I. She is drawing

on her personal experience and I'm sure she made a huge contribution

before she came to the House and working with those victims. It is

true, some will look at what is going on and they will feel

disappointed. But we are committed to see this inquiry through. And

support the chair in professor Jay and believe she is the person to see

this through. I would encourage her to speak to victim and give her the

assurances that it is a priority for the government and we will support

the independent ink Troy do its job -- inquiry to do its job, so victims

have the justice they they're seeking. Thank you. In North Wales

where many offences of child sexual... In North Wales where many

offences of child sexual abuse took place, there is extreme scepticism

about the commitment of this Government to openness in these

matters. Because the review which reported recently redacted names of

people in positions of responsibility, some of whom were

member of this House, as a result of continuing court proceedings. We now

know that Gordon Anglesey has been convicted, so if the minister is

committed to openness, would she go back to the Ministry of Justice and

ask them to revisit the review and to make open those redacted names to

make clear that there is openness income support inquiry and that

following the conviction for vile crimes of child sexual abuse, those

responsible will be openly put for consideration as part of reports

issued by this government. The honourable gentleman makes the point

that there are concerns about a lack of openness and transparency, which

is something I simply do not accept. This government has done more than

any other government to make people accountable to be more transparent,

to open up processes. To make those in authority accountable for those

action. The question that you're asking is about a specific case and

it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is going

through the courts. I have confidence in our criminal justice

system. Absolute confidence in the criminal justice tice system of our

count are and the matters should be raised with the justice system. I

should point out that I wasn't asking any question as the chair

does not do so and not withstanding the frustration of the honourable

gentleman, the member for Wrexham, that these matters will be returned

to on the floor of House, possibly on imnewspaper rabble occasions o'

-- innumerable occasions and the honourable lady will seek to

respond. The matter will go on and on I feel sure of that. Order. The

clerk will read the orders of the day. Hire education and research

bill as amended in the public bill committee to be considered. Thank

you. We begin with government new clause 1, with which it will be

convenient to consider the other new clauses and amendments grouped

together on the sleshgs paper. -- selection paper. Members will note

that I have selected some starred amendments. I have done so in the

circumstances applying to this particular bill and the honourable

gentleman the member for Southport will be conversant with the issues.

As the deadline for tabling amendments had passed when the

business for today was announced last week. In those circumstances it

is sensible and helpful to the House to proceed in this way. I call the

minister to move, the minister for higher education.

I beg to move that the clause be read a second time. Mr Speaker, new

clause one relates to the office for stupts which is central to this bill

and will have quality student choice, quality for opportunity and

value for money at its core. Through the creation of the independent

office for students, this bill will join up the currently fragmented

regulation of the sector, essential to ensure that students are

protected and that students and the taxpayer receive good value for

money from the system. The bill will provide opportunity for all. It will

drive up quality and capacity in the sector. It will create UK research

and innovation, a new body, with strategic vision for research and

innovation in the UKment I'm pleased this bill receives such thorough

scrutiny during the committee stage. I have reflected on the points that

have been made by members on the opposite benches and I'm pleased to

present important maements today. We made -- amendments today. We made

clear in the white paper that the OFS will have the spont for

oversight of the financial health of the sector and monitor the

sustainability of individual institutions. It is absolutely

essential that all providers eligible to receive some form of

public funding have sustainable finances to provide value. We have

listened to stake holder evidence and debates in committee. Stake hold

consider the Higher Education Funding Council for England's

holistic oversight of the sector to be an essential part of the

regulator's role. I understand the importance of this oversight in

maintaining confidence in the sector and preserving its world-class

reputation. I share the desire to make our policy intention no the

white paper explicit in legislation. Let me be clear, I will shortly.

This role will include financial oversight of all the institutions

activities spanning teaching and research. I thank him very much for

giving way. I understand the need for monitoring the financial

sustainability of organisations, but what the clause does not say is what

actions will result if somebody is found to be financially

unsustainable. Would he like to comment on that? The duty of the

office for students will be tone sure that it is monitoring

effectively the overall financial health of the sector in such a way

it's able to inform the Secretary of State so that the Government can

take appropriate actions. It will not be the role for the office of

students to bail out struggling institutions, if there are any such

institutions. These are private and autonomous bodies. It is important

that there is the discipline of the marketplace acting upon them. It

will be the role of the OFS to assist them in transitioning towards

viable business plans so that they can continue to provide high quality

education to their students in the medium and long-term. New clause one

introduces a statutory unity for the OFS to monitor and report on the

financial sustainability of all registered providers in England,

which are in receipt of or eligible for OFS funding or tuition fee

loans. I give way. Will the regulator also ensure and does he

have the powers to ensure that there's good industrial relations

within our universities, because there is certainly a problem at

Coventry University in relation to industrial relations, particularly

with subcontractors. Again, higher education institutions are private

and autonomous bodies, which are self-organising. It's important that

of course, they look to provide a framework of governance that enables

students to learn well. That will include a healthy dialogue with

their staff and employees. It's not for Government to mandate particular

forms of revelations given that they are private and autonomous

institutions. In performing this role, the OFS will have a clear

picture of the number of international students and the

income that they bring, just as HEFKE currently does. I do not agrow

with the need for additional duty for the OFS to report on

international students as amendment 52 and new clause nine tabled by the

honourable member for Southport would require. I simply do not

believe that this bill is the appropriate vehicle for

commissioning research into post-work study as proposed by the

honourable members for Glasgow North West and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

The bill is focussed on creating the necessary structures to oversee

research funding for many years to come and a short-term piece of

research on an element of migration policy is not consistent with the

scope and functions. I'm grateful to the minister for giving way. He's

clearly of the view that this bill isn't the right vehicle for the

issues that are under consideration. But does he understand why members

would pick this vehicle? His department understands the important

of international students to the UK higher education. The Treasury

understands the role of international students. Why doesn't

the Home Office and Prime Minister? Does he not realise like him we'll

be banging our heads against a brick wall at the Home Office? The Home

Secretary has set out that we will be consulting in coming weeks on a

non-EEA migration route that will be of benefit to international students

wanting to come and study at our world class institutions. I'd

encourage the honourable member to wait until we see the detail of that

consultation before jumping to clon collusions. Thank you very much for

giving way. The minister said just an element, this post study work

visa is not just an element of concern to the universities in

Scotland, it is of major concern, particularly since what has been set

up by the Home Office is a tiny and completely unrepresentative pilot.

This is a matter of great importance to the university sector. Indeed.

The Government is fully in agreement with the honourable member, the

international students bring a lot to our higher education system. They

bring benefits to our universities, income, valued Diversity and other

benefits. We welcome them and we have a warm and welcoming regime to

accommodate them. I turn to Government amendments one, 12 and

13. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are key

stones of our system. The bill introduces new and additional

protections in this area. That's where the vice Chancellor of

Cambridge, for example, said in his evidence to our bill committee that

he particularly liked the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy

in the bill. But I want to be slum clear -- absolutely clear about how

important it is for this Government to protect institutional autonomy.

I've proposed this further group of amendments to strengthen these

protections even more. I recognise the concerns expressed in committee

and in stake hold evidence that allowing the Secretary of State to

give guidance relating to particular courses might be perceived as

leaving the door open to guidance which calls specifically for the

opening or closing of particular courses. One of the real strengths

of our system is the Diversity that exists and the ability of

institutions to determine their own mission. To avoid confusion about

this, I'm proposing these amendments to add an additional layer of

reassurance regarding the protections given for institutional

autonomy. They make clear that the Secretary of State cannot give

guidance to or impose terms or conditions or directions on the OFS

which require it to make providers offer or stop offer particular

courses. Turning to amendment 21. Our reforms place students at the

heart of higher education regulation. I agree with members

opposite that it is important to build the student perspective into

the OFS. This amendment clarifies beyond doubt that at least one

member of the OFS board must have experience of representing or

promoting the interests of individual students or students

generally. The party opposite has tabled amendments 36 and 48, which

relate to HE staff representation. We share the view that the OFS board

should benefit from the experience of HE staff, however the bill

already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to appointing

board members with experience of the broad range of different types of

English providers in the sector. We're therefore confident that a

number of OFS board members will be or will have been employed by HE

providers. We don't believe we need an additional requirement in

legislation on that points. Students make significant investment in their

higher educational choices. It's right students should be aware what

should happen if their institution were to close. That's what the

Government amendment four will achieve. We expect all providers to

make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot

be delivered as agreed. The requirement to provide student

protection plans would be a condition of reg slacks. --

registration. I have reflected on the need to strengthen the power of

the OFS to ensure transparency. That is what this amendment does. It

enables the OFS to require providers not only to develop student

protection plans but to publish them. We would expect providers to

bring them to the attention of students. This bill, Mr Speaker,

believes in opportunities for all and through this bill, we are

delivering on this. The Government believes in that and through this

bill we're delivering on that objective. We believe the

transparency is one of the best tools we have when it comes to

widening participation. Universities have made progress, but the

transparency duty will shine a spotlight on those institutions

which need to go further. That's why I'm pleased to propose amendments

two and three, which change the language in the bill to make clearer

that the OFS can ask HE providers to publish and share with the OFS the

number of applications, offers, acceptances and completion rates for

students. Each broken do you by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic

background. Mr Speaker, this bill will give the office of students the

power to operate the teaching excellence framework. 30 years of

the ref and its predecessors have made the UK's research the envy of

the world. Without an equivalent focus on excellence in teaching, the

incentives upon universities have become distorted. Although - yeah,

sure. I thank the minister for giving way. He mentioned the TET and

REF before it, would he not agree with me the REF took several years

to bed down and become a measure of research. The TEF there are lots of

institutions who feel this is being rushed through in particular the

link between teaching excellence and fees. I've been e mailed by

University of west London who have asked me to strongly oppose that.

It's done on institution by institution basis, not like REF,

which was done by department. Would he not think again in relation to

those points? On the point, the TEF has not been rushed. It's been

piloted for two years. Differentisation on the basis, from

the 1920 academic year that's a significant period of time to bed,

the academic year 2019/20. There is recognition that we need to fund on

the basis of quality as well as quantity. There is no attempt by the

sector to separate the link as the honourable member suggests. New

clause 12, yeah. I applaud the minister's view that we should be

focussing very much on quality in this area rather than just the

volume operation, which I think has been one of the problems that has

beset the higher education sector over the last 20 or so years. Could

I ask the office for students that is being proposed here, is there any

international parallel? Does such a body exist in Canada, Australia, in

other big, international, global higher education sectors or are we

take a lead? Is there a sense we are following elements of what has

happened elsewhere? I thank the honourable member for his help and

intervention. We've studied regulatory systems around the world

in drawing up our proposals for the office for students. Our system is

in line with several in the anglophone countries, moving to a

market based system, in which the student is the primary funder of his

or her higher educational experience. Therefore it's incumbent

on us to put in place a system of regulation that recognises that

we're moving away from a classic funded model of regulation which we

have in place through the 1992 act that created the Higher Education

Funding Council for England. New clause 12 and amendment 47 seem to

misunderstand the same of the TEF. Changing the ratings would

fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students to

be able to determine which providers are offering the best teaching.

Amendments 46 and 47 would stifle the healthy development of the TEF.

Amendment 50 ignores the reasoned and consult Tative approach we've

taken and will continue to make. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me set out my

reasons why amendments tabled from the benches opposite on our plans of

awarding powers are unnecessary, namely new clauses four and seven

and amendments 40 and 41. Our reforms will ensure students can

choose from a wider range of high quality institutions. If the higher

education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high

quality provision, we want to make it easier for them to award their

own degrees, rather than needing to have degrees for its course as

warded by a competing incumbent. We intend to keep the process arounds

scrutiny of applications for degree awarding powers, which have worked

well so far, broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element

of independent peer review for degree awarding powers applications,

setting this out in legislation as new clause four suggests, would tie

this to a static process which would be inflexible. We intend to consult

on detailed circumstances where degree awarding powers and

university title might be revoked, including changes of ownership and

so there is no need for new clause seven. As for amendments 40 and 41,

I can reassure members that we will, as now, ensure that the very high

standards that providers must meet to make such awards will be

maintained. We are streamlining processes not lower standards. These

amendments are therefore unnecessary. The honourable member

for City of Durham proposed amendment 58 on the criteria for

what an institution should demonstrate in order to be granted

university title. None of these are currents criteria. Like now, we

intend to set out detailed cies tiara and processes for gaining

university title in guidance and not in legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker,

this group also includes some technical amendments to ensure the

legislation delivers the policy intent set out in our white paper. I

know that members on the benches opposite will be keen to talk about

amendments that they have tabled in this group. I look forward to

responding to further points that are raised. I therefore beg to move

new clause one. Duty to monitor and report on

financial sustainability. Read for the second time. Thank you very much

Mr Deputy Speaker. I am raising to speak about clause seven, and

Amendment 50, in my name. Both of these cover ground that we have

discussed in some ways at committee. I will make reference to those

points and then talk about Amendment 40 nine. Clause number seven

provides for automatic review of degree awarding powers, when

ownership over university changes. This is the sort of system that the

minister is seeking to create that the United States, where we do know

that we have had a number of examples of institutions which had a

reasonably well-established reputation changing ownership and

fundamentally changing the product delivered to students. We need to

learn from the mistakes that were made at the united states by

ensuring that we do not find ourselves in this terrain, when

ownership changes that should automatically trigger a review of

the status. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister about

how he intends, if not through this clause, how he intends to deal with

this issue otherwise we could find ourselves in the same situation, not

having the reputation of the sector damaged but also students being let

down. And also let down, carrying with them fee debts. It is an issue

that we need clarification on. Amendment 51 covers terrain that I

have discussed with the Minister on several occasions, seeking to

require universities to introduce integrated student enrolment system

with regards to registration. That is recommended by universities UK,

supported by the Cabinet office and was originally piloted by the

University of Sheffield. Successfully. We have a common

objective of trying to improve the levels of voter registration for

students, this is demonstrated by successful, not just at Sheffield

with support of the Cabinet office but also Cardiff, has gone on to

introduce it. It seems like a good opportunity as we are looking at the

registration requirements of universities to roll it out across

the country to achieve the objectives that we both share. I

have discussed this with ministers from the Cabinet office, we were

going to have a round table but that has been kicked into long grass, to

the new year. That is what I was told. I want to know why we cannot

simply use this opportunity to get this matter sorted out. Amendment 50

reflects concern about the reliability of the metrics, seeking

excellence, and we all welcome the government for free as an teaching

excellence. The principle of the teaching excellence framework is

something that we can work effectively on. But the metrics that

have been identified have been rated government itself as a proxy 40

Ching excellence, employment outcome, retention and the National

student satisfaction survey. All that this amendment is seeking to

do, bring to the face of the bill the unanimous recommendation of the

select committee. When we looked at that, as a member, and I am no

longer one, simply we should have a requirement that the metrics that

the government uses to determine teaching quality have a demonstrable

link to teaching excellence. We can all agree, employment outcomes does

not necessarily demonstrate teaching excellence, regional the regions in

terms of excellence and salary levels. The Minister will know if

you come from the right family, right school, right

uni, you can have an awful teaching experience but still get that

perfect job. Conversely, people who do not come from the right family,

do not necessarily go to what would be seen by many as the correct

university but could get a fantastic teaching experience. It is crude but

converse proxy measure. I would again welcome the minister's

observations on why the single Amendment, saying we must have a

demonstrable link between masers used and teaching excellence does

not actually strengthen the bill. Give way? I thank my right

honourable friend for giving way. Does he mean the teaching

experience, qualifications of lecturers who partake with certain

courses, what does he have remained with regards to proving that you

have got teaching quality there? I thank the right honourable member

for his intervention. Measuring teaching quality is a difficult

thing to do that if we are going to do that, and link fee increases, we

ought to do it well. At the moment, the Higher Education Funding Council

have been piloting work on value added. How you can demonstrate that

during the period of study, student learning outcomes have been

contributed by good teaching. That sort of thing is what we should be

looking at before rushing into the teaching excellence framework, that

could end up measuring anything other than teaching excellence.

Thank you very much for giving way. Would the right honourable member

agree with Professor Jack, when he recently stated that teaching

excellence framework measures wanted measures but it does not measure the

quality of teaching excellence? I thank the right honourable member

for his intervention. And he has expressed my concerns. It is the

reason for this amendment. It would seem that there should be agreement

across the house that if we are to have this teaching excellence

framework, it should measure the quality of teaching. That does not

seem controversial to me. I was disappointed that the government was

not able to accept this unanimous recommendation from the Business

Select Committee, and I want to push the Minister further on his

reasoning for that. If I could then move to Amendment 40 nine. That

raises new concerns, and it will be became clear as this bill progressed

through the committee. That is the government's apparent intention, and

I recognise it may not be the wish of the Minister, but the

government's intention to link the visa regime for international

students to quality measures. In international context, I think

members on both sides of the house are going to share concern...

International students, and I am sure the Minister is going to agree,

have been hugely beneficial to this country and universities. They

enrich the learning environment on campus. We need to understand each

other better than ever, and it is a huge advantage for British students

to be learning alongside those from around the world in classrooms and

laboratories. International students have been adding hugely to the

research capacities, strengthening local businesses as I know from

Sheffield. And add to that the lasting relationships with those who

study here. It is the envy of other countries. Give way? Thank you. I am

loathed to interrupt. Because he was making a powerful point. But this

was conceived before Brexit and things have changed. I have had

e-mails, I am hearing this entire thing should be scrapped because

everything has changed for higher education since the decision on June

23? I thank my right honourable friend for that intervention. And

they look forward to joining her at Westminster. She needs is valuable

point. -- makes this. This was a pre Brexit vision and should have been

rethought because of the decision on June 23, the challenge facing

universities is fundamentally different. And enormous proportions.

We need to look at these proposals again. I thank my right honourable

friend for giving way. On that point, many mainland European

universities are offering courses in English, the fact that we are going

to be leaving the European Union is going to significantly disadvantage

British universities from gaining those foreign students because the

languages and degrees offered at some European countries are in

English, not necessarily French, German, native languages. I thank my

right honourable friend for that intervention, highlighting the new

challenges facing British universities since Brexit. We now

face the situation in which 185,000 of the 500,000 international

students, from European Union countries may no longer be choosing

to come here. But this is the crucial point in relation to his

intervention, of those non EU students polled before June 23, 33%

said that the United Kingdom would be less attractive if we chose to

leave the European Union. And on that point, the competitors at

Europe have been adding to the competitiveness that we already get

from Australia and the United States have been seizing the opportunity to

teach English language courses. That is going to be attractive. I thank

my right honourable friend for giving way. I have got to

universities at Coventry. One of the concerns is as a result of Brexit,

students from countries like India and possibly others are now going to

be looking at North America, choosing to go there. Because of the

difficulty that they have coming to this country. Treated as immigrants.

They should be taken out of the immigration figures. The benefit

that we get, just under 10 billion. I hope that the government is going

to take this seriously. It is one thing to comment and ask a question,

it is another to stretch into a speech. This is becoming Brexit

argument and debate. But you been with these interventions. Thank you

very much Mr Deputy Speaker. And they appreciate the intervention of

my right honourable friend, making this point strongly in relation to

international students. It is correct. Many universities across

the country are going to be in crisis, if we see a significant drop

in the number of international students. That would only be a drop

in the income, but it would mean that many postgraduate courses that

are only viable because of the levels of income that have been

brought from international students would cease to be viable, cease to

exist and available to United Kingdom students. It is a hugely

important issue. He will know that I entirely accept

his last point about a number of these post graduate courses.

However, would he also accept that whilst in an ideal world, as he

knows, I would not have students in the immigration figures, but we are

where we r, they are going to remain in the immigration figures. One of

the lessons of Brexit surely is that this issue is a massive concern to

many of our fellow countrymen. Therefore, it is surely incumbent

upon universities to ensure that we get high quality students coming

from abroad. That is really the focus of what I think the Government

are trying to achieve here, that we do ensure that those students who

come here come here because they are going to be the creme de la creme,

are going to add the sort of experience to UK nationals to which

he has referred earlier in his contribution. But also, that we will

have a group of students here that will command the confidence of the

public that we are getting only the brightest and best rather than a

volume operation in our universities. I thank the honourable

member for his intervention. He and I have worked closely on a number of

these issues. We do agree that international students should be

taken out of net migration figures, targets. But on this point that he

raises here, I would disagree because I know that we would come

together in saying that our universities are a great British

export industry. But I'm genuinely puzzled why the Government doesn't

see them as an industry in other terms. We don't put in measures to

seek to discourage the automobile industry from selling cars. We try

to encourage them to sell more cars. Similarly on the point he raises, we

don't say well we just want you to sell rolls roses, we don't want you

to sell Minis. It is a nonsense economically for the our country and

the local economies that we all represent. Here is the nub of the

problem. He talks about the way that these issues are viewed by the

public. International students are not viewed bit public -- by the

public as a threat or as an issue that the Government ought to be

taking action on. A recent poll showed that 75% of people wanted to

see the numbers of international students either stay the same or go

up. But the Government strategy as he will know is moving us in the

other direction. The Home Secretary, albeit I think against her will,

made a speech at Conservative Party Conference in which she put

international students and I'm sure the honourable member will agree

with me, wrongly at the centre of her plans to cut migration. She

introduced this new tool to which he's alluded with which she planned

to do it, linking visa approval to the quality of courses. We need to

reflect on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very significant development

firstly in terms of having a policy objective of reducing international

students. The Government did it by default in the last Parliament. I

will. The honourable member wants to remind himself that international

student applications went up 14%. I'd be interested for the minister

to intervene on me again and say over what period. He will know that

broadly speaking over the period of the last Parliament they flat lined

and we lost market share. Since 2010. I think we'll probably

disagree on those figures. I think I've heard the minister say

previously and certainly if not him his predecessor and previous

immigration ministers that actually there was no damage by the measures

taken place in the last Parliament because numbers flat lined. Now from

my point of view, flatlining in a growing market is a defeat. We

wouldn't say the world is buying more cars, buy an extra 30% and the

great news is our exports are flatlining. It doesn't make sense.

But he will agree with me that, I'm sure, that international students

are an extremely good thing for our economy. Therefore it's deeply

worrying that the Home Secretary put at the centrepiece of her plans to

cut migration international students. I will indeed. Grateful to

my honourable friend for giving way. I strong lay grow with everything

he's saying in his speech. Can he imagine a scenario where higher

education institutions are recruiting onto courses, UK students

onto their courses but sending a message to other people overseas

that the course isn't good enough for them. If it's not good enough

for international students, surely it's not good enough for home

students? My honourable friend makes the point that I was coming straight

onto. If we were to be looking at a teaching excellence framework in

parallel with competitors around the world, if we are together saying

that we think the world market in international education needs this

sort of tool, and that in that world market it would be helpful to have

gold, silver and bronze institution that's would be -- that would be one

thing. For us to be unilaterally declaring to the world that we are

differentiating our institutions and saying that a good two thirds of

them perhaps are less good than others, I don't see how that can do

anything other than damage our ability to recruit international

students, to earn the money that we do from them and the support and

jobs that means for our local economies. I will give way. I'm very

grateful indeed. Would the honourable gentleman agrow with me,

it's not just representational damage at home. It might have quons

constituencies abroad -- consequence as broad. My own university of

Bangor takes a number of Chinese students. But then we have a site in

China as well. There would be a reputational damage of that sort as

well. Yes, I thank the honourable member for his intervention. It

isn't simply student recruitment, it is the brand strength of UK

universities, which is extraordinarily high, which is put

at risk by this measure. So last week, in Westminster Hall, I sought

assurances from the Immigration Minister on whether it is the Home

Office's intention to use the teaching excellence framework

measurement of quality as a basis for their visa regime and for trying

to cut down the number of international students. I got no

reassurance. I gave him a couple of opportunities to say that they

weren't intending to use the TEF and he failed to do so. So, this

amendment says that until we are absolutely clear on the Government's

intention in relation to different shacks by gold, silver, bronze, and

we should not seek to have the teaching framework in this way we

should simply have a meeting expectations or not meeting

expectations. I accept it's not the minister's intention to damage our

universities by the introduction of this but it could be the unintended

reaction by the Home Office. These are challenging times for our

country. Charting our post Brexit place in the world is going to be a

big job. We need to win friends not alienate them. The Prime Ministerial

trade mission to India recently demonstrated that many of those

friends will put access to our universities at the heart of any

discussion on our future relationship even on the issue of

trade. We won't be able to separate those. So we can't afford to be

putting the sector, the export earnings we get from international

students at risk in this way. I'd therefore ask the minister on this

issue to think again. I rise to move new clause 14 post

study work visa evaluation. I reserve the right to push this to a

vote later on, if required. The SNP are continuing to press for a

reintroduction of the post study work visa. This amendment ensures an

evaluation of how absence of this key visa has affected the UK economy

and how a new visa may be implemented in future. The post

study work visa, as we've heard already, is an important lever for

attracting the best international student talent. There's consensus in

Scotland amongst business, education and every political party

represented at Holyrood that we need a return of the post study route to

allow these talented students to remain and contribute to Scottish

economy. The outcome of the EU referendum makes it even more

important that the UK Government honours the recommendation in the

Smith report to explore a potential post-study work route to ensure

Scotland continues to attract and retain talent from around the world.

But the longer we wait for the Government to move on this, the more

damage has been done both socially and economically. The current

post-study work offer is not adequate for Scotland. We've offered

to discuss the reasons behind it with UK ministers and Home Office

officials, but disappointingly, UK ministers appear to rule out a

return of the post-study work visa without meeting with Scottish

ministers or the cross-party steering group that's been set up at

Holyrood. The current immigration policy poses a significant risk to

Scottish universities. Data published in January shows that

Scotland has seen a 2% increase in international entrants in the

academic year 2014/15, compared to previous year. On the face of it

that may appear positive, however by comparison during the period 2013/14

to 14/15 the number of international students entering higher education

in the United States has increased by 10%. So rather than being able to

take advantage of this growth sector, and actually use it for

economic growth locally, we're expected to remain stagnant, which

is simply not good enough. The Home Office released details of a low

risk tier four pilot in July of this year, which was welcomed, maybe

welcomed is not the correct word - viewed with some interest, but we're

troubled that it was introduced without any consultation with

Scottish Government, Scottish institutions or indeed institutions

from across the UK. Universities Scotland have said, "We're

disappointed that the opportunity of the pilot has been framed so

narrowly to only four universities, none of which are in Scotland." We'd

argue a broader pilot involving a wider group of institution would

have provided more meaningful lessons from which to build. I thank

the honourable lady for giving way. I understand, she's made a strong

case for why she feels the post study work visas should be

reintroduced. Would she accept that one of the main reasons that there

is a clamp down from the UK Government is because a number of

people come in on these visas and then similarly go to ground and

cannot be removed from this country, when they are only due to be here on

a student visa. Would she in making the case that these visas be

reintroduced also tell us a bit about the further obligations she

thinks should be on the granting of the visas from those universities

that grant the visa. They can't simply get students in, take the

money and wash their hands of any responsibility going forward, surely

not? I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention.

Firstly, there was a situation in the past where certain rogue

institutions, particularly rogue and private FE colleges were not

complying with visa regulations, but there is little evidence that the HE

institutions we're talking about in this bill have any record of

noncompliance, so I do not accept the points that the gentleman's

making. I'll give way. Will the honourable member accept that last

week at the Westminster debate I specifically challenged the Home

Office minister to name any institutions in Scotland that could

be said to fall into the kind of behavioural category that the

honourable member on the opposite benches suggested. He said he

couldn't name one. The 19 higher education institutes in Scotland

have a strong record in attracting international students and a strong

record of compliance. So I agree 100% with my honourable friend. I

thank the honourable lady for giving way. Some of the issues the

honourable lady's mentioned, the Scottish Select Committee has been

looking at. There is evidence of a need for the Government to look at

the Scottish situation differently from the rest of the country,

because one of the things we did come across when we looked at this

was you've got to remember that Scotland's got a declining

population, so it's got to find an anchor to keep people in Scotland to

develop the Scottish economy. I thank the right honourable

gentleman for his intervention and it is well documented that in

Scotland, the issue is emigration, not immigration, this is going to be

a key trigger and would make a massive difference to the local

economy. I have given way enough. The principal of Edinburgh

University addressed the Scottish affairs committee and has warned

that future restrictions on free movement would have a damaging

impact on the sector. He said yesterday that the Prime Minister

said helpfully that the special relationship could be needed for

workers in the city for the car industry, if the car industry

deserves this special deal, then universities, also. As we move

towards Brexit, we have the potential of much wider pool of

international students who may want to study at our universities. I

think we have got to think seriously about visa, we have a situation of

Ireland. 1949, stated as not being a foreign country. What special

arrangements are going to be in place for Irish students who want to

come and study at our institutions. I am going to move on briefly. I

couple of amendments that have been launched by the right honourable

member, looking at concerns with the proposed metrics within the teaching

excellence framework. Much discussion about the metrics and we

have already been listening to the right honourable member about some

concerns on these. And how the metrics being used are not an

indication of the quality of teaching. We mentioned at the

committee about the Scottish enhancement approach, far more

thorough and possibly a better method of determining quality.

However, it seems that we are pushing ahead with the metrics

proposed by the government. We are happy to support the amendments

launched by the Labour benches. Amendment 51, required an automatic

voter registration at universities looks like an extremely innovative

idea, and for once I have to admit that has not come from Scotland. But

this could be an amendment that we in Scotland could start looking at

and consider. We will look to that as well. I know that we are short of

time. And we have got amendments, later on, that we want to push so I

am going to conclude by say that we are going to support the amendment

is mentioned and I hope we can have some movement on new clause 14.

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to speak to new clause 16, drawing

on some of the points that my right honourable friend has made about

amendment 40 nine. What new clause 16 is looking to do, remove students

from the net migration figures. It is going to be interesting to hear

from the Minister, if this is something that the government has on

the agenda. And also, in passing, want to comment on how damaging it

would be for the university sector if the number of international

students that can be recruited at anyone institution is related to the

traffic light system. As we know, Mr Deputy Speaker, international

students are not only important for higher education but also the

economy, international student contribution GDP is almost certainly

in excess of about ten billion and supports the equivalent of 170,000

jobs. Many of the students go to postgraduate work, leading research

and innovation in this country. Therefore, to be congratulated and

supported. Not only do they get to know the United Kingdom, they also

develop an affinity for that, developing links with staff and

contributing massively to the self diplomacy that we have already

spoken about this afternoon. I think they also improve Britain's standing

in the world and that cannot be over emphasised. Therefore, it is really

important that the government does not put international recruitment of

students at risk. Because once they are there, the students also enrich

society and contribute to that. I know this from my constituency,

where the international students add to the cultural experience. Can I

concur with my right honourable friend, about the contribution and

good experiences that international students get. My own local

university at Preston has many thousands of foreign students,

enriching the city and these students want to leave the United

Kingdom but actually become some of the best ambassadors. The experience

that really ticking into mixing positive about the future. Thank you

Mr Deputy Speaker. I think my right honourable friend makes an excellent

point. And I think this ambassadors role is something that the

government have to take on board. We can only be overwhelmed and at the

mixed messages that the government has been deafening. One message

coming from education, another from the Home Office. I actually do not

yet know whether the Department for International trade have got an

opinion on international students. If they do not, they really ought

to! And it should be promoting what people have said this afternoon. It

is an important industry. What seems to be happening, the Home Office in

fact instead of supporting an increase in the number of

international students seems to be getting the message that we need to

reduce numbers. This is having an effect. The figures that I have got

for the number of international students and what is happening to

the trend, very different to the one that the Minister read out earlier.

It would appear that the number of new entrants has fallen by 2.8%. And

indeed, one study has put these figures down as low as 5%. The

Minister must also know that the British Council as stated that the

native kingdom is beginning to lose market share to competitors. This is

something that the government should be concerned about. Also what this

amendment is really seeking to find out from the Minister is whether he

or the Home Office have got any notion for introducing a system that

the number of international students who can be recruited, depends on the

traffic light system. So together the Minister and example, FC have

been greeted gold, no cap whatsoever. If they get bronze, oh

dear... A cap could be put on the number of students that could be

recruited. To use the automobile analogy that my right honourable

friend used earlier, this would be like telling Nissan, you can go out

and sell as many cars as you like, but Vauxhall?

We are going to limit the numbers. Clearly this is nonsense. We need to

have definite read assurances from the Minister today that this

regulation is not going to be used to be linked to the number of

international students that can be recruited. I will give way briefly.

On that particular point, it is bizarre that when the Times

supplementary supplement producers university rankings, the government

intervenes. And clearly, the choice is almost market-based. My right

honourable friend has made an important point and as he will know,

international students are central to the business model of every

institution in this country. In addition to the possible

reputational damage that could be done to the universities, we also do

not want the message to quote that international students are not

welcome. The way in which the Minister, Home Office, other

departments could do with this, say they are temporary visitors, like

Australia do. And that means removing students from the net

migration statistics. It is a simple thing for the government to do. I

hope that we hear from the Minister this afternoon that he is going to

do that. We should be ambitious for universities, enabling them to grow,

international markets like Australia, Canada, and not seeking

to limit international potential. As the Minister will know, he has got a

mandate to do this. The recent Congress study again reported by my

right honourable friend, the member for Sheffield Central, has said that

75% of people who expressed a view would like to see the same number or

more international students in the United Kingdom. It also revealed

that the majority of the British public think that international

students should be able to stay and and work for a period of time. I

think it is a clear case and I hope that the Minister responds

positively. If I can now move on quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, to

amendment number 58. The Minister referred to this moments ago. He

will know that we have got huge concern in the higher education

sector about enabling bodies to be able to call themselves universities

that do not provide the range of services or support to students that

most of us would consider to be what a university is. And the reason, no

particular guidance on this at the moment. We have not needed that

because most universities have provided student support, provided

access to sport and recreational opportunities. Evading well-being

services, opportunities for volunteering, able to join the

student union. The University plays an important civil role. So on and

so on. The reason I thought it was necessary to table this amendment

this afternoon was because the government's legislation is going to

allow a series of higher education institutions to call themselves

universities. But as of yet we have no idea if they are going to have to

offer a whole range of basic services to students, able to join

the student union? Able to join support cops? -- sport clubs? Will

they have an important role in the local community? An important role

in the local economy? We have nothing as yet from the Minister

accept that there is going to be some the agents, I am minded at the

moment to push amendment number 58 to vote. I would like to hear from

the Minister, what is going to be in this cadence, about how we are

describing universities, what the minister's understanding of what a

university is, and when will this cadence be available? An particular,

is it going to be available before this bill is considered?

It's just a point really in that a university is an establishment where

higher level study and education and research is done. It's not actually

somewhere where one would necessarily avail oneself of volume

untiering experiences, for example. Or other things that you have

listed. I would contend that as we move forward, and as we move into

longer life Times where we may take degrees at different times, we may

actually be looking merely to access a degree to enhance careers rather

than actually making this part of our lifestyle. The honourable lady

was on the committee and I'm sure that she will recall that the things

that are had in this specific amendment are in addition to what we

would perhaps say is the core business of a university, which is

to enable people to study for a higher level qualification. It's

about ensuring that we're not going to get whole series of universities

and institutions that can use university in its title that are, in

fact, only offering a single course of study and a single qualification.

Because we think that will dumb down the sector, not only for students in

the UK, but in particular for international students and the

honourable lady will know that it's a highly competitive sector

internationally and we want to ensure that our union slers toys

compete with the -- universities compete with the best in the world.

We've got huge concerns that in simply allowing an institution to

say it's a university, when it doesn't have to provide any access

to sports or recreation or cultural activities or volume untiering

opportunities or work-based learning experience or any of the other

things that currently are universities do right across the

piece. I hope the honourable lady is as proud as I am that our

universities do that. I give way again. Thank you very much Mr Deputy

Speaker. I would concur to a point. I am hugely rout of universities. I

am hugely proud what have they deliver into our economy I would

also argue that we have great institutions, for example, BT within

Suffolk is looking to hopefully have a specific agree around research,

learning and so on. These things should be enabled for a fewer chore

workforce fit for purpose -- future workforce fit for purpose, and not

wiped away because they don't perhaps offer the chance to play

five-a-side football. I too think that BT has a number of strengths as

a company. It's yet to be determined whether it is very good at running a

university. We will only know that in due course. Part of what I want

to see it doing, if it does run a university, is ensuring it's a

university as we would commonly understand it in this country and

not simply a company having a degree course. I give way to my honourable

friend. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Would she

acknowledge that part of the problem here and the honourable member picks

out the issue of five-a-side football, but the wider issue here

is that this is the first major piece of legislation on higher

education for a generation. It is giving an opportunity to extend

university title quite widely. Wouldn't she imagine that in that

context, isn't this the nub of the problem, there is no attempt to

define what a university is. I concur exactly with my honourable

friend. Actually what the minister said to me in committee was that he

was setting a high bar that only high quality providers will be able

to meet. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we have absolutely no

idea what is meant by that "high bar". I'm hoping that we will hear

from the minister this afternoon exactly what he means by a

university, what is going to be in the guidance and that the quality

and breadth of offer of our universities is going to be

protected and not got rid of by this Government.

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to colleagues for

making so many points from the bill committee that particularly

exercised me around part one of the bill because of the shortness of

time this afternoon, I just want to restrict my remarks to two issues

around students and staff in higher education. Firstly, turning to

Government amendment 21, concerning student representation on the board

of the office for students. Can I firstly welcome this amendment and

that the minister has listened to the huge number of representations

he's received from members of the bill committee, from students unions

and from higher education sector leaders, who really value the

contribution that students make and want to see students on the board of

the office for students. It would have been perverse to have a

regulator whose purpose is to protect the interests of students,

who have students' names on the door and on the headed paper but don't

have students around the table on the board. I'm glad that the

minister has moved on this particular point. I hope that as the

bill progresses into the other place that the minister might consider

moving further on the issue of student representation. During the

bill committee we also raised the issue of student representation on

the board of the designated quality provider and in drawing up the

quality code and ensuring that students have a representative role

in what could be, as my honourable friend, the member for City of

Durham highlighted, could be a wide range of new private providers,

whether an institution is a traditional university or a modern

university or one of the new private providers, it's crucial that

students' rights are protected and that their voice is represented at

the top of the institution. Can I also ask the minister to address how

he sees this issue of student representation playing out on the

board of the office for students? The wording the minister has put

forward isn't quite the wording that I put forward at bill committee,

which was slightly more prescrape Tiff and specificed it should be

either a students or a sabatical office of a students union or

officer of the national union for students. My slight caution about

the amendment that the minister has put forward is that the Secretary of

State's put forward, is that we could interpret the dive fission of

someone with experience of representing students quite loosely.

There are a number of members for this House, myself included, who

have experience of representing students. I'm sure we wouldn't

expect to find ourselves years later on the board of the office for

students. Perhaps when he makes remarks later in our discussions he

might step out what that representation might look like.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Can the honourable gentleman just define for

me what he considered a typical student is, in order that I could

gauge some idea of what somebody who could represent, for example,

myself, who went to college as a mature student might be or a

life-long learner or whatever. If we are too tight with the definition

and I think this gives us scope to have a looser definition, then this

might be more appropriate. I certainly don't think we'll be able

to find a typical student to sit on the board for the office of

students. As others have said from their positions, no such thing

exists. This really leads me onto where I wanted to direct the

minister in as far as I can. We should really value the skills and

expertise that representatives of students develop through their roles

in students unions, because there is no such thing as a typical students

and no such thing as a typical student experience. We should value

and champion the role that students' union officers play in developing

their skills and experience as representatives to make sure that

students' unions are championing the broad Diversity of students at their

institutions, whether fulltime, partime, whether they are doing part

of a course on a credit base approach, whether they're living at

home and commuting to university or they've moved away from home, there

are a wide range of student experiences. The challenge for

anyone who seeks to be a representative is to make sure that

we're genuinely drawing on the broad range of experiences, as we have to

do as constituency monies. I would hope, this brings me onto the point

I hope the minister will make, I would hope that when the minister

comes to a point at one of these representatives that he appoints

someone who is a sabatical officer of a students union. I think that we

are very lucky in this country to have a means through which students

can develop a really good base of skills and experience, which if you

look at the voluntary sector, many of the country's leading chief

executive in voluntary organisations have been sabatical officers. People

in all sorts of professions because the experience and the skill set it

gives you is genuinely valuable beyond the scope of representing

students during their time at university. So I hope that's the

sort of person the minister has in mind, that we're not going to be

dragging people back from beyond, dusting themselves off from

retirement. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Whilst a gree

with everything that he's saying, I think the honourable lady opposite

was making reference in particular to distance learning students

perhaps, mature students, people who have followed a less, if I can put

it this way, usual course in order to obtain a qualification. Certainly

when I met my president of the students union over the years, they

have been sympathetic to the needs of students like that. Could he

perhaps address her point? I absolutely agree with that point

which brings me back to the issue of the skills and expertise that

Student Union sabatical officers develop as sabatical officers. You

look at the open university students association, these are institutions

almost entirely dedicated to partime students, people from

non-traditional routes, people often working alongside their studies, who

might return to learning later on. It is important that those broad

range of experiences and perspectives are represented on the

board of the office for students. I hope the minister will appoint

someone to that job, to that position who is able to represent

the broad interests of students. Now I want to turn to the issue of

staff. I should probably declare that I'm a member of the trade union

Unison which represents a number of staff in higher education. I should

draw members' attention to my register of financial interests on

that particular point too. Amendment 48 picks up on the theme I've just

been discussing around student representation on the board and

makes the case for staff representation on the board of the

office for students. Staff are absolutely critical to the success

of our higher education sector, whether it's academic staff,

directly engaged in teeveng and learning, or the wide range of

support staff, who are often unheralded when it comes to the

contribution they make to the student experience. For example,

thinking back to my own experience, the very first member of staff I

spoke to at my university wasn't an academic. It was in the admissions

office. When I was at university, I spoke to staff through my role in

the students union, at the time the entertainment officer of the Student

Union. When I had a particularly small room in my second year, and a

larger one became available, Sue Jeffries made a substantial

difference to my learning environment. Margaret Hay, who

recently retired in the tu tore office was essential. Bearing in

mind what other honourable members have said about the role

international staff play in our institutions, I think it is

important that there are people on the board of the office of students

who have experience of representing the interests of staff. Because many

of our trade union colleagues, particularly in the university and

college union, have made a powerful case about the impact that

casualisation of contracts is having, for example, on our ability

to recruit and retain good staff. And their ability to deliver a good

student experience. But there will be other trade unions like Unison

and unite who often represent staff who may not be directly engaged in

teaching are often providing essential support functions that can

be the difference between an excellent or poor student

experience. I would hope their voices also represented on the

office for students, their interests are represented, because I think

particularly with where we've taken our country in terms of the debate

around our ability to attract and retarn excellent staff from around

the world, I think we leave ourselves in a very vulnerable

position that sectors such as ours, that is so world leading in its

performance but also in its reach, we really do need to champion and

protect the interests of staff. So I hope the minister will take those

points on board. I thank him for the movement he's shown since the bill

committee. I'd almost given up hope by the end of committee we would see

much progress. To give him credit he has moved. I hope he'll listen to