21/11/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.think we need to give credit where it is due due. If that practice is

:00:00. > :00:11.going on, I will be very happy to look into it. Order. Urgent

:00:12. > :00:15.question, Lisa Nandy. To make a statement on the leadership,

:00:16. > :00:25.staffing and budget and structure of the independent inquiry into child

:00:26. > :00:30.sexual abuse. Mr Speaker, the inquiry was set up to look at the

:00:31. > :00:36.extent to which institutions in England and Wales failed to protect

:00:37. > :00:40.children from sexual abuse. We know the terrible impact that abuse has

:00:41. > :00:45.on survivors, sometimes for many years. As the House knows, following

:00:46. > :00:53.the resignation of the previous chair, my honourable friend the Home

:00:54. > :00:59.Secretary appointed Alexis Jay. She has a distinguished career in social

:01:00. > :01:03.work. She led the independent inquiry into child sexual

:01:04. > :01:07.exploitation in Rotherham where she scrutinised the work of social

:01:08. > :01:11.workers and proved her capability to uncover failings across institutions

:01:12. > :01:17.and professions. She is the right person to take this work forward.

:01:18. > :01:22.Taking the work forward is vital for creating a sense of certainty for

:01:23. > :01:28.victims and survivors. The inquiry is set up 13 strands of

:01:29. > :01:35.investigation, made two hundred and 50 formal requests for information

:01:36. > :01:41.from over 10 institutions. -- 120 institutions. With 164,000 documents

:01:42. > :01:48.submitted. They have referred eighty cases a week to the police. It has

:01:49. > :01:53.rolled out the Truth project, allowing survivors to tell the

:01:54. > :01:57.inquiry what has happened to emthchlt -- to them. The inquiry has

:01:58. > :02:03.adequate resources to undertake its work and we will support the inquiry

:02:04. > :02:07.with what they need. The inquiry remains independent. Which mean ps

:02:08. > :02:12.it is not part of government and is not run by a government department.

:02:13. > :02:19.Professor Jay is mindful of the scale of the task and the need to

:02:20. > :02:26.move forward with pace that. Is why she has instigated a review of the

:02:27. > :02:31.inquiry's approach. Exploring new ways to develop its work, whilst

:02:32. > :02:37.remaining faithful to its terms of reference. She has made clear that

:02:38. > :02:42.if any changes are proposed the views affected by those will be

:02:43. > :02:47.sought. We expect the outcome of this review soon. It is crucial that

:02:48. > :02:54.we now give the inquiry the space and support it needs to get on with

:02:55. > :02:58.its job. Getting to the truth for victims and survivors and I urge

:02:59. > :03:07.everyone in this House to do just that. Where is the Home Secretary

:03:08. > :03:15.and why is it nobody from the Government has sought to come to

:03:16. > :03:22.this House and provide reassurance about the serious events. Has the

:03:23. > :03:31.Home Secretary met survivors' groups and what steps has she taken to

:03:32. > :03:38.establish the chair and the panel have the skills to succeed. Have

:03:39. > :03:48.anyone nvred while lawyers have cited concerns. Is the former chief

:03:49. > :03:53.legal counsel still being paid and if so why, what action is the Home

:03:54. > :03:57.Office taking to establish there was a disclosure of sexual assault and

:03:58. > :04:01.is she satisfied that disclosure was dealt with properly by the inquiry

:04:02. > :04:04.and can she give me a personal assurance that the intelligence

:04:05. > :04:08.services are standing by the commitment to hand over all files?

:04:09. > :04:15.And that that this is not being obstructed. We have heard and

:04:16. > :04:19.professor Jay's review for the first time in August. Is where is it. This

:04:20. > :04:25.is the second time I have asked ministers to account for these

:04:26. > :04:30.failings. They have lost seven senior lawyers and several survivors

:04:31. > :04:33.groups. It is now impossible to see that this inquiry is still

:04:34. > :04:39.operating. This maybe the last chance that the Prime Minister and

:04:40. > :04:44.her Home Secretary have to reduce the inquiry that she set up. Will

:04:45. > :04:48.she stop hiding behind independence and recognise she has responsibility

:04:49. > :04:58.for this inquiry's success and get a grip on it? Thank you. I'm

:04:59. > :05:01.delighted, as the minister responsible for vulnerability,

:05:02. > :05:09.safeguarding and counter extremism, to be here to answer this question.

:05:10. > :05:14.It is absolutely at the core of this government's priority to safeguard

:05:15. > :05:22.children in our country. The Home Secretary was in this House as

:05:23. > :05:25.recently as October 17th answering questions in detail, the Home

:05:26. > :05:30.Affairs Select Committee has asked questions of permanent Secretary of

:05:31. > :05:35.Home Office. The the honourable lady is wrong in asserting there is some

:05:36. > :05:41.sort of smoke screen and hiding behind independence. It is essential

:05:42. > :05:46.that this inquiry is an independent inquiry. The terms of reference of

:05:47. > :05:51.this inquiry were shaped with the voices and the opinions of the

:05:52. > :05:55.victims. And it is very important that this independence is

:05:56. > :05:59.maintained. Now, the honourable lady asked a series of operational

:06:00. > :06:04.questions. All of those questions are for if chair and the leadership

:06:05. > :06:09.of the independent inquiry. For me to answer those questions here would

:06:10. > :06:15.be wrong, because we one intervening in the independence of the inquiry.

:06:16. > :06:20.I am confident, as is the Prime Minister, as is the Home Secretary,

:06:21. > :06:25.in the ability of professor Jay to lead this rink. I think it is

:06:26. > :06:30.important that we all get behind the inquiry so they can get on and do

:06:31. > :06:40.their really important work, making sure they get to the truth and

:06:41. > :06:48.deliver for victims. May I tell my honourable friend that I don't for

:06:49. > :06:51.one moment... Underscore or undervalue the intentions of those

:06:52. > :06:57.who set up the inquiry and those who are working with it, albeit it has

:06:58. > :07:02.had a rocky road. Nor do I underestimate for one moment the

:07:03. > :07:07.trauma that those who have been affected by sex abuse, child sex

:07:08. > :07:12.abuse, has had upon them. I have acted in a number of criminal cases

:07:13. > :07:15.in which I have seen with my own eyes the terrible consequences for

:07:16. > :07:20.adults of what happened to them as children. But I want to ask her a

:07:21. > :07:26.question from a different angle. I have a constituent who since the

:07:27. > :07:31.early part of this century has been left in limbo and does not know

:07:32. > :07:38.whether he is an accused person, whether he is a witness, what is his

:07:39. > :07:43.status in relation to this inquiry? And he, like the victims, needs to

:07:44. > :07:49.be told when this is all going to finish. Both for him and for the

:07:50. > :07:54.victims. Would my right honourable friend make inquiries of inquiry to

:07:55. > :07:59.ensure that this man can either be prosecuted, or set free.

:08:00. > :08:07.I thank my honourable friend for his customary thoughtfulness in the way

:08:08. > :08:11.he asks his questions and the way he's reflected on the importance of

:08:12. > :08:17.this inquiry, because as he quite rightly points out, it can have a

:08:18. > :08:21.devastating impact and as he quite rightly points out, not always just

:08:22. > :08:25.on the victims but also on those people who are caught up in

:08:26. > :08:29.inquiries. My honourable friend is referring to a particular case,

:08:30. > :08:33.which will be an operational matter for the police. While I can

:08:34. > :08:37.understand why he wants to bring this matter to a swift concollusion

:08:38. > :08:41.on behalf of his constituent, these are operational matters for the

:08:42. > :08:48.police. Of course, quite rightly they are independent of the Home

:08:49. > :08:54.Office. This inquiry is on its fourth chair. Every time ministers

:08:55. > :09:00.have come to the House and asserted that the current chair is the right

:09:01. > :09:06.person to take the inquiry forward. For the fourth time of saying that,

:09:07. > :09:10.why do they expect this House, the public and, above all, the survivors

:09:11. > :09:15.to be reassured? Of course, as the minister has said, this is an

:09:16. > :09:20.independent inquiry. In particular as to its conduct and its find gds,

:09:21. > :09:26.but that doesn't mean that the office can take no responsibility at

:09:27. > :09:30.all. On the question of the Shirley Oaks survivors in the Lambeth

:09:31. > :09:35.children's home, I've heard the minister say that she won't answer

:09:36. > :09:39.operational questions, but she knows their concern about having a social

:09:40. > :09:44.worker as overall chair of the inquiry. They have said they would

:09:45. > :09:52.accept a vice chair for their strand who wasn't a social worker, have

:09:53. > :09:57.ministers put that to Alexis Jay? And above all, I hope the minister

:09:58. > :10:01.won't dismiss this as a operational question, the Shirley Oaks survivors

:10:02. > :10:05.want to know what the office involvement in the monitoring and

:10:06. > :10:11.supervision of Lambeth children's homes over the period when the

:10:12. > :10:16.historic child abuse occurred? Ministers cannot let this inquiry

:10:17. > :10:20.just run into the sand. The public expects better. This House expects

:10:21. > :10:28.better. And the survivors expect better. I thank the honourable lady

:10:29. > :10:32.for her question. I can absolutely assure her and every other member in

:10:33. > :10:40.this House that we will absolutely not let this inquiry run into the

:10:41. > :10:44.sand. It is vitally important to the whole protection of children in our

:10:45. > :10:51.country that we understand the failings of the past, that we seek

:10:52. > :10:56.remedies for the victims and what we use that intelligence to better

:10:57. > :11:00.improve safeguarding anningments for children today. The right honourable

:11:01. > :11:06.lady asked questions about operational details, which she knows

:11:07. > :11:09.full well it would be completely inappropriate for me to answer,

:11:10. > :11:16.absolutely inappropriate for me to answer. But I can assure you that

:11:17. > :11:21.the chair of the independent inquiry regularly meets with the survivor

:11:22. > :11:25.groups and I'm sure that she will be listening to the concerns raised by

:11:26. > :11:34.the Shirley Oaks survivors association. She is undertaking a

:11:35. > :11:39.review to make sure that the inquiry is properly focussed to address the

:11:40. > :11:44.really serious concerns its raising. While I appreciate this is an

:11:45. > :11:50.independent inquiry, my honourable friend must understand how these

:11:51. > :11:52.victims groups have become upset, disturbed about the Fayure of it and

:11:53. > :11:56.-- nature of it and how long it's going to take. Can at least my

:11:57. > :12:00.honourable friend assure me that the scope of the inquiry will not be

:12:01. > :12:05.reduced and can she also assure me that whatever funds are required by

:12:06. > :12:08.the inquiry will be delivered by the Home Office.

:12:09. > :12:16.I thank my honourable friend for that comment. I quite understand

:12:17. > :12:19.that the victims who have been abused will feel disappointed about

:12:20. > :12:23.some of the issues that have been happening with the inquiry. I quite

:12:24. > :12:29.understand that. But it is vitally important, as he says, that the

:12:30. > :12:35.independence of the inquiry is absolutely maintained. And that the

:12:36. > :12:39.chairman is meeting, is engaging with survivors organisations and

:12:40. > :12:42.individuals to make sure that the inquiry absolutely delivers on its

:12:43. > :12:47.terms of reference, which they actually shape themselves. I think

:12:48. > :12:51.going back to my statement, the fact that 80 cases a week are being

:12:52. > :12:55.referred to the police, that over 500 people have come forward to

:12:56. > :13:02.participate in the truth project shows how valuable this inquiry

:13:03. > :13:06.already is to those victims. Mr Speaker, we all know that this

:13:07. > :13:10.inquiry's been dogged by setbacks and rock legals. So it's

:13:11. > :13:16.disappointing to -- problems, so it's disappointing to learn of the

:13:17. > :13:20.latest withdrawals and expressions of concern from groups representing

:13:21. > :13:26.victims and survivors. I'm sure all want to see this inquiry succeed. We

:13:27. > :13:29.want it to meet its purpose of investigating historical allegations

:13:30. > :13:33.of child sexual abuse. Above all we want justice for those people whose

:13:34. > :13:38.lives have been harmed by abuse. To do so, we need to restore and secure

:13:39. > :13:41.confidence in this inquiry and its findings. Mr Speaker,

:13:42. > :13:45.notwithstanding the minister's reluctance to address what she

:13:46. > :13:52.considers to be operational matters, can she tell us when she anticipates

:13:53. > :13:56.a suitable legal counsel will be appointed? Following the resignation

:13:57. > :13:59.of the previous chair in August, does she know whether internal

:14:00. > :14:03.procedures for resolving complaints about staff and panel members have

:14:04. > :14:06.been established? And most importantly, this is categorically

:14:07. > :14:10.not an operational matter, what does the minister plan to do to restore

:14:11. > :14:15.trust in the proceedings for those survivors of sexual abous and to

:14:16. > :14:20.regain their support? I thank the honourable lady for her series of

:14:21. > :14:23.questions and to take the last point first, in terms of confidence. I

:14:24. > :14:28.think there's a huge amount that we can do in this House, that is

:14:29. > :14:34.actually to get behind the inquiry. It is open for business. I think

:14:35. > :14:39.it's worth getting in perspective while I'm disappointed that one

:14:40. > :14:43.victims group has decided not to engage with the inquiry, at the

:14:44. > :14:47.current time, that is really disappointing that's the case. But I

:14:48. > :14:53.am hopeful they will re-engage in the future. We must remember it is

:14:54. > :14:57.one, the inquiry is getting on with its work. In terms of the legal

:14:58. > :15:01.council, that is for the chair and the leadership of the commission.

:15:02. > :15:06.It's their responsibility to make sure that they appoint the people

:15:07. > :15:12.necessary to undertake the task. I'm sure that the chair understands the

:15:13. > :15:16.concerns raised by members in this House, by victims' organisations to

:15:17. > :15:21.make sure that she gets on, resolves these issues, so that we can all see

:15:22. > :15:27.the very important work that the inquiry's doing, comes to a swift

:15:28. > :15:31.and really good conclusion. Mr Speaker, would the honourable lady

:15:32. > :15:35.agree with me that the role of the Home Secretary or any Secretary of

:15:36. > :15:39.State under the inquiries act is to appoint the chair and the panel and

:15:40. > :15:44.to agree the terms of reference with that chair. That for a member to

:15:45. > :15:47.come to this house with an imperious and list of questions like that we

:15:48. > :15:55.heard from the honourable lady does not help the inquiry and totally

:15:56. > :15:59.fails to understand the law. I thank my honourable friend for such an

:16:00. > :16:04.insightful question. Of course, he would know as a lawyer. It is very

:16:05. > :16:09.disappointing that members opposite are coming to the House, making

:16:10. > :16:14.these claims when really what we need to do is get behind this

:16:15. > :16:19.independent inquiry so that they can do the job for victims and make sure

:16:20. > :16:25.we all learn what more we can do to keep children in our country safe.

:16:26. > :16:28.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I say to the minister that it is not just

:16:29. > :16:33.minister constituents who are members of the largest survivors

:16:34. > :16:35.group, Shirley Oaks, over 600 members, who have said they no

:16:36. > :16:42.longer have confidence in the chair of the inquiry. It is also the white

:16:43. > :16:46.flowers alba group, and lawyers representing numerous other

:16:47. > :16:50.survivors too. I was appalled on Friday to see in response to the

:16:51. > :16:54.withdrawal of support of Shirley Oaks a suggestion that they should

:16:55. > :16:57.be compelled to provide the evidence that they have gathered to this

:16:58. > :17:04.inquiry. They are survivors of child abuse. These are not criminals. Can

:17:05. > :17:11.I ask the minister, after millions has been spent with no public

:17:12. > :17:14.cross-examination of witnesses yet, senior lawyers, the most senior

:17:15. > :17:19.resigning month after month, does this not reinforce a need for a

:17:20. > :17:23.change of leadership which is within the purr view of Home Office

:17:24. > :17:29.ministers? We need a senior judge of High Court standing or above to lead

:17:30. > :17:35.this inquiry. Why don't they act? I thank the honourable gentleman for

:17:36. > :17:38.his question. He is an assiduous constituency MP. He's quite right to

:17:39. > :17:43.raise concerns of the victims based in his constituency. But can I just

:17:44. > :17:48.say the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary could not have made it

:17:49. > :17:53.clearer about their confidence in the chairman of the Independent

:17:54. > :17:59.Commission. It's really important that we carry on with the inquiry,

:18:00. > :18:03.that we absolutely let them get on with their vitally important job of

:18:04. > :18:09.getting to the truth and making sure that we learn the lessons to keep

:18:10. > :18:15.children in our country safe. Mr Speaker, does my honourable friend

:18:16. > :18:18.agree that to have any degree of public confidence, no-one should

:18:19. > :18:27.pre-empt the outcome of this inquiry before it begins? I thank the my

:18:28. > :18:32.honourable friend for her question. She's quite right. We set up an

:18:33. > :18:37.independent inquiry so that it can get on with its work. She shaped the

:18:38. > :18:40.terms of reference with the victims themselves. As we've seen from my

:18:41. > :18:45.statement, they are making good progress.

:18:46. > :18:50.Mr Speaker, it's a bit rich for people on that side of the House to

:18:51. > :18:55.call for patience, understanding and so on. 18 years ago in this House, I

:18:56. > :19:01.had to bring business to a stop for two nights running in order to get

:19:02. > :19:05.allegations about child abuse in my own constituency put on the record.

:19:06. > :19:10.Then the Waterhouse inquiry was set up. That took years. Then there have

:19:11. > :19:18.been subsequent inquiries, one after another. Now the children in my

:19:19. > :19:24.constituency, one of them committed suicide, before we ever heard any

:19:25. > :19:30.results of an inquiry. So it's absolutely essential that the

:19:31. > :19:35.survivors of abuse need to have the results, need to have confidence in

:19:36. > :19:42.what is being done. I'm afraid, it's taken all these years in North

:19:43. > :19:48.Wales, for example, for chief Superintendent Anglesey to be put on

:19:49. > :19:55.trial and sentenced. Of course, that involved North Wales child abuse.

:19:56. > :20:00.It's only good investigative journalism, not inquiries, that got

:20:01. > :20:05.to the root of his particular case. I appeal to the minister, don't ask

:20:06. > :20:13.for patience from this side. We've been patient long enough. I thank

:20:14. > :20:19.the honourable lady for her question. I pay tribute to the work

:20:20. > :20:23.that she has done. So assiduously campaigning for justice for her

:20:24. > :20:26.constituents, but I want to reassure her and everyone here that those

:20:27. > :20:32.lessons have been learned from the past. The inquiry is an incredibly

:20:33. > :20:37.important part of what this Government is doing to learn the

:20:38. > :20:40.lessons from the past, to make sure that we're learning and taking

:20:41. > :20:44.everything that we can to keep children in our country safe.

:20:45. > :20:49.Through people coming forward to the inquiry, as I said in my statement,

:20:50. > :20:53.over 80 referrals a week are being made to the police, so that where

:20:54. > :20:59.there is information, where there is evidence being gathered by the

:21:00. > :21:03.inquiry, it is being used to seek the prosecutions, just like the lady

:21:04. > :21:08.described, that absolutely need to be made.

:21:09. > :21:12.This inquiry is doing incredibly important work. Does the minister

:21:13. > :21:17.agree with me that the most important aspect is it is

:21:18. > :21:21.independent of Government? That is the first word of its title. Does my

:21:22. > :21:24.right honourable friend friend agrow therefore that the best thing we can

:21:25. > :21:29.do on all sides of this House to support its work is to give it the

:21:30. > :21:36.space it needs to do that work and do it independently? I'm very

:21:37. > :21:43.grateful to my honourable friend for absolutely hitting the nail on the

:21:44. > :21:49.head. For any of us as constituent MPs will have met people who are the

:21:50. > :21:53.victims of domestic abous and violence and children involved in

:21:54. > :21:56.sexual exploitation. We know how devastating this is. It's really

:21:57. > :22:00.important we do everything we can to support them and encourage them to

:22:01. > :22:05.come forward to the inquiry and wherever the evidence takes us, we

:22:06. > :22:14.will seek those solutions and seek those prosecutions. Given it's taken

:22:15. > :22:19.35 years for Gordon Anglesey to face trial at mould Crown Court where he

:22:20. > :22:24.was convicted last month and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment,

:22:25. > :22:26.could the minister, whilst recognising the inquiry's

:22:27. > :22:30.independence, just tell the House when the first evidence sessions in

:22:31. > :22:33.public are likely to be, so that my constituents and others can give

:22:34. > :22:37.their evidence of that level of abuse? I thank the honourable

:22:38. > :22:43.gentleman for his question. What I would say is if he has got any

:22:44. > :22:48.evidence or his constituents have any evidence whatsoever, then they

:22:49. > :22:54.should go to the inquiry right now. We're not waiting for the end of the

:22:55. > :22:58.inquiry to take action. As I've said before, over 80 cases are sent to

:22:59. > :23:03.the police every week so that action can be taken. It's really important

:23:04. > :23:08.that people engage with the inquiry, support their constituents to do so,

:23:09. > :23:13.so that we can seek justice for those victims. I'd like to pick up

:23:14. > :23:17.On Tour a point that the minister has made -- pick up on a point that

:23:18. > :23:20.the minister has made that this plays a vital part in protecting

:23:21. > :23:23.vulnerable children for the present and future. Could she put the

:23:24. > :23:26.inquiry into the context what have else this Government is doing.

:23:27. > :23:35.He is right, this inquiry is incredibly important, but it is part

:23:36. > :23:40.of a strategy where we want to do everything we can to keep children

:23:41. > :23:45.in our country safe. We are seeing a record level of prosecutions and a

:23:46. > :23:50.huge investments into supporting victims and really making sure that

:23:51. > :23:55.we take apart the culture of secrecy and cover up, that contributed to

:23:56. > :24:01.the delays that we have heard from the members of sit. -- sop sit. --

:24:02. > :24:10.opposite. After the inquiry was set up as a panel inquiry, it was turned

:24:11. > :24:14.into a statutory inquiry, but wasn't the make not in setting up a royal

:24:15. > :24:20.commission, as they have in Australia, that is pursuing this

:24:21. > :24:29.issue and has the confidence and the interests of the victims at its

:24:30. > :24:34.heart. Although royal commissions and they can be important, they tend

:24:35. > :24:37.to take a long time. It was the view of the Government that than

:24:38. > :24:42.independent inquiry was the best way we could learn the lessons and

:24:43. > :24:48.secure the justice that the victims were looking for. Thank you. There

:24:49. > :24:51.has been speculation over the weekend about the way that the

:24:52. > :24:57.inquiry is taking place in Wiltshire and there is a significant risk when

:24:58. > :25:01.events might have happened a long time ago and evidence is difficult

:25:02. > :25:07.to corroborate and high profile figures are involved that things

:25:08. > :25:10.should be left. Would she assure the House that when victims give

:25:11. > :25:13.evidence, though it might be difficult to corroborate that

:25:14. > :25:22.evidence and might have taken a long time ago that our chief Chief

:25:23. > :25:27.Constable should go where the evidence takes them and will she

:25:28. > :25:32.ensure that sufficient resources are available so that every day policing

:25:33. > :25:36.is not affected. My honourable friend makes a very powerful point

:25:37. > :25:42.and I can give him the assurance that he is looking for that we must

:25:43. > :25:47.go where the evidence takes it and this can be you know very painful

:25:48. > :25:51.for people to revisit terrible things that happened. But I will

:25:52. > :25:55.encourage them, like my honourable friend pis, to come forward and, go

:25:56. > :26:00.to the police, give that evidence and in terms of resources for

:26:01. > :26:03.polices, it has been given, the status of one oft most important

:26:04. > :26:08.police functions in our country and the police do have the resources to

:26:09. > :26:14.be able to support investigations into historical sexual abuse of

:26:15. > :26:18.children. Thank you Mr Speaker, there is no question on this side of

:26:19. > :26:21.the House that the inquiry is independent and the inquiry must be

:26:22. > :26:25.independent. But this is a question of confidence and confidence is not

:26:26. > :26:30.an operational matter. And there seems to be an attempt to dismiss

:26:31. > :26:38.the Shirley Oaks survivors as just one group of survivors. They

:26:39. > :26:43.represent 600 survivors of abuse and have underfaken two years --

:26:44. > :26:46.undertaken two years worth of high quality research on behalf of their

:26:47. > :26:54.survivors and they have powerful evidence. I have raised concerns on

:26:55. > :26:58.their behalf, the member has raised concerns and the committee and those

:26:59. > :27:05.concerns have not been answered. It is not good enough for the minister

:27:06. > :27:07.to demand our unswerving confidence when the legitimate questions we

:27:08. > :27:14.have raised have not been answered and I ask the minister again will

:27:15. > :27:26.she intervene to make sure we have the confidence in this inquiry to do

:27:27. > :27:35.the job it needs to do? I absolutely want to put on record that which

:27:36. > :27:38.take every victim's story seriously, every vifbg Tim's voice must be

:27:39. > :27:42.heard -- victim's voice must be heard. If I was to intervene it

:27:43. > :27:47.would no longer be an independent inquiry. It is absolutely essential

:27:48. > :27:54.that it maintains its independence. Professor Jay #45z has a long and

:27:55. > :27:58.established record and did an excellent job in Rotherham F you

:27:59. > :28:01.were to speak to the victims in Rotherham, you would hear the

:28:02. > :28:07.confidence they placed in her and what a good job she did there. I

:28:08. > :28:12.would encourage people on the other side of the House to go back to

:28:13. > :28:19.their victims' organisations and encourage them to reengage with the

:28:20. > :28:28.independent inquiry to reengage with the chairman, so we can move

:28:29. > :28:31.forward. Thank you. I could say I don't think this has been the best

:28:32. > :28:37.question from that side of the House. There has been a lot of noise

:28:38. > :28:40.and not a lot of clarity from them. As they're proving at this moment in

:28:41. > :28:45.time. Would the minister agree with me one of the most important things

:28:46. > :28:50.is relook after potential child victims of abuse now and isn't the

:28:51. > :28:54.simplest thing you, that the Government could do, would take

:28:55. > :28:58.responsibility of child victim of sexual abuse, especially those

:28:59. > :29:01.internally trafficked away from local government and make it an

:29:02. > :29:13.independent responsibility of Home Office. Too many children are

:29:14. > :29:19.retrafficked into abuse. I thank my honourable friend for his very

:29:20. > :29:22.helpful question and to bring us up-to-date with the incredibly

:29:23. > :29:27.important work that we are doing to make sure that we are keeping

:29:28. > :29:33.children safe in our country and addressing historical issues is

:29:34. > :29:38.important, but we leave no stone unturned in our determination to

:29:39. > :29:43.make sure that children are safe, including those children who might

:29:44. > :29:51.be trafficked, who are victims of modern slavry and we keep under

:29:52. > :29:54.review our care for those children. Thank you, can I remind the minister

:29:55. > :30:00.the purpose in setting up this inquiry was to find out the truth

:30:01. > :30:04.and to allow the victims of child abuse to get closure. In order to do

:30:05. > :30:11.that, they have to have confidence in the inquiry. If the inquiry alone

:30:12. > :30:19.cannot have, command confidence, the Government does still have a role to

:30:20. > :30:23.play here. She or the mopest Home -- Home Secretary should be hearing

:30:24. > :30:26.from the groups and hearing their concerns, seeking their remedies, if

:30:27. > :30:32.this is going to be an inquiry which does the job that we set it up for

:30:33. > :30:37.in the first place. I thank the honourable gentleman for his

:30:38. > :30:43.question. It is the case that we do have confidence in this inquiry. I

:30:44. > :30:47.would urge everyone in the House today to get behind this inquiry to

:30:48. > :30:54.make sure that it does work for victims. We have had more than 500

:30:55. > :30:58.victims come forward. That is leading to cases going forward, to

:30:59. > :31:03.the police to take action. It is really important that we send out a

:31:04. > :31:08.strong and united message from the House that we all think that this

:31:09. > :31:12.independent inquiry is vitally important for victims and survivors

:31:13. > :31:19.and we will all do our best to support their work. Thank you, over

:31:20. > :31:25.a month ago when I brought up with the Home Secretary in this place the

:31:26. > :31:29.loss of survivor testimonies by the independent inquiry, into child sex

:31:30. > :31:35.abuse, she suggested that I engage with the inquiry in a more positive

:31:36. > :31:39.manner and write to her about the incident. Since I have yet to

:31:40. > :31:44.receive a response to the detailed letter I sent and as the Home

:31:45. > :31:49.Secretary is not here today herself, could the minister answering perhaps

:31:50. > :31:55.up the House now as to what investigation has since taken place

:31:56. > :32:00.over these lost testimonies? I thank the honourable lady for her

:32:01. > :32:04.question. What I will agree to do today is to make sure she does get a

:32:05. > :32:16.response to her letter and the details that concerns that she has

:32:17. > :32:22.raised. There is never been an official Welsh representative on the

:32:23. > :32:27.inquiry, despite appeals from the Social Services minister.

:32:28. > :32:32.Considering this is an England and Wales inquiry, will the minister

:32:33. > :32:36.give assurance there are open lines of communication with the Welsh

:32:37. > :32:41.Government so this can be discussed and that the interests of Welsh

:32:42. > :32:45.victims are adequately protected. Thank you. Of course, it is

:32:46. > :32:52.important that people living in Wales, as it is vietdally important

:32:53. > :32:58.for - vitally important for other people, they have the opportunity

:32:59. > :33:03.for their voices to be heard. Its an independent inquiry, so I ask the

:33:04. > :33:07.the honourable lady makes the representations to professor Jay so

:33:08. > :33:13.make sure she is satisfied the victims in Wales feel they're being

:33:14. > :33:19.listened to. For years I worked supporting victim of sex abuse, it

:33:20. > :33:24.is clear to everyone in this House that the seemingly endless cover ups

:33:25. > :33:33.and delays will be frau Mattick for the victims. -- traumatic for the

:33:34. > :33:39.survivors. How will she restore trust in the rink I. She is drawing

:33:40. > :33:43.on her personal experience and I'm sure she made a huge contribution

:33:44. > :33:49.before she came to the House and working with those victims. It is

:33:50. > :33:54.true, some will look at what is going on and they will feel

:33:55. > :34:01.disappointed. But we are committed to see this inquiry through. And

:34:02. > :34:06.support the chair in professor Jay and believe she is the person to see

:34:07. > :34:12.this through. I would encourage her to speak to victim and give her the

:34:13. > :34:16.assurances that it is a priority for the government and we will support

:34:17. > :34:20.the independent ink Troy do its job -- inquiry to do its job, so victims

:34:21. > :34:30.have the justice they they're seeking. Thank you. In North Wales

:34:31. > :34:38.where many offences of child sexual... In North Wales where many

:34:39. > :34:43.offences of child sexual abuse took place, there is extreme scepticism

:34:44. > :34:50.about the commitment of this Government to openness in these

:34:51. > :34:53.matters. Because the review which reported recently redacted names of

:34:54. > :34:57.people in positions of responsibility, some of whom were

:34:58. > :35:03.member of this House, as a result of continuing court proceedings. We now

:35:04. > :35:07.know that Gordon Anglesey has been convicted, so if the minister is

:35:08. > :35:13.committed to openness, would she go back to the Ministry of Justice and

:35:14. > :35:19.ask them to revisit the review and to make open those redacted names to

:35:20. > :35:24.make clear that there is openness income support inquiry and that

:35:25. > :35:31.following the conviction for vile crimes of child sexual abuse, those

:35:32. > :35:37.responsible will be openly put for consideration as part of reports

:35:38. > :35:41.issued by this government. The honourable gentleman makes the point

:35:42. > :35:45.that there are concerns about a lack of openness and transparency, which

:35:46. > :35:52.is something I simply do not accept. This government has done more than

:35:53. > :35:57.any other government to make people accountable to be more transparent,

:35:58. > :36:03.to open up processes. To make those in authority accountable for those

:36:04. > :36:06.action. The question that you're asking is about a specific case and

:36:07. > :36:12.it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is going

:36:13. > :36:17.through the courts. I have confidence in our criminal justice

:36:18. > :36:25.system. Absolute confidence in the criminal justice tice system of our

:36:26. > :36:29.count are and the matters should be raised with the justice system. I

:36:30. > :36:35.should point out that I wasn't asking any question as the chair

:36:36. > :36:43.does not do so and not withstanding the frustration of the honourable

:36:44. > :36:48.gentleman, the member for Wrexham, that these matters will be returned

:36:49. > :36:53.to on the floor of House, possibly on imnewspaper rabble occasions o'

:36:54. > :36:57.-- innumerable occasions and the honourable lady will seek to

:36:58. > :37:04.respond. The matter will go on and on I feel sure of that. Order. The

:37:05. > :37:10.clerk will read the orders of the day. Hire education and research

:37:11. > :37:18.bill as amended in the public bill committee to be considered. Thank

:37:19. > :37:24.you. We begin with government new clause 1, with which it will be

:37:25. > :37:28.convenient to consider the other new clauses and amendments grouped

:37:29. > :37:35.together on the sleshgs paper. -- selection paper. Members will note

:37:36. > :37:42.that I have selected some starred amendments. I have done so in the

:37:43. > :37:48.circumstances applying to this particular bill and the honourable

:37:49. > :37:54.gentleman the member for Southport will be conversant with the issues.

:37:55. > :37:57.As the deadline for tabling amendments had passed when the

:37:58. > :38:03.business for today was announced last week. In those circumstances it

:38:04. > :38:10.is sensible and helpful to the House to proceed in this way. I call the

:38:11. > :38:14.minister to move, the minister for higher education.

:38:15. > :38:20.I beg to move that the clause be read a second time. Mr Speaker, new

:38:21. > :38:26.clause one relates to the office for stupts which is central to this bill

:38:27. > :38:30.and will have quality student choice, quality for opportunity and

:38:31. > :38:33.value for money at its core. Through the creation of the independent

:38:34. > :38:37.office for students, this bill will join up the currently fragmented

:38:38. > :38:42.regulation of the sector, essential to ensure that students are

:38:43. > :38:47.protected and that students and the taxpayer receive good value for

:38:48. > :38:56.money from the system. The bill will provide opportunity for all. It will

:38:57. > :39:02.drive up quality and capacity in the sector. It will create UK research

:39:03. > :39:05.and innovation, a new body, with strategic vision for research and

:39:06. > :39:08.innovation in the UKment I'm pleased this bill receives such thorough

:39:09. > :39:13.scrutiny during the committee stage. I have reflected on the points that

:39:14. > :39:18.have been made by members on the opposite benches and I'm pleased to

:39:19. > :39:21.present important maements today. We made -- amendments today. We made

:39:22. > :39:26.clear in the white paper that the OFS will have the spont for

:39:27. > :39:28.oversight of the financial health of the sector and monitor the

:39:29. > :39:33.sustainability of individual institutions. It is absolutely

:39:34. > :39:38.essential that all providers eligible to receive some form of

:39:39. > :39:42.public funding have sustainable finances to provide value. We have

:39:43. > :39:49.listened to stake holder evidence and debates in committee. Stake hold

:39:50. > :39:52.consider the Higher Education Funding Council for England's

:39:53. > :39:55.holistic oversight of the sector to be an essential part of the

:39:56. > :39:59.regulator's role. I understand the importance of this oversight in

:40:00. > :40:02.maintaining confidence in the sector and preserving its world-class

:40:03. > :40:08.reputation. I share the desire to make our policy intention no the

:40:09. > :40:13.white paper explicit in legislation. Let me be clear, I will shortly.

:40:14. > :40:16.This role will include financial oversight of all the institutions

:40:17. > :40:20.activities spanning teaching and research. I thank him very much for

:40:21. > :40:23.giving way. I understand the need for monitoring the financial

:40:24. > :40:28.sustainability of organisations, but what the clause does not say is what

:40:29. > :40:31.actions will result if somebody is found to be financially

:40:32. > :40:38.unsustainable. Would he like to comment on that? The duty of the

:40:39. > :40:42.office for students will be tone sure that it is monitoring

:40:43. > :40:46.effectively the overall financial health of the sector in such a way

:40:47. > :40:50.it's able to inform the Secretary of State so that the Government can

:40:51. > :40:54.take appropriate actions. It will not be the role for the office of

:40:55. > :40:58.students to bail out struggling institutions, if there are any such

:40:59. > :41:01.institutions. These are private and autonomous bodies. It is important

:41:02. > :41:04.that there is the discipline of the marketplace acting upon them. It

:41:05. > :41:09.will be the role of the OFS to assist them in transitioning towards

:41:10. > :41:13.viable business plans so that they can continue to provide high quality

:41:14. > :41:19.education to their students in the medium and long-term. New clause one

:41:20. > :41:25.introduces a statutory unity for the OFS to monitor and report on the

:41:26. > :41:29.financial sustainability of all registered providers in England,

:41:30. > :41:35.which are in receipt of or eligible for OFS funding or tuition fee

:41:36. > :41:39.loans. I give way. Will the regulator also ensure and does he

:41:40. > :41:43.have the powers to ensure that there's good industrial relations

:41:44. > :41:48.within our universities, because there is certainly a problem at

:41:49. > :41:54.Coventry University in relation to industrial relations, particularly

:41:55. > :41:58.with subcontractors. Again, higher education institutions are private

:41:59. > :42:04.and autonomous bodies, which are self-organising. It's important that

:42:05. > :42:10.of course, they look to provide a framework of governance that enables

:42:11. > :42:16.students to learn well. That will include a healthy dialogue with

:42:17. > :42:20.their staff and employees. It's not for Government to mandate particular

:42:21. > :42:24.forms of revelations given that they are private and autonomous

:42:25. > :42:27.institutions. In performing this role, the OFS will have a clear

:42:28. > :42:32.picture of the number of international students and the

:42:33. > :42:36.income that they bring, just as HEFKE currently does. I do not agrow

:42:37. > :42:40.with the need for additional duty for the OFS to report on

:42:41. > :42:45.international students as amendment 52 and new clause nine tabled by the

:42:46. > :42:49.honourable member for Southport would require. I simply do not

:42:50. > :42:52.believe that this bill is the appropriate vehicle for

:42:53. > :42:57.commissioning research into post-work study as proposed by the

:42:58. > :43:04.honourable members for Glasgow North West and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

:43:05. > :43:07.The bill is focussed on creating the necessary structures to oversee

:43:08. > :43:11.research funding for many years to come and a short-term piece of

:43:12. > :43:16.research on an element of migration policy is not consistent with the

:43:17. > :43:20.scope and functions. I'm grateful to the minister for giving way. He's

:43:21. > :43:25.clearly of the view that this bill isn't the right vehicle for the

:43:26. > :43:29.issues that are under consideration. But does he understand why members

:43:30. > :43:32.would pick this vehicle? His department understands the important

:43:33. > :43:35.of international students to the UK higher education. The Treasury

:43:36. > :43:38.understands the role of international students. Why doesn't

:43:39. > :43:42.the Home Office and Prime Minister? Does he not realise like him we'll

:43:43. > :43:47.be banging our heads against a brick wall at the Home Office? The Home

:43:48. > :43:52.Secretary has set out that we will be consulting in coming weeks on a

:43:53. > :43:56.non-EEA migration route that will be of benefit to international students

:43:57. > :43:59.wanting to come and study at our world class institutions. I'd

:44:00. > :44:03.encourage the honourable member to wait until we see the detail of that

:44:04. > :44:10.consultation before jumping to clon collusions. Thank you very much for

:44:11. > :44:14.giving way. The minister said just an element, this post study work

:44:15. > :44:19.visa is not just an element of concern to the universities in

:44:20. > :44:24.Scotland, it is of major concern, particularly since what has been set

:44:25. > :44:27.up by the Home Office is a tiny and completely unrepresentative pilot.

:44:28. > :44:35.This is a matter of great importance to the university sector. Indeed.

:44:36. > :44:38.The Government is fully in agreement with the honourable member, the

:44:39. > :44:43.international students bring a lot to our higher education system. They

:44:44. > :44:47.bring benefits to our universities, income, valued Diversity and other

:44:48. > :44:51.benefits. We welcome them and we have a warm and welcoming regime to

:44:52. > :44:55.accommodate them. I turn to Government amendments one, 12 and

:44:56. > :44:59.13. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are key

:45:00. > :45:04.stones of our system. The bill introduces new and additional

:45:05. > :45:08.protections in this area. That's where the vice Chancellor of

:45:09. > :45:12.Cambridge, for example, said in his evidence to our bill committee that

:45:13. > :45:17.he particularly liked the implicit and explicit recognition of autonomy

:45:18. > :45:20.in the bill. But I want to be slum clear -- absolutely clear about how

:45:21. > :45:25.important it is for this Government to protect institutional autonomy.

:45:26. > :45:28.I've proposed this further group of amendments to strengthen these

:45:29. > :45:32.protections even more. I recognise the concerns expressed in committee

:45:33. > :45:35.and in stake hold evidence that allowing the Secretary of State to

:45:36. > :45:40.give guidance relating to particular courses might be perceived as

:45:41. > :45:43.leaving the door open to guidance which calls specifically for the

:45:44. > :45:49.opening or closing of particular courses. One of the real strengths

:45:50. > :45:57.of our system is the Diversity that exists and the ability of

:45:58. > :46:01.institutions to determine their own mission. To avoid confusion about

:46:02. > :46:05.this, I'm proposing these amendments to add an additional layer of

:46:06. > :46:08.reassurance regarding the protections given for institutional

:46:09. > :46:11.autonomy. They make clear that the Secretary of State cannot give

:46:12. > :46:16.guidance to or impose terms or conditions or directions on the OFS

:46:17. > :46:20.which require it to make providers offer or stop offer particular

:46:21. > :46:23.courses. Turning to amendment 21. Our reforms place students at the

:46:24. > :46:27.heart of higher education regulation. I agree with members

:46:28. > :46:32.opposite that it is important to build the student perspective into

:46:33. > :46:35.the OFS. This amendment clarifies beyond doubt that at least one

:46:36. > :46:39.member of the OFS board must have experience of representing or

:46:40. > :46:44.promoting the interests of individual students or students

:46:45. > :46:48.generally. The party opposite has tabled amendments 36 and 48, which

:46:49. > :46:52.relate to HE staff representation. We share the view that the OFS board

:46:53. > :46:55.should benefit from the experience of HE staff, however the bill

:46:56. > :46:59.already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to appointing

:47:00. > :47:02.board members with experience of the broad range of different types of

:47:03. > :47:06.English providers in the sector. We're therefore confident that a

:47:07. > :47:10.number of OFS board members will be or will have been employed by HE

:47:11. > :47:14.providers. We don't believe we need an additional requirement in

:47:15. > :47:17.legislation on that points. Students make significant investment in their

:47:18. > :47:21.higher educational choices. It's right students should be aware what

:47:22. > :47:24.should happen if their institution were to close. That's what the

:47:25. > :47:28.Government amendment four will achieve. We expect all providers to

:47:29. > :47:33.make contingency plans to guard against the risk that courses cannot

:47:34. > :47:36.be delivered as agreed. The requirement to provide student

:47:37. > :47:41.protection plans would be a condition of reg slacks. --

:47:42. > :47:47.registration. I have reflected on the need to strengthen the power of

:47:48. > :47:51.the OFS to ensure transparency. That is what this amendment does. It

:47:52. > :47:53.enables the OFS to require providers not only to develop student

:47:54. > :47:56.protection plans but to publish them. We would expect providers to

:47:57. > :48:00.bring them to the attention of students. This bill, Mr Speaker,

:48:01. > :48:03.believes in opportunities for all and through this bill, we are

:48:04. > :48:05.delivering on this. The Government believes in that and through this

:48:06. > :48:08.bill we're delivering on that objective. We believe the

:48:09. > :48:12.transparency is one of the best tools we have when it comes to

:48:13. > :48:17.widening participation. Universities have made progress, but the

:48:18. > :48:19.transparency duty will shine a spotlight on those institutions

:48:20. > :48:23.which need to go further. That's why I'm pleased to propose amendments

:48:24. > :48:28.two and three, which change the language in the bill to make clearer

:48:29. > :48:31.that the OFS can ask HE providers to publish and share with the OFS the

:48:32. > :48:36.number of applications, offers, acceptances and completion rates for

:48:37. > :48:41.students. Each broken do you by ethnicity, gender and socio-economic

:48:42. > :48:44.background. Mr Speaker, this bill will give the office of students the

:48:45. > :48:48.power to operate the teaching excellence framework. 30 years of

:48:49. > :48:52.the ref and its predecessors have made the UK's research the envy of

:48:53. > :48:56.the world. Without an equivalent focus on excellence in teaching, the

:48:57. > :49:02.incentives upon universities have become distorted. Although - yeah,

:49:03. > :49:08.sure. I thank the minister for giving way. He mentioned the TET and

:49:09. > :49:13.REF before it, would he not agree with me the REF took several years

:49:14. > :49:18.to bed down and become a measure of research. The TEF there are lots of

:49:19. > :49:21.institutions who feel this is being rushed through in particular the

:49:22. > :49:25.link between teaching excellence and fees. I've been e mailed by

:49:26. > :49:30.University of west London who have asked me to strongly oppose that.

:49:31. > :49:34.It's done on institution by institution basis, not like REF,

:49:35. > :49:40.which was done by department. Would he not think again in relation to

:49:41. > :49:47.those points? On the point, the TEF has not been rushed. It's been

:49:48. > :49:54.piloted for two years. Differentisation on the basis, from

:49:55. > :50:04.the 1920 academic year that's a significant period of time to bed,

:50:05. > :50:08.the academic year 2019/20. There is recognition that we need to fund on

:50:09. > :50:15.the basis of quality as well as quantity. There is no attempt by the

:50:16. > :50:19.sector to separate the link as the honourable member suggests. New

:50:20. > :50:23.clause 12, yeah. I applaud the minister's view that we should be

:50:24. > :50:26.focussing very much on quality in this area rather than just the

:50:27. > :50:30.volume operation, which I think has been one of the problems that has

:50:31. > :50:35.beset the higher education sector over the last 20 or so years. Could

:50:36. > :50:40.I ask the office for students that is being proposed here, is there any

:50:41. > :50:45.international parallel? Does such a body exist in Canada, Australia, in

:50:46. > :50:49.other big, international, global higher education sectors or are we

:50:50. > :50:54.take a lead? Is there a sense we are following elements of what has

:50:55. > :50:58.happened elsewhere? I thank the honourable member for his help and

:50:59. > :51:02.intervention. We've studied regulatory systems around the world

:51:03. > :51:09.in drawing up our proposals for the office for students. Our system is

:51:10. > :51:12.in line with several in the anglophone countries, moving to a

:51:13. > :51:15.market based system, in which the student is the primary funder of his

:51:16. > :51:21.or her higher educational experience. Therefore it's incumbent

:51:22. > :51:25.on us to put in place a system of regulation that recognises that

:51:26. > :51:29.we're moving away from a classic funded model of regulation which we

:51:30. > :51:33.have in place through the 1992 act that created the Higher Education

:51:34. > :51:42.Funding Council for England. New clause 12 and amendment 47 seem to

:51:43. > :51:45.misunderstand the same of the TEF. Changing the ratings would

:51:46. > :51:50.fundamentally undermine the purpose of the TEF by preventing students to

:51:51. > :51:55.be able to determine which providers are offering the best teaching.

:51:56. > :52:01.Amendments 46 and 47 would stifle the healthy development of the TEF.

:52:02. > :52:06.Amendment 50 ignores the reasoned and consult Tative approach we've

:52:07. > :52:10.taken and will continue to make. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me set out my

:52:11. > :52:14.reasons why amendments tabled from the benches opposite on our plans of

:52:15. > :52:18.awarding powers are unnecessary, namely new clauses four and seven

:52:19. > :52:22.and amendments 40 and 41. Our reforms will ensure students can

:52:23. > :52:27.choose from a wider range of high quality institutions. If the higher

:52:28. > :52:30.education provider can demonstrate their ability to deliver high

:52:31. > :52:33.quality provision, we want to make it easier for them to award their

:52:34. > :52:37.own degrees, rather than needing to have degrees for its course as

:52:38. > :52:40.warded by a competing incumbent. We intend to keep the process arounds

:52:41. > :52:45.scrutiny of applications for degree awarding powers, which have worked

:52:46. > :52:49.well so far, broadly as they are. That includes retaining an element

:52:50. > :52:53.of independent peer review for degree awarding powers applications,

:52:54. > :52:57.setting this out in legislation as new clause four suggests, would tie

:52:58. > :53:02.this to a static process which would be inflexible. We intend to consult

:53:03. > :53:05.on detailed circumstances where degree awarding powers and

:53:06. > :53:08.university title might be revoked, including changes of ownership and

:53:09. > :53:13.so there is no need for new clause seven. As for amendments 40 and 41,

:53:14. > :53:18.I can reassure members that we will, as now, ensure that the very high

:53:19. > :53:23.standards that providers must meet to make such awards will be

:53:24. > :53:25.maintained. We are streamlining processes not lower standards. These

:53:26. > :53:30.amendments are therefore unnecessary. The honourable member

:53:31. > :53:33.for City of Durham proposed amendment 58 on the criteria for

:53:34. > :53:37.what an institution should demonstrate in order to be granted

:53:38. > :53:41.university title. None of these are currents criteria. Like now, we

:53:42. > :53:44.intend to set out detailed cies tiara and processes for gaining

:53:45. > :53:49.university title in guidance and not in legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:53:50. > :53:52.this group also includes some technical amendments to ensure the

:53:53. > :53:56.legislation delivers the policy intent set out in our white paper. I

:53:57. > :53:59.know that members on the benches opposite will be keen to talk about

:54:00. > :54:02.amendments that they have tabled in this group. I look forward to

:54:03. > :54:05.responding to further points that are raised. I therefore beg to move

:54:06. > :54:21.new clause one. Duty to monitor and report on

:54:22. > :54:29.financial sustainability. Read for the second time. Thank you very much

:54:30. > :54:36.Mr Deputy Speaker. I am raising to speak about clause seven, and

:54:37. > :54:41.Amendment 50, in my name. Both of these cover ground that we have

:54:42. > :54:44.discussed in some ways at committee. I will make reference to those

:54:45. > :54:53.points and then talk about Amendment 40 nine. Clause number seven

:54:54. > :54:59.provides for automatic review of degree awarding powers, when

:55:00. > :55:03.ownership over university changes. This is the sort of system that the

:55:04. > :55:10.minister is seeking to create that the United States, where we do know

:55:11. > :55:15.that we have had a number of examples of institutions which had a

:55:16. > :55:19.reasonably well-established reputation changing ownership and

:55:20. > :55:25.fundamentally changing the product delivered to students. We need to

:55:26. > :55:27.learn from the mistakes that were made at the united states by

:55:28. > :55:36.ensuring that we do not find ourselves in this terrain, when

:55:37. > :55:43.ownership changes that should automatically trigger a review of

:55:44. > :55:51.the status. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister about

:55:52. > :55:56.how he intends, if not through this clause, how he intends to deal with

:55:57. > :55:59.this issue otherwise we could find ourselves in the same situation, not

:56:00. > :56:06.having the reputation of the sector damaged but also students being let

:56:07. > :56:15.down. And also let down, carrying with them fee debts. It is an issue

:56:16. > :56:21.that we need clarification on. Amendment 51 covers terrain that I

:56:22. > :56:26.have discussed with the Minister on several occasions, seeking to

:56:27. > :56:31.require universities to introduce integrated student enrolment system

:56:32. > :56:36.with regards to registration. That is recommended by universities UK,

:56:37. > :56:41.supported by the Cabinet office and was originally piloted by the

:56:42. > :56:50.University of Sheffield. Successfully. We have a common

:56:51. > :56:56.objective of trying to improve the levels of voter registration for

:56:57. > :56:59.students, this is demonstrated by successful, not just at Sheffield

:57:00. > :57:09.with support of the Cabinet office but also Cardiff, has gone on to

:57:10. > :57:13.introduce it. It seems like a good opportunity as we are looking at the

:57:14. > :57:18.registration requirements of universities to roll it out across

:57:19. > :57:27.the country to achieve the objectives that we both share. I

:57:28. > :57:30.have discussed this with ministers from the Cabinet office, we were

:57:31. > :57:39.going to have a round table but that has been kicked into long grass, to

:57:40. > :57:43.the new year. That is what I was told. I want to know why we cannot

:57:44. > :57:53.simply use this opportunity to get this matter sorted out. Amendment 50

:57:54. > :58:02.reflects concern about the reliability of the metrics, seeking

:58:03. > :58:08.excellence, and we all welcome the government for free as an teaching

:58:09. > :58:10.excellence. The principle of the teaching excellence framework is

:58:11. > :58:16.something that we can work effectively on. But the metrics that

:58:17. > :58:25.have been identified have been rated government itself as a proxy 40

:58:26. > :58:30.Ching excellence, employment outcome, retention and the National

:58:31. > :58:38.student satisfaction survey. All that this amendment is seeking to

:58:39. > :58:44.do, bring to the face of the bill the unanimous recommendation of the

:58:45. > :58:52.select committee. When we looked at that, as a member, and I am no

:58:53. > :58:55.longer one, simply we should have a requirement that the metrics that

:58:56. > :59:03.the government uses to determine teaching quality have a demonstrable

:59:04. > :59:11.link to teaching excellence. We can all agree, employment outcomes does

:59:12. > :59:14.not necessarily demonstrate teaching excellence, regional the regions in

:59:15. > :59:26.terms of excellence and salary levels. The Minister will know if

:59:27. > :59:27.you come from the right family, right school, right

:59:28. > :59:34.uni, you can have an awful teaching experience but still get that

:59:35. > :59:39.perfect job. Conversely, people who do not come from the right family,

:59:40. > :59:45.do not necessarily go to what would be seen by many as the correct

:59:46. > :59:52.university but could get a fantastic teaching experience. It is crude but

:59:53. > :00:00.converse proxy measure. I would again welcome the minister's

:00:01. > :00:05.observations on why the single Amendment, saying we must have a

:00:06. > :00:10.demonstrable link between masers used and teaching excellence does

:00:11. > :00:17.not actually strengthen the bill. Give way? I thank my right

:00:18. > :00:25.honourable friend for giving way. Does he mean the teaching

:00:26. > :00:28.experience, qualifications of lecturers who partake with certain

:00:29. > :00:34.courses, what does he have remained with regards to proving that you

:00:35. > :00:36.have got teaching quality there? I thank the right honourable member

:00:37. > :00:41.for his intervention. Measuring teaching quality is a difficult

:00:42. > :00:50.thing to do that if we are going to do that, and link fee increases, we

:00:51. > :00:55.ought to do it well. At the moment, the Higher Education Funding Council

:00:56. > :01:06.have been piloting work on value added. How you can demonstrate that

:01:07. > :01:09.during the period of study, student learning outcomes have been

:01:10. > :01:13.contributed by good teaching. That sort of thing is what we should be

:01:14. > :01:18.looking at before rushing into the teaching excellence framework, that

:01:19. > :01:23.could end up measuring anything other than teaching excellence.

:01:24. > :01:29.Thank you very much for giving way. Would the right honourable member

:01:30. > :01:32.agree with Professor Jack, when he recently stated that teaching

:01:33. > :01:38.excellence framework measures wanted measures but it does not measure the

:01:39. > :01:41.quality of teaching excellence? I thank the right honourable member

:01:42. > :01:48.for his intervention. And he has expressed my concerns. It is the

:01:49. > :01:53.reason for this amendment. It would seem that there should be agreement

:01:54. > :01:58.across the house that if we are to have this teaching excellence

:01:59. > :02:03.framework, it should measure the quality of teaching. That does not

:02:04. > :02:06.seem controversial to me. I was disappointed that the government was

:02:07. > :02:10.not able to accept this unanimous recommendation from the Business

:02:11. > :02:15.Select Committee, and I want to push the Minister further on his

:02:16. > :02:21.reasoning for that. If I could then move to Amendment 40 nine. That

:02:22. > :02:30.raises new concerns, and it will be became clear as this bill progressed

:02:31. > :02:32.through the committee. That is the government's apparent intention, and

:02:33. > :02:39.I recognise it may not be the wish of the Minister, but the

:02:40. > :02:44.government's intention to link the visa regime for international

:02:45. > :02:49.students to quality measures. In international context, I think

:02:50. > :02:54.members on both sides of the house are going to share concern...

:02:55. > :03:01.International students, and I am sure the Minister is going to agree,

:03:02. > :03:08.have been hugely beneficial to this country and universities. They

:03:09. > :03:13.enrich the learning environment on campus. We need to understand each

:03:14. > :03:18.other better than ever, and it is a huge advantage for British students

:03:19. > :03:22.to be learning alongside those from around the world in classrooms and

:03:23. > :03:25.laboratories. International students have been adding hugely to the

:03:26. > :03:31.research capacities, strengthening local businesses as I know from

:03:32. > :03:44.Sheffield. And add to that the lasting relationships with those who

:03:45. > :04:00.study here. It is the envy of other countries. Give way? Thank you. I am

:04:01. > :04:05.loathed to interrupt. Because he was making a powerful point. But this

:04:06. > :04:16.was conceived before Brexit and things have changed. I have had

:04:17. > :04:20.e-mails, I am hearing this entire thing should be scrapped because

:04:21. > :04:25.everything has changed for higher education since the decision on June

:04:26. > :04:31.23? I thank my right honourable friend for that intervention. And

:04:32. > :04:42.they look forward to joining her at Westminster. She needs is valuable

:04:43. > :04:48.point. -- makes this. This was a pre Brexit vision and should have been

:04:49. > :04:52.rethought because of the decision on June 23, the challenge facing

:04:53. > :04:56.universities is fundamentally different. And enormous proportions.

:04:57. > :05:07.We need to look at these proposals again. I thank my right honourable

:05:08. > :05:12.friend for giving way. On that point, many mainland European

:05:13. > :05:18.universities are offering courses in English, the fact that we are going

:05:19. > :05:20.to be leaving the European Union is going to significantly disadvantage

:05:21. > :05:27.British universities from gaining those foreign students because the

:05:28. > :05:35.languages and degrees offered at some European countries are in

:05:36. > :05:40.English, not necessarily French, German, native languages. I thank my

:05:41. > :05:43.right honourable friend for that intervention, highlighting the new

:05:44. > :05:53.challenges facing British universities since Brexit. We now

:05:54. > :05:56.face the situation in which 185,000 of the 500,000 international

:05:57. > :06:00.students, from European Union countries may no longer be choosing

:06:01. > :06:09.to come here. But this is the crucial point in relation to his

:06:10. > :06:15.intervention, of those non EU students polled before June 23, 33%

:06:16. > :06:19.said that the United Kingdom would be less attractive if we chose to

:06:20. > :06:25.leave the European Union. And on that point, the competitors at

:06:26. > :06:29.Europe have been adding to the competitiveness that we already get

:06:30. > :06:32.from Australia and the United States have been seizing the opportunity to

:06:33. > :06:36.teach English language courses. That is going to be attractive. I thank

:06:37. > :06:43.my right honourable friend for giving way. I have got to

:06:44. > :06:50.universities at Coventry. One of the concerns is as a result of Brexit,

:06:51. > :06:57.students from countries like India and possibly others are now going to

:06:58. > :07:02.be looking at North America, choosing to go there. Because of the

:07:03. > :07:07.difficulty that they have coming to this country. Treated as immigrants.

:07:08. > :07:14.They should be taken out of the immigration figures. The benefit

:07:15. > :07:20.that we get, just under 10 billion. I hope that the government is going

:07:21. > :07:24.to take this seriously. It is one thing to comment and ask a question,

:07:25. > :07:31.it is another to stretch into a speech. This is becoming Brexit

:07:32. > :07:36.argument and debate. But you been with these interventions. Thank you

:07:37. > :07:41.very much Mr Deputy Speaker. And they appreciate the intervention of

:07:42. > :07:49.my right honourable friend, making this point strongly in relation to

:07:50. > :07:53.international students. It is correct. Many universities across

:07:54. > :07:59.the country are going to be in crisis, if we see a significant drop

:08:00. > :08:03.in the number of international students. That would only be a drop

:08:04. > :08:08.in the income, but it would mean that many postgraduate courses that

:08:09. > :08:12.are only viable because of the levels of income that have been

:08:13. > :08:16.brought from international students would cease to be viable, cease to

:08:17. > :08:18.exist and available to United Kingdom students. It is a hugely

:08:19. > :08:27.important issue. He will know that I entirely accept

:08:28. > :08:33.his last point about a number of these post graduate courses.

:08:34. > :08:37.However, would he also accept that whilst in an ideal world, as he

:08:38. > :08:40.knows, I would not have students in the immigration figures, but we are

:08:41. > :08:44.where we r, they are going to remain in the immigration figures. One of

:08:45. > :08:51.the lessons of Brexit surely is that this issue is a massive concern to

:08:52. > :08:54.many of our fellow countrymen. Therefore, it is surely incumbent

:08:55. > :08:57.upon universities to ensure that we get high quality students coming

:08:58. > :09:02.from abroad. That is really the focus of what I think the Government

:09:03. > :09:06.are trying to achieve here, that we do ensure that those students who

:09:07. > :09:10.come here come here because they are going to be the creme de la creme,

:09:11. > :09:13.are going to add the sort of experience to UK nationals to which

:09:14. > :09:19.he has referred earlier in his contribution. But also, that we will

:09:20. > :09:24.have a group of students here that will command the confidence of the

:09:25. > :09:29.public that we are getting only the brightest and best rather than a

:09:30. > :09:33.volume operation in our universities. I thank the honourable

:09:34. > :09:37.member for his intervention. He and I have worked closely on a number of

:09:38. > :09:42.these issues. We do agree that international students should be

:09:43. > :09:46.taken out of net migration figures, targets. But on this point that he

:09:47. > :09:51.raises here, I would disagree because I know that we would come

:09:52. > :09:55.together in saying that our universities are a great British

:09:56. > :09:59.export industry. But I'm genuinely puzzled why the Government doesn't

:10:00. > :10:06.see them as an industry in other terms. We don't put in measures to

:10:07. > :10:11.seek to discourage the automobile industry from selling cars. We try

:10:12. > :10:16.to encourage them to sell more cars. Similarly on the point he raises, we

:10:17. > :10:21.don't say well we just want you to sell rolls roses, we don't want you

:10:22. > :10:25.to sell Minis. It is a nonsense economically for the our country and

:10:26. > :10:30.the local economies that we all represent. Here is the nub of the

:10:31. > :10:37.problem. He talks about the way that these issues are viewed by the

:10:38. > :10:41.public. International students are not viewed bit public -- by the

:10:42. > :10:45.public as a threat or as an issue that the Government ought to be

:10:46. > :10:49.taking action on. A recent poll showed that 75% of people wanted to

:10:50. > :10:57.see the numbers of international students either stay the same or go

:10:58. > :11:02.up. But the Government strategy as he will know is moving us in the

:11:03. > :11:09.other direction. The Home Secretary, albeit I think against her will,

:11:10. > :11:12.made a speech at Conservative Party Conference in which she put

:11:13. > :11:18.international students and I'm sure the honourable member will agree

:11:19. > :11:23.with me, wrongly at the centre of her plans to cut migration. She

:11:24. > :11:28.introduced this new tool to which he's alluded with which she planned

:11:29. > :11:34.to do it, linking visa approval to the quality of courses. We need to

:11:35. > :11:42.reflect on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very significant development

:11:43. > :11:46.firstly in terms of having a policy objective of reducing international

:11:47. > :11:53.students. The Government did it by default in the last Parliament. I

:11:54. > :11:58.will. The honourable member wants to remind himself that international

:11:59. > :12:02.student applications went up 14%. I'd be interested for the minister

:12:03. > :12:06.to intervene on me again and say over what period. He will know that

:12:07. > :12:10.broadly speaking over the period of the last Parliament they flat lined

:12:11. > :12:19.and we lost market share. Since 2010. I think we'll probably

:12:20. > :12:23.disagree on those figures. I think I've heard the minister say

:12:24. > :12:26.previously and certainly if not him his predecessor and previous

:12:27. > :12:30.immigration ministers that actually there was no damage by the measures

:12:31. > :12:35.taken place in the last Parliament because numbers flat lined. Now from

:12:36. > :12:40.my point of view, flatlining in a growing market is a defeat. We

:12:41. > :12:45.wouldn't say the world is buying more cars, buy an extra 30% and the

:12:46. > :12:54.great news is our exports are flatlining. It doesn't make sense.

:12:55. > :12:57.But he will agree with me that, I'm sure, that international students

:12:58. > :13:04.are an extremely good thing for our economy. Therefore it's deeply

:13:05. > :13:09.worrying that the Home Secretary put at the centrepiece of her plans to

:13:10. > :13:15.cut migration international students. I will indeed. Grateful to

:13:16. > :13:20.my honourable friend for giving way. I strong lay grow with everything

:13:21. > :13:25.he's saying in his speech. Can he imagine a scenario where higher

:13:26. > :13:30.education institutions are recruiting onto courses, UK students

:13:31. > :13:33.onto their courses but sending a message to other people overseas

:13:34. > :13:36.that the course isn't good enough for them. If it's not good enough

:13:37. > :13:40.for international students, surely it's not good enough for home

:13:41. > :13:46.students? My honourable friend makes the point that I was coming straight

:13:47. > :13:51.onto. If we were to be looking at a teaching excellence framework in

:13:52. > :13:55.parallel with competitors around the world, if we are together saying

:13:56. > :14:00.that we think the world market in international education needs this

:14:01. > :14:05.sort of tool, and that in that world market it would be helpful to have

:14:06. > :14:10.gold, silver and bronze institution that's would be -- that would be one

:14:11. > :14:15.thing. For us to be unilaterally declaring to the world that we are

:14:16. > :14:18.differentiating our institutions and saying that a good two thirds of

:14:19. > :14:21.them perhaps are less good than others, I don't see how that can do

:14:22. > :14:24.anything other than damage our ability to recruit international

:14:25. > :14:28.students, to earn the money that we do from them and the support and

:14:29. > :14:32.jobs that means for our local economies. I will give way. I'm very

:14:33. > :14:36.grateful indeed. Would the honourable gentleman agrow with me,

:14:37. > :14:42.it's not just representational damage at home. It might have quons

:14:43. > :14:47.constituencies abroad -- consequence as broad. My own university of

:14:48. > :14:51.Bangor takes a number of Chinese students. But then we have a site in

:14:52. > :14:56.China as well. There would be a reputational damage of that sort as

:14:57. > :15:00.well. Yes, I thank the honourable member for his intervention. It

:15:01. > :15:05.isn't simply student recruitment, it is the brand strength of UK

:15:06. > :15:12.universities, which is extraordinarily high, which is put

:15:13. > :15:17.at risk by this measure. So last week, in Westminster Hall, I sought

:15:18. > :15:25.assurances from the Immigration Minister on whether it is the Home

:15:26. > :15:30.Office's intention to use the teaching excellence framework

:15:31. > :15:33.measurement of quality as a basis for their visa regime and for trying

:15:34. > :15:38.to cut down the number of international students. I got no

:15:39. > :15:42.reassurance. I gave him a couple of opportunities to say that they

:15:43. > :15:49.weren't intending to use the TEF and he failed to do so. So, this

:15:50. > :15:54.amendment says that until we are absolutely clear on the Government's

:15:55. > :16:13.intention in relation to different shacks by gold, silver, bronze, and

:16:14. > :16:16.we should not seek to have the teaching framework in this way we

:16:17. > :16:20.should simply have a meeting expectations or not meeting

:16:21. > :16:28.expectations. I accept it's not the minister's intention to damage our

:16:29. > :16:36.universities by the introduction of this but it could be the unintended

:16:37. > :16:42.reaction by the Home Office. These are challenging times for our

:16:43. > :16:49.country. Charting our post Brexit place in the world is going to be a

:16:50. > :16:52.big job. We need to win friends not alienate them. The Prime Ministerial

:16:53. > :16:56.trade mission to India recently demonstrated that many of those

:16:57. > :17:00.friends will put access to our universities at the heart of any

:17:01. > :17:04.discussion on our future relationship even on the issue of

:17:05. > :17:12.trade. We won't be able to separate those. So we can't afford to be

:17:13. > :17:17.putting the sector, the export earnings we get from international

:17:18. > :17:27.students at risk in this way. I'd therefore ask the minister on this

:17:28. > :17:33.issue to think again. I rise to move new clause 14 post

:17:34. > :17:37.study work visa evaluation. I reserve the right to push this to a

:17:38. > :17:41.vote later on, if required. The SNP are continuing to press for a

:17:42. > :17:47.reintroduction of the post study work visa. This amendment ensures an

:17:48. > :17:54.evaluation of how absence of this key visa has affected the UK economy

:17:55. > :17:58.and how a new visa may be implemented in future. The post

:17:59. > :18:02.study work visa, as we've heard already, is an important lever for

:18:03. > :18:07.attracting the best international student talent. There's consensus in

:18:08. > :18:11.Scotland amongst business, education and every political party

:18:12. > :18:16.represented at Holyrood that we need a return of the post study route to

:18:17. > :18:21.allow these talented students to remain and contribute to Scottish

:18:22. > :18:25.economy. The outcome of the EU referendum makes it even more

:18:26. > :18:31.important that the UK Government honours the recommendation in the

:18:32. > :18:34.Smith report to explore a potential post-study work route to ensure

:18:35. > :18:38.Scotland continues to attract and retain talent from around the world.

:18:39. > :18:45.But the longer we wait for the Government to move on this, the more

:18:46. > :18:48.damage has been done both socially and economically. The current

:18:49. > :18:53.post-study work offer is not adequate for Scotland. We've offered

:18:54. > :18:58.to discuss the reasons behind it with UK ministers and Home Office

:18:59. > :19:03.officials, but disappointingly, UK ministers appear to rule out a

:19:04. > :19:07.return of the post-study work visa without meeting with Scottish

:19:08. > :19:14.ministers or the cross-party steering group that's been set up at

:19:15. > :19:19.Holyrood. The current immigration policy poses a significant risk to

:19:20. > :19:25.Scottish universities. Data published in January shows that

:19:26. > :19:30.Scotland has seen a 2% increase in international entrants in the

:19:31. > :19:36.academic year 2014/15, compared to previous year. On the face of it

:19:37. > :19:44.that may appear positive, however by comparison during the period 2013/14

:19:45. > :19:49.to 14/15 the number of international students entering higher education

:19:50. > :19:55.in the United States has increased by 10%. So rather than being able to

:19:56. > :20:01.take advantage of this growth sector, and actually use it for

:20:02. > :20:07.economic growth locally, we're expected to remain stagnant, which

:20:08. > :20:15.is simply not good enough. The Home Office released details of a low

:20:16. > :20:22.risk tier four pilot in July of this year, which was welcomed, maybe

:20:23. > :20:27.welcomed is not the correct word - viewed with some interest, but we're

:20:28. > :20:31.troubled that it was introduced without any consultation with

:20:32. > :20:37.Scottish Government, Scottish institutions or indeed institutions

:20:38. > :20:39.from across the UK. Universities Scotland have said, "We're

:20:40. > :20:43.disappointed that the opportunity of the pilot has been framed so

:20:44. > :20:49.narrowly to only four universities, none of which are in Scotland." We'd

:20:50. > :20:53.argue a broader pilot involving a wider group of institution would

:20:54. > :21:01.have provided more meaningful lessons from which to build. I thank

:21:02. > :21:05.the honourable lady for giving way. I understand, she's made a strong

:21:06. > :21:09.case for why she feels the post study work visas should be

:21:10. > :21:14.reintroduced. Would she accept that one of the main reasons that there

:21:15. > :21:19.is a clamp down from the UK Government is because a number of

:21:20. > :21:24.people come in on these visas and then similarly go to ground and

:21:25. > :21:30.cannot be removed from this country, when they are only due to be here on

:21:31. > :21:37.a student visa. Would she in making the case that these visas be

:21:38. > :21:40.reintroduced also tell us a bit about the further obligations she

:21:41. > :21:45.thinks should be on the granting of the visas from those universities

:21:46. > :21:48.that grant the visa. They can't simply get students in, take the

:21:49. > :21:52.money and wash their hands of any responsibility going forward, surely

:21:53. > :22:01.not? I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention.

:22:02. > :22:08.Firstly, there was a situation in the past where certain rogue

:22:09. > :22:12.institutions, particularly rogue and private FE colleges were not

:22:13. > :22:18.complying with visa regulations, but there is little evidence that the HE

:22:19. > :22:25.institutions we're talking about in this bill have any record of

:22:26. > :22:32.noncompliance, so I do not accept the points that the gentleman's

:22:33. > :22:36.making. I'll give way. Will the honourable member accept that last

:22:37. > :22:40.week at the Westminster debate I specifically challenged the Home

:22:41. > :22:44.Office minister to name any institutions in Scotland that could

:22:45. > :22:47.be said to fall into the kind of behavioural category that the

:22:48. > :22:57.honourable member on the opposite benches suggested. He said he

:22:58. > :23:03.couldn't name one. The 19 higher education institutes in Scotland

:23:04. > :23:08.have a strong record in attracting international students and a strong

:23:09. > :23:14.record of compliance. So I agree 100% with my honourable friend. I

:23:15. > :23:17.thank the honourable lady for giving way. Some of the issues the

:23:18. > :23:21.honourable lady's mentioned, the Scottish Select Committee has been

:23:22. > :23:24.looking at. There is evidence of a need for the Government to look at

:23:25. > :23:28.the Scottish situation differently from the rest of the country,

:23:29. > :23:33.because one of the things we did come across when we looked at this

:23:34. > :23:37.was you've got to remember that Scotland's got a declining

:23:38. > :23:39.population, so it's got to find an anchor to keep people in Scotland to

:23:40. > :23:48.develop the Scottish economy. I thank the right honourable

:23:49. > :23:57.gentleman for his intervention and it is well documented that in

:23:58. > :24:03.Scotland, the issue is emigration, not immigration, this is going to be

:24:04. > :24:09.a key trigger and would make a massive difference to the local

:24:10. > :24:13.economy. I have given way enough. The principal of Edinburgh

:24:14. > :24:19.University addressed the Scottish affairs committee and has warned

:24:20. > :24:23.that future restrictions on free movement would have a damaging

:24:24. > :24:26.impact on the sector. He said yesterday that the Prime Minister

:24:27. > :24:38.said helpfully that the special relationship could be needed for

:24:39. > :24:43.workers in the city for the car industry, if the car industry

:24:44. > :24:48.deserves this special deal, then universities, also. As we move

:24:49. > :24:57.towards Brexit, we have the potential of much wider pool of

:24:58. > :25:04.international students who may want to study at our universities. I

:25:05. > :25:16.think we have got to think seriously about visa, we have a situation of

:25:17. > :25:19.Ireland. 1949, stated as not being a foreign country. What special

:25:20. > :25:23.arrangements are going to be in place for Irish students who want to

:25:24. > :25:31.come and study at our institutions. I am going to move on briefly. I

:25:32. > :25:41.couple of amendments that have been launched by the right honourable

:25:42. > :25:46.member, looking at concerns with the proposed metrics within the teaching

:25:47. > :25:51.excellence framework. Much discussion about the metrics and we

:25:52. > :25:57.have already been listening to the right honourable member about some

:25:58. > :25:59.concerns on these. And how the metrics being used are not an

:26:00. > :26:05.indication of the quality of teaching. We mentioned at the

:26:06. > :26:11.committee about the Scottish enhancement approach, far more

:26:12. > :26:15.thorough and possibly a better method of determining quality.

:26:16. > :26:19.However, it seems that we are pushing ahead with the metrics

:26:20. > :26:24.proposed by the government. We are happy to support the amendments

:26:25. > :26:32.launched by the Labour benches. Amendment 51, required an automatic

:26:33. > :26:37.voter registration at universities looks like an extremely innovative

:26:38. > :26:43.idea, and for once I have to admit that has not come from Scotland. But

:26:44. > :26:47.this could be an amendment that we in Scotland could start looking at

:26:48. > :26:56.and consider. We will look to that as well. I know that we are short of

:26:57. > :27:01.time. And we have got amendments, later on, that we want to push so I

:27:02. > :27:07.am going to conclude by say that we are going to support the amendment

:27:08. > :27:16.is mentioned and I hope we can have some movement on new clause 14.

:27:17. > :27:28.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to speak to new clause 16, drawing

:27:29. > :27:35.on some of the points that my right honourable friend has made about

:27:36. > :27:40.amendment 40 nine. What new clause 16 is looking to do, remove students

:27:41. > :27:47.from the net migration figures. It is going to be interesting to hear

:27:48. > :27:54.from the Minister, if this is something that the government has on

:27:55. > :27:59.the agenda. And also, in passing, want to comment on how damaging it

:28:00. > :28:02.would be for the university sector if the number of international

:28:03. > :28:13.students that can be recruited at anyone institution is related to the

:28:14. > :28:16.traffic light system. As we know, Mr Deputy Speaker, international

:28:17. > :28:21.students are not only important for higher education but also the

:28:22. > :28:30.economy, international student contribution GDP is almost certainly

:28:31. > :28:34.in excess of about ten billion and supports the equivalent of 170,000

:28:35. > :28:40.jobs. Many of the students go to postgraduate work, leading research

:28:41. > :28:47.and innovation in this country. Therefore, to be congratulated and

:28:48. > :28:51.supported. Not only do they get to know the United Kingdom, they also

:28:52. > :28:58.develop an affinity for that, developing links with staff and

:28:59. > :29:04.contributing massively to the self diplomacy that we have already

:29:05. > :29:10.spoken about this afternoon. I think they also improve Britain's standing

:29:11. > :29:15.in the world and that cannot be over emphasised. Therefore, it is really

:29:16. > :29:20.important that the government does not put international recruitment of

:29:21. > :29:26.students at risk. Because once they are there, the students also enrich

:29:27. > :29:34.society and contribute to that. I know this from my constituency,

:29:35. > :29:47.where the international students add to the cultural experience. Can I

:29:48. > :29:51.concur with my right honourable friend, about the contribution and

:29:52. > :29:56.good experiences that international students get. My own local

:29:57. > :30:01.university at Preston has many thousands of foreign students,

:30:02. > :30:09.enriching the city and these students want to leave the United

:30:10. > :30:13.Kingdom but actually become some of the best ambassadors. The experience

:30:14. > :30:19.that really ticking into mixing positive about the future. Thank you

:30:20. > :30:22.Mr Deputy Speaker. I think my right honourable friend makes an excellent

:30:23. > :30:27.point. And I think this ambassadors role is something that the

:30:28. > :30:34.government have to take on board. We can only be overwhelmed and at the

:30:35. > :30:39.mixed messages that the government has been deafening. One message

:30:40. > :30:48.coming from education, another from the Home Office. I actually do not

:30:49. > :30:50.yet know whether the Department for International trade have got an

:30:51. > :30:58.opinion on international students. If they do not, they really ought

:30:59. > :31:05.to! And it should be promoting what people have said this afternoon. It

:31:06. > :31:11.is an important industry. What seems to be happening, the Home Office in

:31:12. > :31:13.fact instead of supporting an increase in the number of

:31:14. > :31:18.international students seems to be getting the message that we need to

:31:19. > :31:26.reduce numbers. This is having an effect. The figures that I have got

:31:27. > :31:29.for the number of international students and what is happening to

:31:30. > :31:34.the trend, very different to the one that the Minister read out earlier.

:31:35. > :31:44.It would appear that the number of new entrants has fallen by 2.8%. And

:31:45. > :31:50.indeed, one study has put these figures down as low as 5%. The

:31:51. > :31:54.Minister must also know that the British Council as stated that the

:31:55. > :31:59.native kingdom is beginning to lose market share to competitors. This is

:32:00. > :32:04.something that the government should be concerned about. Also what this

:32:05. > :32:15.amendment is really seeking to find out from the Minister is whether he

:32:16. > :32:18.or the Home Office have got any notion for introducing a system that

:32:19. > :32:28.the number of international students who can be recruited, depends on the

:32:29. > :32:35.traffic light system. So together the Minister and example, FC have

:32:36. > :32:48.been greeted gold, no cap whatsoever. If they get bronze, oh

:32:49. > :32:54.dear... A cap could be put on the number of students that could be

:32:55. > :32:57.recruited. To use the automobile analogy that my right honourable

:32:58. > :33:12.friend used earlier, this would be like telling Nissan, you can go out

:33:13. > :33:13.and sell as many cars as you like, but Vauxhall?

:33:14. > :33:21.We are going to limit the numbers. Clearly this is nonsense. We need to

:33:22. > :33:28.have definite read assurances from the Minister today that this

:33:29. > :33:31.regulation is not going to be used to be linked to the number of

:33:32. > :33:40.international students that can be recruited. I will give way briefly.

:33:41. > :33:50.On that particular point, it is bizarre that when the Times

:33:51. > :33:55.supplementary supplement producers university rankings, the government

:33:56. > :34:01.intervenes. And clearly, the choice is almost market-based. My right

:34:02. > :34:06.honourable friend has made an important point and as he will know,

:34:07. > :34:12.international students are central to the business model of every

:34:13. > :34:17.institution in this country. In addition to the possible

:34:18. > :34:21.reputational damage that could be done to the universities, we also do

:34:22. > :34:31.not want the message to quote that international students are not

:34:32. > :34:38.welcome. The way in which the Minister, Home Office, other

:34:39. > :34:43.departments could do with this, say they are temporary visitors, like

:34:44. > :34:47.Australia do. And that means removing students from the net

:34:48. > :34:53.migration statistics. It is a simple thing for the government to do. I

:34:54. > :34:57.hope that we hear from the Minister this afternoon that he is going to

:34:58. > :35:04.do that. We should be ambitious for universities, enabling them to grow,

:35:05. > :35:13.international markets like Australia, Canada, and not seeking

:35:14. > :35:18.to limit international potential. As the Minister will know, he has got a

:35:19. > :35:23.mandate to do this. The recent Congress study again reported by my

:35:24. > :35:28.right honourable friend, the member for Sheffield Central, has said that

:35:29. > :35:34.75% of people who expressed a view would like to see the same number or

:35:35. > :35:39.more international students in the United Kingdom. It also revealed

:35:40. > :35:44.that the majority of the British public think that international

:35:45. > :35:49.students should be able to stay and and work for a period of time. I

:35:50. > :35:55.think it is a clear case and I hope that the Minister responds

:35:56. > :36:01.positively. If I can now move on quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, to

:36:02. > :36:06.amendment number 58. The Minister referred to this moments ago. He

:36:07. > :36:12.will know that we have got huge concern in the higher education

:36:13. > :36:19.sector about enabling bodies to be able to call themselves universities

:36:20. > :36:26.that do not provide the range of services or support to students that

:36:27. > :36:33.most of us would consider to be what a university is. And the reason, no

:36:34. > :36:38.particular guidance on this at the moment. We have not needed that

:36:39. > :36:45.because most universities have provided student support, provided

:36:46. > :36:52.access to sport and recreational opportunities. Evading well-being

:36:53. > :37:01.services, opportunities for volunteering, able to join the

:37:02. > :37:06.student union. The University plays an important civil role. So on and

:37:07. > :37:11.so on. The reason I thought it was necessary to table this amendment

:37:12. > :37:19.this afternoon was because the government's legislation is going to

:37:20. > :37:22.allow a series of higher education institutions to call themselves

:37:23. > :37:26.universities. But as of yet we have no idea if they are going to have to

:37:27. > :37:32.offer a whole range of basic services to students, able to join

:37:33. > :37:44.the student union? Able to join support cops? -- sport clubs? Will

:37:45. > :37:48.they have an important role in the local community? An important role

:37:49. > :37:54.in the local economy? We have nothing as yet from the Minister

:37:55. > :38:03.accept that there is going to be some the agents, I am minded at the

:38:04. > :38:12.moment to push amendment number 58 to vote. I would like to hear from

:38:13. > :38:19.the Minister, what is going to be in this cadence, about how we are

:38:20. > :38:22.describing universities, what the minister's understanding of what a

:38:23. > :38:27.university is, and when will this cadence be available? An particular,

:38:28. > :38:30.is it going to be available before this bill is considered?

:38:31. > :38:38.It's just a point really in that a university is an establishment where

:38:39. > :38:46.higher level study and education and research is done. It's not actually

:38:47. > :38:49.somewhere where one would necessarily avail oneself of volume

:38:50. > :38:53.untiering experiences, for example. Or other things that you have

:38:54. > :38:59.listed. I would contend that as we move forward, and as we move into

:39:00. > :39:05.longer life Times where we may take degrees at different times, we may

:39:06. > :39:08.actually be looking merely to access a degree to enhance careers rather

:39:09. > :39:16.than actually making this part of our lifestyle. The honourable lady

:39:17. > :39:20.was on the committee and I'm sure that she will recall that the things

:39:21. > :39:25.that are had in this specific amendment are in addition to what we

:39:26. > :39:32.would perhaps say is the core business of a university, which is

:39:33. > :39:39.to enable people to study for a higher level qualification. It's

:39:40. > :39:43.about ensuring that we're not going to get whole series of universities

:39:44. > :39:48.and institutions that can use university in its title that are, in

:39:49. > :39:54.fact, only offering a single course of study and a single qualification.

:39:55. > :39:59.Because we think that will dumb down the sector, not only for students in

:40:00. > :40:02.the UK, but in particular for international students and the

:40:03. > :40:07.honourable lady will know that it's a highly competitive sector

:40:08. > :40:10.internationally and we want to ensure that our union slers toys

:40:11. > :40:17.compete with the -- universities compete with the best in the world.

:40:18. > :40:19.We've got huge concerns that in simply allowing an institution to

:40:20. > :40:25.say it's a university, when it doesn't have to provide any access

:40:26. > :40:27.to sports or recreation or cultural activities or volume untiering

:40:28. > :40:32.opportunities or work-based learning experience or any of the other

:40:33. > :40:36.things that currently are universities do right across the

:40:37. > :40:40.piece. I hope the honourable lady is as proud as I am that our

:40:41. > :40:46.universities do that. I give way again. Thank you very much Mr Deputy

:40:47. > :40:52.Speaker. I would concur to a point. I am hugely rout of universities. I

:40:53. > :41:00.am hugely proud what have they deliver into our economy I would

:41:01. > :41:04.also argue that we have great institutions, for example, BT within

:41:05. > :41:10.Suffolk is looking to hopefully have a specific agree around research,

:41:11. > :41:15.learning and so on. These things should be enabled for a fewer chore

:41:16. > :41:18.workforce fit for purpose -- future workforce fit for purpose, and not

:41:19. > :41:24.wiped away because they don't perhaps offer the chance to play

:41:25. > :41:30.five-a-side football. I too think that BT has a number of strengths as

:41:31. > :41:37.a company. It's yet to be determined whether it is very good at running a

:41:38. > :41:45.university. We will only know that in due course. Part of what I want

:41:46. > :41:48.to see it doing, if it does run a university, is ensuring it's a

:41:49. > :41:52.university as we would commonly understand it in this country and

:41:53. > :41:55.not simply a company having a degree course. I give way to my honourable

:41:56. > :42:00.friend. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Would she

:42:01. > :42:04.acknowledge that part of the problem here and the honourable member picks

:42:05. > :42:08.out the issue of five-a-side football, but the wider issue here

:42:09. > :42:14.is that this is the first major piece of legislation on higher

:42:15. > :42:18.education for a generation. It is giving an opportunity to extend

:42:19. > :42:22.university title quite widely. Wouldn't she imagine that in that

:42:23. > :42:30.context, isn't this the nub of the problem, there is no attempt to

:42:31. > :42:34.define what a university is. I concur exactly with my honourable

:42:35. > :42:39.friend. Actually what the minister said to me in committee was that he

:42:40. > :42:44.was setting a high bar that only high quality providers will be able

:42:45. > :42:51.to meet. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we have absolutely no

:42:52. > :42:57.idea what is meant by that "high bar". I'm hoping that we will hear

:42:58. > :43:02.from the minister this afternoon exactly what he means by a

:43:03. > :43:08.university, what is going to be in the guidance and that the quality

:43:09. > :43:11.and breadth of offer of our universities is going to be

:43:12. > :43:18.protected and not got rid of by this Government.

:43:19. > :43:25.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to colleagues for

:43:26. > :43:27.making so many points from the bill committee that particularly

:43:28. > :43:30.exercised me around part one of the bill because of the shortness of

:43:31. > :43:34.time this afternoon, I just want to restrict my remarks to two issues

:43:35. > :43:39.around students and staff in higher education. Firstly, turning to

:43:40. > :43:43.Government amendment 21, concerning student representation on the board

:43:44. > :43:47.of the office for students. Can I firstly welcome this amendment and

:43:48. > :43:51.that the minister has listened to the huge number of representations

:43:52. > :43:56.he's received from members of the bill committee, from students unions

:43:57. > :44:00.and from higher education sector leaders, who really value the

:44:01. > :44:03.contribution that students make and want to see students on the board of

:44:04. > :44:08.the office for students. It would have been perverse to have a

:44:09. > :44:11.regulator whose purpose is to protect the interests of students,

:44:12. > :44:16.who have students' names on the door and on the headed paper but don't

:44:17. > :44:19.have students around the table on the board. I'm glad that the

:44:20. > :44:24.minister has moved on this particular point. I hope that as the

:44:25. > :44:27.bill progresses into the other place that the minister might consider

:44:28. > :44:31.moving further on the issue of student representation. During the

:44:32. > :44:36.bill committee we also raised the issue of student representation on

:44:37. > :44:39.the board of the designated quality provider and in drawing up the

:44:40. > :44:43.quality code and ensuring that students have a representative role

:44:44. > :44:48.in what could be, as my honourable friend, the member for City of

:44:49. > :44:53.Durham highlighted, could be a wide range of new private providers,

:44:54. > :44:58.whether an institution is a traditional university or a modern

:44:59. > :45:00.university or one of the new private providers, it's crucial that

:45:01. > :45:04.students' rights are protected and that their voice is represented at

:45:05. > :45:08.the top of the institution. Can I also ask the minister to address how

:45:09. > :45:11.he sees this issue of student representation playing out on the

:45:12. > :45:14.board of the office for students? The wording the minister has put

:45:15. > :45:17.forward isn't quite the wording that I put forward at bill committee,

:45:18. > :45:22.which was slightly more prescrape Tiff and specificed it should be

:45:23. > :45:26.either a students or a sabatical office of a students union or

:45:27. > :45:31.officer of the national union for students. My slight caution about

:45:32. > :45:36.the amendment that the minister has put forward is that the Secretary of

:45:37. > :45:40.State's put forward, is that we could interpret the dive fission of

:45:41. > :45:43.someone with experience of representing students quite loosely.

:45:44. > :45:46.There are a number of members for this House, myself included, who

:45:47. > :45:49.have experience of representing students. I'm sure we wouldn't

:45:50. > :45:53.expect to find ourselves years later on the board of the office for

:45:54. > :46:01.students. Perhaps when he makes remarks later in our discussions he

:46:02. > :46:05.might step out what that representation might look like.

:46:06. > :46:09.Thank you Mr Speaker. Can the honourable gentleman just define for

:46:10. > :46:14.me what he considered a typical student is, in order that I could

:46:15. > :46:18.gauge some idea of what somebody who could represent, for example,

:46:19. > :46:23.myself, who went to college as a mature student might be or a

:46:24. > :46:27.life-long learner or whatever. If we are too tight with the definition

:46:28. > :46:32.and I think this gives us scope to have a looser definition, then this

:46:33. > :46:35.might be more appropriate. I certainly don't think we'll be able

:46:36. > :46:38.to find a typical student to sit on the board for the office of

:46:39. > :46:44.students. As others have said from their positions, no such thing

:46:45. > :46:51.exists. This really leads me onto where I wanted to direct the

:46:52. > :46:55.minister in as far as I can. We should really value the skills and

:46:56. > :46:59.expertise that representatives of students develop through their roles

:47:00. > :47:03.in students unions, because there is no such thing as a typical students

:47:04. > :47:07.and no such thing as a typical student experience. We should value

:47:08. > :47:11.and champion the role that students' union officers play in developing

:47:12. > :47:15.their skills and experience as representatives to make sure that

:47:16. > :47:20.students' unions are championing the broad Diversity of students at their

:47:21. > :47:25.institutions, whether fulltime, partime, whether they are doing part

:47:26. > :47:29.of a course on a credit base approach, whether they're living at

:47:30. > :47:32.home and commuting to university or they've moved away from home, there

:47:33. > :47:37.are a wide range of student experiences. The challenge for

:47:38. > :47:41.anyone who seeks to be a representative is to make sure that

:47:42. > :47:45.we're genuinely drawing on the broad range of experiences, as we have to

:47:46. > :47:48.do as constituency monies. I would hope, this brings me onto the point

:47:49. > :47:55.I hope the minister will make, I would hope that when the minister

:47:56. > :47:59.comes to a point at one of these representatives that he appoints

:48:00. > :48:05.someone who is a sabatical officer of a students union. I think that we

:48:06. > :48:09.are very lucky in this country to have a means through which students

:48:10. > :48:14.can develop a really good base of skills and experience, which if you

:48:15. > :48:19.look at the voluntary sector, many of the country's leading chief

:48:20. > :48:23.executive in voluntary organisations have been sabatical officers. People

:48:24. > :48:27.in all sorts of professions because the experience and the skill set it

:48:28. > :48:31.gives you is genuinely valuable beyond the scope of representing

:48:32. > :48:34.students during their time at university. So I hope that's the

:48:35. > :48:39.sort of person the minister has in mind, that we're not going to be

:48:40. > :48:43.dragging people back from beyond, dusting themselves off from

:48:44. > :48:46.retirement. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Whilst a gree

:48:47. > :48:50.with everything that he's saying, I think the honourable lady opposite

:48:51. > :48:54.was making reference in particular to distance learning students

:48:55. > :48:59.perhaps, mature students, people who have followed a less, if I can put

:49:00. > :49:02.it this way, usual course in order to obtain a qualification. Certainly

:49:03. > :49:06.when I met my president of the students union over the years, they

:49:07. > :49:10.have been sympathetic to the needs of students like that. Could he

:49:11. > :49:13.perhaps address her point? I absolutely agree with that point

:49:14. > :49:18.which brings me back to the issue of the skills and expertise that

:49:19. > :49:24.Student Union sabatical officers develop as sabatical officers. You

:49:25. > :49:30.look at the open university students association, these are institutions

:49:31. > :49:32.almost entirely dedicated to partime students, people from

:49:33. > :49:35.non-traditional routes, people often working alongside their studies, who

:49:36. > :49:39.might return to learning later on. It is important that those broad

:49:40. > :49:43.range of experiences and perspectives are represented on the

:49:44. > :49:46.board of the office for students. I hope the minister will appoint

:49:47. > :49:50.someone to that job, to that position who is able to represent

:49:51. > :49:54.the broad interests of students. Now I want to turn to the issue of

:49:55. > :50:00.staff. I should probably declare that I'm a member of the trade union

:50:01. > :50:04.Unison which represents a number of staff in higher education. I should

:50:05. > :50:09.draw members' attention to my register of financial interests on

:50:10. > :50:13.that particular point too. Amendment 48 picks up on the theme I've just

:50:14. > :50:16.been discussing around student representation on the board and

:50:17. > :50:19.makes the case for staff representation on the board of the

:50:20. > :50:23.office for students. Staff are absolutely critical to the success

:50:24. > :50:26.of our higher education sector, whether it's academic staff,

:50:27. > :50:30.directly engaged in teeveng and learning, or the wide range of

:50:31. > :50:32.support staff, who are often unheralded when it comes to the

:50:33. > :50:35.contribution they make to the student experience. For example,

:50:36. > :50:40.thinking back to my own experience, the very first member of staff I

:50:41. > :50:49.spoke to at my university wasn't an academic. It was in the admissions

:50:50. > :50:53.office. When I was at university, I spoke to staff through my role in

:50:54. > :50:57.the students union, at the time the entertainment officer of the Student

:50:58. > :51:02.Union. When I had a particularly small room in my second year, and a

:51:03. > :51:05.larger one became available, Sue Jeffries made a substantial

:51:06. > :51:13.difference to my learning environment. Margaret Hay, who

:51:14. > :51:17.recently retired in the tu tore office was essential. Bearing in

:51:18. > :51:21.mind what other honourable members have said about the role

:51:22. > :51:25.international staff play in our institutions, I think it is

:51:26. > :51:28.important that there are people on the board of the office of students

:51:29. > :51:32.who have experience of representing the interests of staff. Because many

:51:33. > :51:35.of our trade union colleagues, particularly in the university and

:51:36. > :51:38.college union, have made a powerful case about the impact that

:51:39. > :51:42.casualisation of contracts is having, for example, on our ability

:51:43. > :51:46.to recruit and retain good staff. And their ability to deliver a good

:51:47. > :51:53.student experience. But there will be other trade unions like Unison

:51:54. > :51:57.and unite who often represent staff who may not be directly engaged in

:51:58. > :51:59.teaching are often providing essential support functions that can

:52:00. > :52:04.be the difference between an excellent or poor student

:52:05. > :52:08.experience. I would hope their voices also represented on the

:52:09. > :52:11.office for students, their interests are represented, because I think

:52:12. > :52:15.particularly with where we've taken our country in terms of the debate

:52:16. > :52:18.around our ability to attract and retarn excellent staff from around

:52:19. > :52:22.the world, I think we leave ourselves in a very vulnerable

:52:23. > :52:29.position that sectors such as ours, that is so world leading in its

:52:30. > :52:33.performance but also in its reach, we really do need to champion and

:52:34. > :52:37.protect the interests of staff. So I hope the minister will take those

:52:38. > :52:40.points on board. I thank him for the movement he's shown since the bill

:52:41. > :52:45.committee. I'd almost given up hope by the end of committee we would see

:52:46. > :52:48.much progress. To give him credit he has moved. I hope he'll listen to

:52:49. > :53:04.the points we make this afternoon. Can I apologise to the members of

:53:05. > :53:10.the standing committee. They have an advantage over me. I assure you I

:53:11. > :53:19.read from cover to cover in one fell swoop the entire transcript.

:53:20. > :53:24.Riveting reading it was. The Minister was trying to suggest for a

:53:25. > :53:28.widening of scope of this legislation regarding overseas

:53:29. > :53:33.students but I think the amendments are in order. We get very few

:53:34. > :53:39.opportunities to talk about this issue. The key point I want to make

:53:40. > :53:42.is that overseas students are very much part of the viability of the

:53:43. > :53:50.university sector. This Bill is about anything, it is about the

:53:51. > :53:56.viability of the university sector. We are in a brave new world now

:53:57. > :54:04.after Brexit. Universities wanted a different type of outcome and the

:54:05. > :54:08.Minister has tried to reassure a traumatised sector on this issue. It

:54:09. > :54:12.is easy to see why they have potential to lose good students, a

:54:13. > :54:18.lot of opportunities for UK students and there are severe outcomes for

:54:19. > :54:21.the research sector. I polled a range of vice chancellors and I

:54:22. > :54:27.found 86% of them think the impact of Brexit on the research programmes

:54:28. > :54:33.in their universities will be severe. The impacts are financial,

:54:34. > :54:35.cultural, academic in the sense there can be a collapse of

:54:36. > :54:41.undergraduate courses and they have a profound impact on the research

:54:42. > :54:45.universities currently conduct. Some things are certainly true and the

:54:46. > :54:51.minister repeat some of these and nothing changes in the short term.

:54:52. > :54:57.As other ministers have said to be rehab international students before

:54:58. > :55:00.we were ever in the EU and -- we have had international students

:55:01. > :55:07.before we were ever in the EU. But membership of the EU makes it a

:55:08. > :55:15.whole lot easier for British universities. That is why there is a

:55:16. > :55:20.case for following numbers. That is what clause nine endeavours to do.

:55:21. > :55:28.Numbers are set viability and the OFS don't deal on numbers, who will?

:55:29. > :55:37.Coming to clause 12, also in my name, it is worrying and has been

:55:38. > :55:42.alluded to already today, we include student numbers in net immigration

:55:43. > :55:48.statistics, nonsensically, the government. The Minister welcomes

:55:49. > :55:54.international students and I have seen him say how welcoming we

:55:55. > :55:59.supposed to be to international students. The public, as we

:56:00. > :56:01.established through polling, also welcome international students. Even

:56:02. > :56:08.when they are buried at the same time about immigration in general.

:56:09. > :56:11.-- even when they are buried. It is a nonsense to include them in net

:56:12. > :56:18.immigration statistics. What worries the government is when it is used to

:56:19. > :56:24.a stepping stone to employment and residents. This clearly does the

:56:25. > :56:27.Home Office. He has already spoken about the comments of the Home

:56:28. > :56:33.Secretary, which I find worrying, but also worrying is the Prime

:56:34. > :56:46.Minister's senior adviser stating that the government after leaving

:56:47. > :56:50.the use, -- the EU, saying that... The Russell group is essentially a

:56:51. > :56:57.self-selected group, essentially snobbish, but another thing would be

:56:58. > :57:00.to differentiate between students depending upon the teaching

:57:01. > :57:08.excellence framework of their particular institution. In my view

:57:09. > :57:13.that would be severe. The teaching excellence framework is in its

:57:14. > :57:16.infancy and not suited to that task. Not all universities are bound to it

:57:17. > :57:26.in the first place and individuals' ability cannot be predicated on the

:57:27. > :57:29.institution he or she attends. A few of us -- few us would like to be

:57:30. > :57:34.judged by the quality of the teaching we have received. Surviving

:57:35. > :57:38.poor teaching is an entirely marketable skill. Profiting from

:57:39. > :57:49.good teaching is a slightly easier thing. I have got to say there are

:57:50. > :57:52.good, valuable courses in institutions who may have a poor

:57:53. > :57:57.teaching excellence framework in general. It clearly will affect the

:57:58. > :58:01.ability of some institutions to attract overseas students and

:58:02. > :58:07.valuable courses as a result will collapse. Certainly in the capital.

:58:08. > :58:10.And further, regarding overseas applicants concentrating on applying

:58:11. > :58:14.to universities with the teaching excellence framework are making it

:58:15. > :58:18.more difficult for UK students to access them and universities may

:58:19. > :58:24.shun the teaching excellence framework and those purposes. The

:58:25. > :58:28.list goes on. Welding together Home Office policy and education policy

:58:29. > :58:33.seldom works. We should clear this up. The Minister has the opportunity

:58:34. > :58:38.to clear this up at the dispatch box later on but so far the government

:58:39. > :58:43.on this, their take on this, has been less than clear, certainly when

:58:44. > :58:46.it comes from the Home Office. Last week, the Home Office had the

:58:47. > :58:50.opportunity to categorically say this isn't going to happen. But we

:58:51. > :58:56.don't know categorically whether this will happen or not. I may not

:58:57. > :59:09.get support from my own members. This issue will not go away because

:59:10. > :59:21.it is important to the sector. Thank you and I browse to speak -- rise to

:59:22. > :59:25.speak to the amendments and the Minister's moving of clause one. If

:59:26. > :59:29.I can start with the Minister and clause one and his other remarks and

:59:30. > :59:36.make an observation in general, of course we welcome the move to

:59:37. > :59:41.include a student representative on the body as has been described but

:59:42. > :59:46.it is, I have to say, relatively thin gruel competitively range of

:59:47. > :59:55.positive amendments that would involve employees and students in a

:59:56. > :59:59.number of key issues that the OFS is going to have two face and which we

:00:00. > :00:09.meant to discuss in committee. If the government wants to calm

:00:10. > :00:13.suspicion is in this house that it is too concerned to have the OFS as

:00:14. > :00:18.a body without enough things being defined on the face of the Bill, so

:00:19. > :00:25.that future secretaries of state we have to work for the worst of the

:00:26. > :00:29.naughtiest secretaries of state, not necessarily the best and not even

:00:30. > :00:35.the best university Minister. We're going to do that we have to put

:00:36. > :00:40.things on the face of the Bill. We haven't had that ability and it is

:00:41. > :00:48.not helpful, either, that the ability to tease out these issues is

:00:49. > :00:51.confined to one day on 113 clauses and 12 schedules where other members

:00:52. > :00:55.who might have come in today know perfectly well that so many of the

:00:56. > :01:01.issues we had to discuss will now have two be taken into the other

:01:02. > :01:08.place. I went to begin by talking about our amendments and I want to

:01:09. > :01:11.talk briefly to the ones related particularly to the issues of staff

:01:12. > :01:19.and student involvement. Amendment 37 talks about the consultation to

:01:20. > :01:23.ongoing registration conditions. This might sound very technical and

:01:24. > :01:26.I know there is some consultation with bodies of informed groups

:01:27. > :01:33.representing staff and students at the moment but what is very

:01:34. > :01:36.important is that some of the new providers that the Minister wants to

:01:37. > :01:41.see coming into the marketplace will be relatively small and may have a

:01:42. > :01:46.relatively informal groupings, and so the position of SA and students

:01:47. > :01:53.have to be taken into account. That leaves me to speak to amendments 36

:01:54. > :02:00.and 48. My honourable friend from Ilford South has already referred

:02:01. > :02:07.to... Ilford North, I am sorry, had already referred to amendments 38.

:02:08. > :02:10.It is important the government gets into its mindset with higher

:02:11. > :02:15.education that it is not simply about vice chancellors, however

:02:16. > :02:19.excellent they are. It is not simply about business managers, however

:02:20. > :02:22.excellent they are. It is about the support staff who live in the local

:02:23. > :02:28.communities were universities are situated. It is about the excellent

:02:29. > :02:34.teaching and social mobility and student choice. Actually, you know,

:02:35. > :02:39.cleaning staff can often be the first point of contact for live in

:02:40. > :02:42.students who face isolation and need someone to talk to. The government

:02:43. > :02:45.really needs to get a culture step change in the way in which it

:02:46. > :02:51.addresses these issues and not put some of those groups on as an

:02:52. > :02:56.afterthought. We believe that these modest amendments would take us down

:02:57. > :03:04.that route. It is also talked about in the Bill, the whole issue of

:03:05. > :03:12.social mobility. The Minister waxes lyrical on that subject and I

:03:13. > :03:16.believe genuinely so, but if you want to walk the walk, you have to

:03:17. > :03:20.do something about putting the beef onto the talk that you have given

:03:21. > :03:25.and that is why we are moving Amendment, Wiley have put down

:03:26. > :03:28.Amendment 38, which would make access and participation plans

:03:29. > :03:32.mandatorily the higher education providers, are higher education

:03:33. > :03:39.providers, because the government has a lot of angles on this Bill but

:03:40. > :03:43.competition and consumers rights are always repeated. Competition has to

:03:44. > :03:49.go hand-in-hand with consumers rights and any aberrant have this

:03:50. > :03:54.competitive market, I am perfectly happy to see the Paul of new

:03:55. > :03:59.providers expanded. I spent 20 years working for an organisation, the

:04:00. > :04:03.open University, which was once a new provider, but I was anxious to

:04:04. > :04:05.ensure that providers bring to the table a proper sense of the

:04:06. > :04:11.responsibilities they will have two meat and that is why it is really

:04:12. > :04:16.important to make sure that at the heart of what those new providers do

:04:17. > :04:19.is an access and participation plan. Now, there maybe the conservatism

:04:20. > :04:27.which the numbers that that producers are relatively modest --

:04:28. > :04:30.there may be circumstances in which. Providers need to accept those

:04:31. > :04:34.responsibilities if the government want to go forward. It is any sense

:04:35. > :04:38.of inclusion also that we have put down Amendment 39, which would

:04:39. > :04:41.include people with disabilities and carers as well as the age of

:04:42. > :04:47.applicants and the published number of applications. This is very

:04:48. > :04:51.important in terms of demonstrating the emphasis, which I am going to

:04:52. > :04:55.come onto when I talk about our new clause 15, the emphasis that had

:04:56. > :04:58.already been made by a number of people here, and that is on the

:04:59. > :05:04.whole issue of mature and older students and indeed part-time

:05:05. > :05:07.students. If we want to have realistic expectations of where

:05:08. > :05:11.those groups are going, to know what government needs to do and we have

:05:12. > :05:14.heard that already spoken today by a number of honourable members in

:05:15. > :05:20.respect of international students, then we have to have that evidence

:05:21. > :05:25.and the need to broaden those parameters is reflected specifically

:05:26. > :05:32.in this Amendment. I want to move on now to our new clause four and also

:05:33. > :05:38.to Amendment 30. New clause four, which would establish a committee on

:05:39. > :05:43.degree awarding powers and university title, is actually

:05:44. > :05:48.modelled on things that were in the further and higher education act in

:05:49. > :05:51.1992. We want to pass the Bill is over. The government, rather

:05:52. > :05:56.curiously, doesn't want to have a committee looking at degree awarding

:05:57. > :06:00.powers and university title. One might have thought they would

:06:01. > :06:04.welcome this, after all, we know that they are bedding down,

:06:05. > :06:10.inevitably slowly, in the new Department with responsibilities and

:06:11. > :06:15.you might have thought they would actually welcome that process but

:06:16. > :06:18.no, that has not been the case. Again, the government cannot be

:06:19. > :06:25.surprised, therefore, if people think that they are wanting to have

:06:26. > :06:30.as little scrutiny outside of government of these new providers as

:06:31. > :06:35.possible. That is the basis on which new clause four, which I myself to

:06:36. > :06:38.the Minister, is supported by, I think, all the university groups

:06:39. > :06:46.have spoken to us, is being put down. It would allow the OFS to

:06:47. > :06:49.revoke degree awarding powers were university title without consulting

:06:50. > :07:01.the committee as it stands at the moment. Now, the current

:07:02. > :07:07.arrangements are, the Minister states, required the assurance... It

:07:08. > :07:12.is vital that the OFS continues to seek advice for designated quality

:07:13. > :07:17.body prior to any conferring of degree awarding powers all

:07:18. > :07:20.university title. There is therefore a strong argument to introduce this

:07:21. > :07:26.new clause to further that regulation. But, when it of course,

:07:27. > :07:32.comes la amendments 30 and 31 and they are designed precisely to

:07:33. > :07:36.underline the point is that my honourable friend the member for

:07:37. > :07:43.Durham, in her inputted intervention supporting her own amendments, 58,

:07:44. > :07:48.we need to shine a light on and distinguish between a broad-based

:07:49. > :07:55.new providers and those who could simply go the opportunist, fast buck

:07:56. > :07:57.causes, or those who are simply inefficiently structured or

:07:58. > :07:58.financed, to do all sorts of things that my honourable friend talked

:07:59. > :08:11.about in her speech. There is huge concern in the sector

:08:12. > :08:18.as others have said about single course universities and about what

:08:19. > :08:21.hasn't been said so much. The huge amount of public money that will go

:08:22. > :08:26.into those new providers, providing a jump through the issue is the

:08:27. > :08:31.Government have currently put in front of them. It is our contention

:08:32. > :08:36.that those hoops are not adequate at the moment and because of that, we

:08:37. > :08:43.want to press this matter further. To say that the amendments 40 which

:08:44. > :08:52.requires the OFS to be assured about the standards of students before

:08:53. > :08:55.issuing students grabbed agree is very important in this area.

:08:56. > :09:01.Deputies beaker, I want to give notice that we will be pressing a

:09:02. > :09:04.vote on Amendment 40. Whatever the outcome of that vote, I can assure

:09:05. > :09:12.the minister that this particular issue is unlikely to away and there

:09:13. > :09:16.will no doubt get more questions on this in the other place. I have

:09:17. > :09:23.spoken against something that the Government has wanted to do. I want

:09:24. > :09:32.to speak now about our new clause 15, which with new set up a... In

:09:33. > :09:38.doing so, I want to thank the Minister for the small but important

:09:39. > :09:46.movement that there has been on this issue. This issue of part-time loans

:09:47. > :09:51.which is being looked at the current situation. It is very important in

:09:52. > :09:57.that process. If we look at the actual situation, and we said this

:09:58. > :10:00.great length on the committee, I'm not going to go through all the

:10:01. > :10:06.statistics. The dire situation that adult learners have in since 2010

:10:07. > :10:14.and the way in which so many of those adult learners have been

:10:15. > :10:19.disadvantaged at a time when we should be competing for them to be

:10:20. > :10:25.re-skilled, retrained, in order to meet our economic and our social

:10:26. > :10:29.objectives for the 21st-century 's. The Lord reason the speech of the

:10:30. > :10:33.House of Lords said we need to have a revolution in the way in which we

:10:34. > :10:37.formalise a system which more readily allows transfers between

:10:38. > :10:41.institutions. Bring part-time and full-time study. The demands of

:10:42. > :10:46.part-time and distance learning will grow. Because of the high fees

:10:47. > :10:57.imposed on students at traditional universities. The Lord Rees is

:10:58. > :11:04.absolutely right. The time for action is now. This is why this

:11:05. > :11:10.party and this front benches is bringing forward this major and

:11:11. > :11:16.significant bench to create a discussion about lifelong learning.

:11:17. > :11:26.It in city which would set a course which was originally laid out by

:11:27. > :11:31.David Blunkett in the learning age by paper in 1998, but has been sadly

:11:32. > :11:41.sidelined and bylined up until now. All PSUs about lifelong learning --

:11:42. > :11:46.all the issues are not an optional extra. It is fundamental to compete

:11:47. > :11:53.in a post-Brexit world. It is fundamental to our social confusion

:11:54. > :11:57.and believing in the dignity of work. -- social cohesion. All the

:11:58. > :12:03.people in their families, opening doors to them which have so often

:12:04. > :12:08.been revolving in the middle classes, but finding themselves

:12:09. > :12:13.stuck on the first run of the ladder. That is what we want to do.

:12:14. > :12:17.We want to think about how we deliver these things locally and

:12:18. > :12:23.nationally. We are not claiming that this structure which is put on the

:12:24. > :12:30.face of the bill is perfect. We have taken very wide soundings from

:12:31. > :12:38.allsorts of groups of people from city and Guilds, from unions, from

:12:39. > :12:42.open University, and indeed from what we ourselves have thought about

:12:43. > :12:51.these matters. I would merely sate of the Minister look at this clause

:12:52. > :12:54.as a cause that would do some of the things you are talking about in

:12:55. > :12:59.terms of social mobility and take it on board because I say to the

:13:00. > :13:04.Minister that if this Government does not take it on board, we will

:13:05. > :13:07.take it on board. We will take it through to the House of Lords. We

:13:08. > :13:14.will take it out into the country and we will put this issue of proper

:13:15. > :13:20.lifelong learning of higher and further education right at the top

:13:21. > :13:32.of the agenda. I want to also now move on finally to the amendments 46

:13:33. > :13:40.and 47. Many of the things that I would have said as to why we need in

:13:41. > :13:47.particular to make sure that the TEF is taken out the hands of Whitehall

:13:48. > :13:52.and actually put far more centrally into the hands of Parliament have

:13:53. > :13:55.been illustrated by the excellent speeches we have heard this

:13:56. > :14:01.afternoon by my honourable friend, the member for Sheffield Central, my

:14:02. > :14:03.honourable friend from Coventry with his interventions, the Honourable

:14:04. > :14:10.Lady from Glasgow North West, the comments of the honourable gentleman

:14:11. > :14:17.from Blackwell south and others. The reason that we do not trust the

:14:18. > :14:20.Government with the TEF as it is is because they have demonstrated ever

:14:21. > :14:28.since they introduce this bill that whenever they had an opportunity to

:14:29. > :14:34.do something to keep control of the process and to try and actually get

:14:35. > :14:40.things through that would not require legislation in detail they

:14:41. > :14:43.have turned to the TEF. They have turned to the TEF as an automatic

:14:44. > :14:51.link between itself and raising tuition fees. They have turned the

:14:52. > :14:54.TEF as we have heard already, maybe not them, but the Home Office

:14:55. > :15:02.holding a sword of Damocles over them, over at all over the issue of

:15:03. > :15:07.international students. They have not turned to putting on the face of

:15:08. > :15:14.the bill in any shape or form with the TEF is going to be done on a

:15:15. > :15:17.whole University, a school or other subject areas. We have also heard

:15:18. > :15:23.from my honourable friend 's of the many significant issues that there

:15:24. > :15:31.are around the metrics in this area. It is a question of confidence and

:15:32. > :15:34.trust and of parliamentary scrutiny. It is that parliamentary scrutiny

:15:35. > :15:41.that is being denied under the plan Reed present process. The vast

:15:42. > :15:47.majority of people in this country do not regard students as migrants,

:15:48. > :15:50.but we could have a situation is being heard with the gold, silver

:15:51. > :15:57.and bronze issue that these things could be smuggled in to dire

:15:58. > :16:04.consequences for our social can cohesion, productivity and so many

:16:05. > :16:14.things we will need post-Brexit. This move is violently dismissed by

:16:15. > :16:17.the sector. It is a strange conjunction in the way they have

:16:18. > :16:23.brought the TEF forward to have annoyed and alarmed almost every

:16:24. > :16:26.sector of the University world, whether you are talking about the

:16:27. > :16:31.people employed in the universities, the people who study them, the

:16:32. > :16:35.people who manage them, the vice chancellors who are ahead of them,

:16:36. > :16:41.or their relatives, families and everybody else who are now worried

:16:42. > :16:47.about what should be... And we had a little discussion about this on the

:16:48. > :17:01.committee, the minister talked about my views on about 2000 to about

:17:02. > :17:05.teaching excellence. -- 2002. I have not changed my views. What I'm

:17:06. > :17:09.certain of is the teaching excellence framework which started

:17:10. > :17:17.out in this bill as bad enough has now been malformed Andy formed --

:17:18. > :17:20.and deformed in the way that it was threatened to be used to not be

:17:21. > :17:24.something that is completely useless but something that could be an

:17:25. > :17:28.absolute danger in all the ways that I have described right at the heart

:17:29. > :17:36.of our university system. It is for those reasons on this subject, I am

:17:37. > :17:42.sure we had to use ingenuity to get discussion of this on the bill.

:17:43. > :17:46.Cleverly have the Government gone about keeping the TEF off the face

:17:47. > :17:52.of the bill. Those issues around the TEF will be returned to and with

:17:53. > :17:58.some significance and in no short order when it goes to the other

:17:59. > :18:05.place. I therefore want to place on record that we will be pressing our

:18:06. > :18:13.amendment 47 on the need for these measures to be continuing subject to

:18:14. > :18:20.scrutiny of both houses of Parliament to vote. It has been a

:18:21. > :18:24.good debate and I'm glad to have the chance to respond to some of the

:18:25. > :18:29.points made. There have been a lot made, I will not be able to get to

:18:30. > :18:38.all of them. Turning to amendment 51, of which the member of Sheffield

:18:39. > :18:42.spoke passionately, he met with my colleague the Minister of the

:18:43. > :18:47.Constitution after the bill committee and he will agree that we

:18:48. > :18:50.also met with the member for Bath who is not in this place at the

:18:51. > :18:53.moment to discuss the issue. That is because we share the aims of

:18:54. > :18:58.increasing the number of young people registered to vote. We had

:18:59. > :19:01.previously demonstrated our commitment to his cause by

:19:02. > :19:05.supporting and contributing financially to the pilot at his

:19:06. > :19:10.university at the University of Sheffield. That is why when we met

:19:11. > :19:14.him, we undertook to encourage the take-up of the initiative by writing

:19:15. > :19:20.out to vice chancellors describing the outcomes of the pilot his

:19:21. > :19:25.institution had published. We also agreed that the honourable member

:19:26. > :19:27.should attend a roundtable meeting on student registration and the

:19:28. > :19:32.Minister of the Constitution promised to consider other ways

:19:33. > :19:36.registration could be increased. I regret that owing to a scheduling

:19:37. > :19:41.issue with one of the external stakeholders, not the Minister for

:19:42. > :19:44.the constitution, we were unable to hold the meeting is planned and we

:19:45. > :19:48.are actively looking to rearrange it to fulfil the commitment we made to

:19:49. > :19:57.him at that meeting following the bill committee. Turning to amendment

:19:58. > :20:03.37, which wishes and seeks to widen the base of those the NHS should

:20:04. > :20:08.consult before it determines what changes the initial and ongoing

:20:09. > :20:13.registration conditions to exclude staff and students, especially those

:20:14. > :20:18.dealing with the higher education providers. We will take the views of

:20:19. > :20:24.students into account in all of these issues. It is part of a wider

:20:25. > :20:28.consultation of the framework. Closing statement clear that bodies

:20:29. > :20:36.representing the interests of students and other such persons it

:20:37. > :20:39.considers important should all be involved in this consultation. It is

:20:40. > :20:48.my clear expectation that the NHS will strongly talk to providers

:20:49. > :20:54.including staff and students as a matter of good practice. The OFS

:20:55. > :20:58.itself will also listen to students and staff if it thinks it will add

:20:59. > :21:05.value. This amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 52, relating

:21:06. > :21:10.to the international students, I recognise that the number of

:21:11. > :21:15.international students are a G system attract any income they

:21:16. > :21:19.provide are clearly issues for the sector. I understand the motivation

:21:20. > :21:22.for this amendment. I do not believe that this bill is the appropriate

:21:23. > :21:27.vehicle for commissioning annual reports of the number of

:21:28. > :21:32.international students and their economic impact. As I have already

:21:33. > :21:35.set out, Government new clause one requires the NHS to monitor and

:21:36. > :21:41.report on the financial health of the English each EU sector in the

:21:42. > :21:49.round. We will get a very clear picture of the number of

:21:50. > :21:54.international sector. Clause 81 B requires all registered providers to

:21:55. > :22:06.give the NHS the information it needs to perform its functions. This

:22:07. > :22:10.will allow the NHS to gather details on international students. New

:22:11. > :22:20.clause one and a one B already achieves these amendments. There is

:22:21. > :22:27.a amount of information available. Each ESE collect data. The

:22:28. > :22:34.Department for Education will shortly publishing statistics on the

:22:35. > :22:40.value of education and exports. The Home Office itself will also publish

:22:41. > :22:46.data and as I mentioned in discussions with earlier, its data

:22:47. > :22:55.says there has been a 14% increase in the number of international

:22:56. > :23:01.students coming since 2010. Regarding clause 14, I thank the

:23:02. > :23:04.honourable members for bringing the bill back. I still do not believe

:23:05. > :23:09.that this bill is the appropriate vehicle for studying and

:23:10. > :23:13.commissioning research into Post study work. The bill is focused on

:23:14. > :23:17.creating the necessary structures that will oversee higher education

:23:18. > :23:21.and research funding for many years to come. The scope of what this

:23:22. > :23:26.amendment proposes, a short-term amount of work on migration policy

:23:27. > :23:31.is not consistent with the scope and functions of UK RIA. The UK has an

:23:32. > :23:35.excellent offer for overseas students who graduate in the UK.

:23:36. > :23:40.International graduates can remain in the UK to work following their

:23:41. > :23:45.Suddes by switching to several existing Visa routes including Tier

:23:46. > :23:51.two skilled worker visas. There is no cap of the number of students who

:23:52. > :23:55.can switch to 82 skilled worker Visa. Horrible members will be

:23:56. > :23:59.interested to learn that according to Home Office figures I have before

:24:00. > :24:12.me now, under our current provisions, over 6000 international

:24:13. > :24:13.students switched 282 Visa, up from 5200 and 2014. In around 4000 in

:24:14. > :24:23.2013. Britain is the second most popular

:24:24. > :24:29.international destination for students after the United States. I

:24:30. > :24:34.will respond to some of the points made on the teaching framework now.

:24:35. > :24:40.Turning the first to migration and I would urge honourable members to

:24:41. > :24:49.carefully calmed down and consider the Home Secretary's speech that she

:24:50. > :24:54.set out at the party conference. We want our universities to continue to

:24:55. > :24:59.attract genuine students from around the world. We have no plans to

:25:00. > :25:04.introduce any cap on the number of non-EU students who can come to the

:25:05. > :25:09.UK to study. No decisions have been made on tailoring differentiating

:25:10. > :25:13.non-EU students migration rules on the basis of the quality of the

:25:14. > :25:18.higher education institution or how this might be achieved. As the Home

:25:19. > :25:24.Secretary announced in her speech, we will shortly be seeking views on

:25:25. > :25:27.the study immigration route and we encourage all interested parties to

:25:28. > :25:32.participate to ensure that every point of view is heard. New clause

:25:33. > :25:38.12 is therefore unnecessary and premature as the government intends

:25:39. > :25:42.to seek views. I will give way. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman

:25:43. > :25:45.forgiving way. I accept his points on this issue and his commitments

:25:46. > :25:54.and all the rest of it. Could you tell us whether it is what is not

:25:55. > :25:56.true that Home Office officials who accompanied the Prime Minister on

:25:57. > :26:04.her visit to India were openly talking to people about using the

:26:05. > :26:10.bronze element of the TF of reducing the migration numbers for students?

:26:11. > :26:14.Be visiting India, which I was honoured to be a part of, was a big

:26:15. > :26:19.success and gave us opportunities to reiterate our strong messages that

:26:20. > :26:23.we welcome genuine students and there is no limit on the number of

:26:24. > :26:28.students who can come and study at our institution. There's no better

:26:29. > :26:32.place than the UK to receive a higher education and we want is the

:26:33. > :26:38.dedicated students coming here. I thank him for giving way. I can

:26:39. > :26:47.assure him we archive on this issue but he could harm us further. --

:26:48. > :26:51.calm us further but could he explain what the Home Secretary meant in the

:26:52. > :26:54.context of his comments a few moments ago when he talked about the

:26:55. > :27:01.use of quality in relation to the Beazer system and in particular, I

:27:02. > :27:08.quote," looking at tougher rules for students on lower quality courses"

:27:09. > :27:11.what does that mean? High quality in the students are compliant

:27:12. > :27:15.institutions. We want compliance to be a strong feature of our system.

:27:16. > :27:19.It is important the sector does or it can to be compliant with Home

:27:20. > :27:26.Office regulations. The ability to bring students in Ontario for visas

:27:27. > :27:30.is a privilege, not a right. It comes with an obligation to ensure

:27:31. > :27:35.that students coming in here to his country to study the terms of their

:27:36. > :27:39.visas. The sector should welcome that because the sector wants a

:27:40. > :27:42.high-quality system of international study and the government will be

:27:43. > :27:47.bring forward a consultation paper in coming weeks that will enable

:27:48. > :27:50.everybody across the sector, including the honourable member, to

:27:51. > :27:53.contribute their views at how this can be best achieved. I will not

:27:54. > :28:00.give way on that point again because... I am grateful. The

:28:01. > :28:03.Minister talk about compliance. Why did the Home Secretary not talk

:28:04. > :28:07.about compliance? She talked about our was a student on lower quality

:28:08. > :28:11.causes. Nothing to do with compliance. What did she mean? --

:28:12. > :28:17.she did mention compliance in her speech. She mentioned compliance and

:28:18. > :28:19.quality was high-quality institutions are compliant

:28:20. > :28:29.institutions. Are then and the same. In relation to... I thank him for

:28:30. > :28:34.giving way. High-quality institutions could have poor quality

:28:35. > :28:40.courses within them. Institutions potentially could have a bronze

:28:41. > :28:45.rating could have high-quality courses within them for the paddle a

:28:46. > :28:48.distinction be made? I would urge the honourable member to wait for

:28:49. > :28:51.the conversation document as you will be able to assess the

:28:52. > :28:56.Governor's proposals in due course when the Home Office is ready to

:28:57. > :29:03.publish it. -- the government has macro proposals. I do not believe

:29:04. > :29:06.the content of these amendments is necessary or proportion. The

:29:07. > :29:12.development of the TF has been and will continue to be an iterative

:29:13. > :29:16.process as it was before it. Requiring Parliament to agree each

:29:17. > :29:19.and every change to the framework would stifle its healthy

:29:20. > :29:25.development. The RTF scheme is not the to this level of oversight by

:29:26. > :29:30.Parliament and emotionally it be. They also have touched on the

:29:31. > :29:34.descriptors, the gold, silver and bronze as if they were a sudden

:29:35. > :29:37.invention escarpment. These are descriptors that are both familiar

:29:38. > :29:44.to the sector because they are used in other areas of it. The technology

:29:45. > :29:47.is already used, for example, in certain awards and many universities

:29:48. > :29:52.for investors in people in each of these cases it is fully recognised

:29:53. > :29:58.that aid runs is still a high-quality award, whilst gold is

:29:59. > :30:15.reserved those of high quality -- recognised that a Franz is still a

:30:16. > :30:21.high-quality award -- a bronze. It would simply allow for a pass, fail

:30:22. > :30:25.assessment. The teaching excellence framework assesses over and above a

:30:26. > :30:28.baseline assessment of quality and our descriptors will allow students,

:30:29. > :30:33.parents, schools and employers to clear differentiate between

:30:34. > :30:40.providers. We have consulted on the metrics, proposed, considered the

:30:41. > :30:43.metrics put forward and we still think the metrics represent the best

:30:44. > :30:49.opportunity we have to assess teaching a widely used across the

:30:50. > :30:56.sector. Turning to amendment 50, we have consulted extensively on these

:30:57. > :30:59.metrics and made significant improvements. It would be

:31:00. > :31:03.unnecessarily burdensome to consult further and we will continue to take

:31:04. > :31:07.a reasoned approach to the metrics and giving the public later we

:31:08. > :31:12.approach I have described previously we expect the OFS to take a similar

:31:13. > :31:16.approach. Let me now address the point made on a degree awarding

:31:17. > :31:20.powers and university title. Let me be clear, only those providers that

:31:21. > :31:24.can prove they can meet the high standards associated with the values

:31:25. > :31:28.and reputation of the English higher education system can obtain degree

:31:29. > :31:31.awarding powers. In a higher education provider can demonstrate

:31:32. > :31:35.its ability to deliver high-quality provision, we want to make it easier

:31:36. > :31:38.for them to start awarding their own degrees, rather than needing to have

:31:39. > :31:44.the degree is what causes are awarded a competing incumbent. As

:31:45. > :31:48.the chief executive of University Alliance has said, these plans

:31:49. > :31:51.strike a healthy balance between protecting the quality and global

:31:52. > :31:56.reputation of our country's universities are also encouraging

:31:57. > :32:03.innovation. I am grateful to him for giving way. He may want to comment

:32:04. > :32:07.on clause four. Could he just tell us why the government is so

:32:08. > :32:12.reluctant to have a process which has served the higher education

:32:13. > :32:16.sector thousands 1992 Red Cross into the new arrangements for the OFS? I

:32:17. > :32:22.refer to the committee which we have that in the clause four. In relation

:32:23. > :32:27.to new clause four, we intend to keep the processes around the

:32:28. > :32:31.scrutiny of applications for degree awarding powers, would have worked

:32:32. > :32:34.reasonably well. Broadly as they are, that includes retaining an

:32:35. > :32:38.element of independent peer review for degree awarding powers

:32:39. > :32:42.applications. I said as much in the Bill committee. These processes are

:32:43. > :32:46.not currently set out in legislation to avoid tying them to a static

:32:47. > :32:51.process. We intend to keep it that way. We have published a technical

:32:52. > :32:55.note on market entry and quality assurance, which sets out more

:32:56. > :33:00.detail on how exactly the quality threshold will operate. Turning to

:33:01. > :33:04.new clause seven, our policy is that the degree awarding powers cannot be

:33:05. > :33:10.transferred or sold for commercial purposes and we do not see this

:33:11. > :33:14.changing. If the holder of a degree awarding powers were about a change

:33:15. > :33:17.of ownership or a complex group ownership changed, the provider

:33:18. > :33:21.would be expected to inform the OFS. They would be expected to

:33:22. > :33:24.demonstrate that they remain the same, cohesive academic community

:33:25. > :33:28.that was awarded degree awarding powers and that they continue to be

:33:29. > :33:33.the criteria for university title. We intend to consult on these

:33:34. > :33:38.detailed circumstances where degree awarding powers and university title

:33:39. > :33:41.might be revoked, including instances of changes of ownership.

:33:42. > :33:45.There is therefore no need for this new clause. Turning to amendments 30

:33:46. > :33:51.and 41, the OFS is already required under clause to to have the need to

:33:52. > :33:56.promote quality when carrying out its function. The OFS will have the

:33:57. > :34:00.guards to the need to promote quality when authorising providers

:34:01. > :34:03.to grant degrees. I can reassure members that we will, as now, ensure

:34:04. > :34:06.that the high standards that providers must meet in order to be

:34:07. > :34:13.able to make such awards are retained. One of the key criteria of

:34:14. > :34:16.obtaining degree awarding powers is the ability to set and maintain

:34:17. > :34:22.academic standards and we expect this to continue. As now, we want or

:34:23. > :34:25.criteria to set a high bar and we plan to set these out in

:34:26. > :34:30.departmental guidance, which the OFS must have regard to. These

:34:31. > :34:37.amendments are unnecessary. Thank you for giving way. I wonder if he

:34:38. > :34:45.can give the House some idea when this guidance might be available. We

:34:46. > :34:50.are planning to put out guidance on this in coming months and the

:34:51. > :34:54.honourable lady will be the first to receive it when it is ready. Turning

:34:55. > :34:58.now to amendments 58, we are committed to protecting the quality

:34:59. > :35:02.and reputation of our universities. We are not changing the core concept

:35:03. > :35:05.of what a university is and we're not planning any wide-ranging

:35:06. > :35:10.changes to the criteria of university title. As now, we only

:35:11. > :35:14.want those providers with all degree awarding powers to be eligible.

:35:15. > :35:18.While students may choose where to study, based on many factors, the

:35:19. > :35:21.example B qualifications they receive, but also the cultural and

:35:22. > :35:27.social opportunities, one size does not fit all the top as independent

:35:28. > :35:29.and autonomous institutions higher education providers are best placed

:35:30. > :35:34.to decide what experiences they want to offer to students and the local

:35:35. > :35:39.community. Like now, we intend to set out the details criteria and

:35:40. > :35:43.processes for gaining university title in guidance and not in

:35:44. > :35:52.legislation and we plan to consult on the detail of this prior to

:35:53. > :35:56.publication. We have had a number of interesting points made in this

:35:57. > :35:59.debate on this group. I would like to conclude by thanking honourable

:36:00. > :36:03.members for their responses to the amendments brought forward. To

:36:04. > :36:08.enshrine the OFS duty to monitor and report on financial stability,

:36:09. > :36:12.sustainability, to ensure there is an OFS board member to represent

:36:13. > :36:15.promote the student interest, to promote institutional autonomy

:36:16. > :36:23.further and to compile providers to publish student protection plans. I

:36:24. > :36:29.think he is coming to his end and I wonder if he's able to make any

:36:30. > :36:35.comment on our clause 15. I did touch on that at the start I

:36:36. > :36:40.believe. Honourable members opposite proposed a commission for lifelong

:36:41. > :36:45.learning in their new clause 15 and the government is obviously strongly

:36:46. > :36:48.committed to lifelong education. This is something that I and the

:36:49. > :36:52.Secretary of State for Education had taken a very close interest in.

:36:53. > :36:58.Studying part-time and later in life rings enormous benefits, both for

:36:59. > :37:01.individuals and employers as well as the general economy. Alongside our

:37:02. > :37:05.higher education reforms we are reforming bad education including

:37:06. > :37:09.incrementing the skills plan published earlier this year and

:37:10. > :37:12.including through the recent introduction of the technical and

:37:13. > :37:16.further education Bill, which had its second Reading last week I

:37:17. > :37:20.believe. The government committed in the last budget to review the gaps

:37:21. > :37:27.in support for lifetime learning, including part-time flexible study.

:37:28. > :37:29.That review is currently ongoing. Higher education already offers

:37:30. > :37:32.flexible options for the thousands of the jaw students each year who

:37:33. > :37:36.want to study in addition as much work underway to expand access to

:37:37. > :37:41.lifelong learning through a variety of routes to suit learners. I am

:37:42. > :37:44.confident these reforms as the others in this Bill will have a

:37:45. > :37:56.positive impact on lifelong learning or otherwise.

:37:57. > :38:25.I call where street to move. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful

:38:26. > :38:30.for the opportunity. Also to speak about new clauses in this particular

:38:31. > :38:33.concerning student finance. Millions of people across the UK have been

:38:34. > :38:37.mis-sold loans and will end up paying thousands of pounds more than

:38:38. > :38:42.expected as a result. The perpetrator of this mis-selling

:38:43. > :38:47.scandal is not an unscrupulous high street bank or a payday lender, it

:38:48. > :38:51.is in fact our own Government. The victims of this mis-selling scandal

:38:52. > :38:58.are current students and graduates who were mis-sold student loans on

:38:59. > :39:04.the basis of false promises. The fast majority of students,

:39:05. > :39:13.Government backed loans are an essential income revenue. Also to

:39:14. > :39:16.help with their studies, rising cost of accommodation, food, course

:39:17. > :39:19.materials and also the opportunity to make the most of their student

:39:20. > :39:26.experience. In England, students are able to take out attrition fees and

:39:27. > :39:31.an additional maintenance fees of up to pounds a year to cover their

:39:32. > :39:38.living costs. -- ?11,000. As a result of these changes, English

:39:39. > :39:40.students leave university with the highest amount of debt in the

:39:41. > :39:47.Western world. Grants for the poorest students, scandalously those

:39:48. > :39:51.from the low income households graduate the most indebted. It is a

:39:52. > :39:55.terrible inequity in the system and one I am glad to see the

:39:56. > :40:03.frontbencher addressing this afternoon. Many people will not have

:40:04. > :40:08.forgotten it is not in this house where it was taken, it is down the

:40:09. > :40:12.corridor and up the stairs, on the basis of a statutory instrument. It

:40:13. > :40:15.is not the way a Government should conduct major conditions around

:40:16. > :40:19.student finance. Students are fine and Mac families will solve these

:40:20. > :40:26.loans on a series of simple promises. They will only be repaid

:40:27. > :40:32.once they university. They will only be repaid once you start any more

:40:33. > :40:48.than ?21,000 a year. We will repay everything. The good news is that

:40:49. > :40:50.from April 2017,... The previous Chancellor's Autumn Statement was

:40:51. > :40:54.buried an announcement that the payment threshold will in fact be

:40:55. > :40:59.frozen at ?21,000. As a result, graduates will end up paying more

:41:00. > :41:03.each month and thousands of pounds more over the 30 year lifetime of

:41:04. > :41:07.their loans. Worst of all, this change will not just affect future

:41:08. > :41:12.students who can take a conscious decision to sign up to these we

:41:13. > :41:15.payment decisions, they will also affect thousands of existing

:41:16. > :41:20.students and graduates who took out their loans in good faith on the

:41:21. > :41:26.promise that the repayment threshold would increase from 2017. Not only

:41:27. > :41:33.will this retrospective change fly in the pace of good governance, it

:41:34. > :41:36.is also deeply regressive. It is estimated that half of graduates

:41:37. > :41:40.will not pay off their loans before they are written off by the

:41:41. > :41:48.Government. These are by definition the students who are... The richest

:41:49. > :41:57.graduates will be able to repay their debts more swiftly and a crew

:41:58. > :42:03.less interest. People are furious, money expert's Martin Lewis, in what

:42:04. > :42:05.was an astonishing performance in the evidence session to the Bill

:42:06. > :42:14.committee described the Government's decision to break it's and -- it's

:42:15. > :42:24.commitment to students is abominable. This change is made

:42:25. > :42:29.entirely permissible and reasonable. As Martin Lewis said, looking at

:42:30. > :42:34.students as consumers, if they had borrowed money from a commercial

:42:35. > :42:37.lender, the Financial Conduct Authority would have struck out in a

:42:38. > :42:41.second. The idea that five years after would have gone up from 21,000

:42:42. > :42:50.pounds later. The average earnings payment will be frozen. It is

:42:51. > :42:52.important to pay in mind that the Government's commitment to students

:42:53. > :42:58.and applicants was not just any marketing material of Government,

:42:59. > :43:01.those who understandably assume the commitments made by ministers would

:43:02. > :43:05.be lasting commitments, it was also written in black and white by the

:43:06. > :43:11.former higher education minister, now the Lord Willis. I have no doubt

:43:12. > :43:15.having worked with Lord Willits over the years that he made that

:43:16. > :43:19.undertaking in good faith. He could not have possibly known that a

:43:20. > :43:23.future Chancellor of a future Government would not only break that

:43:24. > :43:28.commitment, but would apply it retrospectively. The point is this,

:43:29. > :43:33.banks would not get away with this mis-selling on the scale and neither

:43:34. > :43:36.should our Government. That is why I have teamed up with Martin Lewis to

:43:37. > :43:40.put forward amendments to the bill this afternoon and I am delighted

:43:41. > :43:45.that the amendments have cross-party support that would stop ministers

:43:46. > :43:49.making retrospective changes to student loans that would be lies

:43:50. > :43:56.interesting students and graduates. New clause to would put in place and

:43:57. > :44:03.architecture through the... Independent advisers. They would

:44:04. > :44:10.retroactively make changes to student payments. Visit to the

:44:11. > :44:19.benefit of the majority of graduates? Does the Government

:44:20. > :44:23.believe that the case as a result of consultation? Has the Government

:44:24. > :44:28.made a case that this would be progressive in effect would help

:44:29. > :44:35.some of the most disadvantaged students or graduates? If it were

:44:36. > :44:41.the case, the graduate may be able to proceed. This house would not

:44:42. > :44:46.want the graduate to stop it from continuing. But it would do is

:44:47. > :44:54.prevent ministers behaving in the way that previous Chancellor did in

:44:55. > :44:55.making changes in the Autumn Statement and applied

:44:56. > :45:01.retrospectively after commitments had been made in faith. New clause

:45:02. > :45:05.three would also bring student loans within the scope of the Financial

:45:06. > :45:10.Conduct Authority. Clearly, in spite of an independent student loans

:45:11. > :45:18.company, ministers have still found ways of flouting it to the detriment

:45:19. > :45:27.of students and graduates which is appalling. Thank you Honourable

:45:28. > :45:32.friend for giving way. He is making a powerful case, does he think that

:45:33. > :45:38.in another context this behaviour could be described as fraudulent?

:45:39. > :45:46.Yes. I agree. This is why the student loan system should be

:45:47. > :45:54.brought in line with the financial conduct. Had a payday lender or a

:45:55. > :46:02.bank dealt in this way, there would be outrage here. There would be an

:46:03. > :46:08.investigation of the company, the Treasury would look into it. It

:46:09. > :46:14.seems as though the Chancellor can just make a decision in the Autumn

:46:15. > :46:20.Statement. This is fundamentally an issue of trust. What is to stop

:46:21. > :46:27.future governments from making changes further down line in terms

:46:28. > :46:36.of interest rates, repayment periods, thresholds? On that basis,

:46:37. > :46:40.how could current or prospective students know the promises made

:46:41. > :46:48.today be kept tomorrow? To be honest, for me this is personal.

:46:49. > :46:53.Very personal. Some years ago, I agreed with Martin Lewis from

:46:54. > :46:55.money-saving expert to work with the coalition Government on an

:46:56. > :47:02.independent task force of student finance information. Martin was

:47:03. > :47:06.obviously invited to do it because of his widespread reputation as one

:47:07. > :47:09.of the most trusted people in the country when it comes to financial

:47:10. > :47:15.advice on saving consumers money. It was felt quite rightly by Lord

:47:16. > :47:19.Willits that Martin would be an independent voice on these matters

:47:20. > :47:24.that people would trust. Martin in turn asked me to work with him as

:47:25. > :47:29.his deputy with agreement with Lord Willits because I had completed a

:47:30. > :47:36.turn at the National Union of Students. Decisions made by

:47:37. > :47:40.successive governments in student finance, I believed it was

:47:41. > :47:44.absolutely critical that whether or not I believed the student finance

:47:45. > :47:49.system was rightly designed, it would be appalling if a single

:47:50. > :47:55.student was deterred from applying to university on the basis of

:47:56. > :47:57.misunderstanding the information. If students of the information in

:47:58. > :48:01.student finance system and decide to make a different choice, a

:48:02. > :48:05.reasonable choice, that is for them. It would be a travesty if a single

:48:06. > :48:10.student was deterred on the basis of misunderstanding and missed

:48:11. > :48:15.information. We went round the country with schools and colleges

:48:16. > :48:21.and universities, in the media. We promoted the Government's system.

:48:22. > :48:26.Not in terms of its merits, but in terms of the facts behind the

:48:27. > :48:32.system. To serve what I thought was an important public duty and

:48:33. > :48:37.purpose. We were misled inadvertently, but we have also

:48:38. > :48:42.therefore misled students and graduates across the country. We

:48:43. > :48:48.told them the threshold would go up in line with earnings from April

:48:49. > :48:52.2000 and 17. That is what we were told by governments at the time.

:48:53. > :48:56.That is what students, teachers, parents, family members, advisers

:48:57. > :49:00.were also led to believe. I think the Government needs to reflect very

:49:01. > :49:06.carefully on what message it will send to each of those groups if

:49:07. > :49:08.future governments will come along and retrospectively change the

:49:09. > :49:14.system to suit the Treasury. It is a terrible precedent that undermines

:49:15. > :49:18.trust, not just in the student finance system, but trust in

:49:19. > :49:23.politics as a whole. We are not so far from a general election or

:49:24. > :49:30.indeed from a referendum campaign to know that trust in politics in this

:49:31. > :49:37.country is at rock bottom. People don't trust politics or politicians.

:49:38. > :49:41.My experience of misplaced, actually for our disagreements, I have great

:49:42. > :49:47.pride in our political system. The way it works. When it comes to

:49:48. > :49:52.decisions like these, I completely understand why politicians are held

:49:53. > :49:56.in such low regard. Too many occasions politicians have said one

:49:57. > :49:59.thing and another. Higher education and student finance in particular,

:50:00. > :50:06.politicians have said one thing and done another. On this particular

:50:07. > :50:10.student finance system, it seems to me that since the coalition put

:50:11. > :50:13.their reforms through, with cross-party agreement and to be fair

:50:14. > :50:19.to them some concessions given to the liberal Democrats in Government,

:50:20. > :50:22.every single one of those concessions are being undone.

:50:23. > :50:29.Student grants have been scrapped. The emphasis on participation in the

:50:30. > :50:35.number of respect is now weaker. Now we find that many of the actual

:50:36. > :50:41.repayment conditions that the former Deputy Prime Minister would argue

:50:42. > :50:46.with some of the more progressive elements, those are also being

:50:47. > :50:51.undone. This is an issue about trust in the student finance system, but

:50:52. > :50:55.is also fundamentally about trust in politics as a whole. Martin Lewis

:50:56. > :51:00.has said if you sign a contract, both sides should keep to it. If you

:51:01. > :51:04.advertise a loan, the lenders should be held to the terms it was sold

:51:05. > :51:09.under. I think it is a total disgrace, but although the UK is

:51:10. > :51:15.widely regarded around the world for its excellent rules, there seems to

:51:16. > :51:19.be one exception which is student loan contracts. That is why I hope

:51:20. > :51:24.that this week the new Chancellor will take the opportunity before

:51:25. > :51:29.this change kicks in to reverse the decision in his Autumn Statement. It

:51:30. > :51:32.would go some way in the part of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to

:51:33. > :51:39.rebuilding trust in politics. I would also urge the Government to

:51:40. > :51:43.support new clause two, new clause three and new clause six which would

:51:44. > :51:49.make sure that no Government could be tempted to behave in this way

:51:50. > :51:53.again. It is scandalous, it is unjustifiable and it sets a very

:51:54. > :51:59.dangerous precedent. That is why I hope that we will see some progress

:52:00. > :52:13.on this today. The question is that new clause to... Sorry. New clause

:52:14. > :52:17.to, student support. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Women reformed

:52:18. > :52:29.student speaker in 2011, we put in place a system that fact when we. --

:52:30. > :52:37.when we.... ?31 billion by 2017, 2018. It is vital to our future and

:52:38. > :52:39.economic success that it remain sustainably funded. Lastly, the

:52:40. > :52:45.Leader of the Opposition announced that he was keen to scrap tuition

:52:46. > :52:48.fees. Senior Labour figures have criticised the saying it is not a

:52:49. > :52:53.credible promise to make. Lord Mandelson noting that Labour had to

:52:54. > :52:56.be honest about the cost of providing higher education. Of

:52:57. > :52:59.course, it was not just Lord Mandelson. The former Shadow

:53:00. > :53:07.Chancellor, Ed balls, went further when he noted that this party's

:53:08. > :53:13.failure was a blot on Labour's copybook. The opposition need to

:53:14. > :53:16.explain how they would fund their alternatives. The Labour Party

:53:17. > :53:21.themselves has said that scrapping tuition fees and restoring

:53:22. > :53:26.maintenance grants would cost ?10 billion. At a conservative estimate,

:53:27. > :53:30.this would cost ?40 billion over a five-year parliament. Not allowing

:53:31. > :53:36.high quality institutions to increase their fees by inflation

:53:37. > :53:40.would differ Glik be ?3 billion. The party opposite would like to go

:53:41. > :53:45.further still, increasing the repayment threshold for post-2012

:53:46. > :53:47.June loans by average earnings would cost over ?6 billion in the end of

:53:48. > :53:58.this Parliament. opinion say where is all this money

:53:59. > :54:01.going to come from? By contrast, the OECD has praised our student loan

:54:02. > :54:06.system that this government has introduced in England as that of the

:54:07. > :54:09.one of the countries in the world to have figured out a sustainable

:54:10. > :54:16.approach to higher education finance. PS talking about

:54:17. > :54:20.affordability and sustainability systems so wouldn't even knowledge

:54:21. > :54:25.that when the proposals to change the student funding system were put

:54:26. > :54:35.to this house in 2012 it was on the understanding from his predecessor

:54:36. > :54:43.that the uncollectible level of student debt would be at around 28%.

:54:44. > :54:47.That prediction was rubbished by many experts within the sector and

:54:48. > :54:51.indeed from these benches and gradually, over the lifetime of the

:54:52. > :54:54.parliament, it went up into the 30s and 40s to a point where it became

:54:55. > :54:57.unsustainable and it was for that reason that the unsustainability of

:54:58. > :55:02.the system that the government created with dealt with by then

:55:03. > :55:07.imposing that burden back on the students by burying the charges and

:55:08. > :55:14.burying the deal on student loans my honourable friend has described. I

:55:15. > :55:18.just want to point out that the estimations of the charge are still

:55:19. > :55:22.in that ballpark with current estimates of the charge being

:55:23. > :55:27.between 20 and 25%, so not substantially different. Turning to

:55:28. > :55:31.New Clause two, the honourable member has suggested an independent

:55:32. > :55:35.panel should approve any changes to terms and conditions to student

:55:36. > :55:40.loans but the key terms and conditions government repayment of

:55:41. > :55:45.loans as set out under section 22 of the teaching and higher Education

:55:46. > :55:48.Act, the repayment aviators are subject to scrutiny under the

:55:49. > :55:52.negative procedure, which allows parliament called a debate on any

:55:53. > :55:56.amendments. It is right that Parliament, rather than an unelected

:55:57. > :56:02.panel, should continue to have the final say on the loan terms and

:56:03. > :56:06.conditions. I am grateful to the Minister for giving I anticipated he

:56:07. > :56:09.would make the point about the terms and conditions, which is why I is a

:56:10. > :56:15.destitute loans should be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

:56:16. > :56:18.The sad truth is I agree with him, as New Clause six suggests, it

:56:19. > :56:23.should be members of both houses that have a role in shaping this,

:56:24. > :56:25.but clearly ministers, whether in the Treasury Department for

:56:26. > :56:29.Education, has shown they cannot be trusted to hold to their word. That

:56:30. > :56:35.is why the amendment has been put forward. The honourable member

:56:36. > :56:39.mentions the Financial Conduct Authority and I just remind him that

:56:40. > :56:43.it was under the last Labour government that Parliament was

:56:44. > :56:47.invited to confirm, as it did, that student loans were exempt from

:56:48. > :56:53.regulation under the consumer credit act when the then Labour government

:56:54. > :56:55.passed the sale of student loans at, say the honourable member should

:56:56. > :57:01.look back at his own party's record on this issue. Turning to New Clause

:57:02. > :57:05.three, which proposes student loans should be regulated at the Financial

:57:06. > :57:11.Conduct Authority, I share his desire to ensure that students are

:57:12. > :57:16.protected but student loans are not like the loans regulated by the SCA.

:57:17. > :57:19.They are not run for profit and they are available to all, irrespective

:57:20. > :57:22.of their financial history. Repayment depend on income and the

:57:23. > :57:27.interest rate charged is limited by legislation. The loans are written

:57:28. > :57:31.off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower. That is why lenders

:57:32. > :57:38.are collated by the FPA are obliged to assess all of them are worth and

:57:39. > :57:43.the affordability and suitability of the loan product of each borrower.

:57:44. > :57:49.By the F C 80 regulation loans this could affect the ability of some

:57:50. > :57:55.students to obtain them. I am grateful to him for giving way. It

:57:56. > :57:58.would be perfectly possible for them to regulate within the scope of the

:57:59. > :58:01.student finance system. He has talked about the suitability of

:58:02. > :58:06.borrowers. I am talking about the suitability of lenders to keep to

:58:07. > :58:08.their word. I am not asking the FCA the reggae students I am asking them

:58:09. > :58:16.to regulate ministers who cannot be trusted. -- to regulate students.

:58:17. > :58:20.Key terms set out in legislation. It is law that binds us. We are subject

:58:21. > :58:27.to scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. FCA legislation is

:58:28. > :58:30.unnecessary. Our system allows the government three subsidised loans to

:58:31. > :58:33.make a conscious investment in the skills base of our country. I would

:58:34. > :58:39.have thought members opposite would welcome that. I tend now to New

:58:40. > :58:44.Clause five, which would revoke the 2015 student support regulations.

:58:45. > :58:47.These regulations replaced maintenance grants and loans, which

:58:48. > :58:52.increased support for students on below listing comes by over 10%.

:58:53. > :58:55.Breaking these regulations would reduce the support available for

:58:56. > :59:00.students from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds while

:59:01. > :59:02.costing the taxpayer over ?2.5 billion per year. Opposition

:59:03. > :59:06.scaremongering about this policy risks deterring students from

:59:07. > :59:11.attending university. The sustainable system we have put in

:59:12. > :59:15.place has enabled us to remove the cap on student numbers and offer

:59:16. > :59:19.more support for living costs than ever before. I tend now to new

:59:20. > :59:22.clauses six and ten, which would require the repayment threshold for

:59:23. > :59:27.income contingent student loans to increase in line with either

:59:28. > :59:31.earnings or prices. Loan repayments continue to be based on the ability

:59:32. > :59:37.to pay and graduate earning less than ?21,000 were not affected by

:59:38. > :59:40.the threshold free. If you benefit from that university education you

:59:41. > :59:44.are likely going to add more than taxpayers who don't go to

:59:45. > :59:49.university, so it is only fair that graduates should contribute to the

:59:50. > :59:51.cost of their education. Operating the repayment threshold for income

:59:52. > :59:57.contingent student loans as New Clause six proposes would cost ?5

:59:58. > :00:00.billion in the first year due to a reduction in the value of the loan

:00:01. > :00:11.book. Thereafter, it would increase the reasons and budgeting charge by

:00:12. > :00:19.about 7%. -- the resort and budgeting charge. Is that ?5 billion

:00:20. > :00:23.annual running costs? That is the crews in the capital value of the

:00:24. > :00:27.loan book. The cost of upgrading as a New Clause ten proposes would be

:00:28. > :00:31.less but still significant. These costs would need to be paid for by

:00:32. > :00:35.the taxpayers, many of whom would be any less than the graduates who

:00:36. > :00:39.benefit from the threshold increase. I tend now to New Clause ten, which

:00:40. > :00:43.relates to access to support for students recognise as needing

:00:44. > :00:50.protection. This is an important issue raised by the member for

:00:51. > :00:53.separate central. We have discussed this with regard to student support

:00:54. > :00:57.regulations. I am pleased to say that you come to this country and

:00:58. > :01:00.obtain international protection already able to access student

:01:01. > :01:03.support. Our regulations have for some time include provision for

:01:04. > :01:09.those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and their

:01:10. > :01:14.family members. Those persons entering the UK under the Syrian

:01:15. > :01:18.relocation scheme are granted humanitarian protection and are

:01:19. > :01:21.eligible, like UK national scholar to obtain student support and home

:01:22. > :01:26.of the status after only three years of residence in the UK. Persons on

:01:27. > :01:29.the programme are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they

:01:30. > :01:34.consider they meet the criteria. Those with refugee status are

:01:35. > :01:39.uniquely allowed to access student support immediately, privilege not

:01:40. > :01:41.afforded to UK nationals or those granted other forms of leave. There

:01:42. > :01:47.is distinction in international law between such status and those in

:01:48. > :01:50.need of humanitarian protection. Recently, the Supreme Court upheld

:01:51. > :01:54.the government's policy of requiring most persons, including UK citizens,

:01:55. > :01:58.to be lawfully resident in the UK for at least three years immediately

:01:59. > :02:02.prior to starting their course in order to be eligible for student

:02:03. > :02:05.support. This amendment would allow people who may subsequently be

:02:06. > :02:10.required to leave the country to access taxpayer funding for the

:02:11. > :02:15.study. Mr Speaker, the last group includes technical government

:02:16. > :02:18.amendments related to alternative student finance and unless

:02:19. > :02:22.honourable members are interested then I will move onto my conclusion.

:02:23. > :02:26.But government is committed to a sustainable and fair student funding

:02:27. > :02:30.system. We are seeing more people going to university than ever before

:02:31. > :02:32.and record numbers of students on disadvantaged backgrounds. Our

:02:33. > :02:36.funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and

:02:37. > :02:40.with it, the cap on aspiration are represented. I hope the opposition

:02:41. > :02:43.can see that their amendments can be withdrawn that the student funding

:02:44. > :02:53.regime would remain sustainable, working in the best interests of

:02:54. > :02:56.students and taxpayers. I rise to speak to New Clause eight, which the

:02:57. > :03:08.Minister has briefly addressed, although I think his anticipation of

:03:09. > :03:13.this clause understates and misrepresents the actual position.

:03:14. > :03:16.Let me explain. New Clause eight, on which I think there is support on

:03:17. > :03:20.both sides of the House and I think there was some discomfort on the

:03:21. > :03:27.government benches in committee when it was voted down. New Clause eight

:03:28. > :03:31.would allow all refugees resettled the UK, as well as young people

:03:32. > :03:37.having made an application for asylum granted a form of leave other

:03:38. > :03:41.than refugee status, to access student finance and home bees and it

:03:42. > :03:46.would be of particular benefit to Syrian refugees being resettled to

:03:47. > :03:50.the UK through the government's policy. It is perhaps not surprising

:03:51. > :03:57.there is support for it on both sides of the House. Only small

:03:58. > :04:00.numbers are going to be affected but as those of us who have dealt with

:04:01. > :04:08.such cases will know, this will have a huge impact for the individuals.

:04:09. > :04:14.So, let me explain the context. Currently, individuals with refugee

:04:15. > :04:18.status are able to access student finance and qualify for home fees

:04:19. > :04:22.status from the moment that they are awarded their protection and that is

:04:23. > :04:26.where the minister was being economical with the truth in his

:04:27. > :04:32.anticipation and comments about this amendment. Because, those with a

:04:33. > :04:36.slightly different status, that of humanitarian protection, are treated

:04:37. > :04:39.differently. Those with humanitarian protection have to be able to show

:04:40. > :04:43.that they have been ordinarily resident for at least three years at

:04:44. > :04:49.the start of the academic year in order to receive financial support.

:04:50. > :04:53.Now, the group most affected by this different definition are those

:04:54. > :04:56.Syrian refugees currently being resettled to the UK under the

:04:57. > :05:01.vulnerable persons resettlement programme as these refugees aren't

:05:02. > :05:07.granted refugee status at humanitarian protection. The result

:05:08. > :05:12.of the current position is that a young Syrian refugee who arrives in

:05:13. > :05:15.the UK today would not qualify for student finance until the start of

:05:16. > :05:22.the academic year 2020. Now, the only exception to this is if they

:05:23. > :05:28.are resettled to Scotland. It the Scottish Government and I commend

:05:29. > :05:34.them for it, had introduced a special fee status of resettled

:05:35. > :05:41.Syrians, allowing them immediate access to student finance. Now, sub

:05:42. > :05:48.clause to a of New Clause eight would ensure that all resettled

:05:49. > :05:52.refugees, no matter what status they are given and no matter where they

:05:53. > :05:57.live in the UK, would be able to access student support immediately.

:05:58. > :06:01.Sub-clause two B would make student finance available to those who are

:06:02. > :06:07.granted the Unitarian protection after making an application for

:06:08. > :06:09.asylum. Now, as set out in immigration rules, Unitarian

:06:10. > :06:14.protection is granted to people who face a real risk of suffering harm

:06:15. > :06:19.if they were to return to their home country. -- humanitarian detection.

:06:20. > :06:29.These include risk of the death penalty, torture, inhumane treatment

:06:30. > :06:33.or armed conflict. The future of those people granted humanitarian

:06:34. > :06:39.protection after applying for asylum is clearly in the UK. In the future

:06:40. > :06:42.is here they should be enabled to build their lives. They should be

:06:43. > :06:48.allowed access university education, not simply to build their lives but

:06:49. > :06:52.to fully contributed our society. Sub-clause two B would also provide

:06:53. > :06:55.access to student finance and home fees status to people have applied

:06:56. > :06:59.for asylum and have been granted and other form of immigration league.

:07:00. > :07:03.Again, in these cases, the government have accepted the

:07:04. > :07:06.immediate future of these individuals is in the UK and so they

:07:07. > :07:11.should be given every opportunity to contribute and develop and yet, they

:07:12. > :07:17.currently face significant hurdles in doing so. The reason is because

:07:18. > :07:22.in 2012 the last government changed the rules, so the potential

:07:23. > :07:26.university students in this situation could no longer access

:07:27. > :07:30.student finance and would also be reclassified as international

:07:31. > :07:36.students. This meant that they would also face higher fees.

:07:37. > :07:41.Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court found that these rules of the

:07:42. > :07:47.government were discriminatory. I realise the government has not been

:07:48. > :07:55.doing well in the courts recently! This is a slightly earlier case. As

:07:56. > :07:57.a result of the Supreme Court ruling against the government, the

:07:58. > :08:02.government changed the rules and introduced a new criteria of long

:08:03. > :08:07.residents. What that means is prolonged people -- young people who

:08:08. > :08:11.have gone through the asylum process, including those who have

:08:12. > :08:14.arrived at unaccompanied asylum seeking children are unlikely to

:08:15. > :08:17.meet the long residency criteria and they were they will have to watch

:08:18. > :08:28.their parents go off to university, leaving them behind.

:08:29. > :08:33.Have a constituent in just this position. He went through school,

:08:34. > :08:40.did very well, ready to go to university. At the university place

:08:41. > :08:43.a cure, will was told they had not yet met the residency requirement.

:08:44. > :08:46.They had to wait another year or two waiting for it. A waste of their

:08:47. > :08:53.time and potential. A waste of everybody's time. This is the

:08:54. > :08:59.reverse situation, isn't it? He's absolutely right. Not only a waste

:09:00. > :09:03.for the individual, that society cutting off it's noticed by a's

:09:04. > :09:10.phase. It is a waste of potential for all of to benefit that person's

:09:11. > :09:13.higher education. New clause 12 is not about creating special

:09:14. > :09:19.circumstances for refugees, the minister falsely contrasted the

:09:20. > :09:25.position of refugees committeeman at her in protection and UK students.

:09:26. > :09:30.It is not about creating special circumstances refugees and other

:09:31. > :09:33.people arriving in the UK seeking asylum, it is about removing the

:09:34. > :09:37.existing barriers and preventing young people who came to the UK

:09:38. > :09:49.seeking protection who are capable of going to University. I would urge

:09:50. > :09:55.to think again. I rise to add a footnote to clause ten. I figured as

:09:56. > :10:02.possible that other people can't say in the room. Liberal Democrats

:10:03. > :10:07.hesitates in to talk about university fees. I am no particular

:10:08. > :10:16.embarrassment. I voted against top-up fees under Labour, and voted

:10:17. > :10:21.against things in the coalition. Take-up in both cases elite Mac

:10:22. > :10:27.haters went through. I was though unfortunately right in my idea of

:10:28. > :10:31.political consequences of breaking our contract with the political

:10:32. > :10:34.electorate. I believe we were tricked into it by a very clever

:10:35. > :10:41.Chancellor and it involved very little say of what we supposed at

:10:42. > :10:51.the time. It was in fact a very painful process. The member who

:10:52. > :10:59.introduced the secretary said it would mean there would be

:11:00. > :11:05.concessions the Liberal Democrats. So, the policy is quite clearly

:11:06. > :11:09.worsened and we have currently is nothing short of a scandal with the

:11:10. > :11:14.raising of the threshold. The contract has been broken. A

:11:15. > :11:20.one-sided redefinition of the terms of the loan and any other context as

:11:21. > :11:27.Martin Lewis is quite correctly said, this would lead to legal

:11:28. > :11:33.action. It is not possible because of the small print which as far as

:11:34. > :11:49.most undergraduates are concerned is very small indeed. Clause ten is to

:11:50. > :11:55.be avoid repeating this by a minimum level of burden and adjusting it in

:11:56. > :11:57.a rational way. It avoids expectation, it avoids

:11:58. > :12:01.misunderstanding and it avoids what the honourable member mentioned

:12:02. > :12:16.briefly, the lack of trusts. It is absolutely crucial. That surely is

:12:17. > :12:29.the way to go. Thank you. I rise to speak to our amendment new clause

:12:30. > :12:37.six. I rise to speak to talk about new clause five which would revoke

:12:38. > :12:42.the education of 2015 which moved support for students and also to

:12:43. > :12:46.speak on the amendment of new clause six which follows the excellent

:12:47. > :12:58.speech that my honourable friend, member for Ilford, north made on new

:12:59. > :13:01.clauses two and three. At a time when the Government's own social

:13:02. > :13:06.mobility commission only last week has reported that our nation is

:13:07. > :13:10.facing a crisis in social mobility, it is a travesty that I have to

:13:11. > :13:15.stand here today to talk about the problems caused by them scrapping

:13:16. > :13:19.maintenance grants and replacing them with a further loan which we

:13:20. > :13:23.know will disproportionately affect those students coming from a low

:13:24. > :13:28.income background. As this house notes, the students in the UK

:13:29. > :13:32.already faced the highest levels of student debt across any European

:13:33. > :13:37.country. Figures from the IFF 's show that the average student in the

:13:38. > :13:42.UK will leave university saddled with ?44,000 worth of debt. The

:13:43. > :13:47.Sutton Institute and the Sutton trust have suggested that trust will

:13:48. > :13:52.go even higher. This is the average. We know that from low-income

:13:53. > :13:59.backgrounds students. These changes will have consequently made it even

:14:00. > :14:03.higher. On this side of this house, we have pledged to bring back the

:14:04. > :14:08.maintenance grant. My honourable friend underlined that in the

:14:09. > :14:11.committee of this bill and recent commitment of the Labour Party's

:14:12. > :14:16.Northwest conference there was powerful testimony for why we are

:14:17. > :14:20.doing that. It is not simply because we can't afford to lose those people

:14:21. > :14:27.from our economic process, it is not simply because it will help to aid

:14:28. > :14:30.social mobility generally. It is because by doing so we will

:14:31. > :14:35.literally empower hundreds of thousands of people who will

:14:36. > :14:40.otherwise lose their life chances or endanger their chances of losing

:14:41. > :14:46.their life chances under this process. The number of students in

:14:47. > :14:54.that last year before the Government scrapped the grant was half --

:14:55. > :15:01.500,000. Many came from higher education and further education. If

:15:02. > :15:05.we lose those students are a significant number of those students

:15:06. > :15:11.because they do not take out those loans because they do not want to

:15:12. > :15:15.not able to. We will be weakening still further the progressive

:15:16. > :15:22.weakening this Government has put onto the higher education or FT

:15:23. > :15:24.sector. The moment, some 34,000 students Ashley got backgrounds in

:15:25. > :15:31.the last year before the Government scrapped it. Including, a

:15:32. > :15:38.significant number of people in my own constituency pursuing higher

:15:39. > :15:44.education at the excellent Blackpool College. I would just say to the

:15:45. > :15:52.Minister that there is something rather bizarre about having a bill,

:15:53. > :15:58.the higher education Bill, where they have now put into that

:15:59. > :16:06.legislation the ability for F E colleges to have their own paths. It

:16:07. > :16:12.is perverse to do that and then introduce something which will

:16:13. > :16:17.weaken the lake of support for colleges like that. I do not think

:16:18. > :16:22.the Government thinks in holistic terms about further education. If

:16:23. > :16:25.you take people out of the higher education equation in further

:16:26. > :16:29.education colleges, that is going to weaken the economic and social base

:16:30. > :16:33.of those further education colleges. It is something that the Government

:16:34. > :16:43.doesn't give anywhere near enough attention to. Could the honourable

:16:44. > :16:47.gentleman just allude to howl the Labour Party are intending to pay

:16:48. > :16:55.for all these benefits? I think I am right in saying that it was by a

:16:56. > :16:59.corporation tax. The honourable Lady must be a mind reader. I'm coming

:17:00. > :17:04.that issue. Bringing back the maintenance grant will help over

:17:05. > :17:09.500,000 students from lower and middle income backgrounds to go into

:17:10. > :17:13.higher education. Has it that the Autumn Statement the Chancellor is

:17:14. > :17:17.set to announce a further cut in corporation tax, helping only those

:17:18. > :17:20.at the top. We are asking the Government to reconsider this

:17:21. > :17:24.position. The policy that we are putting forward which has been

:17:25. > :17:29.costed to bring back grants would be the equivalent to less than a 1%

:17:30. > :17:35.rise in corporation tax. Does the Government really believes that this

:17:36. > :17:43.rise would be more beneficial to this country as a whole? We have not

:17:44. > :17:50.got lots of you cannot interject. Rather than a policy that only

:17:51. > :17:56.benefit is a relatively small number of large corporations and not even

:17:57. > :17:59.the big range. If the Government is serious about supporting social

:18:00. > :18:11.mobility, they need to do something actually about it. The Minister has

:18:12. > :18:14.gone on about how all these things, terrible things that were predicted

:18:15. > :18:18.when the introduction of loans would come in, would not come to pass.

:18:19. > :18:22.That is actually not true. Certainly not across the board. We have seen

:18:23. > :18:29.what a disaster the introduction of advanced learning loans for over

:18:30. > :18:33.24-year-olds. Only 50% of ?300 million that was allocated to them

:18:34. > :18:38.has been taken up. That money has been sent straight back to the

:18:39. > :18:42.Treasury. Now unabashed they want to serve up the same recipe to 19 to

:18:43. > :18:45.24-year-olds. I would say to the Minister that it is possible to

:18:46. > :18:49.nudge people will stop I know nudge has been a fashionable phrase in the

:18:50. > :18:54.Conservative Party in recent years and indeed the Lord Willets wrote

:18:55. > :18:57.quite a lot about it, it is also possible to nudge people away from

:18:58. > :19:01.things as well as towards them. I note that all of the groups you

:19:02. > :19:05.desperately need higher education access, women, disabled people,

:19:06. > :19:10.people from the black and minority ethnic communities, care leavers and

:19:11. > :19:13.for all of those people equality impact assessment as the Minister

:19:14. > :19:17.well knows on grants and loans let out of the bag the difficulties that

:19:18. > :19:21.they would have. No wonder ministers were so keen to bury this issue and

:19:22. > :19:27.delegated a Legislation committee. It took our efforts and bring it to

:19:28. > :19:31.an opposition day to have a decent debate on it. So, I would say to the

:19:32. > :19:36.Government that you need to think again in this particular area and I

:19:37. > :19:45.want to give notice that we will be pressing for a vote on the new

:19:46. > :19:49.clause five. Thank you very much. I am very grateful to the honourable

:19:50. > :19:53.gentleman. How can he then explained that the figures to cover the 12

:19:54. > :19:58.billion actually come out at a rise between four and 5% on corporation

:19:59. > :20:02.tax rather than the 1% that he just stated? Surely, isn't it the case

:20:03. > :20:08.that we need business and industry to be making money in order to

:20:09. > :20:13.service the jobs and have the opportunities for students once they

:20:14. > :20:21.leave? A lot more than two seconds, I will forgive the honourable Lady.

:20:22. > :20:24.We need to move on to close six. We need to look at this particular

:20:25. > :20:28.issue in the context of the proposal that we have made and that I've

:20:29. > :20:34.already alluded to. Let me move on to speak about new clause six. This

:20:35. > :20:38.is yet another regressive policy to have come and to have been

:20:39. > :20:46.highlighted in the course of this bill. We have already talked already

:20:47. > :20:49.about significant issues that area. The students will in turn end up

:20:50. > :20:54.having to pay back more than they loaned as a greater proportion of

:20:55. > :20:58.there. Those who have, more would be given because they can pay those

:20:59. > :21:02.back more speedily. Those who have not, more will be taken. The

:21:03. > :21:09.Government seems to be disregarding this fact in their education policy.

:21:10. > :21:13.There is a reason this is mentioned, to death a demographic dimension to

:21:14. > :21:24.this as well. -- demographic dimension. In the last 12 months,

:21:25. > :21:31.the ability to hit a threshold which was supposed to be upgraded on a

:21:32. > :21:36.regular basis, was more reasonable. Students in part of a country where

:21:37. > :21:39.starting incomes for graduates are much lower than in London and the

:21:40. > :21:45.south-east will be particularly badly hit by this particular

:21:46. > :21:50.proposal. Would he accept that the point he is making, students are hit

:21:51. > :21:54.particularly in cases like Northern Ireland where starting salaries are

:21:55. > :21:59.much lower? Woody also accept that the point that the Minister has made

:22:00. > :22:04.about the affordability of this is really a red herring. When the loans

:22:05. > :22:06.were sold to the students, surely that was taken into consideration?

:22:07. > :22:11.What was the cost of raising the threshold speed? The Government

:22:12. > :22:17.can't now go back and save you want to rewrite the rules. He is

:22:18. > :22:23.absolutely right. B is right to make the point about the situation for

:22:24. > :22:27.students in Northern Ireland. When we discussed this matter in the

:22:28. > :22:32.opposition day debate and again in the committee, we made the point

:22:33. > :22:37.that both students in Northern Ireland and students in Wales and

:22:38. > :22:40.students in Scotland all of the devolved administrations, their

:22:41. > :22:46.students would be affected by this process. It is a nonsense for the

:22:47. > :22:54.Government to say that this is not going to make any difference. The

:22:55. > :22:59.Minister for Sheffield Central saying that it was now OK, as I

:23:00. > :23:03.said, it is only OK because this Government and that Minister and the

:23:04. > :23:07.rest of his colleagues have created this Frankenstein's monster which is

:23:08. > :23:15.going to create new problems for so many thousands of students. Irony

:23:16. > :23:18.don't think I can better be powerful speech that Martin Lewis gave to the

:23:19. > :23:19.committee on that occasion when it came to give evidence to the

:23:20. > :23:27.committee. The minister may feel this New

:23:28. > :23:31.Clause is unnecessary because the government would never go back on

:23:32. > :23:33.their promises to students, never change the terms of the loan

:23:34. > :23:41.agreement, but unfortunately they have done it once. We would prefer

:23:42. > :23:45.to see this look at properly by government in both houses of

:23:46. > :23:49.parliament and so that is why we want the government to respond to

:23:50. > :23:54.New Clause six. If my honourable friend, the member for Ilford North,

:23:55. > :23:59.pushes he's amendments to a vote, we will support him in it. We give the

:24:00. > :24:03.government warning, whatever the result of the vote tonight, this

:24:04. > :24:08.subject will get an airing and a strong bearing, I am sure, in the

:24:09. > :24:17.House of lords because it is economically, morally, and socially

:24:18. > :24:20.indefensible. The question is that New Clause two B read a second time.

:24:21. > :24:22.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Of the

:24:23. > :26:08.contrary no. Clear the lobby. Order. The question is that New

:26:09. > :26:10.Clause two be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion, say

:26:11. > :26:18."aye". To the contrary, "no". Of the contrary no. Tell us for the noes,

:26:19. > :37:26.Mark Spencer and Jackie all price. Order. Order. The ayes to the right,

:37:27. > :37:37.180. The noes to the left, 278. The ayes 180. The noes to the left, 278.

:37:38. > :37:46.The noes habit. The noes habit. Mr Gordon Marsden of New Clause five

:37:47. > :37:50.formally. The question is that New Clause five be read a second time.

:37:51. > :37:54.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no"..

:37:55. > :39:31.Division. Clear the lobby. Order! The question is the new

:39:32. > :39:41.clause five be read a second time. As many of that opinion say aye. On

:39:42. > :39:43.the contrary no. Tellers for the eye, Vicky Foxcroft are marked with.

:39:44. > :51:25.Tellers for the noes. Order! Order. The aye 181, the HE

:51:26. > :51:34.three 200 and sent it. The iMac to the right 181, the no Mac to the

:51:35. > :51:44.left, the no Mac habit. The Na habit. We now come to the third

:51:45. > :51:47.group and the new clause to 11. We will consider the new clause group

:51:48. > :51:57.together on the selection paper. Doctor John Pugh to move. It might

:51:58. > :52:00.be helpful at this time if I spoke about what actually new clause 11

:52:01. > :52:05.says. So we know what we are speaking about. It says within six

:52:06. > :52:17.months of this act coming into force, and thereafter, we will talk

:52:18. > :52:21.about the EU and non-EU specialist employees in higher education. It

:52:22. > :52:30.contains the critical clause, three, which says that should any report

:52:31. > :52:32.have a deep freeze the number of international employees, the

:52:33. > :52:42.Secretary of State must make an assessment of the impact of such a

:52:43. > :52:50.reduction on UK are I way of making and... We accept post Brexit that

:52:51. > :52:55.research funding have a major anxiety because while we are in the

:52:56. > :53:03.U, there is a huge net benefit to the UK. In cash terms in personal

:53:04. > :53:07.terms, in all terms. Key subjects like science and medicine. I think

:53:08. > :53:12.the Government is doing their best to pour oil on troubled waters with

:53:13. > :53:17.various reassuring mantras, no change yet. We know that. There is

:53:18. > :53:19.going to be vigilance in what the EU are too, so they don't cut as other

:53:20. > :53:32.projects we want to be involved in. There are hopes of continuity and of

:53:33. > :53:40.course there is always the prospect yawned the EU. Sadly, none of this

:53:41. > :53:44.is working well. -- prospects beyond the. Anxiety among university is as

:53:45. > :53:49.emphatic as it was to begin with because it is not just about money,

:53:50. > :53:54.it is about people and that is what this amendment is principally about.

:53:55. > :53:58.In some universities, the number of foreign nationals actually working

:53:59. > :54:04.as lecturers and specialist employees is as high as 30% and that

:54:05. > :54:10.contrasts markedly void example with French universities and many other

:54:11. > :54:14.continental universities. It is a feature of the British universities

:54:15. > :54:20.which makes it very different and desirable. Now, recognising that

:54:21. > :54:23.universities are worried about this, we asked by this and I asked Vice

:54:24. > :54:29.Chancellor Chancellor through a survey exactly what the use they

:54:30. > :54:33.have and how concerned they are. I am happy to share the full results

:54:34. > :54:38.with any member who expresses an interest. We asked them, "Are you

:54:39. > :54:42.worried about the certainty of research grants could have a

:54:43. > :54:51.negative impact on standards at UK universities. " 73% said yes. We

:54:52. > :54:54.asked them, "Do you agree it is necessary to agree free movement

:54:55. > :55:02.between the UK and EU to protect research funding? The right to

:55:03. > :55:09.reside and the work of staff and the right of all UK and EU students to

:55:10. > :55:17.study in the EU? " The answer to that was, 83%, yes, they think three

:55:18. > :55:22.movement is crucial. In the process of conducting the survey I got a

:55:23. > :55:27.phone call from a Vice Chancellor who spoke on a more anecdotal,

:55:28. > :55:31.personal view about his own university and he told me of the

:55:32. > :55:37.difficulties academics are currently facing planning their future,

:55:38. > :55:39.thinking ahead, needing to consider, particularly young academics, what

:55:40. > :55:45.they are going to do about their families and wondering where their

:55:46. > :55:48.futures lie. They want certainty and security like most people planning

:55:49. > :55:52.their lives. Towards the end of the conversation he made a shocking

:55:53. > :56:02.confession. All the conversation we had conduct -- conducted, it was my

:56:03. > :56:08.assumption that he was interest, but this Vice Chancellor was in fact

:56:09. > :56:12.Belgian and shared all the concerns he was focusing on behalf of his

:56:13. > :56:18.colleagues. It is a personal issue, this, for a lot of valuable people,

:56:19. > :56:25.skilled people, some of whom are already on university campuses and

:56:26. > :56:31.are facing an increase in prejudice, which is at times hate crime. If

:56:32. > :56:35.these skilled contributors go, some courses won't happen because we need

:56:36. > :56:40.them, that is why we have them in the first place. Some courses will

:56:41. > :56:50.worsen and university life will worsen. Now, the Minister himself is

:56:51. > :56:53.a civilised man and I am sure he wants a diverse university sector

:56:54. > :57:01.and I am sure once the best of EU talents to stay here and to come

:57:02. > :57:07.here. He wouldn't welcome an exodus. He speaks fluent French Sony has a

:57:08. > :57:11.continental mindframe, although it may not be any encouraging thing to

:57:12. > :57:15.describe him as in this state of the government's deliberations. I am

:57:16. > :57:21.sure he would welcome an early warning of any kind of exodus of

:57:22. > :57:27.problem, in the involvement of international lecturers in our

:57:28. > :57:41.educational and university process. This amendment gives him that.

:57:42. > :57:55.UK RI report. The question is that New Clause 11 be read a second time.

:57:56. > :58:00.Carol Monaghan. I would like to speak to amendments 55 and 56. I

:58:01. > :58:08.will start with amendment 56 tabled in my name and the name of my

:58:09. > :58:11.colleague. Proposals to reform UK research Council in this Bill have

:58:12. > :58:16.implications for higher education Scotland. We have concerns about

:58:17. > :58:20.consequences for Scotland's research base. The SNP brought forward an

:58:21. > :58:25.amendment at committee stage that sought to ensure representation on

:58:26. > :58:30.the board of UK RI of people who have relevant experience of

:58:31. > :58:33.Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland should higher education sectors as

:58:34. > :58:37.well as understanding of research and innovation policy context and

:58:38. > :58:42.landscape across the whole of the UK. We withdrew this amendment in

:58:43. > :58:47.committee but reserved the right to bring it back at report stage, which

:58:48. > :58:50.we are seeking to do now. We are pleased that the government have

:58:51. > :58:54.listened to SNP in committee stage and have tabled their own amendment

:58:55. > :58:57.on this issue however whilst we welcome the government's

:58:58. > :59:02.acknowledgement of the need for the board UK RI to include experience of

:59:03. > :59:04.devolved administrations, it is disappointing to note that the

:59:05. > :59:09.amendment requires experience of only one of the administrations.

:59:10. > :59:14.This does not properly allow the world about administrations and

:59:15. > :59:20.their policy priorities to be considered within UK RI. UK RI must

:59:21. > :59:26.have an understanding of the whole UK research and innovation landscape

:59:27. > :59:29.and it must act on the interest of all of about administrations, which

:59:30. > :59:31.is why we have decided to bring forward this new amendment because

:59:32. > :59:37.what we have in front of us just now is not equipped to address our

:59:38. > :59:40.concerns and the concerns of stakeholders, stakeholders who

:59:41. > :59:45.include University Scotland, university Wales, Queens University

:59:46. > :59:47.Belfast, Scottish Council for development and industry, NUS

:59:48. > :59:52.Scotland, university and College union Scotland and the Royal Society

:59:53. > :59:58.of Edinburgh. The amendments are not partisan, they call from -- they

:59:59. > :00:01.come from a horror sex University opinion throughout Scotland, Wales

:00:02. > :00:07.and Northern Ireland and have the principle the Scottish Government.

:00:08. > :00:16.-- they come from a horror range of University opinion. Our amendments

:00:17. > :00:23.will ensure that the Bill matches what has been noted in the review.

:00:24. > :00:28.It was said that there was a need to elicit and respond to reset

:00:29. > :00:33.priorities and evidence requirements identified by the devolved

:00:34. > :00:43.administrations. Currently, the Bill does not meet the overarching

:00:44. > :00:47.principles of the review. It is only accountable to the UK Government

:00:48. > :00:53.with principally English interests. We believe the governments chilly

:00:54. > :00:58.governance of UK are ie needs to protect the each other governments

:00:59. > :01:02.within the UK because it doesn't this could lead to a lack of

:01:03. > :01:14.consideration among the research councils and UK's research bodies

:01:15. > :01:21.and other devout nations. I rise to add to the points she was making and

:01:22. > :01:24.note that Welsh universities have priorities in terms of research, not

:01:25. > :01:31.least the low level of funding that Welsh universities get. Probably

:01:32. > :01:40.around 2% as opposed to the 5% of our population. That is a concern in

:01:41. > :01:46.Wales, specifically. I thank the honourable gentleman for his

:01:47. > :01:49.intervention. Scotland does very well out of the research councils

:01:50. > :01:56.and it does well because there is a large research body in Scotland, the

:01:57. > :02:02.research environment is vibrant across our 19 higher education

:02:03. > :02:07.institutes. We want the Secretary of State, the UK Government, to consult

:02:08. > :02:11.the Scottish ministers and their equivalents in other devout

:02:12. > :02:15.ministrations before approving UK RI research and innovation strategies.

:02:16. > :02:19.Otherwise, how can we be certain that new bodies set up in the Bill

:02:20. > :02:26.are in the best interests of the whole of the UK and not just focused

:02:27. > :02:30.on English only priorities? The SNP is proud of our higher education

:02:31. > :02:35.sector and it acknowledges it is valuable to ensure Scotland's

:02:36. > :02:39.cultural, social and economic sector Broad prosper. It is worth over ?6

:02:40. > :02:43.billion to our economy and we must ensure that this continues. As it

:02:44. > :02:50.stands, this Bill has the potential to harm Scotland's world-renowned

:02:51. > :02:53.research. We need to ensure that about ministrations have an equal

:02:54. > :02:57.say and that their voices are heard within UK RI to ensure this will

:02:58. > :03:05.will be of no detriment to any part of the UK. Moving on to the

:03:06. > :03:12.amendment 55, which is on funding, the integrity of the support

:03:13. > :03:15.financial system must be protected because currently as it stands this

:03:16. > :03:18.Bill does not go far enough to do this. We need to be sure that

:03:19. > :03:23.balanced funding principles are clearly defined within the Bill to

:03:24. > :03:27.ensure the integrity of the financial system set up within

:03:28. > :03:33.cross-border higher education sectors continue. Any flow of funds

:03:34. > :03:38.between reserved and devolved budgets need to be clearly defined

:03:39. > :03:41.and currently the Bill does not address how the balance of funding

:03:42. > :03:48.allocated through competitive funding streams will be supported.

:03:49. > :03:53.There is a serious worry that research England funding could be

:03:54. > :03:55.taken from the UK wide part, which Scotland and other devolved

:03:56. > :04:04.administrations higher education institutes rightly receive a share

:04:05. > :04:10.of. -- UK wide pot. If this pot was to diminish to the detriment of

:04:11. > :04:17.Scottish and Welsh and Northern Ireland sectors. We are already

:04:18. > :04:22.seeing uncertainty over funding for HE thanks to the reckless gamble

:04:23. > :04:26.over Brexit, so is it right that we should also be depriving our higher

:04:27. > :04:33.education institutes from having UK funding taken from them, too? Many

:04:34. > :04:39.stakeholders in Scotland are concerned about the potential

:04:40. > :04:42.hazards will be placed in their way because of this funding structure.

:04:43. > :04:45.This amendment would insure separate funding allocations for the research

:04:46. > :04:54.councils, innovative UK and research England. Whilst Scotland performs

:04:55. > :05:00.well as I have already mentioned in attracting funding from research

:05:01. > :05:04.councils for grants and studentships and fellowships, Scotland does less

:05:05. > :05:14.well in infrastructure spending the research and currently only

:05:15. > :05:17.attracting 5% of UK spending. As with many things, a lot of this

:05:18. > :05:22.spending is concentrated in the South East of England and we want UK

:05:23. > :05:31.RI to have a full overview of the research in the structure across the

:05:32. > :05:34.UK. We are concerned that this clause will allow the Secretary of

:05:35. > :05:42.State after the balance of funding between the research Council. Any

:05:43. > :05:46.grant the UK are RI is funding that should be competitively available

:05:47. > :05:49.throughout the UK. It is therefore necessary to have transparency

:05:50. > :05:55.between what goes to UK RI and what goes to reset England. Even this

:05:56. > :06:04.body will only tribute funds while research infrastructure -- blows to

:06:05. > :06:16.reset England. Given this body will only attribute funds to research

:06:17. > :06:21.infrastructure. If for whatever reason movement of funds had to be

:06:22. > :06:24.made by the secretary of State between research councils and reset

:06:25. > :06:27.England or innovate UK then this must only happen if the Scottish

:06:28. > :06:34.Government and other devolved administrations give consent. This

:06:35. > :06:40.SNP amendment would insure that fairness and transparency will be at

:06:41. > :06:44.the forefront of reserved funding allocation to UK RI and the

:06:45. > :06:48.allocation to research England, sorry, and the allocation to reset

:06:49. > :06:53.England. While also ensuring the balanced hunting principle is

:06:54. > :06:57.measured in relation to the proportion of funding allocated by

:06:58. > :07:03.the Secretary of State for reserved and dissolved the Mayor devolved

:07:04. > :07:14.England only funding and clarity when it might not be achieved.

:07:15. > :07:18.Minister Joe Johnson. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to

:07:19. > :07:20.thank honourable colleagues here today prevent these elastic support

:07:21. > :07:33.for our wild cast research and innovation system. -- our world

:07:34. > :07:35.class. It will support fundamental and strategic research, drive

:07:36. > :07:39.forward multi-and interdisciplinary research, support business led

:07:40. > :07:46.innovation and help them out with this links with publicly funded

:07:47. > :07:48.research. UK RI will build on the great work already being undertaken

:07:49. > :07:53.by our research and innovation bodies, it will maximise the benefit

:07:54. > :07:58.to the UK of a government investment of over ?6 billion a year. That is

:07:59. > :08:03.why the Prime Minister this morning announced that by the end of this

:08:04. > :08:06.Parliament, we will invest an additional ?2 billion in reset and

:08:07. > :08:13.development, including through a new industrial strategy challenge fund.

:08:14. > :08:17.This will be led by innovate UK, but our world-class research Council

:08:18. > :08:21.and, once established, by UK RI itself.

:08:22. > :08:37.This is a clear testament to how Caen to Canon bring greater

:08:38. > :08:40.outcomes. UKRI will of course give insight into the innovation

:08:41. > :08:45.strengthen business needs of the entire UK. Read recognised the

:08:46. > :08:51.importance of UKRI board members having the appropriate. Way of

:08:52. > :09:01.filling these roles. When making these key appointments, the

:09:02. > :09:05.secretary will have a way of the research Systems in one more of the

:09:06. > :09:14.systems. Turning to amendment 42 on research England's religion should

:09:15. > :09:21.with it's evolved counterparts -- it's evolved counterparts. I would

:09:22. > :09:27.highlight instead the new clause I introduced a committee stage. That

:09:28. > :09:39.clause ensures research England is able to work with its... The current

:09:40. > :09:43.provision in the bill enables this. Turning to amendments 53 and 54,

:09:44. > :09:48.research and innovation must be joined up at the heart of our

:09:49. > :09:52.industrial strategy. Incorporating innovate UK will bring benefits to

:09:53. > :09:59.UK businesses, researchers and to the UK as a whole. It will help

:10:00. > :10:04.businesses locate possible partners, and outputs better aligned with

:10:05. > :10:12.their needs. Researchers will also benefit from greater expertise. It

:10:13. > :10:16.will deliver strategic, agile and impactful approach to UKRI

:10:17. > :10:26.portfolio. It would be a huge mistake, to set up UKRI as the

:10:27. > :10:32.mission elsewhere. The big challenges facing our country

:10:33. > :10:39.require more partnership between our great research base, innovate UK and

:10:40. > :10:51.are research. The CBI has said, and I'm quoting, the latest proposals of

:10:52. > :11:02.integrating these two bring and innovate UK's business facing face

:11:03. > :11:05.to the UK. This creates the best conditions for fast-growing dynamic

:11:06. > :11:11.businesses to thrive. Then we reassure the house that directed

:11:12. > :11:17.most the importance of innovate UK maintaining its focus. That is why

:11:18. > :11:25.it protects their focus and autonomy in the delivery of its actions. We

:11:26. > :11:32.will work with companies to deal risk, enable and support innovation

:11:33. > :11:41.that will grow the UK innovation. It will also is the appointed and

:11:42. > :11:49.academic and business representative to the UKRI board. It will champion

:11:50. > :11:53.business interests. To fully realise our potential, we need to respond to

:11:54. > :11:58.a changing world, to anticipate future requirements and to make sure

:11:59. > :12:06.that we have the structures in place for the benefit of the whole

:12:07. > :12:11.country. To the ... It is also important that we deliver the tax

:12:12. > :12:15.ability that the structure of our landscape provides. Turning to

:12:16. > :12:18.amendment 55, the Government has already committed to setting out

:12:19. > :12:21.separate funding streams for each of the councils which will be

:12:22. > :12:27.established in the annual Grant letter. It is also important that UK

:12:28. > :12:33.are I retain some flexible team to manage it's funds and ensure best

:12:34. > :12:39.value for its resources. Also seamers administration for multi-and

:12:40. > :12:45.interdisciplinary research. A small scale, practical and mutually agreed

:12:46. > :12:53.the and is essential for any business with complex projects. This

:12:54. > :13:02.would allow councils to adapt to project timing. Also allow to

:13:03. > :13:06.support interdisciplinary councils. I can also reassure honorary members

:13:07. > :13:11.that the Secretary of State will not agree to UK are right in such a way

:13:12. > :13:15.as to result in a net change in research England's hypothesis sized

:13:16. > :13:23.budget over a period of time. This will be cleared to UKRI. Amendment

:13:24. > :13:27.50 six. I will be very clear the UK wide research and innovation funding

:13:28. > :13:30.as conducted through the research councils and innovate UK are

:13:31. > :13:37.reserved issues and working to need to be so after the transition to

:13:38. > :13:43.UKRI. It is already the secretary is a studio as it is mine, to work for

:13:44. > :13:46.the whole of the UK. It is the responsibility of the research

:13:47. > :13:51.councils and innovate UK to operate on a equal basis across the UK.

:13:52. > :13:55.Primarily, this is achieved by funding projects selected through

:13:56. > :13:58.open competition on the basis of excellence. That they do so

:13:59. > :14:02.effectively is rightly recognised as the research and innovation

:14:03. > :14:07.communities as recognised by the formal Vice Chancellor of Dundee in

:14:08. > :14:17.the evidence he gave to the Bill committee. It functions well across

:14:18. > :14:18.the political landscape because the UK Government and devolved

:14:19. > :14:23.administrations work together to make it do so. We would not seek to

:14:24. > :14:27.bind the UK are writing to a restricted process of consultation,

:14:28. > :14:30.as proposed in this amendment. Turning now to new clause 11, I

:14:31. > :14:37.absolutely agree with the honourable member... To clarify, I'm sure the

:14:38. > :14:44.record will show whether or not he said earlier that it would be

:14:45. > :14:47.including a least one personal morbidly relevant experience in

:14:48. > :14:52.relations to these Wales and Northern Ireland. It is one person

:14:53. > :15:01.with relevant experience or is it one person or more? It is at least

:15:02. > :15:04.one person. With the experience of one or more of the devolved

:15:05. > :15:09.administrations. The Government has tabled an amendment that places a

:15:10. > :15:12.duty on the Secretary of State to have the desirability of having at

:15:13. > :15:16.least one such member to be absolutely explicit. For the

:15:17. > :15:21.individual councils, we think it is right that the UK RIA is free to

:15:22. > :15:29.appoint the very best people for these roles. We expect UKRI to have

:15:30. > :15:34.the relevant skills and experience both nationally and internationally.

:15:35. > :15:40.Turning to new clause 11, I absolutely agree with the honourable

:15:41. > :15:44.member. For that there must be proper monitoring of the diversity

:15:45. > :15:54.of the workforce. We take this seriously and collect and discuss

:15:55. > :15:58.such data. We remain as I've said before fully open to scientists and

:15:59. > :16:02.researchers from across the UK and we usually value the contribution of

:16:03. > :16:07.the EU and international star. There has been no change to the rights and

:16:08. > :16:12.status of EU nationals in the UK or of UK citizens in the EU as the

:16:13. > :16:18.result of referendum. As our Prime Minister said in a letter, only five

:16:19. > :16:23.days after she came into office, I am quoting, our research is enriched

:16:24. > :16:28.by the best minds of Europe and around the world. Providing

:16:29. > :16:32.reassurance to these individuals and researchers working in this area

:16:33. > :16:41.will be a priority for the Government. We have articulated the

:16:42. > :16:43.same things. Does you not recognise that the Government of failing in

:16:44. > :16:49.that objective because around the country we are receiving reports of

:16:50. > :16:56.EU academics saying that the future is not here because we have not had

:16:57. > :16:59.the reassurances that we need. There is no higher authority in the

:17:00. > :17:02.Government of the Prime Minister and we have heard from her that is