(hansard) house of lords · 2014-04-10 · house of lords wednesday, 9 april 2014. 11 am...

Vol. 753No. 144

Wednesday9 April 2014

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

(HANSARD)

HOUSE OF LORDSOFFICIAL REPORT

O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S

QuestionsJapanese Knotweed......................................................................................................1293NHS: Hospital Medication .........................................................................................1295Climate Change: Extreme Weather ............................................................................1298Housing: Discretionary Housing Payment.................................................................1300

Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, SouthTyneside and Sunderland Combined Authority Order 2014

Motion to Approve.......................................................................................................1302County Court Remedies Regulations 2014

Motion to Approve.......................................................................................................1303Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation) Order 2014

Motion to Approve.......................................................................................................1303Higher Education

Motion to Take Note ..................................................................................................1303Convergence Programme

Motion to Approve.......................................................................................................1386Written Statements ....................................................................................................WS 127Written Answers .........................................................................................................WA 291

£4·00

Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office.

No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the reportof their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbersconcerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of thedate of the Daily Report.

This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/index/140409.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY PARTSSingle copies:

Commons, £5; Lords £4Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £865; Lords £600

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only.Details available on request.

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during thesession.Single copies:

Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition).Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is publishedseparately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order.

All prices are inclusive of postage.

The first time a Member speaks to a new piece of parliamentary business, the following abbreviations are used to showtheir party affiliation:

Abbreviation Party/GroupCB Cross BenchCon ConservativeCon Ind Conservative IndependentDUP Democratic Unionist PartyGP Green PartyInd Lab Independent LabourInd LD Independent Liberal DemocratInd SD Independent Social DemocratLab LabourLab Ind Labour IndependentLD Liberal DemocratLD Ind Liberal Democrat IndependentNon-afl Non-affiliatedPC Plaid CymruUKIP UK Independence PartyUUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leaveof absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2014,this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

House of LordsWednesday, 9 April 2014.

11 am

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Japanese KnotweedQuestion

11.07 am

Asked by Baroness Sharples

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progressis being made in eliminating Japanese knotweedfrom the United Kingdom.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)(Con): My Lords, we are in the fourth year of thecontrolled release of the psyllid Aphalara itadori as ameans of controlling Japanese knotweed. No non-targetimpactshavebeenobservedbythemonitoringprogrammebut, as yet, the organism has had difficulty establishingself-sustaining populations. This year, therefore, wewill conduct caged trials releasing larger numbers toestablish higher population densities.

Baroness Sharples (Con): Will my noble friend agreeto holding a publicity campaign, so that this plant canbe easily recognised, especially by landowners and,even more importantly, by people seeking to buy ahouse with land, because in some cases they are beingrefused a mortgage?

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, in returning regularlyto this question, my noble friend is almost as persistentas the weed itself. I am not sure whether she is a hardyannual or a perennial. We need to spread public awarenessof a number of non-native species including, of course,Japanese knotweed. The website nonnativespecies.orgis our central point. Other awareness-raising measuresinclude nearly 70 identification sheets, including onefor Japanese knotweed, the Environment Agency’sPlantTracker mobile device app, which I recommendto your Lordships, non-native species local actiongroups, and the Be Plant Wise and Check, Clean Drycampaigns, which target aquatic security and non-nativespecies more generally. Awareness-raising is a keyfocus of our current review of the GB strategy oninvasive non-native species.

My noble friend mentioned mortgages. Two yearsago, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors andthe Council of Mortgage Lenders agreed that a lessdraconian approach was needed.

Lord Dubs (Lab): My Lords, while we are awaitingthe result of those trials—four years is a long time—canwe not have some action for those people who haveknotweed in their neighbours’ houses? I have not gotany in mine, but my neighbours have. Can we at least

persuade local authorities—without legislation—to bemore co-operative with local people? My local authoritywill not co-operate at all: it will give me no informationand is quite unhelpful. I know that some are betterthan that. How about leaning on local authorities?

Lord De Mauley: That is a subject which I havebeen thinking about very carefully. It is quite interestingthat the community protection notices under the newAnti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act arepotentially useful in this regard and we have to look atcarefully at them, as is the community trigger, whichwe should also look into.

Lord Greaves (LD): My Lords, I, too, congratulatethe noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, on her persistencein this matter. It has been going on for as long as Ihave been in this House, which is probably too longnow—or certainly too long for my own good, anyway.I would not, however, describe my noble friend asinvasive or, to use the Royal Horticultural Society’sdescription of knotweed, as a real thug. Her questionwas: what progress is being made on getting rid of it?The answer is that there is none; it is getting more andmore widespread. Is it not the case that the time hascome when allowing this invasive, alien weed to growon your land should be an offence?

Lord De Mauley: I should say to my noble friendthat Aphalara itadori is not planned to eradicateknotweed but is part of a programme on how tomanage it. We have got to a stage where it is here—andwe should acknowledge that fact—but we should manageit. There are other tools that can be used in this matter.In fact, when my noble friend Lady Sharples asked thesame Question last year she referred to the use of anherbicide which can be effective. My noble friend LordGreaves referred to more pressure on landlords. Itwould be disproportionate, and possibly unfair, toimpose very strong conditions on landowners because,apart from anything else, this weed can arrive on theirland through no fault of their own. However, farmersreceiving single farm payment are required to takereasonable steps to prevent its spread.

Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab): The Minister isabsolutely right to try to pursue this pernicious weedas much as possible but there is a belief that, in arestricted sense, persistent application of the herbicideto which he referred will actually be quite effective inkilling it, in a limited state. Is there any way of doingsome emergency research on those one or two herbicidesand to try to publicise that? It would remove a lot ofdifficulties for many people who are trying to sellhouses and clean up their land.

Lord De Mauley: It is a difficult one but the answerto that question is that the herbicide which the nobleLord and I are talking about is effective if used persistently,as he says, so I do not think that further research isneeded. The question is the extent to which we want tospray around quite powerful pesticides. That is why Isuggest to your Lordships that things such as biocontrolare also very valuable.

1293 1294[9 APRIL 2014]Japanese Knotweed Japanese Knotweed

Lord Elis-Thomas (PC): My Lords, the Ministerwill be well aware that invasive species of this kind areno respecters of boundaries, whether political or otherwise.Can he therefore assure the House that the UKGovernment will take a positive attitude towards theoncoming European Union regulations in these matters,which are being discussed in the European Union evenat this moment?

Lord De Mauley: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, the regulationhas now been approved by COREPER and the EuropeanParliament’s environment committee. It has also nowcleared the scrutiny committees of both the House ofCommons and your Lordships’ House. I understandthat the regulation will now be presented to the EuropeanParliament’s plenary session on 16 April. If approvedthere, the regulation will be presented to the nextsuitable Council meeting and should then come intoforce on 1 January next year.

Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab): My Lords, can theMinister assure the House that he views this with aproper sense of urgency? A recent survey has said thatthere is not six square miles of land in this countrywhich is not infected with this weed. In Swansea, theyhave calculated that they have 62,000 tonnes of it toget rid of. It is clear that this is a major problem. Theeffect upon Network Rail and the railway system isabsolutely dramatic. We want the Minister to demonstratea real sense of urgency on this issue.

Lord De Mauley: I am sorry if the noble Lordthinks that I am not. He is right about the effects. Hespecifically mentioned Network Rail which is a memberof the project consortium for the natural control ofJapanese knotweed, and it is fully involved in ourdiscussions about how the trial proceeds. It has been amajor funder of the research and was among theinstigators of the project. If it would meet with nobleLords’ approval, I would like to offer a briefing sessionto those who are interested on our approach generallyto invasive non-native species.

NHS: Hospital MedicationQuestion

11.15 am

Asked by Baroness Gale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedureswill be put in place to ensure that every patientnewly admitted to hospital will have their medicationregime reconciled within 24 hours of admission.

Baroness Jolly (LD): My Lords, timely medicinereconciliation on admission to hospital can help toprevent medication errors, such as omitted and delayedmedicines, wrong dose or wrong formulation. NHStrusts in England should have their own policies andprocedures in place for the safe and effective use ofmedicines, taking into account joint guidance fromthe National Institute for Health and Care Excellenceand the National Patient Safety Agency, which is nowsubsumed into NHS England.

Baroness Gale (Lab): I thank the Minister for herreply. In doing so, I declare an interest as I chair theAPPG on Parkinson’s. Is she aware that people withParkinson’s can take up to 30 tablets a day and that itis of vital importance that they have their medicationon time every time? Does she agree that patients withParkinson’s who are admitted to hospital should havethe right to self-administration of their own medicine?That would put them in control and help to controltheir symptoms, and would certainly help staff. Willshe take advice from Parkinson’s UK, which has greatexperience in this field, on how to train nurses tounderstand this task?

Baroness Jolly: The noble Baroness speaks from aposition of much expertise as the chair of the APPGon Parkinson’s. It is really important that people withParkinson’s disease get the medicines that they needwhen they need them, whether they are being cared forin their home, in a care home or in hospital. The NHSis working to improve services for people with Parkinson’sdisease. This includes ensuring that staff are properlytrained to support people with Parkinson’s and otherneurological conditions.

Lord Walton of Detchant (CB): My Lords, does theMinister agree that the management of drug therapyfor patients with parkinsonism may require exceptionalskills? It is not a matter of taking tablets two or threetimes a day. The dosage and its timing must be tailoredspecifically according to the needs of the individualpatient. If the timing of a particular dose is undulydelayed, this may result in what is called the on/offphenomenon, with a sharp return of disabling symptoms.It is therefore crucial that this matter be taken onboard. Does the Minister believe that this issue, highlightedby the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, LadyGale, is being properly handled in the NHS at present?

Baroness Jolly: I can tell the noble Lord that NICEguidance suggests that people with Parkinson’s diseaseshould have their medicines given at the appropriatetime, not on the ward round with the trolley of regularmedication. Where it is absolutely appropriate andpossible, this may mean allowing self-medication.

Baroness Manzoor (LD): My Lords, medicationreconciliation is very important because it is a healthand safety issue. Between 2003 and 2004, the NationalPatient Safety Agency declared that over 7,000 patientshad been affected by an error with their medication.What are the Government doing to work closely withhospital pharmacies so that electronic records areshared between GPs and hospitals?

Baroness Jolly: NICE, the NPSA and the RoyalPharmaceutical Society have all identified the key roleof pharmacists in medicines reconciliation. I am pleasedto say that the majority of hospitals now have pharmacistson admission wards and doing daily ward rounds toensure patients’ medicines are reconciled promptly. Onthe data point, I understand that NHS England isexploring the possibility of developing a business casefor pharmacists to have access to the electronic summarycare record. However, any work on this will need to besequenced into the development timetable along withother priorities.

1295 1296[LORDS]Japanese Knotweed NHS: Hospital Medication

Lord Patel (CB): When I was chairman of theNational Patient Safety Agency, it produced the guidancethat the noble Baroness mentioned. It identified thefailure of reconciliation of medicines in acute admissionsas a major patient safety issue. The failure rate inhospitals ranged from 10% reconciliation to 80%reconciliation. Those hospitals that achieved 80%reconciliation did so for one reason: pharmacists wereinvolved. These are acute patients on multiple drugs.There is no other way except that those who knowdrugs and reconciliation are involved in the reconciliationof medicines on admission.

Baroness Jolly: The noble Lord is absolutely right.Pharmacists need to show leadership and expertiseand to support all their colleagues to ensure that thishappens appropriately.

Lord Harrison (Lab): Will the Minister report onthis morning’s report on the use of nanotechnology tosuppress the disfiguring tremors experienced byParkinson’s sufferers? What progress can be madethere, and what can the Government do to improve it?

Baroness Jolly: The noble Lord has me at adisadvantage because I have not seen the report towhich he refers. I am sure that Parkinson’s UK isworking with the research community to ensure thatthis is sorted out.

Lord Flight (Con): My Lords, are the Minister andthe NHS aware of the new technologies which candeliver patients’ full medical records to a consultant’siPad on the spot in a hospital? Is the NHS keenlypursuing those new technologies?

Baroness Jolly: Certainly those technologies exist. Ihave seen some of them in action, and they are reallyimpressive. Local hospitals are responsible for theirown IT systems, and some are very much furtherahead than others, but I am sure others are aiming tocatch up.

Baroness Wheeler (Lab): My Lords, the Ministerreferred to the guidance on the reconciliation of medicinesdrawn up by NICE and the National Patient SafetyAgency in 2007. However, since the Government abolishedthe NPSA two years ago and transferred the work toNHS England, information about the agency’s workand how it is being carried out and taken forward isvery hard to come by. Will the Minister reassure theHouse that monitoring, keeping the guidelines underreview and updating them to ensure patient safety arepriorities for NHS England and the Government?

Baroness Jolly: Patient safety is indeed critical.After Mid Staffs and the Francis report, safety, opennessand accountability are key, along with the duty ofcandour. “Sign up to Safety” is to be announced laterthis week to ensure that efforts are reported. That willhelp local hospitals and care homes understand wheremistakes are being made and make patients feel morecomfortable by owning up to problems.

Climate Change: Extreme WeatherQuestion

11.23 am

Asked by Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recentassessment they have made of the effects of climatechange on the frequency of extreme weather eventsin the United Kingdom; and what action theypropose to take as a result.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con):My Lords, summer heat waves and heavy rainfallevents are expected to become more frequent in future.The Government are taking action through the nationaladaptation plan to develop UK climate resilience, throughthe Climate Change Act 2008 and the Energy Act 2013to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 80%by 2050, and through international negotiations tomitigate climate change by reducing global emissions.

Lord Judd (Lab): While I thank the Minister forthose observations about resilience, does she agreethat the estimate is that over the next 20 years a further250,000 homes will be at risk and that the cost of thedamage is likely to be in excess of £3 billion? Can sheassure us that the Government are galvanising actionwithout delay and with all due priority to ensure thatthe programme is sufficient for the resilience necessary?Furthermore, does she agree that because of the threatswithin the United Kingdom coupled with the threatsacross the world—disease, hunger, migration and acuteinstability—there can be no further delay in galvanisingthe international community into making this absolutelycentral to all political activity?

Baroness Verma: The noble Lord is of course right.My right honourable friend the Minister Greg Barkeris currently in New York, ensuring that negotiations atan international level are very much focused on goingforward for 2015 and the sort of commitments that wewant from the international community. Closer tohome, the noble Lord is of course aware that we haveinvested over the course of this Parliament over £3 billionin trying to respond to issues such as floods. We arenow protecting 20,000 more houses over the 165,000houses that were already protected, through the measuresthat we have taken.

Lord Howell of Guildford (Con): My Lords, whatmy noble friend says about adaptation is welcome.Would she not agree that now may be the time toconsider switching our colossal expenditure on attemptedmitigation to adaptation to what is widely believed bymany experts to be coming in the way of more extremeweather, in line with the recommendation of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s workinggroup? Would the Minister accept that our currentmitigation efforts seem to be producing not a vastimprovement in carbon emissions but, in fact, anincrease in our carbon footprint, more burning ofcoal, increased fuel poverty, and the driving away of

1297 1298[9 APRIL 2014]NHS: Hospital Medication Climate Change: Extreme Weather

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD]investment from this country to where power is cheaper,raising the prospect of blackouts and generalenvironmental damage? Is it not becoming obviousthat some change of direction in our climate andenergy policy is overdue if we are to achieve our greengoals?

Baroness Verma: My noble friend raises a range ofvery important issues. Of course, climate is measuredin average conditions over the long term, but I agreewith my noble friend that it is about both adaptationand mitigation. We cannot have one or the other; wehave to have both. It is important that, going forward,we encourage not only ourselves but the internationalcommunity and our partners to respond to the seriousissues of increased carbon emissions.

Baroness Worthington (Lab): My Lords, it is absolutelyclear that the evidence is now showing that climatechange is manmade and that we must act. Would thenoble Baroness agree with me that, on discovering aflood in a bathroom, you would not make your priorityto turn your house into a swimming pool? You wouldturn the tap off. That is precisely what we need to do.It is regrettable that we have some prominent Membersof the Benches opposite who do not seem to acceptthis logic. I hope that the noble Baroness will continueher spirited and consistent defence of action on climatechange.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, we have been consistenton this side of the House that we need to addressmitigation and adaptation.

Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, the Minister hasmentioned mitigation several times. So far as mitigationand the United Kingdom are concerned, is it not truethat one of the most important things—and one ofthe most important pieces of legislation undertaken inrecent years—is this Government’s Energy Act, whichthe Minister guided and pushed through this House?Is that not an example of how the Government havemade sure that mitigation and the future problems offlooding and climate change are being tackled directlyby the Government?

Baroness Verma: I am extremely grateful for mynoble friend’s intervention and I agree with every wordthat he has said.

Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con): My Lords, is it notclear that my noble friend the Minister is completelymistaken in saying that it is not a question of mitigationor adaptation but both? There are competing claimson resources, and we have to decide which is ourpriority. Is it to decide single-handedly to decarbonisethe world and thus, to no useful purpose, push upBritish energy prices, make fuel more expensive forBritish homes and litter the countryside with windfarms and solar panels? Is it not better instead todevote our resources to increasing our resilience toextreme weather events, whether or not the frequencyof such events is marginally increased by global warming?

Baroness Verma: As always, I am extremely gratefulto my noble friend for his intervention. However, I amalso grateful to him for allowing me to say that the UKhas among the cheapest energy prices in Europe. Ithink my noble friends will agree that this is aboutmeasures that address the issues of today, but whichalso look forward to ensuring that we have a muchbetter future.

Viscount Simon (Lab): My Lords, the noble Lord,Lord Judd, mentioned food in his initial supplementaryquestion. In a programme some months ago on theBBC, it was stated that this country has the largestproduction and consumption of baked beans in theworld. Can the noble Baroness say whether this affectsthe calculation of global warming by the Governmentas a result of the smelly emission resulting therefrom?

Baroness Verma: The noble Viscount’s question isso different. He raises a very important point, which isthat we need to moderate our behaviour.

Housing: Discretionary Housing PaymentQuestion

11.30 am

Asked by Lord McAvoy

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the level of discretionary housingpayment available to local authorities.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): My Lords,the department has asked local authorities to providedetails regarding their use of discretionary housingpayments twice yearly. Details of how local authoritiesare using discretionary housing payments in the firsthalf of the year were published on 20 December.Despite some people’s predictions, the vast majority oflocal authorities were managing within their budgets.In 2014-15, local authorities will receive a share of£165 million, which will ensure that they can offerongoing support where appropriate.

Lord McAvoy (Lab): My Lords, despite assurancesfrom the Minister, 47 councils spent 90% of theirDHP budget by February. A third of the councilsreported that a third of the applications were refused.Can the Minister tell the House whether he is aware ofhow many evictions there have been due to bedroomtax arrears? Does he know? Does he care?

Lord Freud: My Lords, the noble Lord used thosefigures as if they were his; I am sure that he wouldwant to attribute them to another group called FalseEconomy. They show that 85% of councils surveyedhad spent less than 90% of their money with onemonth to go. However, in that particular report, whichfound that 11 councils had overspent, there were a lotof mistakes. The figures for four of them—Swindon,Haringey, Leeds and Middlesbrough—were simplywrong.

1299 1300[LORDS]Climate Change: Extreme Weather Housing: DHP

Lord Best (CB): My Lords, has the Minister had achance to see the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reportreleased today, which provides a fairly definitive analysisof what has been going on with the so-called bedroomtax over the past six months? If he has, did he notethat—sadly, from one perspective—savings were about£115 million less than had been hoped for during thecourse of this year? About 6% of people have movedhome, but another 22% have been trying to movehome but have not been able to downsize, becausethere is not accommodation for them. Although theRowntree report from Professor Wilcox predicts thatover £330 million will be saved this year, sadly, that isat a pretty great cost to both tenants and landlords.

Lord Freud: The savings that we are looking at—whichare running on the Budget scoring at £490 million—areboth observable and unobservable; in other words,from people moving or from people taking up jobsand coming off benefits. There are various figuresaround. The BBC last week talked of 6% of peoplemoving in 11 months; the JRF report, which the nobleLord has just cited, talked about 6% in six months; areport a couple of months ago from Harry Phibbs,doing a similar job, found that 11% had come offbenefits because they had gone into work. We willhave proper returns on discretionary housing paymentsin May, and are working on getting a proper report onall of this.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab): Will the Ministeranswer the question posed by my noble friend aboutthe number of evictions? Does he know the number,and does he care?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I am not sure of the exactnumber of evictions, but I do not think that there arevery many at all, if any. Clearly it is a matter of greatconcern. I can let the noble Baroness know that thedata from the Homes and Communities Agency, whichare based on the 266 largest housing associations withmore than 1,000 homes, show that the average arrearsin the final quarter of last year—the third quarter ofthe financial year—fell to 3.9% from 4.1% in theprevious quarter and that rent collection rates for theyear stood at 99%.

Lord Flight (Con): The Minister will be aware thatin central London and, in particular, the borough ofWestminster—and I declare an interest as my wife is acouncillor—there have been cases where very substantialhousing benefit amounts have had to be paid particularlyto house those categories that the local authority isobliged to house. Is there any system or intent to limitthe amount of housing benefit that can be paid on anindividual property?

Lord Freud: My Lords, my noble friend drawsattention to the point that we have introduced a cap onthe amount of housing benefit to stop the very largeamounts that were paid on local housing allowance.

Baroness Sherlock (Lab): My Lords, 500,000 peopleare affected by the bedroom tax, most of them disabled.If the Minister wants some figures, two-thirds of tenantshit by the bedroom tax are currently in arrears and, of

those, 40% have been issued with a notice seekingpossession. This is a serious crisis, and I think that theMinister should acquaint himself with all the figures,including those on evictions.

The House knows that a Labour Government wouldabolish the bedroom tax. The Minister told the Houseon 12 December that,“the interim review is due to be published in the spring of 2014. Iwill be most pleased to discuss the findings of that review withMembers of the House, who I suspect will be keen to have thatdialogue”.—[Official Report, 12/12/13; col. 907.]

I am very keen to have the dialogue. When does itstart?

Lord Freud: The noble Baroness need not persuademe about the savings—she needs to persuade theOBR, which has scored down in the Budget £490 million.The noble Baroness talked about the fact that a LabourGovernment would abolish the spare room subsidy.We will produce an interim report later this year, as Isaid, and we will bring forward next year the fullreport on what has been happening with the bedroomtax.

Hereditary Peers By-ElectionAnnouncement

11.38 am

The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result ofthe by-election to elect a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer inthe place of Lord Moran in accordance with StandingOrder 10.

Twenty-seven Lords completed valid ballot papers. Apaper setting out the complete results is being madeavailable in the Printed Paper Office. That paper givesthe number of votes cast for each candidate. The successfulcandidate was Lord Cromwell.

Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle UponTyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland,

South Tyneside and Sunderland CombinedAuthority Order 2014

Motion to Approve

Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston

11.38 am

That the draft order laid before the House on13 March be approved.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments, considered inGrand Committee on 7 April.

Motion agreed.

1301 1302[9 APRIL 2014]Housing: DHP Combined Authority Orders 2014

County Court Remedies Regulations 2014Motion to Approve

11.38 am

Moved by Lord Faulks

That the draft regulations laid before the Houseon 13 March be approved.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the JointCommittee on Statutory Instruments, considered inGrand Committee on 7 April.

Motion agreed.

Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of theCommittee on Agricultural Valuation)

Order 2014Motion to Approve

11.39 am

Moved by Lord De Mauley

That the draft order laid before the House on6 February be approved.

Relevant documents: 34th Report from the SecondaryLegislation Scrutiny Committee, 22nd Report fromthe Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, consideredin Grand Committee on 7 April.

Motion agreed.

Higher EducationMotion to Take Note

11.39 am

Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

That this House takes note of higher educationin the United Kingdom.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, morethan half a century ago, a former Member of thisHouse, Lord Robbins, published his seminal report onhigher education. He and his colleagues, including thenoble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Moser, believedthat going to university was inherently worth while.This belief remains true today, whether you studyparticle physics, history or nursing. Higher educationis truly transformational.

Our current demographic pressures are less immediatethan those facing Lord Robbins and his team in the1960s, but the forces driving increased demand forhigher education have not diminished. They have beenat work for the past 50 years and they will continue.We all recognise that there is a huge demand forlearning from individuals and, indeed, from employerswho continue to demand graduate-level skills.

Governments across the world want to increasetheir number of students in higher education. Nocountry says, “There are too many students”. Everywherein the world, in developing and developed countriesalike, they want more people to have a higher education.International competition is played out at a higherskills level, and we cannot fall behind.

Our higher education system is renowned throughoutthe world. We regularly feature highly in the range ofworld university rankings, often coming just behindthe United States as second in the world and, becauseof our impressive international reputation, our highereducation system is a significant international export.However, while the UK has been cautiously increasingits student numbers in the past decade, other developedcountries have been expanding at a much faster rate.Participation in tertiary education among young peopleup to the age of 20 increased by 14% in the UK between2005 and 2011. However, it increased by 51% in Denmark,35% in Germany, 29% in Austria, and 23% in theNetherlands, to name just a handful of the countriesthat have expanded their student numbers faster thanwe have.

When Lord Robbins reported in 1963, there werefewer than 200,000 British students in higher education.We now have 1.2 million British undergraduates. Hisview was that,“courses of higher education should be available for all those whoare qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and whowish to do so”.

That principle is just as important today as it wasthen.

However, in 2009, when the noble Lord, Lord Browne,was commissioned to undertake his independent reviewon higher education funding and student finance, allpolitical persuasions recognised that to continue tofund a world-class higher education sector during atime of significant economic downturn we would needto rebalance the costs of higher education betweenstudent and state.

The Government’s reforms to higher education werebased on achieving a well funded sector which had areliable stream of income to enable it to competeinternationally and to drive up the quality of teaching.We have done just that. Indeed, the OECD said recentlythat we are,“the first European country that established a sustainable approachto HE funding”.

By increasing the tuition fee cap but, importantly,subsidising tuition fees, students have a significantstake in their higher education. They are becomingmore discerning consumers of their education, valuingtheir experience and demanding more quality learning.

Better information is central to the Government’sreforms. The key information set gives prospective studentsa range of data that they need to make meaningfulcomparisons on costs, courses and employability. TheGovernment have plans to work with universities toextend it to make it even more useful and powerful, sowe have made more information than ever beforeavailable to students and their parents while at thesame time preserving the independence and autonomyof institutions. That is, indeed, a key feature of thelandscape—government does not intervene in what isstudied or how it is taught. However, good-qualityteaching and an improved student experience are centralto the reforms. Bold vice-chancellors—indeed, someare in your Lordships’House today—are already changingthe incentives to focus on good teaching within theirinstitutions. Above all, our reforms have put studentsback at the heart of the system, where they belong.

1303 1304[LORDS]County Court Remedies Regs. 2014 Higher Education

The good news is that, since our reforms, youngpeople have not, as some have suggested, been put offapplying to higher education institutions. The Governmentsent recent graduates into schools and colleges toexplain how the new finance system works, andapplications for higher education in 2014 have returnedto pre-2012 levels. Many popular universities havebeen able to grow the number of places they offer tostudents. Data published by UCAS for entry in the2014 cycle from applications up to the January mainscheme deadline show that the application rate forEnglish 18 year-olds has increased to the highest everlevel, at 34.8%. This figure is even more impressivewhen seen in the context of the continued fall in the 18year-old population in our country.

The rise in applications shows that young peopleunderstand that they do not have to pay upfront to goto university. They recognise that paying back as graduatesthrough PAYE once they earn £21,000 or more isnothing like leaving university with a credit card debt.This matters. All the evidence shows that going touniversity is a truly life-changing experience, and itwould have been a tragedy if young people had givenup the dream of getting a higher education. Highereducation truly empowers.

Application rates for those from disadvantagedbackgrounds have continued to rise to a record level of20.7%. The naysayers who said that an increase intuition fees would deter disadvantaged students cannotargue with the facts before us. The trends are upwardsand, in addition, there is a welcome rise in applicationsfrom mature students—an increase of 9% comparedwith the same point last year for the 35-and-over agegroup. Students and their families have come tounderstand that a degree remains one of the bestroutes to a good job and a rewarding career.

Perhaps I may offer a personal reflection for amoment as the son of a migrant who arrived in thiscountry with only £5 to his name. One thing instilledin us as we were growing up was the value and empoweringelements of education. No matter what education youhave received, wherever you go in the world it is yourpersonal asset. I personally realise the struggles thatmany make to ensure that they, and in turn theirfamilies, have opportunities for education.

Looking at the current figures, 87% of graduatesare in now in employment as against 66% of non-graduates. However, we should not suggest that graduationguarantees a job. I remember in the early 1990s applyingfor my first job, and my experience is something that Ihave shared with others. I am not ashamed to admitthat I received 63 rejections. However, I kept goingand got a job. That showed that, despite the odds,perseverance is important. Apart from educationalskills, that is an attribute that our universities up anddown the country instil in students.

Increased supply appears to have been matched bycontinuing demand for graduate skills, so the graduatepremium has broadly remained constant. It has regularlybeen estimated at well over £100,000 of extra lifetimeearnings after tax. The latest independent researchshows that male students with a degree can expect toboost their lifetime earnings by £165,000, and forfemale students it is an even more striking £250,000.

Of course, the financial returns are not just personal.As my right honourable friend the Chancellor hasmade clear:

“Access to higher education is a basic tenet of economicsuccess in the global race”.It drives long-term growth and boosts productivity.Graduates fuel innovation. Research conducted by theNational Institute of Economic and Social Researchshows that around 20% of UK economic growthbetween 1982 and 2005 came as a direct result ofincreased graduate skills. A 1% increase in the share ofthe workforce with a university degree raises long-runproductivity by between 0.2% and 0.5%. This suggeststhat at least one-third of the increase in UK labourproductivity between 1994 and 2005 can be attributedto the rising number of people with a university degree.

I turn now briefly to the issue of student numbersand the related cap. This is the evidence base againstwhich the Chancellor made his historic commitmentin the Autumn Statement to expand student numbers.As noble Lords will recall, he announced that, in2014-15 the Government would increase the numberof places by 30,000, so that popular institutions couldexpand and grow further, and that by 2015-16 theGovernment would remove number controls for publiclyfunded universities.

Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): I am most grateful tomy noble friend for giving way. I am listening carefullyto the Minister’s speech and am most impressed by it,but this is a debate about higher education in theUnited Kingdom; it is not about higher education inEngland and Wales. As someone who is resident inScotland, and as a legislator in the Scottish Parliamentwho voted for a different structure for fees for studentsand for a different funding model, I wonder whetherthe Minister will be addressing some of the benefitsfor the whole of the United Kingdom of a distinctapproach to higher education in parts of the UnitedKingdom.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I thank my noble friendfor that intervention but as he is aware, that is adevolved matter and one for the Scottish Government.While I have been focusing on England and Wales, whenwe look at education overall, we talk to the ScottishGovernment in terms of the overall UK plc offering. Ihope that, at the end of the year, we will have similarunified discussions on promoting the UK. I am surethat my noble friend agrees with my sentiments on that.

Turning to universities and removing the cap, as Iwas saying, universities can accept many more of thequalified people turned away each year. Only thismorning, it was brought to my attention by my noblefriend Lord Popat, who is sitting next to me on theBench, that a student who fulfilled the criteria and hadclearly qualified on all fronts, was unable to get a placebecause of the cap on numbers in a particular institution.We need to look at that seriously. We can afford to dothis because our reforms have made a systematic changeto the funding model. Our reforms rebalance supportso that the contribution from graduates increases.However, the taxpayer still subsidises the overall costof degrees by 50%. We think that it is fair for graduatesto pay because there are such definitive private gains.The planned expansion brings new money to educate

1305 1306[9 APRIL 2014]Higher Education Higher Education

[LORD AHMAD OF WIMBLEDON]these students. The Treasury has provided £5.5 billionof student loan outlay as well as additional resourcefunding over the next five years. In tough times we areprotecting science. We have ring-fenced our £4.7 billionannual science budget to give researchers the securitythey need to plan for the long term, and we have injectedmajor new long-term investment into science capitalso that our researchers remain at the cutting edge.

There is extra funding of £185 million over fouryears for teaching expensive subjects such as science,technology and engineering. This extra spendingcomplements a recent £200 million investment in STEMteaching capital. Matched by equal investment frominstitutions, this will invest some £400 million in thecreation and upgrading of teaching facilities. It willensure that students receive high-quality teaching thatfully equips them for the economy of the future. It willsustain and support an increase in the number ofgood-quality higher education STEM student places.

Our reforms have meant that we have been able toincrease the cash going to universities, while avoidingupfront fees for students and managing the costs tothe taxpayer. Our calculations show that, in the wakeof our reforms, total overall university income inEngland—I apologise to my noble friend—from allsources has gone up considerably, from just under£23 billion in 2010-11 to nearly £24.3 billion in 2012-13.The sector is in good financial health. This all ties inwith the picture we have from the Higher EducationStatistics Agency’s latest higher education businesscommunity interaction survey. It is a picture of universitiesbringing in big revenue by working flexibly with businessand the outside world. In 2012-13, they earned £1.2 billionfrom business research contracts, which is up on theyear before.

However, noble Lords will realise that relationshipsnow stretch well beyond this. I am sure that manynoble Lords are part of this. Universities earned another£1.5 billion from a wide range of services, fromconsultancy and CPD courses to regeneration programmesand the use of equipment and facilities. Universitieshave become a major source of exciting new companies.In 2012-13, 150 new spin-out companies were set up toexploit research ideas born in UK higher educationinstitutions. On top of that, more than 3,500 newstart-up companies were established by staff and recentgraduates. In total, the survey found that UK universitiesearned an impressive £3.6 billion in 2012-13 throughbusiness and community activities.

I look forward to hearing from all noble Lords whoare contributing to this debate. Any new fundingsystem drives a change in the behaviour of both studentsand institutions and, of course, we will need to monitorthe overall affordability of the system. If necessary, wewill take action to ensure that it remains sustainable inthe long term. We are seeing a historic shift. Wecannot predict precisely how our reforms will be viewedthree decades from now but the reforms are intendedto make our world-class system even stronger. ThisGovernment want to see more investment, greaterdiversity, less centralisation and a sector even moreaccountable to students and the taxpayer. We areconfident that the difficult financial decisions we have

had to make and continue to make are the right onesto ensure that we have a sustainable long-term futurefor higher education in our country. I beg to move.

11.56 am

Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab): My Lords, I thankthe Minister for bringing this debate to the House.There is a great deal of expertise across the Chamberand, given the breadth of the title of the debate, I amsure that we will explore a wide range of issues.

I start on a conciliatory note by joining the Ministerin acknowledging the importance of this sector. Whereveryou look in life, at whichever quarter of our society—whether it is our industry or competitiveness or whatever—universities play an important role. Certainly, as webecome a greater globalised economy and its successdepends on research and innovation, universities willhave a greater role in what we do, not a lesser role.

We should take this opportunity to recognise someconsiderable successes. Sometimes we are not good atrepeating what our successes are and I want to do that.In any league table, we regularly have a small numberof universities in the international top 10. We shouldbe very proud of that and the fact that we punch aboveour weight. We have excellent research. In terms of theproportion of publications compared to the size of thenation and the amount of our investment, we punchabove our weight. Higher education gives us a strongexport industry, with £10.7 billion of export earnings.Many of our international partnerships have beenbuilt on personal relationships which started whenpeople from overseas came here to study. For many ofus who are of that first generation of socially mobilepeople, we owe that to higher education.

There is a good news story to be told about highereducation and the Minister endeavoured to tell it, butit is not quite as rosy as he would have us believe. I waswaiting for the next 15 minutes of his speech, when hecould have addressed some of the real problems affectingthe higher education sector at the moment. There areconsiderable challenges and, although our research isgood, our spending on research has dropped. It is nowat a lower percentage than other OECD nations. Thenumber of part-time students has fallen by more than30% and, whatever the increase in the number ofpeople going into higher education, we all know thatsocial class plays too high a part in access to andattendance at university. As we have increased thenumbers of people going to university, we have nevernarrowed the gap between the percentages of childrenfrom higher and lower socioeconomic backgroundswho go to university.

We also pay too little attention to the difference thatis fast emerging between the percentage of males andthe percentage of females, particularly school leavers,who attend higher education. Some 74% of males donot go into higher education, which is quite a frighteningfigure. The number of males applying for higher educationis now lower than the number of women who attend.That is another characteristic which reflects the factthat we have not yet solved the problems of access.

What we did not hear about from the Minister, ofcourse, is the fact that the new student funding systemcould actually end up being more expensive than the

1307 1308[LORDS]Higher Education Higher Education

system it replaced. The only reason I draw attention tothis is because universities are so important that anydecline or structural difficulties need to be addressed,so I regret the fact that the Minister did not refer tothose in his speech.

However, I want to address a completely differentpoint. If we were having a debate about schools, wewould be talking about how to create a diverse system.The word “diversity” has been at the top of theeducation agenda of both parties for two or threedecades. We have had and still have a diverse system inhigher education in many ways, but we seek to hide it,which is almost the opposite of what happens inschools. Let us reflect on the situation two or threedecades ago before higher education was brought togetherinto one structure. Its diverse missions were evident inits titles. We had the polytechnics, the institutes oftechnology, the colleges of education which had replacedthe teacher training colleges, and we had very focusedcolleges of further education.

Without wanting to feel that I am getting really oldby thinking that all the glory is in the past, there is apart of me that yearns for what was the situation whenI was the head of the sixth form at an inner-citycomprehensive school. For those students who wantedto take a vocational route into a vocational profession,the path was very clear, and it went something likethis. They would go to college to do a BTEC, then onto a polytechnic to do an HND, and then they wouldconvert it into a degree. There was a clarity of missionand of route that has somehow become muddied andhidden in the situation we have now. Although I donot want to argue the case for going back, and althoughI appreciate the benefits which the unified system hasbrought, I worry that what is happening in actual factis that we will never get away from groupings. We havegroupings within the unified higher education systemtoday, but they do not give clarity about mission orsend a message about a clear route through. What wehave is self-styled and self-described university groupingswhich have resegmented the higher education systemwithout giving it the clarity it used to have.

Let us look at my own career since I became aMember of your Lordships’ House. For three years Iworked at the University of Sunderland. At the momentI am chair of the council at Goldsmiths and I amemployed by the University of York; in saying this Ihave declared my interests as set out in the register.Over the years I have worked at a post-1992 university,I chair the council at what was a 1994 university—Iknow that the 1994 group has been abolished, but I amsure that something will take its place—and I work ata Russell group university. Those are the groupingsthat have replaced the titles we used to have. When Ilook at the three universities with which I have connections,I can see that every one of them excels at part of itsmission. Sunderland University does the best of anyinstitution I know of at civic leadership. Sunderlandcity would not have made the progress it has as a cityin the north-east if it did not have its university withits widening participation, which is taken seriously.That is helping social mobility in one of the mostdeprived areas of the country. Goldsmiths regularlyproduces some of our nation’s finest artists and musiciansand it is a university with an international record.

York has an excellent reputation for research andregularly appears in the top 10 or 15 of any universityleague table. But although all three universities havean area of excellence, the perception of the groupingsthey are placed in defines them as institutions, andthat risks hiding their strengths.

Whatever is the strength of a university or howevermuch it might treasure that strength, it is the performancetables which actually define them. Two of the universitiesI have been connected with are penalised for theirstrengths. Sunderland University excels at wideningparticipation but is penalised because one of the bigratings in the university league tables is the entryqualifications of the students it admits. Because ittakes risks with children from poor backgrounds andsecond-time learners, and puts its reputation on theline, it is penalised in the rankings, despite its studentsatisfaction being well above 4. As for Goldsmiths,because it excels in art and music but does not do anySTEM subjects, it is penalised by losing all its teachinggrant.

The issue I want to raise today is that the shorthandfor excellence has become self-defined by the sectorand risks hiding much of the excellence that we actuallyhave. I am really worried that we are in a situation nowwhere not getting into what is defined as a top universityis seen as a failure and those universities that are notconsidered a top university are not seen as contributingto the nation in the way that they have. However, intruth, the higher education system is more complexthan that. Only 12 universities have more than half oftheir courses in the top 10. Let us just think aboutthat: if you go to the University of Kent to study law,to Aberystwyth to study librarianship and informationtechnology, to Manchester Metropolitan to study nursing,to Aston in Birmingham to study pharmacy or to theUniversity of the West of England to study engineering,you have made the decision to go to a top 10 universityfor your course. However, not one of those universitieshas an overall ranking within the top 25, and some ofthem have an overall ranking outside the top 70. Thatmatters, not because I want to pretend all universitiesare as good as each other or are all the same butbecause I want the opposite. The challenge I amputting out is that there should be greater rigour indefining excellence and it should not be just at universitylevel.

The truth is that the self-styled university groupingshave become shorthand for judging the best graduates,and it is that link that matters. Although the informationis there on the website about strength in courses,employers and the wider world look to people whohave gone to what is considered to be a top universityand make the assumption that they are a top graduate.However, in many cases, that will not be the case.Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that and comeback at the end of the debate to say how we can ensurethat we have a higher education system that recognises,funds and assesses the hugely diverse nature of ourhigher education sector and that really does as muchas it can to allow the sector’s many strengths to flourishand grow. Only in that way, and not by narrowingwhat we mean by a good university, will we be able tomake sure that universities continue to play the importantrole that they have done since they came to our country.


12.08 pm

Lord Storey (LD): My Lords, I am pleased to havethis opportunity to debate such an important topicand congratulate my noble friend on securing thisdebate. I want to talk in the main about how importantuniversities are becoming in developing innovationand in creating and supporting businesses, and howthey are using their research capacity to do that. Wehave seen this accelerate enormously over the past fewyears, and universities have become an integral andimportant part of our economic growth.

As a topical example, only yesterday the Mayor ofLondon launched Med City, a scheme aimed atstrengthening links between hospitals, universities andbusinesses in the south-east’s golden triangle. Promisingthough this sounds—I would say that, wouldn’t I—Isuggest we must focus attention on the truly innovativework being done right across the country, includingScotland. I want to highlight some of the work beingdone in the north-west of England. I need only look tomy own city of Liverpool for an example of bestpractice. In 2006, a not-for-profit company, LiverpoolScience Park, was established by Liverpool John MooresUniversity—the original red-brick institution—and thecity council. It is a flourishing science and innovationpark which is currently home to more than 75 companies,including graduate start-ups, key commercial-facingfacilities and a handful of business support companies.Liverpool Science Park has been leading the way inuniting the sector, the graduate talent pool and thelocal economies. Only last Thursday the local paper,the Liverpool Echo, reported on the increasingly largenumber of Liverpool city region students startingtheir own businesses as a result of the LiverpoolScience Park.

I would also like to praise the work being done byJohn Moores’ Centre for Entrepreneurship and UnLtd.Their success story and their ethos must surely beshared as widely as possible across the sector. Indeed,students who cannot find traditional jobs upon graduationare increasingly being encouraged to start up theirown businesses. Fortunately, this message is beginningto resonate. A report published last month by theHigher Education Statistics Agency, the Higher Education—Business and Community Interaction Survey, highlightedhow more than 3,500 businesses were started by recentgraduates last year, up from 2,357 five years ago. It is aresult that we should all be proud of.

It is painfully clear how crucial graduate enterpriseis to the success of the UK’s core cities and the widereconomy. I hope that the Minister bears this in mindin his response. Let us not forget how daunting aprospect it is to set up and run a new business venture.We should also remember how some of the world’sbest innovations and opportunities came from literallythrowing ideas around with colleagues and collaborators—think Facebook, think Apple. This is where universitiescome in, bringing businesses together with other like-minded entrepreneurs, providing support and assistance,and helping to broker new relationships. Many universitieshost local economic growth hubs or business incubatorsto help small organisations and start-ups get off theground. The result of this can be more jobs, moreinnovation and, crucially, more growth.

Another example outside the north-west is the BrightonFuse project, which brings together academics andentrepreneurs in the arts, humanities, design and digitalsectors. They map and measure how they may bestsupport one another. Similar schemes are starting totake shape right across the UK, and I hope the Ministerwill throw his support behind such projects.

However, the benefits that university research canoffer the commercial sector have not always been asstrong as they should be. The most recent comparativedata on the performance of research institutions inAustralia, Canada, the USA and the UK show thatfrom a relatively weak position, the UK now leads onmany indicators of commercialisation activity. InNovember 2012, Her Majesty’s Government announceda £60 million investment in UK universities to assistour most pioneering scientists and engineers to createsuccessful businesses via research, helping to fosterentrepreneurship and developing industrial collaboration.

The University of Bristol offers various schemes,such as the Proof of Principle awards, to encouragestudents and researchers to develop the commercialpotential of research, explore markets, develop prototypesand take the first steps in generating impact businesses.Another of Bristol’s schemes is the Engagement Award,where researchers can receive up to £10,000 for developingand piloting new activities and approaches, establishingpartnerships outside academia and providing training,skills and development.

This demonstrates that researchers and businessescan establish mutually beneficial relationships. Theunique aspect of higher education is that the level ofinnovation can be constantly maintained as youngpeople pursuing research vocations also fuel furtherresearch. I suggest that we should capitalise on thisand create new links between university researchersand businesses. This would construct a sustainablemethod of creating more jobs, new opportunities andincreased growth—a “win-win-win”, as they say.

I turn to another matter in our universities. Whilethere is rightly an emphasis on increasing the proportionof women sitting on FTSE 100 company boards, thereis sadly little being done by way of increasing thenumber of women involved in university leadership.Shamefully, only 14% of university vice-chancellorsare women, whereas in business the proportion hasclimbed to 21% due to increased political pressure aswell as pressure from businesses themselves; for example,via the work of the 30% Club. We are fortunate tohave so many excellent women role models in thisHouse, where we have a more equal balance of womenon boards, positively influencing the culture of companies’decision-making. Surely the same should apply to ouruniversities and higher education institutions. Womenneed to feel confident, in that they have earned theirposition, that their views will be considered as equal tothose of a man. They are not around to “make up thenumbers”. An environment needs to be fostered wherea macho style of leadership is eliminated and men andwomen are equally represented and valued. On howwe go about this in the academic sector, in our universities,in the higher education sector, I would be interested tohear from the Minister or other noble Lords.


I recently found out via a Written Answer from mynoble friend the Minister that the numbers in highereducation have increased dramatically in the past 10years. Since 2003, for example, the number of doctorateshas increased by nearly 50%, demonstrating a desireamong young people to pursue research. The supply isthere—we have an increasingly large pool of highlytalented and enthusiastic graduates ready to work andready to innovate. It is blindingly obvious that universitiesand colleges offering higher education courses aremaking an increasingly significant contribution to ourrecovering economy, both in terms of GDP contributionand jobs. The sector attracts significant investmentfrom overseas —we must always remember that.

While it is right that we should think againabout the target of 50% of young people attendinguniversity, focusing perhaps on a balance of collegeeducation, vocational training and apprenticeships,we cannot ignore the enormous benefits that a successfulhigher education sector provides, as we heard frommy noble friend the Minister in his own personalexperiences.

Our higher education sector also produces significant,non-economic benefits. They literally change lives bythe opportunities and chances that they provide, especiallyfor students from the lowest achieving schools and lesswell off backgrounds. I pay tribute to all those who work inthis sector for their innovative work and for being atremendous force for good right across the country,including Scotland.

12.17 pm

Lord Bilimoria (CB): My Lords, last Friday, ProfessorVenkatraman Ramakrishnan—known as “Venki”—thewinner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry 2009, joint chairof the structural studies centre at the University ofCambridge and a fellow of Trinity College, receivedan award at the Asian Awards at the Grosvenor HouseHotel for outstanding achievement in science andtechnology. In his acceptance speech, he said:

“I was very touched by the Prime Minister who gave us such awarm welcome address in a video message earlier this evening butI have to say, over the past 10 years, the level of xenophobia andanti- immigration rhetoric has been ramming up—visa laws areincreasingly restrictive, so that’s hard for us senior scientists toattract the best talent! They do not see necessarily that actuallyBritain is really a wonderful place. I get offers regularly to go backto the U.S and I always decline, because I love working here. Thatperception has to be changed and can only come”

from the Government changing their policies onimmigration. There I end the quote from one of theworld’s great scientists.

Foreign academics make up 30% of all the academicsat our top universities, including Oxford and Cambridge,and foreign students are some of our most talentedundergraduates and postgraduates. If people suchas Professor Ramakrishnan are saying things likethis, who knows how many future Nobel Prizewinners are choosing not to take up a position at ouruniversities?

I am an alumnus through executive education ofthe Harvard Business School. In January, I was presentfor a speech that the president of Harvard University,Professor Drew Gilpin Faust, gave to her university’sLondon alumni at the Guildhall. Professor Faust made

it very clear that Harvard would make the best effortto attract the best students and academics from aroundthe world. She said:

“The future we face together, the future we shape, will dependperhaps most of all on who we are and who we will be. Attractingand supporting the most promising students and faculty arecrucial to all we aspire to do. When we think of what Harvard hasmeant to the world, we inevitably find ourselves focusing onpeople: the extraordinary individuals to define our identity andembody our aims”.

There you have it: the president of Harvard making itabsolutely clear that her university will do whatever ittakes to get the best academics and the best students,regardless of their social or economic background ortheir ability to pay. In July 2010, Nitin Nohria becamethe 10th dean of Harvard Business School. NitinNohria is an Indian who studied at the Indian Instituteof Technology before going to the United States tostudy at MIT. In July, a fellow Indian academic,Rakesh Khurana, will take over as the new dean ofHarvard College.

That is what we are competing against, and that isan example from just one university abroad. How easyit would be for us to lose our stars, such as ProfessorVenkatraman Ramakrishnan, when the likes of Harvardhave an ethos such as that. The competition is notcoming just from the United States. Canada is on anaggressive recruitment drive for international students.Australia and New Zealand are both attracting thousandsof students from India, China, Korea and Japan tostudy in Sydney, Melbourne and Christchurch. Whyare we not following their lead in trying to attract thebest and brightest overseas students to our country?

The threat is not just from the Anglosphere. TheFrench Government are moving to simplify the visaapplication process for international students. Theministry for education in France has just announcedthat it plans to double the number of Indian studentsat France’s universities by the end of the decade. Whydo not our Government set a target to double thenumber of international students? Why do not theyset a target of any sort to attract more internationalstudents, let alone from countries such as India?

The situation is not good. For the first time ever,our total student numbers are down. In a rush toreduce net migration to tens of thousands by the nextelection, the Government have succeeded in convincingsome of the world’s most talented young minds thatBritain does not want them. A report last week fromthe Higher Education Funding Council for Englandshowed that international and EU student numbersdecreased by 4,595 in 2012-13, the first such declinesince 1985. That followed a survey from the NationalUnion of Students in January showing that 51%of international students found the Governmentunwelcoming. In 2012-13, meanwhile, the number ofIndian postgraduate students at Russell group universitiesdeclined by 18%. That is worrying news when theDepartment for Business said that education exportswere worth £15 billion. That is wonderful news, but itmakes the position all the more absurd when we arefinally seeing signs of economic recovery.

Just today, we have heard that we are the fastest-growingeconomy in the developed world. If we want that to besustainable, we need to invest in research and development.


[LORD BILIMORIA]We spend a fraction of the OECD average on R&Dfunding. The Minister says that the Government havepreserved their funding for research, but the TimesHigher Education Supplement points out that, accordingto the Office for National Statistics, the UK spent1.72% of GDP on R&D in 2012, down from 1.77% in2011. Can the Minister confirm that?

At the moment, that places us in a miserable positionin the EU 28 group. We are currently 12th, behindcountries such as Slovenia, Estonia and the CzechRepublic. Finland spends the highest proportion of itsGDP on R&D at 3.55%, but even the EU average is2.06%, and we are well below that. Investing just anextra 0.5% of GDP in science would make such a hugedifference and should be a priority. That would give usthe competitive edge for sustainable growth.

The fact is that our great universities—we havemany—are succeeding despite, not because of governmentpolicy. The changes to student loans will come back tobite us. When the Government announced the changesto the system in 2010, they said that only a smallnumber of universities would charge the new maximumof £9,000, tripled overnight from £3,000, and that thenew system would create a more sustainable market-basedenvironment in our universities, which would be betterfunded than ever. On all those measures, the schemehas failed. Only last month, the Government quietlyannounced that about 45% of university graduateswill not earn enough or will not be able to repay theirstudent loans. If the figure is only slightly out andreaches 48.6%, the Government’s own experts calculatethat the Government will lose more money than theygained by increase in fees in England to £9,000 a year.Can the Minister confirm that?

The result of this is clear. Universities are no betteroff, students are worse off and the Government willend up having to pay even more to fund higher educationthan they did under the old system. The Governmentsaid in 2010 that the changes would allow for a freemarket of choices between courses and that competitiveuniversities would prosper. There is no free market:almost all the universities are having to charge almostthe maximum £9,000 for courses, when previously theGovernment said that only a minority would. Thereason is that when the Government tripled the fees,they reduced the funding to universities and withdrewteaching funding almost entirely. Will the Ministerconcede that this was a big mistake? Can he tell us howmany of the universities are charging near that £9,000and what proportion of students are paying it? I amexcluding the expensive courses, such as medical courses.

As I said in a debate that this House had on theImmigration Bill, the Government’s madcap immigrationcap has harmed us. Over the past year, the number ofIndian students has fallen by 25%. That is also partlybecause of the abolition of the two-year post-studywork visa. Every time that I talk to foreign studentsthey say, “If only we could have that ability to workfor two years”. The current system is not easy when theyhave hardly any time to find a job. It is too difficult butthat two-year post-study work visa really helped themto pay for their expensive education, gain some workexperience and continue to build generation-long linkswith their countries. It did not help to have “Go Home”

vans or the £3,000 bond, which were, thankfully, scrapped.These messages are sending out completely the wrongimage: that this Government do not want internationalstudents. I wholeheartedly agree that the Governmentneed to clamp down on illegal immigration and mustcontinue to do so. However, that does not mean thatwe should harm the good immigration, particularly inour universities, which are desperately in need of academicsand students.

Speaking recently, the chief executive of the HigherEducation Funding Council for England, ProfessorMadeleine Atkins, said:

“International students enrich our universities and colleges—andour society—academically, culturally, and through their contributionto the economy. Supporting high-quality international educationis a crucial part of ensuring that the UK continues to engagewith, and benefit from, the increasingly interconnected world”.The higher education sector is one of the jewels in theUnited Kingdom’s crown, as all of us who work withinhigher education know. I am privileged to be associatedwith a number of universities. I sit on three universitybusiness school boards: Cambridge, Birmingham andCranfield. I also have appointments at Cambridge. Iknow that this tiny country, with less than 1% of theworld’s population, has six of the top 20 universities inthe world according to the latest QS rankings. There ishigher attainment by ethnic minority students thanever before and our universities will continue to dominatethe international rankings, but these achievementshave not been borne out by government policy, whichis lagging behind. The Prime Minister is fond of referringto Britain as being in a global race for growth, tradeand investment. Unfortunately, the juxtaposition betweenthe Government’s economic and immigration policiesmore closely resembles a three-legged race.

I conclude that if we want to have a sustainable,competitive economy, yes, we need better school educationand skills but our higher education is a crucial priorityand must continue to be so. We must invest more inhigher education as a proportion of GDP, from bothpublic and private sources. We need to remove studentimmigration from the immigration figures. Can theMinister say whether the Government are going to dothis? Our competitors do not include figures for studentimmigration within their immigration figures: the UnitedStates does not, nor does Canada or Australia. Canthe Government also ensure that the two-year workpermit is brought back in, so that students can workafter they finish their studies, and that we invest morein R&D as a percentage of GDP than we currentlydo? Then we will stand a chance of competing in theglobal race.

12.29 pmThe Lord Bishop of Winchester:My Lords, I am grateful

to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for giving us theopportunity to debate this topic. The Church of Englandtakes seriously its commitment to higher education.Many Bishops have a close involvement with theuniversities in their diocese, as visitor or chancellor orby sitting on the university council. Indeed, it wouldnot surprise me if the right reverend Prelate the Bishopof Portsmouth said something about his commitmentin his maiden speech later today. I gather that there isalso one Bishop who is currently a student.


As spokesperson for the Bishops on higher educationI have a particular interest in this area, and I offer toyour Lordships one understanding of what highereducation is for, and particularly what the Anglicaninstitutions can offer to the sector. It is important toinvest in higher education as a public good whosepurpose is to build up the common good.

Ten Anglican universities have emerged out of theChurch of England investment in higher educationover the past two centuries. Alongside these 10 there isanother with an ecumenical foundation, LiverpoolHope University, which is where I was yesterday. Togetherwith three other universities that have a Catholicfoundation, they make up the Cathedrals Group. Themajority of these universities were founded as teachertraining colleges in the 19th century before the laterrise of the red-brick universities. They were originallyestablished to train teachers required for the manynew Church of England schools. These colleges, asvocational institutions, began to develop their ownfaculties in the university disciplines connected withthe subjects that the teachers would teach. With thisgrowth, and with further diversification, many of thesecolleges became universities in their own right. Withtheir historic foundation and unique ethos, they sharewith other older universities, and many recently establishedones, the questions and challenges facing higher educationtoday. What binds them together is a commitment tohigher education as something that is a public goodfor the common good.

A number of significant factors are highlighted bythose who brief in the higher education sector—forexample, the economic contribution of universities,non-economic benefits, the expansion of higher education,university funding and international students. However,unless there is clarity about what higher education isfor, the debate about its delivery is confused with itspurpose. Put simply, at the highest level the value andpurpose of higher education is as a public good for thecommon good. This perspective on higher educationcan be considered through three perspectives: generatingcreative graduates for a creative economy, offeringformation for a context of social diversity, and anenabling environment for research and teaching.

First, it is clear that higher education is a keyelement in the wealth creation of our society. However,it is not so clear that universities should be assessed, inan instrumental fashion, in terms of the numbers ofwealth creators they generate or how their contributionsto an economy are directly attributable. Yet it is goodto note that Universities UK has reported that thesector made a contribution of £73 billion to grossnational productivity in 2011-12, and that this was a24% increase on the previous evaluation in 2009. So itwould be true to say that the contribution of a university,particularly to the local economy of its region, is animportant aspect of what universities are for. TheMillion+ manifesto has suggested some strategic actionsthat could be taken to enhance the role of a universityin the development of a local economy. Such initiativeswould seem to chime well with the Government’s owncommitment to developing major cities, and with theircontribution to the GDP. One such city in my owndiocese, Southampton, has seen a notable rise in

its GDP. Not insignificant to that improvement is therole of Southampton University as a force in theregion.

However, there is a certain obliquity to this goal ofeconomic productivity. It is through aiming at somethingelse that such a goal can best be achieved. For example,to encourage economic productivity it might be bestto aim at creativity. It is creative people who contributethe most to the economy. This is because, as JohnHowkins has advocated, what we have today is indeed“the creative economy”. Today we need to encouragecreativity, to enhance the intellectual freedom in whichcreativity takes place and to embrace the creativechallenges that the market presents. A university cangenerate an environment to encourage such aptitudesin its students. It can unlock their latent talent, especiallyfor those who have not traditionally accessed highereducation. It is in this way that the university cancontribute through the creativity of its graduates tothe common good of the economy.

Corresponding to the challenge of making a creativeeconomic contribution, with the spread of Anglicanuniversities across the country, in Canterbury, Chester,Chichester, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Lincoln, Liverpool,London, Lampeter, Plymouth, Winchester and Yorkthere is certainly a sense in which they are making acountrywide contribution to local economies. As apublic good, these universities are contributing tonational life by providing access to higher educationfor many who would not otherwise be able to developtheir latent talent.

There is both a vocational perspective and creativityin the ethos of these universities. This includes whatsome would call a liberal arts world-view, both religiousand secular. I was inspired yesterday by Cornerstone,Liverpool Hope University’s creative campus, in whichits ethos of what is a public good and what the commongood is for is expressed right in the heart of Everton.

Secondly, today’s societies require the kind of spacein which there is the opportunity to have multidisciplinaryengagement reflecting the globalisation of civilization.A university today needs to be able to offer a way ofhandling the multiversity of our pluralist societies andto include in its community those who have, in previouseras, been unable to participate in or access highereducation.

Today no one individual, discipline or institutioncan hope to hold a total view. However, what can beencouraged is a form of intellectual inquiry that enablesexchange between disciplines and between culturalperspectives and which therefore models new ways ofliving together in diversity. The value of higher education,its public good, includes the formation of students in acollegiality based on engaging with others and engagingwith different kinds of knowledge through conversation.

The university, especially the university that isnetworked with others across the globe, is an essentialspace for enabling the conversation required betweendisciplines to help us face those global challenges thatwill diminish the common good: the unfettered powerof economic change; the question of climate changeand limited resources; and the disturbing forces ofcultural differences. Reconciling and resolving differenceswill require societies that know how to negotiate.


[THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER]However, just when we need greater interaction betweennations, and when higher education as a global publicgood is something many want and will pay for, the UKhas made it difficult to study here. Universities arestruggling with the limitations the new immigrationlegislation has placed on international students.

The Cathedrals Group of universities makes asignificant contribution to the widening participatingagenda. Not all noble Lords will agree with the targetthat 50% of young people should participate in highereducation, but it is striking that we have nearly achievedthat, with approximately 48% of 18 to 24 year-olds ineach year group accepting a place at university. TheAnglican universities have played their part in achievingthis target and ensuring that young people from allbackgrounds can participate in higher education.

Anybody who has spent time exploring the issuesaround widening participation will know that they areextremely complex. Nevertheless, many universitieshave found success can be linked to their commitmentto develop the whole person by looking further thanA-level grades at the admissions stage and exploring adeeper context that can illuminate the real potential ofa candidate. From time to time, this might run contraryto the incentives of league tables, but it is completelyin line with an optimistic vision of human potentialand with higher education as a public good that is forthe common good. However, it is a shocking fact thatmany students who take loans will graduate owingmore than £50,000, with interest rates way beyondmost market returns and a repayment scheme that willtax success, disincentivising social mobility.

Thirdly, there is a need for universities to promote aworld-view for the civilisation of our societies thatsees the intergenerational transfer of knowledge throughteaching and inspiring the long-term commitment whichacademic research requires. This is more than acontribution to the economy or to social cohesion;this is about the development of a public good for thecommon good of civilisation and the flourishing ofhumanity. The separation of teaching and researchuniversities will not help spread both the world-viewof civilisation and its grounding in values of beauty,goodness and truth. Such a vision is deeply integratedin the Christian vision and mission, which inspired themedieval universities and contributed to the renewalof universities in the Enlightenment. This is not somethingthat can be easily illustrated, but it is about a world-viewof inquisitiveness and persistence, open to reality.Some discoveries, or applications of discoveries, requirea capacity resourced by a world-view of ongoingexploration of this world and its meaning.

The world-view of the great medieval universitiessuch as Oxford and Cambridge and those of themodern universities such as Berlin and London meantthat they were such institutions. Universities such asthese require investment for the common good bythose who have responsibility for the common good.However, focusing research in just a few universitiesand in certain kinds of disciplines will undermine thevery inquisitiveness and spread of research required. Iam delighted that Liverpool Hope University has oneof the best research centres on world Christianity.

It might be a key resource for understanding today’srenewal of global religion and its impact on oursocieties.

The budget for HEFCE has been reduced. Theimplications are grave, especially for vulnerablecommunities. Funding for research has been ring-fenced,as has the allocation for funding-intensive subjectssuch as engineering and science. But this leaves thewidening participation projects, such as Access toLearning, vulnerable to further cuts. There is need forpublic investment in universities, otherwise what iscurrently a public good will again become a privategood, affordable to a few.

The Government’s intentions for higher educationare a concern. There is a simplicity about lifting thecap on numbers and fees and allowing market forcesto have their way, but if we wish to build on improvementsin primary and secondary education we need to investin the public good of higher education. There is a needfor framework and a rationale for state support beyondfree universities.

There may well be a reduction in higher educationin the coming years, but let us not let that happen in abrutal fashion. We need universities who take seriouslytheir public role, not just in contributing to the creativeeconomy and social cohesion of globalised societies,but as institutions that also pursue, with academicrigour, new knowledge based in grounded researchand good teaching. The privatisation and marketisationof the university may well solve some issues, but couldraise many more problems. It is essential that nationalGovernments remain committed to investing in tertiaryeducation. Universities are essential public institutions:a public good for the common good.

12.42 pm

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con): My Lords:“A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight

car; but if he has a university education he may steal the wholerailroad”.

Theodore Roosevelt knew of what he spoke. In sayingthat, he clearly demonstrated the benefit of highereducation to the individual and to the entire nation. Ithank my noble friend the Minister for initiating thisincredibly significant debate.

Twenty years ago this summer, I graduated from theUniversity of Cambridge. I was incredibly fortunate towin a place there. It was an extraordinary experience tobe tutored, one to one, by some of the greatest mindsin the world. To demonstrate the quality of that tuition,one of my ex-tutors will be speaking later in this debate.

To be part of that community at Cambridge—whatan extraordinary opportunity that was. That institutionhas burned bright for centuries, not just across Britainbut across the world, creating and motivating some ofthe world’s greatest scientists, writers, poets and engineers;a university which has created more Nobel Prize winnersthan almost anywhere else on the planet. Trinity Collegealone boasts 32 Nobel Prize winners: that is just onecollege of one university, part of our extraordinaryhigher education system.

It is also tremendous from a personal point of viewto see that a previous vice-chancellor of Cambridgereally pushed forward on sporting excellence alongside


academic excellence. The two are not mutually exclusive.This did not limit sport only to rowing, rugby orcricket, and did not enable sportspeople to be only inthe camp of rowing or land economy, but sat the twotogether and demonstrated through flexibility howyou could have sporting and academic excellence alongsideone another.

I will build on a lot of what the noble Lord, LordBilimoria, said about international students. This countryshould be saying, “We need, want and welcomeinternational students from across the planet”. It isunderstandable that there was nervousness about themat a time when the economy was not in great shape,but that is of no consequence and is no excuse. Whateverthe economic backdrop, we need, want and welcomeinternational students. Of course we should not benaive about fake students, the conjured-up course andthe non-existent institution, but those things are noreason to clamp down and shut the door on all thatpossibility. I do not want to be overly Rumsfeldian,but it is very difficult to say how many non-existentinstitutions exist. However, we do know how many fine,excellent and value-driven higher education institutionsexist across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Theyneed the input, involvement and participation ofinternational students for economic, social and politicalreasons in the short, medium and long term.

It was estimated that in 2012, in fees and livingcosts alone, international students contributed £10.2 billionto this country. If they stay on and work here, thatcontribution increases by multiples. If they go back totheir own countries, what fabulous brand ambassadorsfor Great Britain they will be. Soft power is so essential,so misunderstood and has been so underdeveloped forso many years. The report by the ad hoc committee ofthis House clearly demonstrated that soft power is realpower. International students can play a key role asambassadors in that soft power agenda.

We currently gain around 13% of the internationalstudent market. That is good—we are in silver medalplace behind the States—but there is so much more tobe gained. Over the past nine years the figure for theStates has dropped around 10%. We should go out there,grasp all the opportunities and say to internationalstudents, “The doors to great British institutions areopen; come and be part of this. We want the brightestand the best students to study, to strive and to want agreat British higher education”.

Employability, which for too many years has often beenseen as the preserve of the careers office, underresourcedand often undervalued, is now seen as absolutelycritical—as significant as the degree award itself. Thatis not in any sense to be overly reductive; it is notabout seeing education as merely learning to labour. Itis about enabling an individual, alongside whateveracademic course they are on, to gain employability skills,which will not just assist and potentially give thatperson the edge with their first job but will last throughouttheir entire career. The study shows that 80% or so ofgraduates in the UK are in employment six monthsafter graduating. That is a good figure, although itcould certainly improve. It is interesting that there isnow an indicator which tracks this alongside degreeresults and other key indicators for our higher educationinstitutions.

To move on to the specific, I will talk about BPP;my involvement with that institution is indicated in theregister of interests. It is a university based on the deliveryof professional courses in law, accountancy, business,nursing and health. It has developed extraordinarilyover the past 15 years, gaining university status andconstantly thinking about where the next edge ineducation is. It focuses on excellence: nine out of 10 ofthe worldwide prize winners in the CIMA exams studiedat BPP. As regards employability, 96% of BPP graduatesare in work six months after leaving, which is well aheadof the average figure I quoted some moments ago.

BPP delivers professional education to studentswho come from more than 50 countries from aroundthe world. To the business point, it is connected withalmost every one of the 100 FTSE companies. Business,international students and excellence are all wrappedup in one professional education offer; it is an incredibletestament to the focus, drive and determination of itschief executive, Carl Lygo, who has driven this strategyfor more than a decade.

In conclusion, higher education is the source ofincredible innovation, the generator of global research,creator of jobs, driver of growth, and cornerstone ofour soft power—it is nothing short of a gleaming gemright at the centre of our national crown. I salute it, Iraise a glass to it, and am unstintingly committed toUnited Kingdom higher education.

12.50 pm

Baroness Donaghy (Lab): My Lords, it is always apleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes ofRichmond, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad,for introducing this debate. It is quite right that hetalked up the universities. We have a room full ofexpertise and knowledge, but also a room full ofpassion about higher education, although we mightdisagree about certain things, of course.

My contribution is about the importance of universitiesin teacher education and training. I spent 33 years atthe University of London Institute of Education, andrecently had the pleasure of attending a meeting at theinstitute at the invitation of the noble Lord, LordNash, to see the exciting developments that are takingplace in research and development in teacher education.The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold,was also in attendance in her role as chairman of theinstitute council.

The university connection with teacher educationstarted in 1890, and the McNair report of 1944,exactly 70 years ago, consolidated that connection byestablishing area training authorities, whereby collegesof education were attached to a university hub to raisestandards and ensure consistent qualities. I am awarethat the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchesterrecently made a speech about teacher education, and Iwanted publicly to thank him for that contribution.

Some policy changes that are taking place are damagingthe connection with the universities and may lead tosome universities opting out of teacher education.Indeed, some already have. I thank James Noble-Rogersfrom the Universities Council for the Education ofTeachers, or UCET, for his excellent briefing on thissubject. The teacher education base was sound in


[BARONESS DONAGHY]2010; 94% of higher education institutions offeringinitial teacher training were good or better, accordingto Ofsted, and 47% were outstanding, compared with26% of school-based routes. The partnership betweenuniversities and schools was strong—in fact, amongthe most developed in the world. In the most recentsurvey, conducted in 2013, more than 90% of newlyqualified teachers, after having been in post for oneand a half terms, rated the quality of training thatthey had received as being good or very good. TheEducation Select Committee in 2012, while welcomingmoves towards the more school-led approach of thisGovernment, cautioned against any diminution of therole of universities in teacher education.

I am not claiming that everything is perfect. Someschools did not take responsibility for the next generationof teachers or did so half-heartedly, and some initialteacher training providers viewed schools as providingclassroom experience without engaging in leadershipand design of programmes. In some cases, there wastoo much focus on initial teacher training and notenough on continuous professional development, whichproduces better teachers, increases their confidenceand helps to retain them in the profession.

When the Government published their teachereducation proposals in 2011, there were many thingsto welcome, such as raising entry qualifications—althoughthere is no direct correlation between degree classificationand someone’s effectiveness as a teacher—a greaterfocus on partnerships and a stronger school involvementin initial teacher training. This is something thatuniversities and UCET have urged for many years.Schools should have a central role that goes beyondthe traditional model under which they—sometimesreluctantly—accept student teachers on placement.The fact that a school needs sufficient resources tocarry out this very resource-intensive exercise goeswithout saying, but I feel that I ought to say it.

This country has led the way in developing partnershipsbetween schools and universities. Universities explicitlyand actively supported the Government’s proposals todevelop networks of teaching schools which could, ifdone properly, engage schools more effectively in teachereducation, both initially and in continuing professionaldevelopment, including masters and research anddevelopment projects. But then we come to SchoolDirect. When it was launched in 2011, it was describedas a scheme under which 500 training places would beallocated directly to schools to help them meet teachersupply needs which could not be met through theexisting supply system. At the time, no one suspected—noteven the Government, I would like to bet—that itwould become the centrepiece of the school-led, market-driven agenda. It could be made to work—and thereare some good examples. However, the speed withwhich this policy is being introduced is causing supplyproblems and planning headaches and is a threat tothe quality of teacher education and training.

There were 900 School Direct places in 2012-13, ofwhich only 50% were filled. This soared to 25% of totalplaces in 2013-14, and to a provisional 37% of placesin 2014-15, even though mainstream programmes offeredby higher education institutions are better at fillingplaces. The dangers of this too rapid expansion are

obvious: it will cause instability in the initial teachertraining education infrastructure, leading to unsustainableprovision and reduced choice for schools. Bath Universityand the Open University have already dropped out ofinitial teacher training: both were rated outstanding.

It is true that 70% of School Direct places areallocated to partnerships involving universities, butthis system is by its very nature fragmented andunpredictable. For example, a university might have10 School Direct places to train English teachers inany one year. However, once a school holding thoseSchool Direct places has recruited the teachers itneeds, it is not going to recruit any more. A universityis unlikely to maintain staffing and resources for trainingEnglish teachers in the hope that it will be able to pickup different contracts each year from different schools.Good programmes will close, which could cause teachersupply problems. Schools that want to participate inteacher training, but not through School Direct, willhave their choice taken from them, while schools whichwant to be involved with School Direct will have fewerproviders with which to work. There is nothing school-ledor market-driven about that.

School Direct has led to places not being filledbecause of the inflexibilities in the new allocation andapplication system. It is desperately urgent that theseinflexibilities are dealt with now before the summer.Universities are turning away highly qualified applicantswhile School Direct vacancies exist in the same area.Recruitment is 43% below target in physics and 22% belowtarget in mathematics. School Direct also underminesthe ability of an integrated teacher education infrastructureto deliver system-wide change, which, of course, allGovernments like to do. With an integrated system,significant policy changes can be implemented quicklyand effectively. Without commenting on the quality ofthe policy, an example would be systematic syntheticphonics, which this Government introduced. The Ministerfor Schools has written to universities and schools tocongratulate them on their achievements in this area.Higher education institutions can be a route for gettingnew policies and new ideas into schools. Training thatis entirely school-based risks replication of establishedorthodoxies and institutional conservatism.

UCET has already suggested quick and easy solutionsto some of these problems both to the Minister and tothe Select Committee on Education—an appropriatebalance between the allocation of core and SchoolDirect places. Following the last allocation, there areparts of the country with no training taking place inparticular subjects through either the mainstream orSchool Direct. This cannot be right. To maximiserecruitment, there needs to be virement between coreprovision and School Direct. The current inflexibilitieswill lead to disaster this autumn.

Prospective teachers should have an informed choiceabout the route for taking their careers further. Thereis a market but it must be sustainable. Schools shouldhave the choice between School Direct and core provision.There is the broader market of the education systemas a whole, where demographic changes require teachersto be trained to work across a system and not with theneeds of a particular school in mind. The trainees arealso customers who want flexibility, adaptability and


transportability. For every one teacher who wants tostay in the same school throughout their career, therewill be nine others who want to move.

Without a good base of core allocation, universitiescannot sustain their involvement in teacher training,including the School Direct provision, to a good standard.Current policy risks a race to the bottom in thequality of training, determined in large part by locallynegotiable financial considerations. Initial teacher traininginfrastructure is likely to be broken up, with provisionoffered by associate or brought-in staff or abandonedaltogether. Warwick University has placed all its initialteacher training provision in a self-financing businessunit. It will be interesting to see where research anddevelopment find a place.

In order to remain in the market, some providershave begun to offer validation-only routes. They appealto schools because of the low cost, but a validation-onlyapproach will drive down standards and is out of stepwith high-performing systems internationally.

Finally, I believe that this Government are sincereabout improving schools and the quality of teachers.However, their policy initiatives will do the exact oppositeif changes are not made soon, and the universityconnection, which has been in existence for more than100 years and is admired by the rest of the world, willbe irreparably damaged.

1.03 pmBaroness Sharp of Guildford (LD): My Lords, it is a

pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.To my mind, she has raised an extremely importantissue, because the quality of teaching in our schoolsand universities is fundamental to the success of oureducation system.

I have been in this House for almost 16 years andhave spoken on higher education from these Bencheson numerous occasions. It is unusual that we have nothad a major debate on higher education for some timeand I am very grateful to the Minister for raising thisimportant issue. My own background is that of auniversity teacher and a researcher. I spent the last20 years of my academic life at the University of Sussexin the Science Policy Research Unit. During my careerin this House, I have concentrated quite a lot on therole of the science and technology subjects and theimportance of, in particular, the teaching of mathematics,and I continue to take an interest in these subjects.

I have also played an active part in developingLiberal Democrat policy. During the early part of thiscentury, when my noble friend Lord Willis was thespokesman on education for my party in the otherplace, he asked me whether I would work with him ondeveloping a rationale for our policy of zero fees. Ihave had little difficulty in justifying that policy. Havingbeen the product of a regime in which I paid no feeswhatever and received very generous maintenance grantswhich enabled me to go to Cambridge—I share theadmiration for that university expressed by the nobleLord, Lord Holmes—I nevertheless felt that in termsof intergenerational equity it was not difficult to justifya regime in which, because it was becoming increasinglyimportant that we should do so, we extended tuitionthrough to the age of 21 for the current generation ofyoung people and they would pay for it later.

I suppose that, for that reason, I also became at thattime a convert to the concept of a graduate tax. Giventhe not wholly progressive income tax system in thiscountry, it seemed to me somewhat unfair that thosewho were on relatively low pay and had not benefitedfrom a university education should have to pay throughtheir income tax for those who benefited and gainedconsiderably from such an education. Today, I continueto feel that some form of graduate tax is the best wayof coping with the situation.

However, my remit was also to look at an integratedsystem—one that incorporated the further educationsector as well as the higher education sector. Weshould not forget that the further education sectorprovides higher education for some 200,000 of our1.3 million students. Therefore, it is a considerableplayer within the higher education sector. The schemethat we came up with was one that, in effect, looked tosome form of voucher system for young people andprovided a degree of flexibility between the sectorsand between different elements in the sector. I shallcome back to that later.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who is not inhis place at the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes,and the Minister himself have indicated, we havemuch to praise our higher education system for in thiscountry. In terms of international ratings—I was lookingat the Times Higher Education reputation rankings—wehave 10 universities in the top 100 and are second onlyto the United States. In terms of publications, with1% of the world’s population we produce 6.4% of theworld’s scientific publications and 14% of the mosthighly cited publications. The quality of our researchattracts many international R&D laboratories, especiallyin the life sciences, where we have forged a position asan international leader.

The universities themselves are great generators ofwealth. It is estimated that their contribution to theUK’s economy is more than £70 billion—2.8% of GDP—creating 750,000 jobs. We attract large numbers ofinternational students, in spite of the efforts of theHome Office. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord,Lord Bilimoria, said about the sheer ludicrousness ofthe current policy in relation to international students.It is rather absurd that the Department for Business,Innovation and Skills is doing its best to encourageinternational students to come here while, at the sametime, the Home Office does its best to discouragethem. That is quite stupid. As the right reverendPrelate the Bishop of Winchester indicated, these studentsgive considerably to their local communities.

However, we need to beware of complacency. Thefarewell lecture that Bahram Bekhradnia gave when hedeparted as director of the Higher Education PolicyInstitute warned that we cannot assume that our relativesuccess will continue indefinitely. Many other countriesare investing very heavily in their higher educationsectors. South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong havebeen rising up the league tables very rapidly, as indeedhas China. If we look at spending on tertiary education,we are spending rather below the OECD average of1.5%—we spend about 1.4%—compared to the USAwhich spends 2.8% of GDP, Canada 2.5% and SouthKorea 2.5%. We spend relatively lowly on tertiary


[BARONESS SHARP OF GUILDFORD]education in terms of our proportion of GDP. Chinais investing in and expanding the sector in spectacularfashion. We may currently be taking large numbers ofpostgraduate students from China but they are returningto become the key academics in their universities inthat country. There will come a day, as we have seen inHong Kong and Singapore, when students will stay athome because their universities are ranked as highly asour universities over here.

The UK is not investing enough in R&D, as the nobleLord, Lord Bilimoria, said. It is not just our universities;the private sector is not investing enough in researchand development. Our total spend at 1.7% of GDPis well below most of our competitors who are nowspending roughly 3% of GDP and rising. Ours hasbeen falling. In the late 1980s we were spending 2% ofGDP on R&D and even that was low at the time, but ithas now fallen to 1.7%.

We should not be complacent about teaching. Theresearch assessment exercise, as it was then called, wasintroduced in 1989. It is now the research excellenceframework. This has given a considerable bias withinuniversities for people to concentrate on research ratherthan on teaching. One of the reasons why we havebeen rising up the research rankings is that all theincentives are there within universities to concentrateon research. However, has that been at the cost ofteaching? Far too many classes in universities are takenby postgraduate students who have no training whateverin teaching. We hear too many stories of work notbeing marked promptly and of little feedback beinggiven to students. I went to university in the late 1950swhen only 7% of the age cohort went. We are nowlooking at 45%. The pedagogy has to be very different.We can no longer assume that students are self-motivatedand can be sent off to the library with a list and told towork by themselves. The internet has done an enormousamount to make material available but students stillneed teaching. As I say, the pedagogy in our universitieshas not had the attention that it deserves.

Above all—this point was raised by the noble Baroness,Lady Morris—we have not been looking enough atthe dynamism and the diversity of this sector. We needa sector that shows greater flexibility in meeting thechallenges from such things as the new online facilities.There is a need to mix and match courses and providefor young people who perhaps move from one institutionto another. There is a need for us to consider whereour skills gap lies and whether the universities aremeeting it. The OECD, in its report Skills beyondSchool, highlighted the issue. It stated:

“While many young people in England pursue vocationalqualifications at universities at bachelor level, very few undertakethe kind of shorter vocational programmes that would representa more cost-efficient response to the need for certain mid-levelskills”.

In 2008, the Leitch report on skills made the pointthat 70% of those in the workforce in 2020 would havealready completed their education. We need to thinkmuch more about education for mid-career which isnot there at the moment. We need to have a stablefinancial framework if we are to develop new frameworksfor higher education. The Dearing report in the 1990ssuggested that funding should come from society and

industry as well as from individuals. Industry fundsremarkably little in the way of higher education. Itcontributes a certain amount to R&D but it does verylittle for teaching in higher education. Although studentspay fees of £9,000 a year, the switch has been from thestate paying the money to the state lending the money,so the money is still coming from the state. As so fewof the loans will be repaid at the end of the day, thesubsidy continues to be extremely high. I was amongthose who had some scepticism about the student loansystem. It was described by Nick Barr on one occasionas a very dodgy form of PFI. To my mind it is bothunduly expensive and ineffective. It transfers the costof loans from the present to the future generationwhile taxing disproportionately those young peoplewhose families are not sufficiently well heeled to payoff their debts. My own party has made a great deal ofthe IFS endorsement of the present system as moreprogressive than its predecessor as the threshold is£21,000 rather than £15,000 so that those on lowincomes pay back less. But it ignores totally the factthat the distribution of wealth in this country enablesthose at the top end to pay off their student debts sothat their children do not have the 9% surcharge onincome tax that others have. In 2010, I was amongthose who predicted that the system would not provesustainable. Its potential collapse came rather soonerthan I expected. I thought that it would probably gothrough to about 2020 when the debt burden wouldbecome apparent.

I have gone on much too long already but I want togo back to the point about diversity. I feel that it isextremely important to develop a system where thereis a greater mix of short and longer courses and whereuniversities play a part alongside the further educationcolleges and other specialist colleges. To oil such asystem we need to have a proper form of creditaccumulation so that people can transfer from oneform of the system to another. I feel this particularlywith the development of online facilities and the mixand match of campus-based learning and distancelearning. I urge the Government to try to develop asystem that is much more diverse and flexible than thecurrent one and to consider a student loan systemsuch as that proposed by Million+ which looks topaying back over a longer term loans directly fundedby the Government.

1.18 pmBaroness Coussins (CB): My Lords, I, too, am

grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for introducingthis debate, and I should like to raise some concernsabout the teaching and learning of modern languagesin British universities. It is an area that is changingrapidly and the Government need to be fully aware ofthe implications of these changes for the future of theUK’s capacity in business, in diplomacy and security,in teaching and specialist language services and, ofcourse, in intercultural understanding. I declare interestsas chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group onModern Languages and vice-president of the CharteredInstitute of Linguists.

Last week, Salford University became the latestuniversity to announce that it would no longer beteaching any degrees in or with languages, including


postgraduate courses in interpreting and translation.This will bring the total number of universities offeringlanguage degrees down to 61. In 2000, there were 105,so that is a pretty dramatic decline. In the case ofSalford, the announcement is not only a body blow forlanguages, for prospective students and for those whowould have been teaching them; it is also disastrousfor international bodies such as the EU and the UnitedNations, which have in the past seen Salford as one oftheir principal recruiting grounds for specialist linguists.The shortage of English native speakers in this field isat crisis point and, as a nation which aspires to beinfluential on the international stage, this is a challengethat the Government need to acknowledge urgently. Isthe Minister aware of the recent report from theBritish Academy, Lost for Words, which spells out theimportance of languages for meeting the UK’s publicpolicy objectives in international relations and security.

As well as the overall decline in the number ofuniversities offering language degrees, there has alsobeen a concentration of the provision that does existwithin certain types of university. The Russell groupdominates, offering 78% of the degrees in Europeanlanguages and 95% of the degrees in non-Europeanlanguages. Adding to the perception of elitism, 28% oflanguages undergraduates now come from independentschools. This compares to only 9% across all subjects.

This, of course, links back to what is going on inschools. The removal of a modern language as acompulsory subject after the age of 14 in 2004 was aretrograde step. Take-up at GCSE in the state sectorhalved as a result. It is to the Government’s credit thatwe are now, finally and belatedly, seeing a significantimprovement at GCSE attributable to the EBacc. However,we will have to wait until 2025 to see the full impact ofthe Government’s other strategic initiative—mandatorylanguages at key stage 2 from next September.

In the mean time we are likely to see further declinein modern language degrees because universities will,quite reasonably, continue to respond to the decline inapplications. In 2012, we saw a 14% drop in studentapplicants for language degrees, attributable to thetripling of fees, which had a disproportionate impacton language courses because they are four-year courses.The introduction of Erasmus Plus and the settlementover fee waivers has been encouraging in this respect.

However, on the down side, we learned only twoweeks ago from the 2013-14 Language Trends surveythat the number of pupils doing A-level languages isdropping at what was described as “an alarming rate”.What is more, this decline is particularly marked in theindependent sector. There are three reasons. First, iftoo few students opt for a language course, the courseis considered unviable and the school will not run it.Secondly, sixth formers perceive languages to be tough,and it is true that there is certainly a big leap betweenlanguages at GCSE and at A-level. Thirdly, and relatedto this, the Russell group universities are calling fortriple A grades for admission. Schools and pupils allknow that there is convincing evidence now to showthat language A-levels are more harshly marked thanother subjects, so why are they going to risk their A orA* by choosing a language?

I appreciate that the Minister today is speaking forBIS rather than the DfE, but the links and theinterdependency between schools and universities areself-evident. Is the Minister aware of this latest findingon the alarming decline in A-level languages and itslikely knock-on effect for higher education? Does heagree that it would be much better to act swiftly to nipthis trend in the bud rather than watch it fester foryears, like the GCSE decline, and then have to administerlife support?

We cannot wait until 2025 for the impact of the newpolicy to resolve all this. We need to attract and retainstudents at A-level now and encourage them to continuelanguages in higher education. This will not happenunless we campaign to change public attitudes towardsthe value of language skills and the wider culturalvalue of studying another language. What do theGovernment plan to do to lead such a campaign?Specifically, would the Minister respond to a suggestion,made at a recent meeting of the HEFCE steeringgroup for the Routes into Languages programme chairedby Sir David Bell, that the issue of languages in HEneeds to be the subject of a Downing Street forum, inthe same way as happened successfully for the STEMsubjects? Languages have to feature more prominentlyon the political agenda. I hope that not only will wesee such a forum at No. 10 but that over the course ofthe next year we will see every party’s manifesto spellout positive, detailed and informed policies on languages,recognising that this can be what makes or breakssuccess in so many fields, from exports to communitycohesion.

As for universities, I hope that more of them willacknowledge that to survive in the 21st century meansmore than just using fine words in the mission statementabout being an international institution and producingglobal graduates but that in practice this means fosteringlanguages, not abandoning them. More universitiescould set the right tone from the beginning by emulatingthe UCL policy of requiring a GCSE language orequivalent from every applicant at matriculation,irrespective of degree subject or, failing that, requiringall first years to take an accredited language course.

HEFCE and the Government still regard modernlanguages as “strategically important and vulnerablesubjects”. Never has this descriptor seemed more apt.The continued funding for Routes into Languages iswelcome and I ask the Minister to confirm that this issecure for the foreseeable future. Will the Governmentalso support the bids from universities to the HEFCEcatalyst fund for five-year projects for improvementand innovation in languages in HE?

The final point I want to make is to explain theapparent languages paradox at British universities because,despite what I have said, there are more students doinga language course than ever before. However, this isbecause of non-specialist language provision—in otherwords, students doing a degree in another subject,such as law, business or economics, but doing a shortlanguage course on the side. About 60% of these aregetting some form of credit, but 40% are taking it asextra-curricular and often have to pay extra fees ontop of the high fees that they are already paying fortheir degree. The courses I am talking about are provided


[BARONESS COUSSINS]in the university languages centre, not within the languagefaculty, and they focus exclusively on practical languageskills.

It is important not to be misled into thinking thatthis is a viable replacement for or updating of themodern languages degree. The courses in question arenot even being taken mainly by UK students. At thelast count, at least 55% were non-UK students pickingup their third, fourth or even fifth language. Theothers are taking one course in one language for oneyear and are very unlikely to acquire more than basiclevels of competence or have the confidence to take ayear abroad to consolidate the language in context.

By contrast, it is a requirement for all those doing alanguages degree to have that year abroad. That is amajor advantage in terms of immersion in the relevantculture and society and also for future employability.The UK needs graduates with the highest levels offluency and cross-cultural competence to enable themto operate in a complex global society. The insightsand refined understanding of other cultures developedthrough specialist study of literature, culture and societythrough a particular language takes the learner waybeyond the merely functional and transactional. Thisis vital for our diplomats and business people. It isonly from among language graduates that we candevelop translators and interpreters and the languageteachers that we need to go into our schools system. Itis not a question of either/or; both types of provisionare needed. However, the language degree courses arestrategic and vulnerable and must not be allowed towither away.

In the words of the latest Language Trends survey,“speaking only English in today’s world is as big a disadvantageas speaking no English”.

Our universities are uniquely placed to ensure that weproduce a critical mass of young people who can notonly function in a global economy but lead and succeedin it. Will the Government support the universities inachieving this objective through languages as vigorouslyas they have, rightly, supported the STEM subjects?

1.30 pm

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab): My Lords,it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, LadyCoussins, in her typically passionate plea for modernlanguages. I am also delighted that the right reverendPrelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who is to followme, has chosen this debate in which to make hismaiden speech, and I welcome him warmly to thisHouse. I thank the Minister for securing this debate,which has enabled many noble Lords to celebrate thegreat success story that is the UK higher educationsystem, while alerting the Government to dangeroustrends in their policies ahead.

I spent well over 20 years representing in one guiseor another the higher education sector, not as anacademic but as an organiser, influencer, advocateand, until a few years ago, chief executive of UniversitiesUK. I still have some direct involvement and I declarean interest as a member of the council of UniversityCollege, London, a university that is an exemplar ofthe ways in which a university can contribute to society

and the economy as well as providing a first-classeducation for its students. Perhaps I should say at thispoint how delighted I am at the partnership betweenUCL, the London Legacy Development Corporationand the mayor’s office, and at UCL contributing to theOlympic legacy. However, although the decision inprinciple has been made to create a campus, we nowneed to make the finances work, and I hope that theGovernment will fulfil the commitment made in theautumn Statement to support this great initiativefinancially. If the Minister could confirm that in hisreply, I would appreciate it.

My involvement in HE started in 1982 when Ibecame head of the Association of University Teachers.Since then I have seen enormous changes in HE, manyof which have been for the better. I am thinkingparticularly of wider participation and the exploitationof research. Many of these changes have helped totransform HE into the hugely influential sector that itis today. HE now extends well beyond the universities.We had a briefing for this debate from the Associationof Colleges reminding us that 180,000 students studyHE in local further education colleges. Not all of HEis now publicly funded. In 1982, the only privateprovider was the University of Buckingham. Now anentirely new set of alternative private providers hasemerged, some for profit and some not for profit, butall looking very different from the three-year, full-timeundergraduate institutions that many Members ofyour Lordships’ House experienced. Even that haschanged dramatically, with almost 40% of studentsstudying part time. But it is worth noting how susceptiblepart-time study has been recently to changes in governmentpolicy. The numbers have declined substantially, whichis a cause for concern, particularly for women and interms of widening participation. Can the Ministercomment in his reply on how the Government proposeto halt this precipitous decline?

Other major changes have occurred. Womenoutnumber men at undergraduate level, while manymore students from disadvantaged backgrounds nowachieve degrees. The student body is now much moreethnically diverse. A much higher proportion of studentsnow live at home, and the Open University is providingan increasing number with the prospect of earningwhile learning. The proportion of international studentshas increased dramatically. That has been a greatsuccess story, as many noble Lords have spelt out inthe debate, and during the course of the ImmigrationBill many Members of this House had hoped topersuade the Government to recognise the damagetheir policies were doing to this success story. TheGovernment are presiding over the first decline ininternational students for 30 years. I still remain hopefulthat they will respond.

It is significant to note how much more publiclyvisible HE now is. If we had had this debate even10 years ago, I doubt whether we would have receiveda briefing from Which?, the consumer magazine, butwe have had one this week, which reminds us thatstudents increasingly regard themselves as consumers,given the financial commitment they now have tomake if they go to university. That, of course, is one ofthe most significant changes. In 1982, students madeno personal contribution to the cost of their degree


course and there were grants for maintenance. Today,students emerge with average debts of £50,000, albeitwith a beneficial repayment regime. That funding regime,which has shifted the cost from public taxation on tostudents, has ramifications not just for students themselves,but for the financial stability of institutions, a point Ishall come back to in a moment.

I want first to focus briefly on the HE system as it isnow, the contribution it makes to the country, and itsimportance to future prosperity. I was really pleased tosee that BIS, as the government department responsiblefor HE, has begun to document the benefits of HEparticipation for individuals and society in a systematicway, and here I refer to research paper No. 146. Itpresents this as “Quadrants”or a “taxonomy of benefits”which focus on greater social cohesion, reductions incrime, civic participation, political stability, social mobilityand health benefits, all of which are improved bythe experience of HE. It also identifies economicbenefits such as increased tax revenue, faster economicgrowth, higher earning value to employers, increasedentrepreneurial activity and productivity, all of whichshould be music to the ears of the Treasury. It is clearthat we benefit as a society both economically andsocially because our universities produce well educatedand employable graduates and world-leading research.

On research in particular, the system is remarkablyefficient, and on every metric we outperform the moneywe spend on research. But it is nothing but complacencyto assume that the UK has a God-given right to be aleading research nation and not make the investmentthat this requires. Can the Minister say whether theGovernment still have the aspiration to bring spendingin line with the OECD average? That is because, infact, we are dropping behind. Universities UK’s reliablepatterns and trends data show that investment andexpansion have slowed down in the last two to threeyears. This is at a time when we need to maximise thepotential of HE as one of the main engines of economicgrowth, and when other OECD countries are increasingtheir investment. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria,highlighted the figures in his speech. It has becomecommon to talk of universities as “economic anchors”,as institutions that can generate jobs and growth acrossall sectors of their city or region. Because they arespread throughout the country, they are uniquely ableto promote growth that benefits all of our country, notjust the south-eastern corner of it. In my own homeregion of the north-east, which struggles on manyeconomic measures, universities have generated a higherproportion of jobs than in any other region. Lastweek, the Minister for Universities described his ambitionto see new campuses built in “cold spots”, preciselybecause they can rejuvenate and enliven a local economy.

Universities themselves have not been idle. They havesecured increased investment from the EU, charity andindustry, as the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad,himself acknowledged. There has been a substantialincrease in knowledge exchange activity, which isparticularly beneficial to small and medium-sizedenterprises. Sir Andrew Witty, in his review of university-business interactions, highlighted the comparativeadvantages they offer the UK. He specificallyrecommended that the Government should make along-term commitment to the Higher Education

Innovation Fund, which generates £3.4 billion-worthof knowledge exchange income alongside the broadereconomic impact of universities of £73 billion, whichrepresents 2.9% of GDP, and is therefore a notinsignificant figure. Yet the Government, despite explicitlyrecognising,“the enormous economic impact and leverage”,

of the HEIF, and that,“every £1 of HEIF funding generates £6.30”,

have refused to commit themselves to raising the levelof HEIF funding. I hope that the strength of thearguments in this debate will convince the Ministerthat he should urge his colleagues in the Treasury tothink again, and that he will commit to that in hisresponse.

The Treasury must surely be looking for ways toboost income. The revelation last week that around45% of graduates will not earn enough to repay theirstudent loans and that the system could end up costingtaxpayers more than the one it replaced calls intoquestion the decisions the Government have made aboutthe way in which universities are funded to teachstudents. This week, the Higher Education Commissionheld its first evidence session on the topic of funding,and as we heard last night at a meeting of the All-PartyParliamentary Group on Universities, the current systemis not sustainable and, worryingly, is unlikely to providethe basis for the affordable expansion of universityeducation that the country so clearly needs. Given thatwe heard from three former Secretaries of State forHigher Education, the Government will need to takenote of the findings of the commission and the all-partyparliamentary group.

This is a complex problem. I am not going to beable to solve it in this speech but will outline a fewquestions that need to be considered in any attempt ata solution. First, what is an affordable and reasonablerate at which we could expect graduates to repay theirloans? Does the current system provide this or could itbe changed? Secondly, what is the appropriate level ofstate funding for higher education and how can weensure that this does not get degraded by Treasurysalami slicing over time? Thirdly, what changes canand should be made to the way in which we deliverhigher education that could make it more affordableto graduates and the state? How can we persuadeemployers to invest in higher education for their staffand reverse the dramatic decline in part-time study?

It is a complex problem but one that it is essentialfor us to solve in a way that will be sustainable in thelong term. Neither universities nor students benefitfrom major reforms taking place every few years or,indeed, from retrospective clawbacks, as happenedwith HEFCE funding this year, when, for example,UCL found its in-year funding reduced by £1 million.We derive enormous benefit as a country from ouruniversity sector. The world-class research it carriesout and the graduates it produces are the basis of ourfuture economic success. It provides anchors for jobsand growth throughout the country, and we damage itat our peril.

Finally, I share with the House my delight at thenews this week of the first Max Planck centre inthe UK, a joint centre with UCL on computational


[BARONESS WARWICK OF UNDERCLIFFE]neuroscience and psychiatry. There will be others. Thishistoric and ground-breaking collaboration with oneof the most influential research centres in the worldhas arisen only because of the reputation of researchin the UK and because of far-sighted investment.Such initiatives will be impossible in the future if wefail to invest. The Government really cannot go onignoring this danger.

1.41 pm

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth (Maiden Speech):My Lords, it is with astonishment that I find myselfhere today, rising to speak for the first time, keepingsuch company and sharing with you responsibility forthe health and stability of our nation. In my heart ofhearts, I am still a jobbing priest, and certainly with nodesire to be an amateur politician. If I attempted that,then I would indeed be amateur. I delight to see peopleflourish, especially, to be parochial for just a moment,in Portsmouth diocese, serving south-east Hampshireand the Isle of Wight, whether they are lay or ordainedchurchgoers, British or foreign nationals residing inour midst, island schoolchildren who have never travelledfar enough to see the beaches of their own island,those residents or visitors enjoying the vibrant watersidecity life of Portsmouth—the second most denselypopulated city in the land—or globetrotting commutersand businesspeople who circle the world several timesover.

I am more than aware that my distinguishedpredecessor, Kenneth Stevenson, who I know wasmuch respected in this House, had education verymuch at his heart and led the church’s board ofeducation. So it feels right and good that my maidenspeech is in a debate that has at its heart a concern forhuman flourishing in education. Universities are anchorinstitutions in local communities, and PortsmouthUniversity is no exception. It anchors the city and areafinancially, directly employing some 2,500 staff andindirectly supporting many more employers in andaround the city. It anchors businesses, ensuring aregular supply of appropriately trained graduates totake on key roles and as a motor for the growth ofsmall and medium-sized business enterprises; it fundsmultimillion-pound building projects as it continuallyupdates its facilities; and it anchors the city morally,too, by providing a multicultural forum in which theissues of our day can be debated and the best insightscan be lived.

As I know first hand from periods as a student,economics lecturer, chaplain and finance committeechair at the University of Hertfordshire, the highereducation sector contributes extensively to the flourishingof our nation and our world. Now, as bishop and as agovernor—an interest noted in the register—I see atfirst hand how Portsmouth University, along withuniversities all around the country, anchors and focusesfinancial, practical and moral flourishing, not just forstudents but in terms of enriching partnerships acrossthe whole region, including, as you will expect me tonote, my own cathedral’s innovation centre, wherespace and both voluntary and expert support provideopportunities for new businesses to take root and togrow, even in challenging economic times.

I use the word anchor in relation to Portsmouthadvisedly. You will of course be aware of the lossesthat Portsmouth has recently sustained in the shipbuildingindustry. In the wake of those losses, higher educationhas gained even more importance. The university hasa pivotal role to play in providing good-calibre, creativestudents who can help to diversify employment andbusiness opportunities in the city and in developingthe local and regional economy. This is true forhomegrown students, but the reality is that for Portsmouth—or any university—to flourish, it also needs internationalstudents. I am aware that my friends the right reverendprelates the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop ofSt Albans have previously argued in this House for theimportance of considering higher education immigrationseparately from other forms, as have other noble Lordsin this debate. Indeed, as we have heard, the House’sSelect Committee on Soft Power has described thepresent policy as “destructive” and “disingenuous”.

In Portsmouth, we currently have 2,941 internationalstudents, out of almost 22,000 in total, from approximately140 countries. That reduced number, confirmed recentlyacross the whole national HE sector, costs us all as weturn away the world’s talent and ideas. That presenceis vital both in monetary and in human and educationalterms. They enliven and enrich the whole community;their flourishing matters to us all, and needs to besafeguarded in our legislation.

I say this mindful of the huge vulnerability of themajority of students in the present day—the intellectualvulnerability that we all embrace as we embark on anew learning experience, and the financial vulnerabilityof students facing increased fees and debt. As someonewho today feels vulnerable in the face of a new learningopportunity, I find myself freshly in solidarity withsuch students, and, indeed, with businesses learningand relearning how to make the best of opportunitiesin a fast-changing local and national economic landscape.I am committed to their welfare and will be glad toengage further with you as to how best to serve theirneeds.

I will be particularly glad also to learn how I canbest help improve the lot of people who are sufferingthe effects of economic injustice. A local parish priestrecently estimated that up to 20% of people living inher parish were in receipt of doorstep loans, andcountless food banks and other informal food outletshave sprung up in the past year or so. There is hugepoverty in Portsmouth diocese, not just among thosewho are on benefits but also among those who areworking full-time but still cannot afford to live. It issurely a matter of the greatest concern that a job nolonger always pays a living wage. This is an issue veryclose to my heart, to which I will be glad to devotetime and energy in this House.

As I join you in this House, I thank your Lordshipsfor your most generous welcomes, and the officers andstaff who serve us here, and for your patience with meas I continue to get lost in the labyrinth of the corridorsand figure out how best to engage with the issues atstake—to your good, the good of the communitiesand people of Portsmouth diocese and the good of thenation.


1.51 pm

Baroness Greenfield (CB): I congratulate the rightreverend Prelate on his inspiring and insightful speech.I warmly welcome him to your Lordships’ House andlook forward to his continuing contributions on awide range of issues, including economics, social welfareand the Navy. Turning back to universities, I joinother noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, LordAhmad, for introducing this important debate.

Having spent most of my working life in the universitysector, I am fully aware of the diverse issues that weneed to explore. I have been in turn an undergraduate,a postgraduate and a tutor of medicine at OxfordUniversity, where I remain a senior research fellow atLincoln College. In addition, I served for seven yearsas chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, as well asworking in higher education establishments abroad;namely, the Collège de France in Paris and New YorkUniversity Langone Medical Center. I am also awareof the thrills and spills involved in commercialisinguniversity science, having recently spun out a biotechcompany, Neuro-Bio Ltd, where I am chief scientificofficer.

This debate will encompass many different questions,each of which could be the single subject of its own debate,but there is a common theme, which can be summedup in a single word: ideas. Surely universities are allabout ideas, be it the dissemination of existing ideas—teaching; the generation of new ideas—basic research;or the application of those ideas—commercialisation.Inevitably, time constraints will mean highlighting justa few examples of concern in each of these areas.

With regard to teaching, the particular issue I wouldlike to flag up is the impact of IT. In one study 55% ofacademic staff reported that lecture attendance haddecreased as a result of introducing digital audiorecording of their presentations. When asked why theydid not attend lectures, almost 70% of the studentssurveyed claimed that they could learn just as effectivelyusing digital audio recordings. However, in yet anotherstudy, students who learnt course material via virtualdelivery performed significantly worse than those whoattended traditional lectures. What is particularlyinteresting is that while the two groups did not differin regard to grasping basic concepts, the group learningvirtually fell significantly behind in their grasp ofcomplex material, surely indicating that it may bemore difficult for sophisticated ideas to be transferredvia the screen. When college students in an economicscourse were randomly assigned either face-to-face orvideo-streamed lectures, the students who attendedlectures in person had higher test scores.

The reciprocal of teaching is learning, and themindset of the generation used to living for varyingnumbers of hours a day in front of the screen in aparallel universe is surely a consideration. The brainbecomes good at what it practises and research suggeststhat those who have rehearsed the various skills required,for example in video games, will have a higher IQ andan improved working memory. However, they mayalso have the less welcome profile: a short attentionspan, a greater propensity to low-grade aggression,greater recklessness, a higher degree of narcissism,

lower self-esteem, a premium on sensational experience,a less deep understanding and a more volatile sense ofidentity. Teaching someone with this disposition willclearly require different strategies compared to earliergenerations. Incidentally, I would be very happy torefer noble Lords to the peer-reviewed papers reportingthe research I have just cited.

The second broad area of university activity is thegeneration of ideas—basic research. Francis Bacon,the 17th century philosopher and scientist regarded asthe founder of empiricism, distinguished two types ofexperiments: experimenta lucifera, those that shedlight; and experimenta fructifera, those that bear fruit.Other noble Lords may well speak in favour of theformer—basic blue-skies research—so I will simplygive a telling example from a century ago illustratingthe essential need to allow the scientific mindset torange free, since it is impossible to predict where suchimagination will lead.

Quantum theory, concerning the inseparable natureof waves and particles, seemed when it was developedto be a highly abstract notion that no one could reallyunderstand. However, this baffling theory gave insightsinto the basics of matter and energy and was eventuallyto have astounding effects on more translational areasof both the physical and biological sciences. Advanceddevices such as lasers and transistors and thereforeultimately computers rely on the principles of quantumtheory. Likewise, in biology, the currently emergingfeats of gene manipulation, triggered by our ability tomanipulate atoms, are reliant on an understandingof molecular bonds and the technique of X-raycrystallography, both of which hark back to quantumtheory.

That leads us to the third area of university activities,the application of ideas—experimenta fructifera, thosethat bear fruit. It is well known that UK universitiescarry out significant levels of innovative research butare generally less successful than countries such as theUS in implementing the research into practice. Greatresearch needs to benefit mankind, and technologicallycomplex advances require capital and business expertise.Translation of university research into businesses, jobsand national prosperity is vital to make best use ofBritish science. Sadly, our ability to exploit our sciencefalls well short of our ability to do the science. It isscant reward for researchers, universities and the countryif our science ends up being exploited abroad.

The need to improve technology transfer is widelyrecognised. Many reports have been produced recently,such as the Wilson report in 2012, the Witty review in2013 and the latest document from the other place onBridging the Valley of Death. The challenge now ismaking things happen on the ground and buildingreally strong technology transfer organisations in allour universities.

One key problem is that universities generally havevery limited budgets—for example, for patents—whichforces technology transfer offices either to form spin-outcompanies too early, resulting in a very high rate offailure, or to drop patent applications before any valuehas been realised through licensing. Moreover, theselimited budgets lead to reactive rather than proactive


[BARONESS GREENFIELD]personnel, where the scientist-investor has to approachthe understaffed technology transfer office rather thanthe other way round.

One happy win-win solution could be to engage theentry-level intake of management consultancies to actas talent scouts on campus. The scientist would benefitfrom exposure to the private sector mindset, perhapsduring informal conversations over coffee, while theaspiring young business guru would seize the initiativeof taking back potential projects to the tech transferoffice. The management consultancy firm might eventuallyget a modest royalty, although one company, withwhich I have already discussed this idea, said that thebenefit to junior staff of the experience itself would besufficient compensation.

Another issue is that most universities either do nothave budgets or have very limited budgets to carry outmarket engagement. National and international travel,attendance at exhibitions, dedicated business developmentresources and purchasing of market research reportscan all prove prohibitively costly. But a lack of knowledgeof customers and market opportunities has a negativeimpact on the quality of the licences negotiated andthe spin-out companies created, as well as the numberof industry-funded collaborative research projects.

That brings us to the appeal of university-basedresearch to investors. Oxford University, for example,prefers to retain the IP and offer instead exclusivelicence agreements. While the merit obviously lies ininsuring against an investor failing to realise the truepotential of the invention, as an opening condition innegotiations it is a disincentive. Moreover, the feespaid to the scientist on such a licensing deal would befixed at 15%, with an eye-watering 85% retained by theuniversity. This is hardly an attractive incentive to thescientist, any more than the alternative option ofstarting up a company where, before any investment ismade, the university already owns 50% of the equity.

A further component of this translational researchbottleneck is the academic mindset. Scientists often viewIP as a fifth wheel and prefer to focus their time onpublishing as much and as quickly as possible, becausethey are driven remorselessly by the current audit mentalityof the various research assessment exercises of thepast decade. It might help if knowledge transfer targetswere included within performance in this review process.

More generally still, innovation through translationalresearch is hampered by discrepant agendas betweeninvestors and scientists, where the latter have a distrustregarding patents and their intellectual freedom thatmay be misplaced, as well as a poor understanding ofwhy an investor prioritises a solid management base.

Meanwhile, we lack appropriate funding models toallay the investor’s frequent and understandable concernsthat the technology is incomprehensible to them, thatthe work is too high-risk and at too early a stage, thatthe funding required is too little to give a good return,that the burn rate is too high and that the exits are notobvious.

One possibility could be to set up a venture capitalor angel syndicate giving small, private sector “grants”rather than investments. Relatively small but muchneeded amounts of money could be awarded, and

those sums, along with the risk, would be diluted bythe collective membership. In return, however, membersof the syndicate would have privileged access to theresearch as it was developed and therefore first refusalon purchasing the IP and developing a spin-out as andwhen they saw the work maturing. Each member ofthe syndicate could operate independently, but othermembers might receive a small consideration from anyfuture profits of the young company. The notion ofprivate sector grants is not necessarily in the culture ofeither academics or of venture capitalists, so theGovernment might be the perfect third-person brokerto get such a scheme up and running.

Other possible innovations could be, first, to makesomeone responsible for tech transfer—not least as itcrosses multiple Whitehall departments and ministries—especially for life sciences, which will also include theDepartment of Health; secondly, to gather and publishstatistics on how well each university is doing in proportionto its research strength; thirdly, to tie university fundingto universities’ ability to do tech transfer; fourthly, toset up an inspectorate to drive quality; fifthly, to awardprizes or grants and run competitions; and, sixthly, toidentify a team of tech transfer champions to touraround and support tech transfer offices.

Lord Dearing eloquently stated back in 2002:“Just as castles provided the source of strength for medieval

towns, and factories provided prosperity in the industrial age,universities are the source of strength in the knowledge-basedeconomy of the twenty-first century”.We need to provide an environment where knowledgeitself—ideas—can be disseminated for maximalunderstanding, can be generated with open and unfetteredminds, and can be applied as effectively andcomprehensively as possible.

2.02 pmLord Mackay of Clashfern (Con): My Lords, I first

entered the field of work as a university lecturer inmathematics at the University of St Andrews, but myinterest in the university sector had been sparked agood time before that by the inspiring lectures that Iheard at Edinburgh University from the late Sir EdmundWhittaker and Professor Max Born. The thrill of beinggiven inspiring lectures by people who were at the veryforefront of research in their subjects was a terrificopportunity that I greatly relished and still cherish.

At the moment, I am the commissary of the Universityof Cambridge. I am glad to mention in relation to thatmatter that the very successful vice-chancellor ofCambridge University who recently retired was a lady,so Cambridge is in the forefront of developments ofthat kind, too. I am also privileged to be a fellow oftwo of the Cambridge colleges.

I have no doubt whatever that the university sectoris an extremely important part of our national life inthe United Kingdom and of our national heritage. Aseparation in the United Kingdom would damage theunity of that sector in a way which I think would besad. However, my principal question is whether theuniversities are not more important than business. Thepurpose of universities has been eloquently describedby the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchesterand by the right reverend Prelate who has just madehis maiden speech.


There is no doubt that a university has to look afterits business to see that its income and expenditure areproperly balanced and to make the best use of what itproduces in the way of research, attempting so far aspossible to turn that into advantage and income to theuniversity as well as, of course, benefit to the widerworld. That makes me anxious that the universitysector is at the moment in the Department for Business,Innovation & Skills. No doubt a university shouldhave business, should be able to innovate and shouldbe able to develop skills, but it is much more—that isonly part of the university. In my respectful submissionto your Lordships, the university sector should bewhere it properly belongs in the Department forEducation, because surely it is the apex of our educationsystem and should be integrated with the other partsof the education sector. I know that the change wasmade for particular reasons, which I think are nolonger applicable. I believe that it would be an advantageto the universities to return to where their home was inthe Department for Education.

The second point that I want briefly to mention isacademic freedom. It is vital that the universities shouldenjoy a full measure of academic freedom. Those ofyour Lordships who were here then will rememberthat I once found myself in debate with the late RoyJenkins about this matter. He carried his definition ofacademic freedom on a Division before the Governmentwhom I was representing had finalised their definition,so his definition stayed in the Bill that we were debatingand then in the Act. The subject was so important thatour late, very much esteemed colleague, Earl Russell,wrote a book about it which is no doubt familiar to atleast some of your Lordships.

Academic freedom is vital, and it is important thatthe Government should not in any way trench on that.I am not exactly certain why the Government took thepower to control university fees, but that is a matterperhaps left to those more economically minded thanme. I am thinking of the general standard of freedomwithin the universities to pursue what seems be theright course at a particular time. That applies not onlyto universities as such but, in my view strongly, tothose who are members of the university society—theprofessors, lecturers, readers and so on. The orthodoxyof today may not be the orthodoxy of tomorrow. Toorigid an adherence to a particular line of theory at thepresent time may well be detrimental to futuredevelopment. Universities should be open to receivingthat, and the individuals who run their departmentsshould be attentive to seeing that they do not attemptto impose their views too strongly on others.

I have a particular example in mind which relates tothe noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, whom I amglad to see in his place. When he accepted a very muchmerited Templeton Prize, one or two fellow academicswho had a different point of view with regard toTempleton sought to express that in language whichon the whole I would have preferred they had avoided.However, I do not in any way seek to interfere with thefreedom of people to have their own point of view; itis just that if I want to have my own point of view, Ishould be reasonably open to other people havingtheirs.

2.09 pm

Lord Giddens (Lab): My Lords, I hope that my speechdovetails neatly with that just given by the noble andlearned Lord, Lord Mackay, whose emphases I verymuch appreciated and agreed with. I begin by declaringan interest as former director of the London School ofEconomics and a current life fellow of King’s College,Cambridge. I can also own up to having been the tutormentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in hisinspiring speech. I hope that my impact on him wasmoderately positive; I much appreciated his speech.

Many noble Lords with experience of working inuniversities, myself included, were very critical of theBrowne report when it came out, and even more so ofgovernment policy developed on the basis of it. WhenI heard the Minister giving his introduction, as someonewho has worked in universities all my life, I found itreally hard to relate to the glossy version of governmentpolicy which he presented. The Browne report wascommissioned under Labour, but I would like to thinkthat, had the party still been in power, a more criticaland balanced response to it would have been made.Instead, the current Government radicalised it further—tome, in some of its most unfortunate emphases.

The result is a university system more thoroughlyprivatised than any other in the world, as far as Iknow, as though university education were a purelyprivate good and students motivated simply by self-interestand job prospects. Those who devised it might havebeen looking to the US, but in fact in the United Statesthe public presence is very strong. The US has a robustsystem of state universities with significant levels ofpublic funding. The top private universities have hadmany years of being able to raise money throughphilanthropic support, allowing them also to sustain apublic purpose—for example, in providing generoussupport for students from poorer backgrounds.

The Government’s reforms severed higher educationin England from the rest of the UK—Scotland inparticular, but also Wales and Northern Ireland, which,to the limits of their local powers, kept their distance.To me, they were right to do so. Just as in the case ofthe NHS, the Government are carrying out a radicalreal-life experiment which is in many respects a shot inthe dark rather than drawn from best clinical practiceelsewhere. I am pleased that some noble Lords on theLiberal Democrat Benches have deviated from officialparty policy, because the volte face which the LiberalDemocrats carried out still astonishes me.

The impact of reforms on universities has beenworsened by the consequence of the Government’spolicies concerning visa requirements for overseas students.The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke powerfullyabout that. I stress that attracting overseas students isnot just a matter of generating revenue, although thatrevenue is in fact large. It is again bound up with thepublic and cosmopolitan role of universities. In myrole as director of the LSE, I can attest at first hand tohow important overseas students are in spreadingBritish influence, ideals and culture around the world.I have seen that in a detailed way in many countriesduring my tenure as director.


[LORD GIDDENS]Will the Minister comment on the report published

yesterday by the Wellcome Trust, which shows thatthere is a perception among scientists that the countryis unwelcoming and that we are directly losing notablescientific researchers, who we should surely be tryingto attract here? As a result of the recent report by theHigher Education Policy Institute and other sources,it is clear that the Government’s policies are in serioustrouble—again, the opposite of what the Ministerportrayed in his introduction. A major rethink isneeded which, if it does not come from this Government,will surely have to be taken on by an incoming one.

I have three main questions for the Minister aboutthat. First, if there is one thing that we have learntover the past few years, it is that private debt can beeven more lethal than public debt, as the state has topick up the consequences. Is that not exactly what ishappening with student debt repayments, where theRAB charge, originally estimated at 28%, has risen toan estimated 45% which, as has been much discussedrecently, is close to subverting the whole enterprise? Ido not think that it is an appropriate response to saysimply that that is a long way down the line and thereare uncertainties, because that looks dangerous for thecore policies of student funding undertaken by theGovernment.

Secondly, I think that we all agree that universitiesshould constantly strive to improve the student experience,but the idea that superficial surveys of student satisfactionshould determine overall policy is surely wrong. Doesnot the Minister accept that one of the core concernsof university teaching should be to challenge andprovoke, even if some or even most students find thatprocess uncomfortable? Anyone who has worked inuniversities will recognise that teachers who are quiteunpopular turn out to have a massive impact on thestudents following their lectures, and that that is seenonly later, not at the time by those who are challengedin that way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield,said, the purpose of universities is to pursue knowledge,not simply provide it on some sort of conveyor beltaccording to the results of superficial surveys.

Thirdly, does the Minister accept that private/publicpartnerships will also be necessary in one of the mosttransformative things likely to affect higher educationin the next few years—the emergence of new forms ofonline learning? They have not been discussed much inthis debate, but they are potentially truly transformativein both a positive and dangerous sense for campus-baseduniversities. They go by very peculiar names, giventheir massive potential importance: MOOCs, whichare massive open online courses, and what is to metheir likely successor, the one which is likely to havemore impact, SOOCS—an even worse name—whichare selective open online courses. They are potentiallydeeply transformative and it would be good to hearthe Minister’s assessment of their likely impact onuniversities: what the positive and negative consequencescould be. I hope, although I suppose that it is unlikely,that he will agree that those courses will succeed onlywhere there is combined public and private involvement.I very much endorse the point made strongly by theright reverend Prelate, who is not in his place, and

stressed by other noble Lords, that the public role ofuniversities locally, nationally and internationally is apre-eminent part of what universities stand for andrepresent.

2.18 pm

Lord Addington (LD): My Lords, I must start myintervention today by drawing the attention of theHouse to my declaration of interests. That is because Iwould like to talk primarily about a Written Statementmade on Monday by the Minister’s department aboutthe future of the disabled students allowance. Thedisabled students allowance is dear to my heart—Iremember crossing swords with the noble Lord, LordYoung, over failures of it a good few years ago—and Iam now chairman of a company which is a fairly bigplayer in the field. The announcement was that thedisabled students allowance is to be reformed. Effectively,judging by the Statement, that means that savings areto be sought, if we may use that language here.

In the opinion of the company, the announcementdid not come out of a clear blue sky but there will bemajor structural changes. However, I hope that therewill also be opportunities, particularly given the factthat the registration of providers of goods and servicesunder DSA may well be a way to ensure that we get amore professional approach here. I hope that we mighthear a little more about the thinking on that todaybecause, if we are to continue to support—or suggestthat we should support—those with disabilities, weneed to know exactly what we are doing here.

My second declaration of interest, which I amafraid will take slightly longer, relates to the fact thatthose with specific learning difficulties or dyslexia gettwo mentions in that Statement but nobody else getsany. Those two mentions are probably because 10% ofthe population are dyslexic or have specific learningdifficulties. Why we cannot use just one term I do notknow—“dyslexia” is certainly a better way of expressingit than using four words, even if it is one long word.We get mentioned twice in the Statement and thegeneral gist is that those with dyslexia cannot expectto receive the full package of support as standard,which will now be available only to those with a highercomplexity of needs. Let us make no mistake about it:this is a very big part of this sector, as it should be ifwe do not challenge the basic demographic of thishidden disability. There are other hidden disabilitieswhich are not mentioned here but which are out thereand, probably, underrepresented as well.

However, the suggestion in the Statement is thatthis is such a common condition in its less extremecases—those with higher functioning and less impairmentin their ability to channel the written word—that,under the Equality Act, they should receive help fromthe institution itself. I do not know whether thoseinstitutions have even started to take on board thecomplexity of what they are being asked to do here.The reason is that there is a standard series of softwarepackages, which access voice-to-text or text-to-voicecombinations with spelling support structures, andwhich can now be downloaded into virtually all computers.But—and this is a very big but—I say from personalexperience of using it, and from my company’s experience,


that it is quite easy to fail to get the best out of thatsoftware. If you are not getting the best out of it,students who are undertaking study and have to presentwritten work will not be able to do that to the fullest oftheir ability. That is where it really comes in: how isthis supposed to work?

How is that level of responsibility to be interpretedby those institutions of higher education? In the Statement,the Equality Act is mentioned, but how are we to makesure that they have the structure in place to deliver thelaw if they are now the people who will deliver it? Thatis quite something—and it is at the lower functioningend, with people who might just struggle through.However, if you do not give them the help it will costthem a grade or two, or possibly even lead to failure.These are not people who obviously cannot write atall, or cannot do so on a functional level. These arepeople who struggle and will always have that little bitmore difficulty. How are we going to assist them? Theymay well be the majority, as this is a spectrum, buthow are they going to get through? What is the structureand nature of the support that you should expect to begiven?

The Statement goes on to say that those with morecomplex needs will receive help. Presumably, theimplication is: help similar to the package that theyare getting today, which usually means a computerplus the software. How are we to decide who has themore complex needs? Will it be somebody who has theold statement or the new education, health and careplans? If anybody has those plans and they are dyslexic,are they defined and getting this full package of support?Who will make that assessment and who will interpretit properly? If that is not to be done and there is notsome degree of ambiguity about it, there will be awhole new area of challenge occurring. Where, forinstance, does the university or institute of highereducation hand over this responsibility? We need toknow that to make the future system work properly. Itwill probably be slightly easier because the peoplemight be those who, for instance, have to use voice-to-texttechnology, as I do, to produce all their work. If that isto be the case, can we please have a definition of whatgoes on and how that responsibility will be interpreted?However, the first category will be the most difficult.

I will leave your Lordships with one thought. It isquite common now for universities to discover somebodywho is working very hard but underachieving comparedto their spoken responses. They may then go fordiagnosis and assessment, and then receive the packageof access. How can a university or any other instituteof higher education have the structure in place to dothat without considerable planning within their internalstructures? If you fail or drop grades, careers close upto you. I have spoken to a Member of another House—indeed, I am supposed to be in a meeting with him inabout 20 minutes, which I shall not get to—who hadtwo sons, both of whom were dyslexic. One took thehelp and got the career that he wanted; one did not,because he was proud, and did not get the jobs that hewanted. Those drop-offs in grades are very importantto the individual concerned. They also mean that wedo not get the best return from any investment whichwe make in the university system, in terms of thosestudents.

I hope that we will clarify this because, if this onecondition is important enough to be mentioned twicein this Statement about the future, I am sure that it isalso important enough to have a really careful assessmentof how this will be implemented in practice.

2.26 pm

Baroness Deech (CB): My Lords, there has been agreat deal of comment today about fees and the economicimpact of university education. My contribution mighthowever be titled, “Never mind the quality, feel thewidth”. That is, my concerns are about the quality ofhigher education, its overregulation in some areas andunderregulation in others. Your Lordships should notdoubt my devotion to the cause and my understandingof what difference a university education can make. Iconfess in public that it took me nine goes over threeyears at the entrance examinations before I was able toget my place at Oxford, when the numbers of womenwere very limited.

Fast-forwarding half a century, when I was head ofan Oxford college I spent half my time fundraising.Teaching in the humanities is hardly funded at all andinstitutions are heavily reliant on the good will of alumnidonations. Yet the alumni themselves will be payingoff their loans and, later on, financing their children’seducation for much longer than hitherto. It was predictablefrom the start of the new loans system that many wouldnever earn enough to repay. Indeed, there is a subtlemessage in the system to women: government policymakes it sensible to find a husband while at collegeand never work, or take the lowest-paying part-time jobsin order to avoid reaching the threshold for repayment.It was clear that others would escape the jurisdictionand that enforcement would lead to a situation asexpensive to the nation as the one it replaced.

Many do not realise that the £9,000 raised by feeshas been clawed back from the universities by reductionsin the funding that they used to receive for teaching.The dash for cash is overpowering and debilitating. Ithas led to the frantic chase after foreign students,which is a good but not an unmitigated good—fortheir quality, if one is not careful, can often be lessthan optimal. After their intake reaches a certain level,the foreign student loses that which he or she camehere for: the company of British students and all theavailable time that lecturers have to give them, asforeign students tend to need a bit more help thanothers do. Cutting fees as an attractive political offeringwill simply mean less money for universities to spendon good teaching and research, and will make themeven more susceptible to dropping standards for applicants.

Talking of the diverse and international nature ofuniversities, is it not a shame that in Scotland a studentfrom England or Wales has to pay full fees whereas aScottish student does not? We have heard a great dealtoday about attracting foreign students, yet within ourown borders we have this discrimination, which detractsfrom the mobility of students and the collegiality thatought to exist between those who study in Scotlandand those who study in England and Wales.

Let me scotch right away the notion that a universityeducation benefits only those who receive it, and thattherefore only they should pay for it. The entire populationbenefits from the services of doctors, scientists, architects,


[BARONESS DEECH]civil servants, authors, teachers and all the otherprofessions that graduates may enter; indeed, the childrenof a woman graduate benefit from her care even if sheis not in work outside the home. University educationis for the public good, regardless of who pays for it.Nevertheless, it is dangerous for students to see itlargely as a stepping stone to a more lucrative career,or for academics to lose interest in teaching becauseonly research counts in the allocation of resources.This is because the supply of graduate jobs, or jobsthat graduates think that only they are qualified for, isnot limitless and there is a great deal of disappointment.

To graduate from a not very well known universitywith a low-class degree may not seem to be a goodinvestment at all, unless one looks at the real purposeof university education. Universities exist to add tothe sum of knowledge in the world and to thesophistication of human thought. They exist to equippeople to change society. Their graduates are learningto look for a good life, truth, wisdom, virtue or beauty.They are not just acquiring knowledge or skills fortheir own sake; they must also be doing somethingthat they love and see themselves as being formed byeducation. It is a privilege, a pleasure and a social,moral and personal good. Never mind the job youmay or may not get afterwards—it will change yourlife.

Yet the student as pure consumer has become centralto the recent perception of university education, andstudent satisfaction reigns. A few years ago I was thefirst independent adjudicator for higher education,charged with resolving student complaints from alluniversities that could not be settled internally. I amglad to say that under my successor, Robert Behrens,universities are given good guidance on the swift andfair settlement of complaints. In my time, though, toomany of the complaints were really about studentsbeing awarded a level of degree lower than they thoughtthey deserved. Universities are under pressure to givestudents the benefit of the doubt, especially when theleague tables—quite wrongly, in my view—give a universitya higher rating if it gives more first-class degrees, sothat they have lost their rarity and degree classificationsno longer serve the purpose that they should. Somecomplainants took the view that every student had aright to a second by dint of turning up and payingfees. It would be better to abandon those broadclassifications and move to the American-style transcript,with more detail of individual scores.

Students now tend to see themselves as havingconsumer-type rights and contracts. Universityprospectuses look like holiday package brochures, withthe same allure that may not materialise. Using businesslanguage, education is treated as something that canbe “delivered”, but it is not a neat, complete packagethat needs only to be skilfully handed from one toanother in order to ensure continuation and success. Itis a participatory and continuing process, the contentof which is never fixed. No amount of good teachingcan succeed without the intelligent participation, receptionand contribution of the student, and that is why somehave to accept that they will in fact fail, for all sorts ofreasons. Student satisfaction and the attraction ofmore students at any price should not be as central as

they are, and student satisfaction should not dominateover education and scholarship, as seen and shared bythe academics who have spent a lifetime assessing howto educate the next generation. Student satisfactionmeasured by survey is a subjective metric and can castno light on quality and judgment. In the Londontraffic yesterday, I saw a bus with the statement blazonedits side that a certain university was number one forstudent satisfaction in a certain topic. I checked andfound that the same place was 101st overall in theSunday Times league, which is measured in a differentway.

Student demands ought not to lead to morespoonfeeding or more reluctance to challenge, criticiseand place under intellectual pressure. A few years ago,vice-chancellors were colossi bestriding the land. Atthe moment, unfortunately, too often they are knownbecause the salaries that they command are out of allproportion to the salaries that their lecturers receive.

Where does this business attitude come from? Itcomes in part from those who have been selected bythe Government from time to time to review universityeducation and its future. I join others in calling foruniversities to be under the Department for Educationand for another review to gauge the purpose andextent of our tertiary-level education and its funding.I hope that the Government will not again select abusinessman and set him or her—more likely him—toreform higher education. It would make more sense toput a philosopher or academic economist in charge ofreforming banking and business practices than theother way around. In the recent past, as we know,reviewers have seen higher education merely in termsof economic or private benefit. Lord Robbins was auniversity professor himself and an exception, supportedby my noble friend Lord Moser, to whom one mustpay tribute for his role.

Would Lord Robbins have approved of what isgoing on today? I think he would have approved of theexpansion but not of the drop in quality or the flightfrom teaching to research, and he would certainly nothave liked the proliferation of expensive quangos,among which one must single out the potentiallydamaging and unnecessary OFFA. My own solutionwould be to sever the links between universities andstate and to use the HEFCE grant to fund a rollingendowment programme with the aim of eventuallyendowing most universities, leaving them free to settheir own fees and scholarships, funded for the poorerby the fees from the better off.

I shall cast a quick glance at one area where Iregard university conduct as underregulated, or atleast see it as carrying on in disregard of universities’obligations under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986,which requires higher education institutions to securefreedom of speech within the law for members andvisitors. Academic freedom and freedom of speech aretwo different concepts. The Equality Act 2010 requiresuniversities to eliminate discrimination, victimisationand harassment, and to advance equality of opportunitybetween different groups and foster good relationsbetween different religious and racial groups. Studentunions are not exempt from the law; they are charitiesand covered by the relevant obligations. However,


there are young people on campus who are vulnerableto extremism indoctrination and are repeatedly on theend of terrorist, racist and hate speech from visitingspeakers. Time does not permit me to go into thevarious laws that control speech and conduct on universitycampuses, but there are some recent examples ofdisgraceful behaviour that vice-chancellors have failedto control. Some of them seem to me to be weak inallowing campuses to become free arenas of hatespeech and places where minorities may be victimised.

I shall give some recent examples. A lecture onEgypt at SOAS was disrupted and terminated byMuslim Brotherhood supporters in October last year.A lecture by David Willetts MP was disrupted atCambridge in November 2011 by objectors to hispolicies, when, ironically, he was to speak on the ideaof university education. The LSE’s ties to Libya werereported on by my noble and learned friend LordWoolf. Then there is hosting of lecturers who promotehomophobia, and the contemplation of the toleranceof gender segregation. Violent, sexist, homophobic,racial supremacist, racist and extremist beliefs do notqualify for protection under our law because they areincompatible with the human dignity and rights ofothers. I hope that the Minister will encourage vice-chancellors to remember their duty, now that theircampuses are microcosms of the mixed society inwhich we are located, to promote good relations, touphold the law and above all to respect and fostereducation for its own sake.

2.40 pm

Lord Norton of Louth (Con): My Lords, I, too,welcome this debate. As my noble friend Lady Sharpsaid, it is some time since we last debated highereducation. I declare my interests as an academic, asprofessor of government at the University of Hull andalso as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary UniversityGroup and the Higher Education Commission.

Like other noble Lords, I begin by stressing thevalue of higher education to the United Kingdom. Ashas already been mentioned, we devote a smallerproportion of our GDP to higher education than ourprincipal competitors, yet in research terms outstripthem all, apart from the United States. Recent researchfrom BIS found that graduate skills contributed toroughly 20% of GDP growth in the UK from 1982 to2005. The benefits that universities bring to society asa whole, through, for example, better health andinterpersonal skills, have been estimated by the NewEconomics Foundation to exceed £1 billion. The latestresearch from Million+ shows the economic value toEnglish regions of graduates taking up jobs in theregions where they graduated. Overseas students arenot only valuable to universities but benefit enormouslythe United Kingdom in that they constitute the mostimportant form of soft power that we have overseas.

We thus derive enormous value from higher education.However, the sector faces enormous pressures as aconsequence of the new funding system, the endingnext year of the cap on student numbers and themyriad new providers entering the sector. In 2012,according to BIS, there were 674 privately fundedinstitutions, with a total of 160,000 students enrolled.These developments create significant challenges, not

least for how higher education is regulated. Last year,the Higher Education Commission undertook an inquiryinto the regulation of HE. We published our report atthe end of last year. We are just beginning an inquiryinto the financial sustainability of higher education,but it is the importance of regulation on which I wishto focus this afternoon.

The Government’s White Paper Higher Education:Students at the Heart of the System envisaged a highereducation Bill. No Bill was forthcoming. The need forsuch a Bill is pressing. The regulatory regime forhigher education is complex and difficult to sustain.We need a coherent and sustainable framework. Thatcan be provided only by legislation. The present systemhas not kept pace with the changes I have mentionedand rests now largely on the good will of the sector. Itis not clear that good will can be maintained. Thereare doubts as to how long HEFCE can continue toregulate the sector when it is no longer providing thefunding.

Regulation is a means to an end, and the ends inthis case are to protect investment in higher education,by both industry and students, to encourage innovationand to maintain and encourage excellence in HE. Aswe write in the report:

“For the Government’s reforms to be successful, a robustregulatory framework must be implemented to support the sectorto be sustainable, enhance the student experience, and widenaccess”.

It is not a case of advocating more regulation, butrather better regulation. The uncertainties of the presentregime militate against investment—the Governmenthave acknowledged that,“economic regulation is a critical enabler of infrastructure investment”

—and tend to make universities risk-averse. We need aregime that encourages universities and other HEproviders to be innovative. The briefing for today’sdebate from the Association of Colleges stresses theneed for greater flexibility and a more dynamic system.We need a framework that enables students to makeinformed choices and know that they are receiving ahigh quality of education. That point is essentiallymade by Which? in its briefing for today’s debate.

What, then, is the most appropriate regulatoryframework? In our report, we do not agree with theBrowne review that there should be one consolidatedregulatory body. We agree with the Government that asingle body is neither desirable nor feasible. It is notdesirable because bodies such as the Quality AssuranceAgency derive their legitimacy from being independent.It is not feasible because some of the bodies have aUK-wide remit and others apply to England andWales only. It is also a requirement of the Bolognaprocess that funding and quality assurance remainseparate.

We favour a more pluralist approach and one thattakes on board the entry into the sector of new providers.We thus see the need to achieve not so much a levelplaying field as a more equitable playing fieldencompassing all providers. We took as our model theLegal Services Board. We put forward the proposal forHEFCE to be superseded by a council for highereducation, encompassing an office for student loans,the Office for Fair Access and a new office for competition


[LORD NORTON OF LOUTH]and institutional diversity. We believe there is a casefor retaining the independence of the Higher EducationStatistics Agency, the Quality Assurance Agency forHigher Education, the Office of the IndependentAdjudicator and UCAS, but in order to ensure thecomplementary nature of bodies across a pluralistsystem, the council for higher education should have acontractual relationship with HESA, the QAA andUCAS.

We favour the council generating a common regulatoryframework, encompassing all HE providers in England.This would enable providers to be subject to the sameregulatory framework, but not necessarily the sameregulatory requirements. All HE providers would berequired to register in order to operate. Once registered,if institutions wanted to recruit UK or EU studentsand/or to teach recognised degrees, they would have tocomply with further quality assurances and datasubmission requirements. Those that did so wouldreceive a seal of approval from the council, enablingthem to use a kitemark on their literature and displayit as a demonstration of their quality assurance.

We take the view that risk cannot be avoided entirelyand that the lead regulator should adopt a risk-basedapproach to regulation, enabling regulatory attentionto be focused where the risk is greatest. Risks are notavoided, but rather assessed and managed properly.This applies at both a systemic and institutional level.

The greater competitiveness in the sector and thenew funding regime enhance the possibility of institutionalfailure. Risk-based regulation is designed to reducethe likelihood of such failure, but there is always thepossibility of an institution failing. That would clearlyhave a major impact on those directly affected, forwhom it would be an upheaval and might involvefinancial loss. It would also tarnish the reputation ofBritish higher education, and a reputation once tarnishedcan take a long time to restore. To cover againstfailure, we recommend a levy similar to that appliedby the Civil Aviation Authority, with each institutionpaying a sum per student to cover costs in the event offailure. This would be designed to benefit the wholesector, since institutional failure would affect the reputationof the whole sector, traditional universities and newproviders alike, especially among overseas students.

These proposals are designed not to increase regulation,but rather—as I say—to provide for better regulation.The present framework is piecemeal, complex and nolonger sufficiently robust to protect the reputation ofhigher education and enable students and business toinvest with confidence. HE institutions are presentlytoo risk-averse and uncertain as to the future. A clear,robust regulatory framework providing coherence withina pluralist setting would be the most sensible way toproceed.

What I have detailed provides the basis for a highereducation Bill. The ideal would be for one to beincluded in the next Session, but I appreciate that thereality is that the most that can be hoped for is one atthe start of the next Parliament. Perhaps my noblefriend the Minister can give some indication of theGovernment’s thinking, in terms of both the proposalsI have outlined and the intended timescale for action.

Doing nothing is not really an option if we are toensure that higher education in the United Kingdomremains a world leader.

I end on a separate point. What I have said so farrelates directly to higher education and to theresponsibilities of BIS. I turn to a proposal that fallswithin the interests of DfID and the Foreign Office; Iam not speaking here for the Higher EducationCommission or any other body. I have referred tooverseas students studying in the UK as a—indeed,the—major source of soft power. I suggest that wedevote more of our overseas aid budget to providingbursaries for overseas students to study in the UnitedKingdom. This benefits the nations from which theyare drawn: they acquire a greater body of university-educated students, better able to assist the country ineconomic and political development. It assists theUnited Kingdom in terms of bringing more overseasstudents to British universities, something likely to bemore important over time as the number of overseasstudents declines, and it ensures that aid is used effectivelyand as intended, and is not siphoned off for thebenefit of the regime or particular leaders. It creates,in effect, a virtuous circle. I know more money hasbeen channelled to scholarships, and I very muchwelcome that, but I would make the case for extendingit on a major scale.

We have an HE sector that has a world reputation,that continues to perform not only effectively butefficiently, outstripping virtually all of our competitors,and which has the potential to remain a world leader.The sector faces major and disparate developments. Ifwe are to maintain our record and, indeed, improveupon it, we need better, risk-based regulation, not onlyto protect students, but also to encourage universitiesto innovate. The sooner we have a higher educationBill, the better.

2.52 pm

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab): My Lords, Ideclare my interests: I am the principal of MansfieldCollege, Oxford; I was the president of the School ofOriental and African Studies at London University;and, prior to that, I was the Chancellor of OxfordBrookes University. In the early 1990s, I sat on theNational Commission on Education and was invitedby the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, when she wasthe Secretary of State for Education, to chair a committeethat looked at further education. I have therefore hadquite a lot of experience, cutting across the wholerange of further and higher education. I am currentlythe president of a small foundation that providesbursaries for disadvantaged students travelling fromfurther education into higher education, and am interestedin further education as a second chance for manypeople to get into higher education. It is with thatbackground that I stand before your Lordships today.

I agree with many noble Lords who have spokenabout the hugely important role of higher education.Higher education changed my life. It is for that reasonthat I take such an interest in making sure thatopportunities such as those I have had are available toas many others as possible. However, it is more than aprivate good. Yes, it can change our lives, but it ismore than that. Others have spoken to the fact that it


is a public good, a common good, which enriches thelives of this whole nation and everyone in it. It istherefore right that it should be supported from thepublic purse.

A consensus is rapidly consolidating that the supposedlysustainable funding model imposed just 18 monthsago is already proving unsustainable. The noble Lord,Lord Bilimoria, introduced this aspect to our debateby pointing out that the raising of fees has not worked,and there are now many people unable to repay loans.The Treasury is therefore going to be out of pocket.The reason is that the assumptions on which thisfunding model was based are unsound. No robusttheoretical justification for the model has ever beenprovided because the objections to it, in my view, arefar too powerful. Nor has any sizeable body of empiricalevidence been produced in support of the model.

If the Government or the Opposition are interestedin serious research, I recommend that of ProfessorHoward Hotson, a fellow at St Anne’s College, Oxford,whose work is not only compelling but also ratherdifficult to refute. There is now a large body of readilyavailable data showing that marketisation of highereducation does not function in the way in which itsadvocates initially supposed. I remind your Lordshipsof the arguments that were presented to the nation forgoing down this road. The idea was that marketcompetition would require universities to competewith each other to attract student customers, and thatattracting students customers would require offeringthe best quality education possible at the most affordableprice. Those universities which served the needs ofstudents best would attract many customers and wouldexpand and prosper; those universities which failed todo so would wither and die. The invisible hand of themarket, we were told, would therefore reshape highereducation in the interests of customers far better thanany government state planners ever could. Thus wewould unleash the power of the market and all wouldbe well with the world.

Well, all I can say is that some aspects of oursociety are less conducive to crude market modelling.There are three preconditions for an efficient market.First, there has to be accurate information on theproducts for sale. That is quite difficult in highereducation because, as we know, we still have notmanaged to find an adequate way—a metric, if youlike—for measuring the quality of teaching. Such athing has not yet been devised. It is therefore difficultto compare satisfactorily whether an institution isreally successful at that or not. Secondly, it is importantfor a market to work well that there are stable and wellgrounded personal preferences in operation: that theperson who is the customer has a clear preference.However, one of the fundamental purposes of highereducation is to shape discretion and preference. Manystudents are therefore still coming to this market rathergreen. The capacity also has to be there to judge whichof the products on offer will best suit the preferences.To go into a market, you have to consider whether youhave what is necessary in this arena.

Other conditions of efficient markets are also lacking.In order for market competition to work efficiently,new providers must be able to enter the market easily.

However, it is impossible in principle to create newuniversities which are of the same order as 800 year-oldinstitutions. The top end of the academic hierarchy,which was described very well by my noble friendLady Morris, gives prominence to those which areancient. The conditions for efficient market competitionsimply do not exist, and cannot exist in principle. I willgive an example. As noble Lords will know, I am alawyer. It grieves me to look around at the manythousands of young people basically putting all theirsavings and debt into acquiring law degrees fromuniversities all around the country and then applyingfor training contracts or to go into sets of Chambers.Inevitably, short cuts are taken by law firms in decidingwho to take, and the shortcut they take is to look atthat hierarchy of universities and basically not evenconsider those who have gone to universities of whichthey do not know, or which are considered to be in thethird tier of the university status hierarchy.

The justification of marketisation creates gapingholes, and we now know that the mantra that marketisinguniversity funding will drive down prices and drive upstandards was not true. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria,described that very well. I will consider for a momentthe outcome of that bold experiment. It was anexperiment, because it was not rooted in evidence.Before 1999, the United Kingdom, like most Europeancountries, did not charge domestic students any fees atall. Many of us in this House were privileged to havebeen beneficiaries of that. In 1999, the £1,000 feeplaced the UK roughly where the Netherlands is now—theNetherlands is coming into this, too, but at that lowlevel. The tuition fees introduced in 2004 and cappedat £3,000 were designed to provoke price competitionbut failed to do so. The average therefore shot up tothe maximum, overtaking all the Commonwealthcountries, to the position shown, where only Chile, theUnited States, Korea and Japan charge more than us.

The Browne review then took place. Again, I sharethe regrets expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech,that it is unfortunate that very clever businesspersonssometimes come in to review higher education but,unfortunately, do not take account of the great experienceof academics and those who have lived their lives inthe field to learn from them. The Browne review’sfigure for a soft cap of £6,000 took us off the scale, farabove any other public university system in the world.That £6,000 cap also failed to provoke price competition—so we did not get the competition that we were toldwould happen—and was immediately superseded bythe £9,000 cap. The invisible hand of the market failedto generate competition. Therefore, even with the £9,000fee, the heavy hand of government moved in to imposeprice differentiation, which forced the average pricedown to £8,354, which noble Lords will agree is notmuch of a reduction.

I want us all to note, because we always turn to theUnited States as being an incredible place to which weaspire, that the fee we now charge our students is nowover twice the average tuition fee in public universitiesin the United States. We charge our students overtwice that price. However, no sooner was the £9,000fee in place than the vice-chancellor of the universityat which I now head a college called for it to be raisedto £16,000. We can just imagine what the trajectory


[BARONESS KENNEDY OF THE SHAWS]will be. If Oxford obtains £16,000 in fees, Cambridgewill follow suit, and so will Imperial College London,University College London, the London School ofEconomics, and all the rest will rush into the gap. Wecan be sure that that is the bad story.

Is that evidence of market forces driving downprices? I am afraid not. It is rather evidence that thehypothesis on which current university higher educationpolicy is founded is incorrect. If Vince Cable or DavidWilletts had taken the trouble to study the way inwhich university pricing works in the relatively liberalhigher education market in the United States, theywould never for one moment have imagined that themarket drives down prices in higher education. It doesnot. I am afraid that price becomes a proxy for quality,so the old universities start to charge more and more.

I am afraid that we are on a very poor journey. Iurge the Government to start to review this, and Ihope that any opposition party, particularly the one towhich I belong, will look carefully at all this andperhaps think, “Maybe we made a wrong choice in theearly stages”. I am anxious that we do not all take toomuch time, but, quickly, I encourage noble Lords tolook at the work of Howard Hotson at Oxford. He hasbeen able to show that America is not a good place tolook to as our guide. Recent figures show that theUnited States is attracting fewer foreign students thanbefore, and that the numbers are on a downwardcurve. Another myth about America is that it educatesmore of its young people in tertiary education, andagain, that is on a downward trajectory because themarket is not working there either.

We have to look again at the system we have chosenand decide whether the education of our young is apriority for us. If it is, it needs our investment.

3.04 pm

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I confess thatfollowing the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of TheShaws, and knowing that I will be followed by thenoble Lord, Lord Hennessy, I feel underqualified tocontribute to this afternoon’s debate. I hope that theveritable faculty of academics who have contributedto this debate in such a powerful way will be patientand allow me to make some observations from myperspective on the opportunities for people, placesand, yes, Scotland, regarding this debate on UnitedKingdom higher education. I will also address some ofthe areas where I see barriers ahead regarding all thoseaspects. Further on in my remarks I will return tosome aspects of the fees issue, which not only thenoble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Kennedy ofThe Shaws, but other noble Lords have addressed.

I will start with a small town in the Scottish Borders,Galashiels. In Victorian times a technical college wasestablished in that town for serving young people whowished to have a career in the textiles sector. It developedinto the Scottish College of Textiles, and more recentlyis sited on a combined campus with Borders Collegeand Heriot-Watt School of Textile and Design. Irepresented for eight years a university campus whichprovided both further and higher education, and I amextremely conscious that the noble and learned Lord,

Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Baroness, LadyGreenfield, were chancellors of Heriot-Watt Universityfor 21 years combined, so they will know that campusexceptionally well. They will also know that a numberof years ago there was concern about a proposal toclose the campus. However, inspired leadership on thecampus and at Heriot-Watt University and BordersCollege meant that with support from the HigherEducation Funding Council as was, and the ScottishGovernment’s Minister Nicol Stephen—now my noblefriend Lord Stephen—it continued and benefited froma record level of investment into a rural area of Scotland.

Why am I telling your Lordships this? Higher educationis cherished and valued in very local and in many ruralcommunities, as well as in the great seats of learningsuch as Aberdeen, Glasgow or Edinburgh, or the greatcities of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Centresof excellence in education—and there is no doubt thatthe School of Textile and Design is one of the foremostseats of learning in the world in its sector—take manyyears to build. Such centres require a cluster of peoplewho are dedicated to their cause, as well as qualityteaching that they will provide their students. Theyrequire knowledge of the industries that those youngpeople and returnees to learning will go into foremployment opportunities, and a global knowledgeand understanding of that sector. All that is possiblein a small town in the Scottish Borders. Young peoplefrom mixed backgrounds—not purely academic, butalso those with a more creative and practical bent—needan opportunity to advance their potential. They areprepared to travel for that, and in travelling and movinghome they are prepared to pay for it, although notnecessarily in fees.

In this debate there has been a consistent focus onuniversities as the areas where young people or returneesreceive their higher education qualifications. However,it is interesting to note that even in Scotland, the shareof higher students at Scottish institutions by institutiontype shows that 17% of those that take their HEqualification do so in a college, and 28% do so in anancient university in Scotland. The figure for newuniversities is 21%, and for post-1992 universities it is27%. One may argue as regards HE that to discuss theestate, provision, teachers and investment of collegesis almost as valuable a contribution to this debate as itwould be to discuss the new universities. That is wherethe students themselves are learning. In Scotland, ofthe 12 levels of credits and qualifications, six are forhigher education, and many of those young people orreturnees, as we have heard, will start their journeytowards higher education qualifications in a local collegesetting. Indeed, many young people, adult learners,undergraduates and postgraduates from the bordersor elsewhere benefit from a highly innovative approachto shared HE and FE facilities. That is the case at theHeriot-Watt and Scottish Borders shared campus.

One thrilling element of higher education is itstransformative impact on the individual, but it is notnecessarily always the same institution to which thattransformation applies. For some young people whostruggle through school and have an opportunity tostart the journey for an HE qualification at their localcollege, five minutes around the corner, it can be astransformative as it was for me when I moved 500 miles


to go to university in London, away from Berwick-Upon-Tweed. This is beneficial for the individual but,as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it is alsobeneficial for the country as a whole. From the times whenEngland had two universities—and at the time whenAberdeen alone had two universities—Scotland hasalways had, and will continue to have, a global leadingand inspiring impact on its approach to higher education.

That leads me to my second area—the future of thesector in Scotland. From the impressive paper ScotlandAnalysis: Science and Research published by the UKGovernment, and the House of Commons ScottishAffairs Committee report on the impact on highereducation research and tuition fees from 12 March thisyear, we can see that the picture for Scottish highereducation is a vibrant one, rich in depth and impressivein breadth, showing that its presence is disproportionatelystronger than if we look merely at a population balanceand share for Scotland as a whole.

When I intervened on my noble friend the Ministerabout the nature of this debate covering the whole ofthe United Kingdom, I was not being critical but wasprompted to do so, reminded of the comments of myright honourable friend Alistair Carmichael, the Secretaryof State for Scotland, who said at an Economic andSocial Research Council event in Edinburgh in January:

“For too long there has been the simplistic assumption ofdevolved and reserved. Devolved—for the Scottish Parliamentand Scottish Government alone. Reserved for the UK Parliamentand UK Government. But the reality is much more complex thanthat. Whilst policy responsibility resides either north or south ofthe border, we all continue to work within a shared commonframework. And perhaps nowhere is this more clearly illustratedthan higher education and research”.

If proof was needed in this mix of responsibilitiesand shared benefit, we can look at a breakdown ofsome of the research income for Scottish higher educationinstitutions. In 2011-12, there was a total of £861 millionfunding, with £251 million, or 30%, from devolvedbodies, responsible for that funding, and £219 million,or 26%, from competitively awarded grants from UK-wideResearch Councils. That compares to 22% for allinstitutions across the UK receiving that share fromcompetitively awarded grants. So Scottish institutions’prowess in research is demonstrated very clearly inthat area. For Edinburgh University, the proportion ofresearch funding from UK Research Councils was thelargest share of its research income at 33.2%, higherthan that provided by the devolved institutions. Therefore,a debate on United Kingdom higher education isfundamental for that sector in Scotland, even thoughsome of the key levers are devolved. Even in thediverse and dispersed University of the Highlands andIslands, 27.3% of its research funding income comesfrom UK sources, with only 13.1% devolved. So of thetop 200 universities in the world that we have hadreferred to us—and, as the Minister said, 31 are in theUK—five are in Scotland. It has one-sixth of the topinstitutions with less than one-10th of the UK population.

To address the point made by my noble friend LordStorey and follow up the point made extremely powerfullyand eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield,on university spin-out companies, the Scotland Analysispaper is also clear in showing information on thatissue. In 2011-12, of the £2.471 billion of turnover for

university spin-off companies, £360 million was fromScotland. Most interestingly, the estimated externalinvestment received for the UK as a whole was£879 million and, for Scotland, £189 million—so 21.5%of estimated external investment received was to Scottishhigher education institutions, with a population of8.5%. So the contribution that the sector makes for thecommonwealth of the United Kingdom as a wholeand the social well-being of Scotland in particular istherefore a clear one.

What for the future? I was lucky enough to serve onthe Scottish Parliament’s Education, Lifelong Learningand Culture Committee and can reflect on some of theissues with regards to fees. The choice that theAdministration of whom I was a part—the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in the Scottish Parliament—made was that the Scottish Government should paythe fees of Scottish domiciled students. There is oftena misconception that we prevented universities fromcharging the fees, but we made the decision that theScottish Government paid the fees. That may addressthe point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asto why there is a differential between England andWales, with EU cross-border travel issues with regardsto students.

We are now able to make observations with regardsto the two paths north and south of the border.Depressingly, the intervention rate for Scotland is stillpoorer than south of the border. The drop-out rate isstill depressingly high, and the hardest to reach youngpeople in Scotland are still not going into highereducation, even though some more are going throughcollege and universities. The welfare and hardship budgetsare actually being reduced in Scotland. Most depressinglyfor all, the record in Scotland, which I find deeplydepressing, is that only 1% of looked-after children,who have the richest parent of all—the Government—goon to receive a higher education qualification.

A final aspect of the future is a referendum onindependence. A previous contribution that stuck withme was that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said thathe did not want to be part of a country that was eitherthe continuing United Kingdom or the rest of theUnited Kingdom, if that was to be the sole definition.He said that he did not want to be a RUK—and I donot want there to be a differential in two structuresand systems in these islands for higher education. Wehave benefited from two distinct approaches and cultures,but we have also benefited massively from providingeasy access to students north and south of the borderto benefit from global leading institutions. We havebenefited from quality of teaching that is par excellence,and a breadth of provision because of the researchquality that is there; postgraduate opportunities thatare second to none around the world; seven researchcouncils across the United Kingdom, which we couldalso claim to be Scottish research councils in manyrespects, because of the disproportion; 29 internationaloffices, with 90 United Kingdom staff in the scienceinnovation network, which Scotland punches above itsweight in benefiting from; and top-table access ininternational discussions, shaping global research prioritiessuch as the G8, or perhaps now the G7, ScienceMinisters summit, hosted last year in the United Kingdom.Those are opportunities for young people.


[LORD PURVIS OF TWEED]I have taken up too much of noble Lords’ time, but

I wish to finish with one element, with regards to theyoung people who may well go to that campus in theborders. A couple of months ago a slightly less youngperson who was the first in his family to go touniversity—he had never had the money even to visitLondon before he was 18 and had not been out of hiscountry, but went to a higher education institution,travelling far, with his parents driving him down in apacked car of luggage; luckily enough, he had theopportunity to do a work placement for an MP at thattime in the House of Commons, then plain Sir DavidSteel, now my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood,who was himself an inspiration—was introduced intoyour Lordships’ House. I do not think that I wouldever have had the opportunity to progress in my careerfrom that start if it had not been for the experience oflearning, meeting new people and broadening my horizonsthrough higher education. I want every young personin Scotland to believe that the world is their oyster,and we should not create artificial barriers with creatingScotland as a separate state, making the noble Lord,Lord Hennessy, a member of RUK.

3.19 pm

Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB): My Lords, Ideclare a couple of interests. I am a professor ofcontemporary British history at Queen Mary, Universityof London, and a member of the Council for theDefence of British Universities.

Like everyone else engaged in higher education, Iam deeply concerned about the question of studentfunding. There is a dramatic starkness about thefigures in the Public Accounts Committee report,Student Loan Repayments, published in February. Itstated:

“There is at present around £46 billion of outstanding studentloans on the Government’s books, and this figure is set to risedramatically to £200 billion by 2042 (in 2013 prices)”.

I suspect that all political parties privately accept thatsomething will have to be done about this staggeringaccumulating burden on the public finances. I can feelanother inquiry coming on post-general election. It isa first-order question for higher education provisionin England.

I should like to make a case for a wider andbroader gauge inquiry comparable to the greatRobbins report of 1963, which the Minister mentionedin his opening remarks. That report fashioned theuniversity scene that shaped the world I inhabited asan undergraduate in the late 1960s, when but 7% to 8%of my age group received a higher education. As wehave heard, today that figure is certainly above 43%,and is rising towards 45%.

On rereading Robbins for the purposes of today’sdebate, two things stood out for me. First, as LordRobbins himself put it in his 1963 report:

“Our terms of reference instruct us to consider the pattern offull-time higher education in Great Britain. We believe that nosuch instructions have been given to any committee or commissionin the past. … The reason is obvious. Even today it would bea misnomer to speak of a system of higher education inthis country, if by system is meant a consciously co-ordinatedorganisation”.

Lord Robbins explained that he believed it was timefor an all-encompassing look at higher education becauseof what he called the,

“great Education Act of 1944, which inaugurated momentouschanges in the organisation of education in the schools”.

Indeed, many of us in this House are beneficiariesof that Act. We are Rab Butler’s “children” in that wewere the first people for whom a proper ladder ofopportunity was ever lowered. I am not given toregrets but one of my great regrets is that that generationwas almost certainly the best provided for ever interms of health, education and welfare. Certainly, thatis the case as regards the foreseeable future. There wasno private finance initiative for the generation thatwent without for us and no shoving of debt down theline to the grandchildren. We were the most privilegedgeneration in that regard and that has shaped today’sdebate because, if I may say so tactfully, many of usare of a certain age. Lionel Robbins said that it was thejob of his committee to consider changes for thehigher education system of a comparable magnitudeto those in the Butler Act.

I should like to linger a little longer on the Robbinsreport as I am convinced that it has resonance for ustoday. Robbins promised that his committee wouldeschew overprescription—how unlike our dear lifeunder HEFCE these days. Instead, it would advancecommon principles. In a deliciously fluent openingchapter entirely free of the acronymia and managementbabble that infects so many state papers, and, indeed,even the internal communications of our universities,where precision in the use of language is a first-orderquestion, Lionel Robbins’ pen was fluent and acronymiafree. That is exactly what he did—he drafted longhandwith his fountain pen at home, as my noble friendsLord Moser and Lord Layard, who were his statisticians,confirmed for me the other day.

Lionel Robbins was a great economist with a liberal,humane outlook—one of the greatest luminaries theLSE has ever produced—and had great generosity ofspirit. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed,knows, he was a great admirer of the Scottish highereducation system and wanted the English universitiesto go over to the four-year model. In his own way,Robbins breathed the tradition of Cardinal Newman’sclassic, The Idea of a University, when he answered thequestion: what are universities for? That is a questionwe very rarely hear these days. Each generation mustask it anew for itself.

Robbins wrote:

“We begin with instruction in skills suitable to play a part inthe general division of labour … secondly, while emphasising thatthere is no betrayal of values when institutions of higher educationteach what will be of some practical use, we must postulate thatwhat is taught should be taught in such a way as to promote thegeneral powers of the mind. The aim should be to produce notmere specialists but rather cultivated men and women … Thirdly,we must name the advancement of learning … the search fortruth is an essential function of institutions of higher educationand the process of education is itself most vital when it partakesof the nature of discovery”.

Lord Robbins rounded this off by speaking of Britishuniversities transmitting,

“a common culture and common standards of citizenship”,


concluding that the UK higher education system as awhole,“must be judged deficient unless it provides adequately for all ofthem”—

that is, all four of his principles.

The strength and lustre of the Robbins report lay inthe way it scooped up and blended the best traditionsof the past before setting out a plan for future expansion,including what was then going to be six—but was laterseven—wholly new universities, one of which—Stirling—was in Scotland. Indeed, they came to pass and havepowerfully advanced and enhanced the life of themind in our country from the late 1960s, when thebricks were first laid.

Also in Lionel Robbins’pages you find Isaac Newton’sidea that scholars stand on the shoulders of the giantswho have gone before, and Humboldt’s notion thatresearch and teaching are symbiotically linked andthat, in today’s parlance, students should be the first tohear and comment on their teachers’ work in progress.The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern,gave us a vivid example of this with the incomparableMax Born at Edinburgh.

Rereading Robbins for the purposes of this debatewas a tonic, as I have indicated. However, we have notseen its like since in the intervening 50 years. Therehave been inquiries and changes aplenty but no widerlook at the purpose and system in the Robbins style,and I think we are the poorer for it. As a country, it is avoid that we need to fill. I borrow a metaphorfrom my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who,sadly, is not in his place today. When he was recruitingto the politics department at Queen Mary, he used toask would-be students, “Are you a poet or aplumber?”, which is a pretty good question for would-beundergraduates and, indeed, postgraduates. To borrowhis metaphor—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is himselfa distinguished former vice-chancellor—I think we inthe universities are too often obsessed and grounddown by the plumbing of academic life. I refer to theever greater intrusion of administration. In so doing,we have allowed too much of the poetry to be syringedout of our everyday existence as scholars and teachers.I refer to the thrill of the intellectual chase and thepleasure and primacy of teaching. We need a new Robbinsfor many reasons, not least to remind our universityteachers and scholars what will get them zestfully outof bed on a wet Monday in February. It is certainlynot the next committee or the research exercise framework,which, without exception, diminishes the mental lifeof all those who have had to take part in them.

Our universities need to be institutions of inspirationas well as utility. Indeed, the rest of the world tendsvery kindly to regard them as such. They are a particularlysubtle instrument in our armoury of soft power, as thenoble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, indicated, and asyour Lordships’ Select Committee on Soft Power,chaired with great brio by the noble Lord, Lord Howellof Guildford, illustrated vividly last month in its eloquentreport. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has alreadymentioned some of the figures contained in thatcommittee’s report, Persuasion and Power in the ModernWorld. I hope she will forgive me if I repeat them.With 1% of the world’s population, the UK provides

3% of global funding for research, 7.9% of the world’sscientific papers, 11.8% of global citations, and, mostimportant of all, 14.4% of the world’s most highlycited papers.

It is difficult to apply similar measurements to thearts, humanities and the social sciences, but here, too,we undoubtedly think and publish heavier than ourweight. When it comes to the life of the mind, as acountry we really do meet Einstein’s requirement ofsustaining what he called a holy curiosity. In so doing,we arouse the curiosity of the world. This is not squishysoft power; it is steel-rimmed soft power. There areplentiful reasons to be cheerful amidst our anxietiesabout the future of higher education. Let us have aRobbins inquiry for the 21st century and let us curbthe plumbing and enhance the poetry.

3.29 pm

Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB): My Lords, I declare aninterest as a long-time member of Cambridge University.

We have heard eloquent praise for the Robbinsreport—a manifesto for university expansion in the1960s, written indeed with a literacy and depth sadlylacking from its later counterparts. Today, higher educationhas expanded far more, but a present-day Robbinsreport would surely find that our system has notadjusted optimally to its greater scale and reach. Inparticular, it has stayed too homogeneous. Polytechnicswere relabelled as universities in 1992, and 20 yearslater David Willetts created 10 more universities by astroke of the pen. This uniform labelling sends the wrongsignals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, stated.

Nearly all universities still focus on three or four-yeardegrees. They are incentivised to pursue research andpostgraduate courses, and they all aspire to rise in asingle league table, which incidentally underweightsthings that really matter but are hard to measure, suchas how rigorous the courses are, how well they aretaught and how hard the students work. The entiresystem needs a more diverse ecology: a blurring betweenhigher and further education, between full time andpart time, and between residential and online. Therealso needs to be an expansion of transferable “academiccredits” to facilitate movement between institutionsand to allow mature students to re-enter the system.

I echo the concerns already raised about the feesystem. The Government’s mantra is that “moneyshould follow the student”, but it is clear that themarket-driven choices of financially-pressured studentswill not necessarily drive up teaching standards; norwill they necessarily raise levels of rigour and achievement.Instead, they may favour soft and cheap options. Thecurrent system is in any case not a free market: fees arein practice narrowly constrained; there are quotas,inconstantly applied; and the degree of central regulationand the strings attached to public funding throughHEFCE and the research councils erode autonomyand increase the administrative overhead in all universities.

Some things surely have not changed since Robbins.It is still a public good as well as a private benefit forour brightest young people to receive a rigorous education,and widening access is rightly high on the agenda.I wish to say a word about this. Universities such asmine expend huge effort on outreach initiatives, but these


[LORD REES OF LUDLOW]welcome efforts are not enough to ensure real equalopportunity. Young people unlucky in their schoolingor their home environment cannot be fully compensatedjust by summer courses, open days and so forth. Evenif their potential is high, they still will not, at age 18,reach the bar for admission to the most selectiveuniversities. What is even sadder is that they thengenerally have no second chance, even if they catch uplater. Worse still, their career prospects will have beenhampered by the deplorable tendency for high-prestigeemployers to restrict their searches and their milkrounds to a favoured group of universities.

Here, we can learn from the United States. A substantialfraction of those who attend the “elite” public stateuniversities, such as Berkeley, have come not directlyfrom high school but as transfer students from alower-tier college. I think that our most selectiveuniversities, including Oxbridge, should earmark someproportion of their places for students who do notenter straight from school but have gained academiccredits by study at another university or online. Thiswould enhance fair access and lead to a more diversestudent body.

When America is discussed, there is undue focus onthe Ivy League private colleges. They have huge resourcesand can indeed offer scholarships to needy students.However, to extol them as examples of fair access is tooverlook the dark side of their fundraising success: theovert “inside track” they offer to the offspring ofdonors or alumni. Even in the most reactionary enclavesof Oxbridge, there would be repugnance at loweringthe entry bar for privileged students. The debate thereis, quite rightly, about the extent to which the reverseshould be done.

Fair access opportunities are crucial but this doesnot mean that everyone who is qualified to get adegree should feel that they have to do so. If a degreebecomes a mandatory entry ticket to too many careers,this will inhibit social mobility by stymieing the prospectsof non-graduates. We also need more flexibility in thecurriculum in universities. Our traditional honoursdegree is not appropriate for as many as 40% of theage group. Indeed, I personally think that it is toospecialised for almost all students. The stovepipes ofindividual disciplines are gradually breaking down butthis trend has not gone far enough.

And there is nothing magic about the level reachedafter three to four years. An American will say, “I hadtwo years of college”, generally thinking this a positiveexperience. Some drop-outs may return later; othersmay pursue part-time distance learning. Even thosewho go no further should not be typecast as “wastage”.Now that we are living longer, in a faster-changingenvironment the importance of mature students, parttime courses and distance learning will surely grow.These will never replicate the experience of attendinga collegiate university, for which there will always be ademand. Perhaps we also need some liberal arts collegeswhich can match Oxbridge in their level of teachingand pastoral care. These need not be left to the privatesector. However, they would still be a privileged minority.Indeed, as higher fees start to bite and lifestyles change,residential courses in many universities may face asqueeze and be trumped by online courses.

The Open University’s well tried model—distancelearning supplemented by a network of local tutors—hashuge potential for extending higher education’s globalreach. It is good that many universities are collaboratingwith the Open University, supplying content for theFutureLearn platform. It is far better that it should dothis than link with one of the American platforms.The Open University can have huge global reach. Onehopes that the Minister will ensure that it has theresources to do so. None the less, the role of muchhyped massive online open courses—MOOCs—shouldnot be exaggerated. I think that these MOOCs willhave the biggest impact on demand for conventional,vocational master’s degrees, catering for motivatedand mature students who are in many cases are alreadyindebted through their undergraduate years and findit hard to get further funding.

What about PhD-level education? Here we shouldsurely welcome alliances and clustering so that PhDstudents in each specialised subject are concentratedin a few graduate schools. Echoing the noble Baroness,Lady Morris, these schools should not all be concentratedin the same few universities. Many academics bridle atthis suggestion, so in making it, it is important toemphasise that concentration of graduate educationshould not necessarily entail an equivalent concentrationof research. That is a distinction that is often conflated.Many who teach in the best American liberal artscolleges are productive researchers and scholars, but ifthey have PhD students, these students are based inanother university. We should remember that the Robbinsreport said that all university teachers should do threethings: research, teaching and reflective inquiry. Thelast of those three is getting squeezed out. The keypoint is that a student studying for a PhD needs morethan just a good supervisor. He or she needs to be in agraduate school where courses are offered over a widerrange. Without this second component, a newly mintedBritish PhD will not have flexibility and range that isneeded for their later career.

Finally, I shall say some words from my perspectiveat Cambridge University. When academics bemoanthe managerial and instrumental view of education thatdominates today, they risk being accused of living inan ivory tower, being arrogant, and disregarding theirobligations to the public. I think that we should contestthat. My Cambridge colleagues are strongly committedto teaching and to the welfare of their students. Theyare obsessively dominated by their research as well.Their choices of research topics are anything butfrivolous. What is at stake is a big chunk of their livesand their reputations. They are surely delighted iftheir work has some social or economic impact outsideacademia. However, it is not always recognised justhow unpredictable, diffuse and how long-term suchoutcomes are. That is why the REF has often beensuch a perverse incentive. Even in targeted medicalresearch, it may take up to 20 years to develop a drug.To take another example, the inventors of lasers in the1960s used the work of Einstein from 40 years earlier.They did not themselves realise that lasers would beapplied in DVDs and eye surgery. It is by attractingand motivating talented individuals and letting them


have their own judgment that funding agencies willbest sustain high-quality universities and optimise theprospects for impactful discoveries.

Therefore, our leading research universities aremajor national assets. They are magnets for globaltalent, for the collective expertise of their faculty andfor the way in which they are each embedded in acluster of research laboratories, small companies,NGOs, and so forth to symbiotic benefit. The primeoutput from even the most research-focuseduniversities is still the high-quality gradates they feedinto all walks of life. They should be cherished forthat reason, and their teaching quality sustained, too.There are all too few arenas in which the UK ranks ashigh in the world as it does in higher education. Tomaintain our competitive advantage, quality mustbe sustained across the system against growinginternational competition. The UK must be perceivedas open and welcoming to talented students andfaculty from across the world. We should realise thatuniversities must be businesslike but that does notmean that they must be like businesses.

3.42 pm

Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con): My Lords, I,too, thank my noble friend for having initiated thisamazing debate. Already we have had so manyextraordinary and memorable speeches. So many ofthe major issues have already been dealt with in such alearned and detailed way, but I shall not do that. Ithought that it would perhaps be my role to talk aboutone particular university and to bring some practicalexamples of what one university can do.

My experience spans both being vice-chancellor ofLondon South Bank University, an access university,and being head of a house, head of a college inCambridge University. I celebrate and rejoice in thediversity that those two institutions represent and Ivery much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris,about league tables. If you start a league table onlywith those universities which accept students withthree or four As at A-level, you inevitably put all theaccess universities down at the bottom. That is unjustand ridiculous. If we are to have league tables, let themat least celebrate the diversity which is an essentialingredient of good higher education.

I could have chosen to talk about London SouthBank University, which I love dearly, but I have decidedinstead to use the time available to talk about the otheruniversity that I know and love—the University ofCambridge. I was lucky enough to be an undergraduateat Girton for three wonderful years many years ago.Incidentally, my three years there cost neither me normy parents a penny. I was fortunate in having a fullmaintenance grant as well as my fees being paid. I stillremember the first cheque that I wrote in my brandnew cheque book was to repay my father for the 12/6dof my train fare to get there. Otherwise I was absolutelyon my own. I was lucky, as I said, also to be head ofone of the colleges of the university, to which I willrefer later, for seven very happy years.

Cambridge, of course, is not alone in its success—manyother universities have equally strong success stories totell—but it is the one I know and I use it as an

illustration of what a good university can do to contributeto society and change the world for the better, asCambridge University’s mission describes it.

Almost 20 years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Broers,declared in his inaugural address as vice-chancellorthat Cambridge was “open for business”. In that speechhe invited companies to come to share in partnershipthe physical facilities and human intellectual capitalwhich the university could offer. What followed was ahuge influx of business into the city and its area—notleast, of course, the large Microsoft research campus,the only one that that great company located outsidethe US. Over the years since, the university has playeda central role in creating one of the wealthiest regionsin the country, competing with the legendary areaswhich have grown around the successful universities inthe United States.

Today, in addition to the links between Cambridgeand the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, theuniversity has its first research centre outside the UK,in Singapore, dealing with advanced research in energyefficiency. Back in Cambridge, more than 250 academicsare working also on energy-related topics, solvingsome of the complex problems of the issue of energywhich face our world today. Those 250 academics aredrawn from 27 different departments, faculties andcentres in the university. They focus on the issue ofenergy but bring their expertise from the physical andlife sciences, from technology and social science. Theuniversity believes that it is in such multidisciplinaryapproaches that solutions will be found to these complexproblems.

It is my opinion that one of the reasons for thesuccess of Cambridge—as is the case, of course, forOxford and other universities—is its democraticmanagement structure. At Cambridge, more than 3,500people have the right to vote over every importantdecision proposed. Budgets are devolved to departmentsand not centrally controlled. Teams of researchersusually have total control over the use of their grantsand their income from externally funded projects. It isall about trust. The best and most talented people canand should be trusted. If they are left alone they willdo their work in the best possible way, following theirown professional passion and enthusiasm. The simplefact is that that works. If we are going to bring out thebest in people and see the best results from their effortsin higher education, it is infinitely more likely thatthey will work well if they are left free rather thanregulated and controlled.

Of course, it is our students who count the most. Ialways feel a deep sense of pleasure when I see thatCambridge students record among the highest forsatisfaction with their experience. Some 92% of Cambridgestudents declare themselves as happy with their experiencein the years they spend there. These are astonishinglybright young women and men who come full of promise.No job is more important than the task of helpingthem to acquire the experiences, skills and knowledgethat will help them to fulfil that promise.

Students now come to the university from manydifferent backgrounds and different educationalpreparation. Cambridge devotes money and energy tooutreach, searching for the best and brightest students


[BARONESS PERRY OF SOUTHWARK]from whatever background. The figures for admissionsin 2012, the most recent to have been published, showthat nearly 1,700 came from maintained schools asagainst only 1,149 from independent schools. During2012-13, the university and its colleges, in its outreachactivities, interacted with more than 8,000 schools andfurther education colleges, reaching out to more than145,000 state school and college students at an investmentcost of more than £4 million. The university alsodistributed £6.4 million to students from low-incomehouseholds through the Cambridge bursary scheme,enabling them to study at the university without financialanxieties.

Within this pattern, Lucy Cavendish College, whichI had the enormous pleasure to head for seven veryhappy years, plays a unique role in being the placewhere, by University of Cambridge statute and by itsown statutes, women over the age of 21 may attend ata time of their own choosing, not at the conventionalage of 18 or 19. There are more than 350 undergraduateand graduate students at the college coming fromevery conceivable walk of life—from the police forceand the health service to the theatre, business andcharities. Over one-third of them enter via non-traditionalroutes into higher education. The college provides acommunity and an environment in which women studentsfrom diverse and sometimes challenging or sociallydeprived backgrounds can achieve their full potentialat a time in their lives and in an environment that isbest suited to their needs. It also provides about one-thirdof them with scholarships and bursaries made possibleby the generosity of our benefactors who share thevision of this unique college.

As I have focused on students, I should like to endwith stories about two Lucy Cavendish College studentsof whom the college is rightly particularly proud. Thefirst is a medical student who is the mother of fourchildren. She had dropped out of school and lefthome by the age of 16. She is now in the fourth year ofher medical degree with outstanding grades in hercourse and has just been awarded the William Harveyaward for the top medical students in the university.What a turnaround that represents in someone’s life.Last year, an undergraduate was due to give birth atthe same time as her final examinations, which mightnot be said to be good planning. She was determinedto go ahead with her exams, so the college’s seniortutor arranged for a room at the maternity hospital tobe designated by the university as an examinationroom—the first time that the university had ever doneso. In spite of taking her exams literally immediatelyafter delivering her baby, and while still wearing anintravenous drip in her arm, the student was awardeda first-class honours degree. For me, these stories arethe real Cambridge, and the reality of what our gooduniversities are doing to change lives and make theworld just a little bit better.

3.51 pm

Lord Watson of Richmond (LD): My Lords, we haveheard many fine and powerfully well informed speechesin this debate. In particular, I congratulate the lastspeaker on extolling the virtues of Cambridge—and Imay attempt in some small measure to do the same.

However, one speech that I have been particularlystruck by today was that of the noble Lord, LordHennessy. He referred to the teaching of Humboldtthat there is a vital link between teaching and research.One of the things that is important to the Universityof Cambridge is the need to maintain that link, andindeed we have prizes which are awarded on the voteof the students for who they think have been the mosteffective teachers. When the so-called Pilkington Prizesfirst started, many of the teachers were slightly alarmedat the prospect; now, they find them a very usefulthing. I should declare an interest as the high stewardof the University of Cambridge and, for a number ofyears, as the chair of the Cambridge Foundation.

Last month I spoke at an enormous, interesting anddifferent sort of conference held in Dubai, of theGlobal Education and Skills Forum. I was asked, notonce but several times, and perhaps with a touch ofenvy, how it was that Cambridge was able to,“achieve excellence, retain choice and maintain its freedom tochoose its future direction at a time of funding shortages andausterity”.

It is the sort of question that the Minister faces on aregular basis. Predictably, and perhaps also a littleglibly, I replied that for Cambridge, as indeed formany other universities, excellence and freedom areinterdependent. For this reason, I was happy with onespecific sentence in the letter dated 10 February fromthe Secretary of State for Business, Innovation andSkills, and jointly signed by the Minister of State forUniversities and Science, to the chair of HEFCE. Thesentence states:

“It is for you to take the decisions on how you allocate yourbudgets”.

However, the letter continued, perhaps predictably, tosay: “you should deliver savings”, and,“make greater progress in delivering efficiencies”.

It was a predictable exchange. It reminded me of somevery sharp and relevant words of our current vice-chancellor at Cambridge University, who said in alecture last year that without financial resources,“in sufficient quantity and—critically—in sufficient variety”,

freedom is,“like a torch without batteries”.

As many of your Lordships have said today, we areof course rightly proud of higher education in theUnited Kingdom. It generates £73 billion for oureconomy and contributes 2.8% of our total GDP. Weare not only economically enriched by this but enhancedintellectually, culturally and, I would argue, spiritually.It is vital to our quality of life and our ability tosurvive and to succeed. At its best, it enjoys the veryhighest reputation, which, combined with the criticaladvantage of teaching in a global language—our own—has ensured huge success.

However, I wish to focus briefly on what I believeare two causes for quite serious concern which, if notaddressed, could erode our position and, indeed, imperilit. The first is highlighted in HEFCE’s report, GlobalDemand for English Higher Education, which waspublished this month. The fact is that the number ofoverseas students starting courses in England has fallenfor the first time in almost 30 years. The numbers arenot huge but the trend is worrying. There is also a


1% fall in those embarking on full-time postgraduatedegrees. The biggest falls here are in the numbers fromIndia and Pakistan—to which reference has alreadybeen made—which are down 51% and 49% respectively.At the same time, the United States is reporting a 10%increase in postgraduate intake, including a 40% increasefrom India. Australia is seeing significant increases,facilitated in part by streamlining and simplifying visaprovision.

In this regard, I agree strongly with the recentremarks of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford,who said that our restrictions on visas are creating a“blot” on our reputation. It is a blot, but also a blowto our resources; not only because we earn so muchfrom international study—which we do—but because,as my noble friend Lady Williams said during theImmigration Bill debate last month,“no less than 33% of academics currently serving in Russell groupuniversities come from overseas”.—[Official Report, 12/3/14; col.1786.]

As well as falling numbers, there is a second fall, inreal resources. The mathematics—the arithmetic, ifyou like—are certainly complicated. Universities UKsaid, on receipt of the annual grant letter to HEFCEto which I referred earlier, that although it was ofcourse “pleased” that,“high cost subjects … widening participation and small andspecialist institutions are to be protected”,

at the same time, all certainly seemed to be threatenedby the projected budgetary cuts for 2014-15 and 2015-16.While it is of course good that the Government havemaintained their ring-fence around science and research,we have got to commit long term to fund researchabove the rate of inflation. We currently spend a lowerproportion of our GDP on higher education than ourrivals. Our future competitiveness requires that wespend more.

I said at the start that while there is much of whichto be proud in the United Kingdom’s higher educationachievement, there are also causes for concern. Trendsare now emerging which, if not reversed, could indeederode our position: falling numbers overall of overseasstudents choosing to come here from abroad, includingfrom the European Union; and in real terms failing tostay ahead of inflation in our funding of research anddevelopment. These trends need to be reversed.

4 pm

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB): My Lords, Ido not wish to break the rules of the programme “Justa Minute” so I shall try to avoid repetition, and willnot talk about my days at Cambridge; nor will Iretreat to talk about my time at Aberdeen University,both of which served me excellently well.

The first-rate opening speech by the Minister wasfollowed by an excellent speech by my noble friendLady Morris. Both speeches raised a question in mymind that I want to face up to: why do we talk nowabout higher education when at one time we wouldhave spoken about universities? This is a significantshift. It is not necessarily a bad shift—I am notcomplaining about it—but the point was well made bymy noble friend Lady Morris that “higher education”is a much more inclusive range of institutions, possibilitiesand opportunities.

Subsuming universities into that has had someadvantages. Universities have learnt a broader contextin which to live and work, and that has been good forthem. Higher education institutions have had somebenefit in terms of kudos and powers from theGovernment if they have been effectively declareduniversities. But there has been a downside. The missionof many higher education institutions has been distortedby the company that they have been forced to keep. Itshowed up initially when the polytechnics becameuniversities: there was a stampede towards teachinglaw and sociology. I am enough of a vice-chancellor toknow that one of the main reasons for that is that theyare very cheap subjects to teach. That was not a gooddirection to move in, and many of them have reversedit, much to their credit. Equally, it has led us to ignoreand avoid the distinctive features of what makes auniversity a university. The discussion has shifted becauseof the language we use and the context we set.

It first struck me when I had my first ever visitingteaching post as a visiting professor in the USA. Atthe end of my first lecture, a large Texan student cameup to me, jabbed his finger into my chest—this was atnine in the morning, they start early there; and it wasminus 20 degrees outside—and said, “This better begood. My old man is paying 4,000 bucks a year forthis”. I suddenly realised that there was a differentperspective on what one was doing as a universityteacher. That shifted my mind a bit.

More recently, one of the leading think tanks in thiscountry invited me to a seminar on the student experience;I am sure that many of your Lordships had an equivalentinvitation. That is great, very important. I lookeddown the list of speakers. There was a governmentMinister, which is appropriate; the chief executive ofsomething called the Higher Education Academy; twopeople of journalistic backgrounds; the head of publicservices and consumer rights policy at Which?; someonefrom the Office of the Independent Adjudicator; happilythere was a student, the vice-president of the NUS;someone from the Quality Assurance Agency; the oddvice-chancellor, and so on down the list. They were allworthy people—I am not saying that they should nothave been there—but what was missing? There was nouniversity teacher, no one who taught, and it was aconference about the student experience. There was noreference to the Max Borns of this world or, in myown case, the Donald MacKinnons of this world, whoinspired a genuine, lifelong interest in what it was Iwanted to do with my life. There they were and therethey will be.

What has brought this about? A picture of what auniversity should be seems in our public discourse tohave changed. It has become very near to what mynoble friend Lord Hennessy has referred to as business“babble”—MBA speak. It is too prevalent. Universities,HEIs, are now selling products. These products vary:degrees, they might sell; employability, they might sell;high salaries and initial jobs, they might sell; and thelatest one is they will sell social mobility. This is whatuniversities now present themselves as doing. It is notthe picture of universities that one or two of us in thisdebate wish to spell out. One occasionally fears thatsome are selling academic snake oil.


[LORD SUTHERLAND OF HOUNDWOOD]The language of MBA-speak has taken over. This

may lead you to think that I am a dreadful oldfuddy-duddy and that I may be becoming tooconservative—with a small C, looking deferentiallyacross the Chamber—in my old age. That is not so, Ihope. I declare now my interests. I was what some havecalled a serial vice-chancellor: in the Strand, in Bloomsburyand in Newtown, Edinburgh. In the course of that, Ihad to learn all the skills that are necessary for amodern vice-chancellor. I learnt about property valuesin London and helped fund the merger of King’sCollege with two other colleges and a medical schoolout of the value of London property. That was a longway from my courses in moral philosophy. I learnt inEdinburgh, too, to avoid committing the universitymedical school to a PFI scheme that the hospital wasentering. We fought that off, and that is probably themost important thing that I have ever done for highereducation. One had to take these issues on. One had tolearn that the university world and the world of vice-chancellors is really rather different these days.

The move down that line, towards seeing the businessside of universities, was inevitable because of theexpansion of the system—it has been referred to already.There was a 2.5% age participation rate after the war;it was 7% when I went to university in 1959, wasdouble that in 1970 after the first tranche of Robbinsuniversities and went up to 43%—in Scotland, it hit50% one year. That is the age participation rate thatwe are talking about. It is not a bad thing; I am notprotesting. Opportunity is what made many of us, andthat is what we are offering. However, it is expensive,and if it is expensive, we cannot live in the hope thatthe traditional system will continue to apply withoutquestion. We cannot hope to avoid the issue of whatthe real costs are. A very well known head of one ofthe Ivy League universities in the USA was accostedafter commencement, or graduation, by a set of parentswho said, “Mr President, I want to tell you that ourElmer’s had a great experience here. It really has beena very fine, fine experience for him. He got a gooddegree. He’s got a job with Kinseys”. Then a slightshadow fell as they said, “However, it just all seemed abit expensive. Why does it cost so much to produce agraduate?”. To which the president said, “If you thinkknowledge is expensive, try ignorance”. That is afundamental principle, but, on the other hand, if youhave a free flow of cash, you will not check whetherthe costs are real.

The atmosphere has changed; we have had to learnto live with that. But what has been missing—I thankmy noble friend Lord Hennessy for raising this, andthe noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, mentioned it aswell—is the question: what are universities for?

For the first half of this debate, that was notmentioned. What are universities for and what is agood university? I have another American story. Thepresident of the University of California, asked whatmakes a good university, said, “That’s straightforward.Three things: football for the alumni, sex for theundergraduate and parking for the faculty. If you’vegot those three, you’ve got a good university”—well, acontented university, perhaps. There are bigger questions

than that, which the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, hasraised. What are the drivers of change and expansion?The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, raised the dangerousside of the drivers, which is that we are becoming auniform system that was not meant to serve 50% ofthe population and is merging in the middle.

I support the proposal that we need a thoroughlook—perhaps Robbins-style—at what is to be thefuture shape of the higher education system and theplace of universities in it, alongside further education,different forms of teaching and different ways of providingcourses, whether part-time or adult education. We arearguing about whether the participation rate shouldbe 40% or 50%. It should be 70% or 80%, because weare talking about continuing education, not whatpercentage of 18 year-olds we should have; that is adifferent and much narrower question.

My only additional proposal is that we have therelationship between universities and governmentincreasingly out of kilter. Once we had grants, morerecently we have had funding with conditions attached.In my view, we need to move to a different system—acontractual relationship. I will not take time now tospell all that out, but I think a different route aheadcould and ought to be considered in such a long-termlook at higher education.

4.12 pm

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con): My Lords,I have a sense of anxiety in addressing the Housetoday, because I feel that I need to explain that I didnot go to the University of Cambridge. I am notsaying the same for they who begat me or they who webegat or he who I married, but I wish they House to beaware that I did not go to University of Cambridge.

Secondly, I most warmly congratulate the rightreverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I did notentirely agree when he described himself as somejobbing priest, because I fear that he trained for thepriesthood at the University of Cambridge. He wasalso at Oxford, and started off at another verydistinguished university, the University of Durham,but I claim great affinity with him, as I am BaronessBottomley of Nettlestone, on the Isle of Wight, whereI was christened and married and spend much time.He will know that the educational attainment andexpectation for people on the Isle of Wight is all toopitifully low. I know that he will join others in doingall that he can to work on that critical issue. I alsowant him to know that I have an honorary doctoratefrom the University of Portsmouth, of which I amextremely proud.

Like others here, the interests that I must confessare too numerous. My greatest pleasure in life is beingchancellor of the University of Hull, alongside thenoble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—another greatport city, like Portsmouth, and a wonderful universitywith an incredible legacy acting as a catalyst for thecity, the region and the nation in a most remarkableway. The contribution of the university in gaining forthe city the accolade of City of Culture is yet anotherexample of what a university can do, in collaborationwith Siemens with its new investment in the area, whichneeds employment and investment all too greatly.


Aligning the University of Hull with the worldtables, I have become part of the international advisorycouncil of Sebanci University in Turkey. To reinforcethe international link, I am also pro-chancellor atSurrey, where the excellent Professor Chris Snowdon,now president of UUK, is vice-chancellor. I shall bethere on Friday awarding degrees. Finally, I have beena governor of the London School of Economics for, Ithink, 30 years—it shows how good its governancestructures are that they seem to be beyond review.

My serious point here is that my prejudices all arisebecause my noble kinsman Lord Hunt of Chesterton—Iam afraid that he has disappeared, but not withoutsending me a delightful note—and I shared a grandfather,Dr William Garnett, who was secretary of the TechnicalEducation Board and worked with the Webbs. Heestablished the Institute of Education and GreenwichUniversity, and was one of the original signatories forthe London School of Economics. He was a contraryman who did a great deal of good but caused quite alot of enmity as well, to his credit. He then retired intowriting and the great work that he wrote was Educationand World Citizenship. I deeply believe that universities,with all their importance in creating employment andin innovation and research, provide education for worldcitizenship.

What excites me is the international nature of ouruniversities, where 24% of academic staff are non-UKnationals. Seventeen per cent of students in UK universitiesare non-UK domiciled, 12% from outside the EU, andit is up to 37% at postgraduate level. This is nothingcompared to Singapore, where I was asked to go theother day by Phil Baty, who runs the Times Higherleague tables. I went to Nanyang Technological University,which is an incredible dynamo where 70% of thefaculty do not come from Singapore. Wherever you goaround the world, it is a story of internationalcollaboration. In Korea, I was talking to the peoplewho have a partnership with the University of Surrey.We see that everywhere. Then at the other end ofeconomic activity, in industry and commerce, globalperspective and cultural sensitivity are absolutely critical.The fact that our universities are so internationalwithin their faculties, research partnerships and studentpopulations is a huge strength and great benefit for usall.

I wanted to share most strongly in the commentsmade by my friends the noble Baronesses, Lady Morrisand Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Rees, andothers about the diversity of our provision. What is sostale and dated is this idea of a snobbish hierarchyabout universities. I do not mind whether you arepre-1992 or 1994, or a Russell group. Universities areand should be distinct, and have different personalities.Of course the league tables show something. They aregood fun and people can game them, and they helpstudents to have an idea of where they are going andwhat the benefits and strengths are. However, the realissue today is how we can make our universities havedifferent personalities and characters.

I want to refer briefly to the work done by Sir MichaelBarber at the IPPR because I thought that Membersof the House would like to know about his typology ofthe universities of the future. There is the mass university,

taking advantage of globally developed content andadapting it for its own students. Those universities willuse predominately online or blended approaches, perhapsin collaboration with respected institutions. They willcater for hundreds of thousands of students at a timeand provide good education for the growing globalmiddle class. Of course, this is about UK highereducation but how can we discuss that ignorant of therest of the world? There is the niche university towhich the noble Lord, Lord Rees, referred: effectively,like the New College of Humanities in the UK and theclassical liberal arts colleges in the USA. They havedeep specialisms in narrowly defined areas, possiblytaking global stars on to their staff. There are localuniversities which are community-based, fostering strongrelationships with regional students and businessesand playing a role in the constant renewal of local andregional economies, through opportunities for thedevelopment of skills in the workforce and appliedresearch. They may be developing more of the part-timeor sandwich courses which so many have hankered for.

We will of course continue to have the elite universities,which we spend a great deal of time discussing becausethey are jewels in our national infrastructure. I amsure that they will continue to produce great research,be led by great academics and be sources of greatpride and influence.

Then, I suspect, we will also have those universitiesreally using the new technologies and new businessideas. We at the Open University have seen so much ofwhat can be achieved. It has been said that almostevery sector has re-engineered its product. For traineeaccountants, airline pilots or doctors, new technologiesare used. Are we are doing all that we can in highereducation to ensure that we are looking with an openmind at the most effective ways of opening people’sminds and teaching them new skills?

With that, I wanted to talk about leadership. To me,our cadre of vice-chancellors in this country are asource of great pride, and increasingly they come fromdifferent backgrounds. Professor Steve Smith at Exetersaid:

“This may be a perilous time to be a university leader, but itcreates tremendous opportunities for the brave”.

We know about the problems of funding, student capsand immigration policies. I am not going to share thedebate around those subjects because they are constantand ongoing and we will continue to debate them.However, the opportunities today for real leadershipand reinforcing the mission, whichever university it is,are very exciting. At the Open University, for example,we saw Martin Bean, who comes from Microsoft. Aformer colleague from the Commons, Bill Rammell, isnow the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire. University ofthe Arts London, which is hugely successful, actuallyhas someone out of professional services. ReadingUniversity, which is very successful, has a formerPermanent Secretary, Sir David Bell, as its vice-chancellor.Aston, to which I am very grateful for my degree, hasDame Julia King, who is an academic and someonewho has been in business, as has the excellent ChrisSnowden, a fellow of the Royal Society but also verymuch a businessman in his own right. These backgroundsare different and, above all, global. Our vice-chancellorscome from all over the world, quite a number from


[BARONESS BOTTOMLEY OF NETTLESTONE]South Africa, while Louise Richardson is from the States.This is hugely welcome. We should look at theseindividuals maybe as great academics or maybe asgreat business leaders, with a profound commitmentand concern about leadership and higher education.

However, there is a serious gap. We spoke the otherday on International Women’s Day. Personally, I am alittle exhausted by the debate about women on boards.They are doing fine; there are 25% of them. However,fewer than one in five of our vice-chancellors arewomen. How can this be? The majority of undergraduatesare women and they do better than the men but no,only a handful of vice-chancellors are women. Therehas an increase, rapidly in recent years, to 17%. All toofew women are chairs of councils, too, a group that weought to talk about as the voluntary commitment ofpeople who chair universities often brings huge skill,devotion and dedication to the role. Let us hope thatwith Madeleine Atkins now at HEFCE and NicolaDandridge taking over from the noble Baroness, LadyWarwick, at Universities UK, we will see some progress.However, I share a paradox with noble Lords: thefemale vice-chancellors are disproportionately fromthe STEM subjects. Dame Nancy Rothwell, DameJulia Goodfellow and Dame Julia King are all fromSTEM subjects at a time when we are constantlycomplaining about the lack of women in STEMsubjects—a subject of ongoing work and debate.

In talking about leadership, though, I need to mentiona particular individual who I think has scarcely beenacknowledged. Our Minister for Universities and Sciencein another place, David “Two Brains” Willetts, ishugely to be admired and congratulated. I have seenthe way that he builds alliances with people of allpolitical parties and none. He is hugely dedicated andeffective, and someone of real calibre at such a sensitivetime. Similarly, those at HEFCE—Sir Alan Langlandshas recently stepped down—who have navigated thiscontroversial, argumentative and innovative sector somagnificently in recent years also deserve our recognition.If I have failed to declare my professional interests,they are as outlined in the Members’ register.

Nelson Mandela said that education was the easiestway to change the world. I agree, and I applaud thisdebate.

4.24 pmLord Young of Norwood Green (Lab): My Lords, I

congratulate the Minister on securing this debate.I must admit that when I saw the list of speakers andstarted to calculate the average length of time theywere taking, I inwardly groaned. However, I have sathere and, for the most part, have been enthralled bythe nature of this debate, its depth, its wit and itsanalysis. There have been one or two debates that Ihave sat through about which I could not say the samething. I feel confident when I enter a debate aboutapprenticeships because I was on one; I feel less easyon entering this debate because my formal qualificationsended at City and Guilds. My noble friend LordGiddens once described me as an autodidact, and thatis probably about right, so I shall rely on that qualificationfrom the university of life to get me through thisdebate.

I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate theBishop of Portsmouth—not bad for a jobbing priest isall I can say. However, he is a lot more than that, as wehave heard. It was a fascinating contribution, and Ithank him for the only reference to the living wage inthis debate. The church played a significant role ininstigating that concept. The last thing I shall sayabout this is that if you wanted to pay tribute to theHouse of Lords as an organisation that can bring awide variety of knowledge and experience, this debatehas encompassed that. Hansard will certainly be worthlooking at.

Let me start with where the country now findsitself. Surely we have to think seriously about reducingthe huge levels of debt write-off that make today’ssystem unsustainable. I do not say that to make aparty-political point; it has been the subject of arecent report. The lessons from the revelations of thepast two weeks have driven a coach and horses throughthe Government’s higher education policies. Therevelations have caused huge concerns for students,taxpayer and vice-chancellors. They are revelationsthat have comprehensively changed the terms of thedebate. First, there was the admission in a ParliamentaryAnswer to my right honourable friend Liam Byrnethat the Government now expect the write-off ofstudent loans to rise so high that their system oftripling student fees might not actually save the taxpayerany money. That is surely a cause for concern. Mr NickClegg, who tried to defend his change in policy byarguing that the amount students would pay backeach month was less than under the old system, somehowforgot to mention that the average student today willnot pay their loan back for 27 years, so students todaywill be approaching 50 before they are free from thedebt burden. Surely that should not be the legacy thatwe leave to this generation and the next generation ofstudents.

A number of noble Lords have commented warmlyon the fact that they attended university for free. Yes,they did, but in an era when somewhere between 5%and 7% of people went to university, when it was veryclass based and very few working class children wereable to attend university or even had an aspiration todo so. I can recall only one mention during this debateof the fact that it was the previous Labour Governmentwho set the target of 50% of young people going touniversity. For a while, I heard it mocked and derided.Yet, when I went round speaking to young people,which I do with the House of Lords outreach programme,and asked group of sixth formers in very working classcolleges and schools how many of them were going touniversity, all the hands went up. I thought that was anastonishing achievement. One might argue about theoutcomes, but in terms of social mobility and raisingaspirations, I think that was a very important policy.

In stark contrast to the previous regime, it wasestimated that, for students starting after 2006-07,when the previous Government introduced a loanssystem for fees—a difficult decision that I rememberhaving to try to justify, as I was Minister for Studentsand was going around meeting groups of students,and I probably used that hackneyed phrase aboutpolitics being about the language of priorities—theaverage student loan would take something like 11 years


to repay for men and 16 years for women. Then, lastweek, we got the story’s latest instalment when a freshbatch of Answers arrived to Parliamentary Questionstabled on the scale at which private providers are nowenjoying hundreds of millions of pounds of support,funded by the taxpayer. The sheer scale of the subsidysurprised everyone: nearly £1 billion of publicly fundedloans and maintenance grants are now flowing throughstudents to private providers. That, as the Guardianpointed out, is a 2,100% increase in recent years.

It is rather surprising that the Government seem tohave no idea of the level of profit that these privateproviders are now making. However, I am consciousof the time, so I will chop out that bit, which I wasgoing to focus on.

A number of contributors to the debate haveunderstandably praised the depth and diversity of ouruniversity system, although we have had a worryinganalysis of the fall in international and overseas students;I will not go into that in depth, because I think that thenoble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others have madequite an intense analysis. I look with anticipation tothe Minister for his response on that. We cannotafford to be complacent. If one looks at the fees thatEuropean universities are charging now, it is quite anattractive proposition for people in this country to goto some of the universities that are teaching in English—inHolland and other countries, for example.

Given the levels of debt for which we are asking—withsomething like £9,000 fees being more or less average,so students will have about £50,000 in debt—surely weshould be asking, even though we have a rise inapplications and I acknowledge the Minister’s pointon that, whether it stands the value-for-money test. Ido not apologise for that. I know that some of thecontributors to the debate might not like me using thatphrase, but young people are going to seriously assessthat. It is not a question of whether they are a poet ora plumber in aspiration. I actually look for a poeticalplumber; combining the two might be good, to pinch aphrase from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Studentsare entitled to query what they are getting for thatinvestment, given that it is going to take a large chunkof their life to repay it.

It is therefore legitimate for Which? to produce abriefing for today’s debate, for which I commend it.Whether that is consumerisation or not, it is importantthat we have independent analysis. I do not knowwhether the Minister has had a chance to look at thebriefing, but it says:

“However, it is questionable whether the higher education marketis promoting the best interests of students as consumers and moreneeds to be done to protect them from poor standards … Which?believes that there are a number of changes that need to be addressedto ensure that higher education improves for the benefit ofstudents … There is inadequate information available for prospectivestudents, for example on the nature and quality of the academicexperience. Which? wants to see high quality, easily-comparableinformation on university courses for prospective students”.

And so it goes on. I have not got the time to quote theentire thing. I will end on this point, also made by anoble Lord whose name I have wrong—my apologies—which is that:

“The current regulatory regime does not work in the interestsof students”.

It probably does not work in the interests of universities,either. It continues:

“Which? is calling for an examination of the case for astronger”—

or better—“regulatory framework”. That is a legitimatepart of this analysis.

I will set out today the principles which shouldguide us. These principles are deeply rooted in ourhistory and academic traditions but, more importantly,in a sense of the future. In a world turning east, inwhich technology is moving faster than ever, we inBritain need new answers to help us collectively earnour way to a better standard of living. The startingpoint for our principles is a speech that my righthonourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State,Chuka Umunna, made to the Engineering Employers’Federation few weeks ago. In that speech he said thatin a country where living standards are under suchacute pressure and where the deficit still looms solarge, innovation is the only way out of austerity. Ashe put it:

“We, the Labour Party, are clear about our goal: a high-productivity, high-skilled, innovation-led economy”.

I am sure we can all sign up to that.

That is why our universities are so important. Theyare, as a number of noble Lords said, the powerhouses of the knowledge economy. They need to bebigger, stronger and more central to our economy inthe years to come. However, they need also to focus onensuring that the students and the country as a wholeget value for money and that all universities are part oftheir local communities. I believe the right reverendPrelate quoted the number of employees in universities—they are big employers. Whenever I visit a university, Ialways ask the same question, “How many apprenticesdo you employ as a university? You are a big employer;you have lots of opportunities and you could work incollaboration with your local colleges”. Perhaps I canhave that conversation with the right reverend Prelateafterwards.

As the Royal Society put it so simply and eloquentlyin 2010, Britain needs to put science and innovation atthe heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth.

It is now clear that the student loan system thatpays for our universities, voted through by the LibDems, is a time bomb. According to the Public AccountsCommittee, it is storing up perhaps £70 billion to£80 billion of debts that may never be repaid. Today’ssystem with tripled fees and big debts for graduates isnow as expensive as the system where students werecharged a third as much. It has become indefensible,so people should now stop trying to defend it and, as anumber of noble Lords have said, we ought to review it.

Another test must be: what is good for our sciencebase—our store of knowledge and wisdom? The Ministeralleged that everything is okay on research, but today,while other powers, emerging and established, areinvesting in science like never before, we are cuttingour science spending across government, according tothe Campaign for Science and Engineering to the tuneof over £800 million. Nationally, research and developmentas a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since theturn of the century. Last year it fell for the first time


[LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN]since 1985. Does the Minister recognise the need toensure that research spending at least achieves theOECD average?

My next point is about student choice. One of thebenefits of these debates is that you get some usefulbriefings. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, andcertainly other noble Lords, referred to a need for amore flexible approach. The Association of Collegesproduced a useful briefing which talked about a systemthat allows students to accumulate and transfer coursecredits. We have heard talk about part-time study andthe use of online study, which will certainly impactacross education. That point is well worth making.My noble friend Lady Morris, in her fascinatingcontribution, analysed where the current universitieshave come from, what their antecedents were and whatthey now attempt to provide. She also addressed, asdid a number of noble Lords, the fact that the leaguetables do not capture what they need to capture orwhat so many potential students aspire to do.

Today, while we do a decent job of getting A-levelstudents, or those on an academic route, to university,we do not do a very good job of lifting apprentices upto the same standards. Rolls-Royce, like other greatfirms, trains 50% of its apprentices to degree-levelskills; as a country we manage just 6%—a grand totalof 6,000 people. That is not good enough today, andcertainly not good enough for the future.

We need to do far more to fix Britain’s skills basewhen regional skills gaps are opening wide all overBritain. I am a firm believer in education for education’ssake, but I know, too, that a good job is fundamentalto the way we flourish, and right now half of graduates—even though they may be in employment—are not ingraduate-level jobs.

I will make brief reference to the Minister’s Statementon the disabled students allowance. The noble Lord,Lord Addington, expressed concern about it, andhaving gone through the Statement I can understandwhy. Can the Minister reflect on what the level ofconsultation was—is the recommendation a done deal?—and whether there has been an impact assessment ofthe proposals that are outlined?

We need to ensure that our higher education systemmeets the needs of the country, and is challenging andsustainable. We want to make sure that it boosts thescience base, diversifies student choice and bringsuniversities and business together to deliver fast enoughprogress towards social mobility. What we need to do,surely, is to seek to inspire this generation of students.It is a bit worrying that in Plymouth, for example, ithas been estimated that only 10% of the university’s35,000-strong student population plans to use its votein the upcoming elections. The reason often cited bythis is the decision by the coalition to treble universitytuition fees. What assurances can the Minister offer tothe young people of Plymouth and the young peopleof this country as a whole, who feel somewhat betrayedand disheartened, that the coalition Government areworking in their best interests to ensure a highereducation system that is both fair and affordable?

4.40 pm

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, first, I thankeach and every Member of your Lordships’ House whohas taken part in this debate. Indeed, reflecting on thewords of my noble friend Lady Sharp, I, too, wassurprised when looking into this to find that it hadbeen so long since your Lordships’ House had debatedsuch an important subject. It was the Government’sview that it was something that we should put on theagenda, and I am glad that we have done so.

In paying tribute to all noble Lords, it would beentirely apt for me to pay particular tribute to themaiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishopof Portsmouth. In his remarks, he said that he was notsure about how his opening contribution would betaken by the House. It was an excellent one, and I amsure that he will play a significant role not just inrepresenting the people in Portsmouth and widerHampshire but indeed the country as a whole, albeitthat at times he may cause a degree of discomfort tothose of us on the Front Bench with the questions thathe may ask. We look forward to his future contributionsand welcome him to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, referred to poetsand plumbers. I do not know what I shall be called bythe time I sit down, but certainly if one was to look tomy plumbing skills—my wife is testament to that—aplumber I am not.

This is an important subject. As we have heardfrom all noble Lords, higher education is an importantpart of what defines Britain today. It is key to thenation’s success and, as last week’s Universities UKreport on the impact of universities on the UK economynoted, the sector generates jobs—indeed, 754,000—andcontributes to the GDP, some 2.8% in 2011, up from2.3% in 2007. The report also reveals that the UKhigher education sector contributed an output of over£73 billion. The almost £5 billion that students contributeto local economies through their off-campus expenditureshows that the impact of higher education is felt inbusinesses across the country. These figures remind usthat universities are absolutely pivotal to driving thegrowth that will safeguard a more sustainable futurefor everyone.

My noble friend Lord Purvis referred to universityfunding. University income across the whole of theUK represents £29 billion in 2012-13, as opposed to£12 billion in 1999 to 2000. Again, that demonstratesthe flexibility and autonomy to which several nobleLords alluded for our universities. Education is ofvital importance to the nation as a whole.

I shall take certain areas in a specific order. Severalnoble Lords raised the issue of social mobility. Rightfrom the outset, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Youngof Norwood Green, that, although he said that hisbackground was not one of university education, Ihave stood across the Chamber from him at thisDispatch Box and talked about apprenticeships. TheGovernment recognise the importance of apprenticeshipsfor the future growth of our economy, which is why wehave created the number of apprenticeships that wehave. I am sure that he will recognise that variouscompanies are coming on board—I accept that westart from a low base—that are now participating in


the apprenticeship programme. I believe that we allshare the sentiment that diversity, not just in terms ofthe university route but also in terms of the apprenticeshiproute, is vital for our continued growth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke aboutsocial mobility from her great experience. Institutionsnow have a much greater responsibility to focus onwidening access. The Director of Fair Access hasagreed more than 160 access agreements with institutionsfor 2014-15. These detail the plans by universities andcolleges to spend more than £700 million by 2017-18—upfrom £440 million in 2011-12. The Government willinvest another £50 million through the NationalScholarship Programme in 2014-15.

Access issues were also raised by the noble Lord,Lord Rees. It is important to note that in all theseaccess agreements we are looking at issues of gender,social class and ethnicity. The director has certainlyreflected these issues in the access agreements. However,I am sure all noble Lords agree that we need to makesure that all this money is spent where it really counts.Just last week, the Government announced a newnational strategy for widening access, led by the HEFCEand OFFA. One of the key focuses of this strategy willbe the employment prospects of graduates from lessadvantaged backgrounds. Research published last yearby our Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commissionshowed that, three years after graduation, individualsfrom higher socioeconomic backgrounds were morelikely to be in a high-status occupation than thosefrom less privileged backgrounds. OFFA is also askingall universities, especially those which have not yetmade progress, to invest more smartly in their accessactivities generally and ensure that they are properlyevaluating what works, and then sharing that bestpractice with other institutions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, raised the issueof diverse universities, as did my noble friend LadySharp. My noble friend Lady Perry gave examples ofthe universities with which she has been associated—namely, Cambridge and London South Bank. Thenoble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly values a diversesystem, as we all do. Of course, university rankings arenot a government tool per se, and there are manydifferent measures of a good university. Indeed, thenoble Baroness, Lady Deech, highlighted a particularexample of how ratings can be used. One of thereasons the Government have focused on improvingstudent information is so that students can use theirpurchasing power to seek out the best course to matchtheir aspirations—indeed, the best institution as well.Popular institutions will grow and attract more income,and this is reflected in how they are perceived.

My noble friend Lord Storey rightly wants to encouragemore women to take up leadership roles. The Governmentare committed to supporting this aspiration. Theuniversities are, of course, autonomous institutionsand the Government do not have a specific role inmicromanaging this sector. However, I believe that alluniversities increasingly recognise the importance ofreflecting diversity in their own leadership.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised the issueof part-time students. The Government have addressedwhat we considered was the primary barrier to part-time

study—that is, access to tuition fee loans. We recentlyannounced that we are examining the rules regardingequivalent or lower qualifications which rule out loansfor past graduates, so that those wishing to undertakeengineering, technology or computer science coursescan do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred toteacher training. The Government are carefully consideringthe implications of our policy on the quality of teachertraining. The expansion of School Direct, to whichshe referred, has been challenging for many universities,but there is scope for successful school and highereducation collaboration in this regard. Outstandinguniversity providers have been guaranteed the samenumber of places as last year, and many have increasedtheir share of the initial teacher training market. Iunderstand that the higher education institutions remaininvolved in more than 80% of the initial trainingplaces. Additional places have been created to reducethe chance that some courses may have to close.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord,Lord Hennessy, referred to the loan system. We areabsolutely not seeking to treat the student loan systemlike a private debt system. The system operates verymuch like a graduate contribution scheme, and we feelthat it takes the best features of a graduate tax.Students repay only when they can afford and at only9% of income earned above the £21,000 threshold. AsI said in my opening remarks, the OECD recognisesthat what we are seeking to do through our reformsputs our higher education funding on a sustainablemodel basis.

I turn to the funding and RAB charge, referred toby the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the nobleLord, Lord Giddens. There has been much discussionof the Government’s estimate of the returns that theywill get from student loans. However, the resourceaccounting and budgeting process—the RAB charge—isnot a straightforward financial calculation, as nobleLords will know. It is an estimate of the economiccircumstances 35 years in the future. The Governmenthave improved the modelling. It is sound and has beenquality-assured by experts in the field, such as theInstitute for Fiscal Studies.

We have taken careful note of the recommendationsin the 2013 National Audit Office report on studentloan repayments. It is not surprising that the Government’sassessment of the proportion of loans that will berepaid has changed. After all, it is a complex analysis.Estimates are just that and they will continue to change,as they are based on assumptions about the future.However, it is important to note that lower-earninggraduates will be protected, while those who benefitmost from their higher education and go on to earnmore will pay back their loan more quickly.

The Government are still delivering a tough deficitreduction programme. The funding model that theyhave used has made it possible to address the deficit,while, as I indicated, at the same time giving moreincome to higher education institutions to boost thequality of their provision. The Government are workingwith an estimate of around 45%. It could be arguedthat currently the savings are small but, depending onthe performance of the economy—and we are encouraged


[LORD AHMAD OF WIMBLEDON]by the IMF’s report published yesterday—this couldchange over time. However, there continue to be savingsto government compared with the previous assessment,even if we take the figure of 45%. We believe that thissystem continues to be the best way to use limitedpublic funds to meet the country’s requirement forlong-term, high-level skills, but we must not forgetwhat it ultimately means for students: a progressiverepayment system, better information and higher-qualityprovision.

I turn to the STEM subjects, specifically scienceand research. I acknowledge the contribution of variousnoble Lords in this respect. Science and research,including the arts and humanities, are essential driversof the innovation that leads to growth. The basefunding awards that are made to support vital researchwill be distributed using the outcomes of the researchexcellence framework. The peer review is currently themost established method of research assessment and itunderpins the academic system. Obviously, we canshape cultures both positively and negatively dependingon how we measure things. The latest exercise contained,for the first time, an explicit assessment of the impactof research. There were some concerns about whatthat impact might mean in the UK, but it has sent apowerful reminder to researchers to think about howtheir research might be used or the difference that itmight make, and it is encouraging much greaterengagement with the industry.

Perhaps I may take some of the specific questionsthat were asked on research and development, includingby the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the rightreverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. The UK’soverall research and development spend was 1.72% ofGDP in 2012, amounting to £27 billion. I acknowledgethat this sum is lower than that of some of our tradingpartners such as the US, Germany and France. Wecontinue to look to invest more and, as I said in myopening remarks, we have protected funding in thisarea.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness,Lady Greenfield, and my noble friend Lord Storey,raised the important issue of technology transfer andasked what universities are for. It is important to notethat the UK does very much better than people think.The impact of the research excellence framework is akey incentive in driving this. The excellent HEIFprogramme is widely recognised as supporting technologytransfer. Indeed, we are in the top five globally foruniversity/business interactions. One of the driversbehind removing the cap as an incentive is that this isdemand-led: the private sector wants to see moregraduates and, increasingly, there is a strong link withwhat universities provide in the communities. My noblefriend Lord Storey gave examples in Liverpool, whichthe Government fully endorse and support.

The noble Lord, Lord Rees, and others talkedabout credit accumulation and transfer. Much hasbeen done in this area. Many institutions allow studentsto build a qualification from smaller modules but thedecision to accept and recognise credit has alwaysbeen one for the universities, which act autonomouslyin this regard. Mention was made of the need for

academic freedom by my noble and learned friendLord Mackay of Clashfern. Others talked about valueand gave examples, as my noble friend Lady Perry did,when she spoke of the value of freedom of the universities.The Government are fully committed to the Haldaneprinciples, whereby decisions on which research projectsare funded are made by the research councils themselves,not by Ministers. Around two-thirds of all researchcouncil grants are made through this measure—thatis, not responding to any government priority.

Mention was also made by my noble and learnedfriend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I believe,of where higher education should sit. Should it be inBIS or in education? I have noted the comments, as Ihave noted the wider debate, and will take thosesuggestions back.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised modernlanguages.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I wonder whetherI may refer back to the noble Lord’s support for HEIFto ask the specific question that I asked in my intervention.Do the Government see it as important to accept theWhitty recommendation to increase that fund?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: If I may I will writeto the noble Baroness in that regard, and, ofcourse, share it with all those who have taken part inthe debate.

The Government are committed to the teachingand learning of modern languages in schools. As thenoble Baroness, Lady Coussins, acknowledged, fromSeptember 2014, primary schools will be required toteach a foreign language at key stage 2. Thanks to theEnglish baccalaureate, modern languages GCSE entriesare improving. The Government have prioritised highereducation funding for modern language courses toensure the continued availability of language study inhigher education institutions. The noble Baroness raisedsome other questions, but with her permission, and inthe interests of time—at five hours, this has beensomewhat of a marathon—I will write to her andshare that letter with other noble Lords.

The explosive growth in massive open online courseswas raised by the noble Lords, Lord Giddens, LordRees, among others, and by my noble friend LadySharp. We have seen growth in this area and the UK’snew MOOC platform FutureLearn brings togetherfree courses from 23 top UK and international universities.In the four months since the first course began,FutureLearn has already 450,000 sign-ups. Users comefrom an impressive 90 countries and a range ofbackgrounds.

My noble friend Lord Holmes mentioned the BPP.The BPP is the third university to achieve the universitytitle last year and it is respected for its professionallygeared education. My noble friend flagged that particularlyin his comments. Various issues were raised by thenoble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the right reverend Prelatethe Bishop of Winchester, the noble Baroness, LadyWarwick, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, among others,and my noble friend Lord Holmes. I underline that onspecific questions I shall write to noble Lords, in theinterests of time. I reiterate that the Government are


fully committed to international students and we haveannounced that we will extend options for people tostay on following their study. I will write with thedetails. Just to be clear, the numbers of internationalstudents are not capped. I can do nothing better thanquote my right honourable friend the Prime Ministerwhen he visited India last year and said that we wereopen for anyone wishing to come to the UK for alegitimate course at an accredited university. The doorsare open. As I said, I will write with further details.

I fully acknowledge the points made by my noblefriends Lord Watson and Lady Sharp, and the nobleLord, Lord Hennessy, about the importance of softpower when we travel the world. Indeed, my noblefriend Lady Bottomley spoke about this with greatpassion. English itself is an incredibly powerful tool inensuring that the issue of soft power both at home andabroad is not forgotten. I totally ally myself with thecomments made on that point.

My noble friend Lord Addington raised issues aboutthe disabled students’ allowance, specifically on dyslexia.These changes will not come into effect until 2015 andwe are working through the sector-driven centres toconsider specific individual needs and to inform highereducation institutes how we expect them to offer supportin this regard.

My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, spoke withgreat expertise in this area, as ever. I particularlycommend and welcome his commission’s report on thefuture regulation of the university sector. Again, perhapsI may write to him in respect of the specific questionshe raised.

In conclusion, we have had five hours of debate andeven Lord Robbins, if he was here and reflected on thewords of the debate, would say that it has perhapsbeen a useful consultation exercise in its own right. Ican assure noble Lords that I have been listening. Thenoble Lord, Lord Young, made the point about therange of speakers. I have been riveted to my FrontBench seat during this extremely informed debate.

Our universities are one of our greatest nationalassets. UK universities are second in internationalrankings only to the US. They contribute to the nation’swealth and to the rich cultural fabric of our society.The thousands of extra higher education places thatthe Chancellor announced at the end of last year willhelp the nation to grow and flourish.

Again I thank all noble Lords who have participatedin the debate. Their thoughts, perspectives and suggestionshave provided a valuable resource as we seek to furtherstrengthen our world-renowned higher educationsector—a sector which is central not only to oureconomic growth but to our position on the globalstage. As a Minister responding to such a debate it isappropriate for me to finish with a quote from Aristotle.He said:

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain athought without accepting it”.

Motion agreed.

Convergence ProgrammeMotion to Approve

5.02 pmMoved by Lord Newby

That this House approves, for the purposes ofSection 5 of the European Communities (Amendment)Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set outin the Budget Report, combined with the Office forBudget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook,which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’sConvergence Programme.

Lord Newby (LD): My Lords, I welcome thisopportunity to discuss the information that will beprovided to the Commission this year under Section 5of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

As in previous years, the Government inform theCommission on the UK’s economic and budgetaryposition in line with our commitments under the EUstability and growth pact. The Government plan tosubmit their convergence programme by 30 April,with the approval of both Houses. The convergenceprogramme explains the Government’s medium-termfiscal policies as set out in the 2013 autumn Statementand Budget 2014, and includes the OBR forecast. Assuch it is drawn entirely from previously publisheddocuments that have been presented to Parliament.

With the Budget on 19 March this year and theEaster Recess timings as they are, I appreciate that thetimetable for this debate has been particularly tight.Against this backdrop, the Treasury has made everyeffort to provide early copies of the convergenceprogramme document in advance of the debate today,and did so last Thursday. The document makes clearthat this year’s Budget reinforces the Government’sdetermination to return the UK to prosperity andreiterates the Government’s number one priority—tacklingthe deficit.

Stability or convergence programmes form part ofthe European semester, which provides a broad frameworkfor the co-ordination of the monitoring and surveillanceof member states’ fiscal and economic policies, includingnecessary structural reforms across the EU. The positivevalue of the European semester is that it is a usefulmeans to encourage other member states to grip theurgent growth challenge across the EU.

The Budget 2014 set out the Government’s assessmentof the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetaryposition. In 2010 we set out clear, credible and specificmedium-term consolidation plans to return the publicfinances to a sustainable path. Our plan makes clearthat we will fix the economy and deal with the deficit,cut tax to encourage investment, back businesses, controlwelfare and invest in skills. We put that plan in placeand adhered to it, and we are delivering results with it.The Government’s fiscal strategy has restored fiscalcredibility, allowing activist monetary policy and theautomatic stabilisers to support the economy andensure that the burden is shared fairly across society.This long-term economic plan has protected the economythrough a period of global uncertainty and has providedthe foundations for the UK’s economic recovery, whichis now well established.

1385 1386[9 APRIL 2014]Higher Education Convergence Programme

[LORD NEWBY]Since last year, economic growth has exceeded forecasts

and has been balanced across the main sectors of theeconomy, inflation is below target, and the deficit hasbeen reduced year on year. Over 1.5 million privatesector jobs have been created and employment is atrecord levels. Interest rates are at near record lows,helping to keep costs down for families and businesses.The Government are also making significant progressin reversing the unprecedented rise in borrowing between2007-08 and 2009-10. The deficit has been cut byone-third as a percentage of GDP over three years andis projected to have fallen by a half as a percentage ofGDP by 2014-15. The OBR has also forecast publicsector net borrowing to reach a small surplus in 2018-19,and has judged that the Government remain on trackto meet the fiscal mandate one year early. While theOBR forecast that the underlying structural deficit isfalling, it is doing so no faster than was previouslyforecast, despite higher growth. The persistence of thisstructural challenge supports the Government’s argumentthat economic growth alone cannot be relied upon toeliminate a structural deficit, and while we are meetingthe supplementary debt target one year late as before,the OBR has revised down national debt in every yearof the forecast.

This year’s Budget is fiscally neutral despite lowerborrowing across the forecast period, with an overallreduction in tax funded by a reduction in spending.The OBR has revised the UK’s growth forecasts upwards,as has the IMF, and they are now among the highest,if not the highest, in the developed world. However, asthe Chancellor has said, the job is not yet done, andthe same is true for the rest of the EU. Withoutsustainable economic growth, the EU will be unable torepay its debts, create jobs or maintain its standard ofliving. Much of the answer to these problems lies innational level reforms such as creating flexible labourmarkets. Clearly, the European semester has a key roleto play in encouraging member states to make ambitiousreform commitments, and the UK has an interest inmaking these reforms happen. However, an ambitiousEU-level reform agenda is also a key part of thisequation and an essential counterpart to national levelreforms. Recent European Councils have underscoredthe strong commitment of Heads of State or Governmentsto supporting growth and competitiveness, and I knowthat the Prime Minister has been driving forward thisagenda along with leaders from a substantial group oflike-minded member states.

As I reminded the House a year ago, deployingEU-level policies in support of economic growth, suchas the single market, regulatory reform and EU-levelfree trade agreements, can achieve maximum growthimpact at the least cost. The need to address Europe’sgrowth challenge comprehensively by tackling overalllow productivity, lack of economic dynamism andflexibility is more pressing than ever before, and it is inour interests to make urgent progress. That is why theUK will continue to push this agenda at the highestlevels and encourage the new Commission to takestructural reforms seriously. I am today requestingthat, in line with Section 5 of the European Communities(Amendment) Act 1993, this House approves theeconomic and budgetary assessment that forms the

basis of the convergence programme. Following theHouse’s approval of the assessment, the Governmentwill submit the convergence programme to the EuropeanCommission. It will make its recommendations to allEU member states in early June. These recommendationswill then be considered by the ECOFIN Council on20 June and agreed by Heads of State or Governmentsat the European Council on 26 and 27 June.

To reiterate, the convergence programme containsno new information, only information that has previouslybeen presented to Parliament—information from theOBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and from theBudget, which sets out the Government’s strategy toreturn the UK to sustainable growth. I commend theassessment to the House.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): My Lords, canthe noble Lord remind the House of what exactly isthe UK’s convergence programme? With what is theUnited Kingdom economy supposed to be converging,and why? As we are never going to join the euro, arewe not wasting time? While I am at it, could the nobleLord remind us what is the European semester? Butabove all, why do we go on submitting the state of oureconomy to an institution which has not had its ownaccounts signed off, even by its own internal auditors,for the past 18 years? By its own estimation, at least£120 billion per annum goes walkabout and in each ofits institutions the Mafia is rife and active.

In short, what is the point of this debate and, moregenerally, what is the point now of the EuropeanUnion at all?

Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): My Lords, the Minister willbe pleased to know that I shall not be resisting theMotion. I am reassured by his assurance that there isno new information in the documentation being provided,but will just spend a few minutes commenting on thatinformation and what it says.

We have been presented with a quite a glowingpicture. In particular, if one did not listen too carefully,one could be left with the impression that the reductionin the deficit has been achieved as per the 2010 emergencyBudget and the subsequent Autumn Statement. Myrecollection is that the intention was to have eliminatedthe deficit by now. The noble Lord can correct me ifthat is not the case.

We have heard that things are going well, but this isnot how people up and down the country are feeling.They are facing a cost of living crisis. Working peopleare £1,600 a year worse off. The OBR has confirmedthat people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in2010. Energy bills are up almost £300 since the election,while childcare costs have spiralled since 2010. Thenumber of young people out of work for 12 months ormore has nearly doubled since this Government cameinto office. We have a record number of people whowant to work full time but are being forced to workpart-time. Families will be £974 worse off by the nextelection as a result of tax and benefit changes. Afterthree years of flatlining, it is good that we finally havesome growth. However, for millions of people, this isno recovery at all. There is much more that could bedone to help working people but the Budget was justanother missed opportunity.

1387 1388[LORDS]Convergence Programme Convergence Programme

We should be getting young people back into work.Despite the Government’s rhetoric on full employment,there are no new policies to deliver this. The WorkProgramme is so unsuccessful that people are morelikely to go back to the jobcentre than find work. Only5% of disabled people on the Work Programme havefound work through it. We need a compulsory jobsguarantee to ensure there is a paid job for every youngperson under 25 who has been out of work for a year.

We also need practical measures to tackle the cost ofliving crisis, such as tackling rising energy bills or helpingfamilies with childcare costs, within this Parliament.We would expand free childcare for working parents ofthree and four year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week.

We should be cutting business rates for small andmedium-sized enterprises. The Government are focusingtheir help on the 2%—the largest multinationals—andnot doing enough for 98% of British businesses, thesmall and medium-sized enterprises. We need actionfrom the Government to ensure a strong, sustainedand balanced recovery. Manufacturing, constructionand infrastructure investment are all down. Consumersare having to dip into their savings, and the OBRpredicts that growth may well slow in the future whenthose savings run out. Indeed, the OBR sees households’gross debt to income ratio rising from 124% in 2014,which was a 10-year low, to 165% in 2019, which isnear to pre-crisis levels of indebtedness. Exports arefalling, not rising. Nothing in the Budget tackles theproductivity crisis that has emerged in recent years.

5.15 pmThere is too much inconsistency and too many

short-term measures and not enough consistency andstability for business to plan for the long term. On housing,we need a “help to build” scheme to counterbalancethe Help to Buy scheme. There is a serious risk of alop-sided recovery unless we match the boosting ofdemand with the boosting of supply. A “help to build”scheme focused particularly on ensuring that smalland medium-sized construction companies can dobetter is one way to make a difference.

In the other place, the Chancellor said that,“we are getting on top of our debts”.—[Official Report, Commons,19/3/14; col. 781.]

The coalition Government would like us to forgettheir broken promises on borrowing and the deficit.They have had to borrow nearly £190 billion morethan they planned in 2010 over the five years of thisParliament. The Government have added a third tothe national debt, which now stands at £1.2 trillion,and three years of economic stagnation will leave thenext Government with a budget deficit of £75 billion.They have borrowed more in the past four years thanthe previous Government did in 13.

There is a reason why the Tories cannot deliver forthe many. They have the wrong priorities. They aregiving an average £100,000 tax cut to millionaires.They have offered a marriage tax allowance that willhelp only a third of married couples, rather than, say,a 10p starting rate of tax, which would help millionsmore families. There is a fairer way to tackle the deficitand the Government’s failure to keep their promiseabout balancing the books, and to do this Britainneeds a Labour Government.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to both nobleLords who have spoken in today’s debate. In a shortspeech, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, succeeded inasking very fundamental questions about Britain’sposition in the EU. Without spending too much timeon his final, semi-rhetorical question, I should like torespond to his earlier questions about the convergenceprogramme and the European Semester.

The convergence programme stems from the Lisbontreaty, which requires the UK Government to reportregularly to the European Commission on the economicsituation and forecasts in the UK. The report is drawnfrom previously published material, as I said. It is partof a Europe-wide programme. Under the stability andgrowth pact, all member states are required to submiteither stability programmes, for euro-area memberstates, or convergence programmes, for non-eurozonemember states. The European Semester is a commontimetable for the submission and consideration offiscal policies via the stability or convergence programmesand macroeconomic policies via national reformprogrammes.

The noble Lord asked: what is the point of all this?As the crisis in much of Europe has shown, it is ineverybody’s interests that member states do not run upexcessive deficits, because if they do the consequencesof putting those deficits right are not confined tothose member states. The UK economy suffered verysignificantly because of the eurozone crisis. To pick upone of the points made by the noble Lord, LordTunnicliffe, this is one of the reasons that the forecastswe made in 2010 were blown off-course. Given thevery high proportion of trade we have with the eurozonecountries, we are very much dependent on those countriesprospering and therefore it is very much in our intereststhat they keep their public sector finances under control.

Lord Tunnicliffe: It is a detail, but the Minister saidthat the requirement comes from the Lisbon treaty. Ithought that it had come from the Maastricht treaty,which we put into law in 1993. Am I mistaken?

Lord Newby: The difference, I believe, is that theLisbon treaty requires the convergence programme tobe submitted to the Commission in the form that weare describing today, whereas the underpinningrequirements about budget deficit and levels of growthwere in the Maastricht treaty. What came out ofLisbon were the very specific mechanics of trying toco-ordinate via the submission of national plans everyyear which the Commission can then scrutinise andcomment on.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I hope the Minister will forgiveme, but I put a little bit of study into this. Article 103of the Maastricht treaty—which may have been elaboratedat Lisbon—states pretty bluntly:

“In order to ensure closer co-ordination of economic policiesand sustained convergence of the economic performances of theMember States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submittedby the Commission, monitor economic developments in each ofthe Member States and in the Community as well as the consistencyof economic policies with the broad guidelines referred to inparagraph 2, and regularly carry out an overall assessment. Forthe purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall

1389 1390[9 APRIL 2014]Convergence Programme Convergence Programme

[LORD TUNNICLIFFE]forward information to the Commission about important measurestaken by them in the field of their economic policy and such otherinformation as they deem necessary”.

I thought today that we were responding to that partof that treaty. I want to draw out the point that ourbeing here this afternoon at this late hour is the faultof all Governments, not perhaps just one.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister replies,perhaps I may say that I support the noble Lord, LordTunnicliffe. He is of course right that the whole processin the Maastricht treaty was, I am afraid, wavedthrough by the Conservative Government under Mr JohnMajor when, if your Lordships remember, he waswinning game, set and match. I am grateful to theMinister for his answer, but I would still like to presshim on why the United Kingdom has to take part inthis demeaning and absurd process. I understand thatit might be useful for the countries which haveunfortunately joined the extremely destructive processof the euro and everything that goes with that, butwhy should we, if indeed our economy is recovering inthe way that the Government claim, have to go cap inhand to Brussels and discuss with them anything thatwe want to do, especially as we are, luckily, thanks tothe Treasury, not in the euro?

Lord Newby: My Lords, perhaps I may deal withthe point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.Obviously, the Motion that we are debating todaystems from Maastricht, but the codification of how itwas to be done is to be found in Articles 121 and126 of the Lisbon treaty—I am sorry that I do nothave them before me to read out to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, describes the processof submitting the forecasts as “demeaning”. Certainly,there is nothing demeaning about the state of theBritish economy. We are very happy to send the forecaststo anybody. However, as I said, just as we depend in nosmall measure on the economic success of the rest ofthe EU, so the rest of the EU, as he is very fond ofreminding the House, depends on our economic success.We are part of a single market and, again as the nobleLord often reminds the House, we contribute to abudget one of the main purposes of which is topromote growth across the EU. So it is only sensiblethat the EU as a whole looks at how Governments aremeeting their commitments by running a successful,stable and growing economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised some prettyfamiliar criticisms of the state of the economy. Ialways find it slightly amusing when members of theLabour Party, which consistently wanted to spendmore at every point during this Parliament, object tothe fact that the deficit is higher than it might be. Ifthey had spent £12 billion a year by cutting VAT, asthey proposed, the accumulated deficit would by nowalmost certainly have been greater. It is bizarre for theLabour Party, which has been pushing for higherexpenditure—that would necessarily mean a biggerdeficit, certainly over the period we are discussing—toupbraid us for following a policy that allowed theeconomic stabilisers to work and ensured that we did

not have further cuts in the face of the European crisis.We allowed the stabilisers to operate in a way thatminimises the impact of the crisis on employment—andon growth—and formed the basis for the creation of1.73 million additional private sector jobs during thecourse of this Parliament.

The noble Lord says that we have done nothing toget young people back into work. I remind him thatyouth unemployment fell by 29,000 in the quarter, inthe three months to January, and by 81,000 in the year.Excluding people in full-time education, there was adecline of 16,000 in the number of 16 to 24 year-oldswho were unemployed over the quarter. The youthclaimant count has fallen for 21 consecutive months.On the latest figures, the reduction in the youth claimantcount is falling at the fastest pace since 1997. Thenumber of those claiming for more than one year hasfallen for the 15th consecutive month, down by 2,300on the month to 53,400. Youth employment in thequarter rose by 43,000, which is an extremely significantnumber. Those 43,000 young people who now have ajob who did not before would find it extremely difficultto recognise the Opposition’s description of what ishappening to the economy.

I absolutely understand the noble Lord’s criticismthat some people have suffered in their standard ofliving. Sadly, that is what happens to some peopleduring a recession. However, I remind him that theGovernment have taken a wide range of steps tomitigate that fall. Of course, the increase in the incometax allowance to £10,000 is the single most significantone, but I also remind him of the freeze on fuel duty.On jobs, I remind him of the £2,000 national insuranceallowance, which will make it easier for small businesses,in particular, to retain or take on additional staff.

The noble Lord also criticised the Government onthe basis that the recovery was unbalanced. He willknow that manufacturing output was up last year. Theforward surveys of manufacturing are more positivethan they have been for many years. He will probablybe aware that the figures from the RAC, I think,yesterday suggested that in the past month, the areawith the highest growth rate in permanent placementswas the north. He will also be aware of today’s figuresshowing that the balance of payments on the latestdeficit is down, so we do not have unbalanced growth.Every sector of the economy is growing. Forwardforecasts in services and manufacturing are at recordlevels; in some cases, they are higher than ever before.So the prospect for the period ahead is of not justgrowth but a greater degree of balance in growth thanwe have seen for a considerable time.

Ultimately, such sustainable growth is the only wayfor both the UK and EU member states to pay downtheir debts and exit what has been, by common consent,a very difficult economic period. The UK is leadingthe EU growth agenda and making the case for ambitiousEU reform. On that basis, I am pleased to commendthe Motion to the House.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.31 pm.

1391 1392[LORDS]Convergence Programme Convergence Programme

Written StatementsWednesday 9 April 2014

Commonwealth Games 2014: SecurityStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): My righthonourable friend the Minister of State for the ArmedForces (Mr Mark Francois) has made the followingWritten Ministerial Statement.

A call-out order has been made under Section 56(1A)of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists tobe called out for permanent service as part of Defence’scontribution to the safety and security of the Glasgow2014 Commonwealth Games.

In providing venue security support to the PoliceService of Scotland and other civil and CommonwealthGames authorities, Defence will contribute up to 2,000military personnel, of which up to 400 will come fromthe reserve forces.

We plan to call out only willing and available reservistswho have the support of their employer. The ordertakes effect from 8 April 2014 and ceases to have effecton 6 August 2014.

Education: Qualification ReformStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Nash) (Con): My right honourable friendSecretary of State for Education (Michael Gove MP)has made the following announcement.

The Government is today announcing the nextsteps in the reform of GCSEs and A-levels. We areintroducing more rigorous content into reformed GCSEsand A-levels to be taught from September 2016 and2015 respectively.

Our changes will make these qualifications moreambitious, with greater stretch for the most able; willprepare young people better for the demands ofemployment and further study; will address the perniciousdamage caused by grade inflation and dumbing-down,which have undermined students’ achievements for fartoo long; and will give pupils, parents, teachers, universitiesand employers greater confidence in the integrity andreliability of our qualifications system.

GCSEsIn November of last year, the Department for

Education published details of revised content for GCSEsin English and mathematics, for first teaching fromSeptember 2015.

Today, I am publishing revised content for GCSEsin science, history, geography and languages, whichwill be taught in schools from September 2016.

These GCSEs set higher expectations. They demandmore from all students and specifically provide furtherchallenge to those aiming to achieve top grades.

In science, the level of detail and scientific knowledgerequired has increased significantly, and there are clearermathematical requirements for each topic. New contenthas been added, including the study of the humangenome, gene technology, life cycle analysis, nanoparticlesand space physics.

In history, every student will be able to cover medieval,early modern and modern history—rather than focusingonly on modern world history, as too many studentsdo now. Greater emphasis has been placed on Britishhistory, which will account for 40% of GCSE ratherthan 25%, as now, balanced by an increase in thenumber of geographical areas studied, and an explicitexpectation that students will study the wider world.The new GCSE is also clearer about the range ofhistorical knowledge and methods students will needto develop, from critical assessment of sources tounderstanding of chronology, individuals, events anddevelopments.

In geography, the balance between physical andhuman geography has been improved—developingstudents’ locational and contextual knowledge of theworld’s continents, countries and regions and theirphysical, environmental and human features—alongsidea requirement that all students study the geography ofthe UK in depth. Students will also need to use a widerange of investigative skills and approaches, includingmathematics and statistics, and we have introduced arequirement for at least two examples of fieldworkoutside school.

In modern languages, greater emphasis has beenplaced on speaking and writing in the foreign language,thorough understanding of grammar and translationof sentences and short texts from English into thelanguage. Most exam questions will be set in thelanguage itself, rather than in English; and there willbe a sharper focus on using the language appropriatelyin different contexts, from personal travel to employmentor study abroad.

Finally, ancient languages have been given a separateset of criteria for the first time, reflecting their specificrequirements. Students will now need to translate unseenpassages into English, and will have the option totranslate short English sentences into the ancient language.We have also provided greater detail about the rangeand type of literature and sources to be studied,without specifying particular set texts.

A-levelsI am also publishing revised content for A-levels in

English literature, English language, English literatureand language, biology, chemistry, physics, psychology,history, economics, business, computer science, artand design and sociology, for first teaching fromSeptember 2015.

The content for these A-levels was reviewed andrecommended by Professor Mark E Smith, vice-chancellorof Lancaster University, drawing on advice from subjectexperts from higher education establishments and subjectassociations.

By placing responsibility for the content of A-levelsin the hands of university academics, we hope thatthese new exams will be more rigorous and will providestudents with the skills and knowledge needed forprogression to undergraduate study.

WS 127 WS 128[9 APRIL 2014]Written Statements Written Statements

I thank Professor Smith and all of those involvedfor their conscientious work and thoughtful suggestions—and I have accepted all of their recommendationsfor A-level content.

In the sciences, computer science, economics andbusiness, mathematical and quantitative content hasbeen strengthened—for example, understanding standarddeviation in biology and the concepts underlying calculusin physics.

In computer science, basic ICT content has beenremoved and emphasis has been placed instead onprogramming and far more detailed content on algorithms.

In the sciences, there will also be a new requirementthat students must carry out a minimum of 12 practicalactivities, ensuring that they develop vital scientifictechniques and become comfortable using key apparatus.This will make sure that all A-level scientists developthe experimental and practical skills essential for furtherstudy.

In history, as well as covering the history of morethan one country or state beyond the British Isles,A-level students will also now be required to studytopics across a chronological range of at least 200 years,increasing breadth of focus.

In English literature, to ensure a broad and balancedcurriculum, specified texts will include three worksfrom before 1900—including at least one play byShakespeare—and at least one work from after 2000.In addition, we have reintroduced the requirement forA-level students to be examined on an “unseen” literarytext, to encourage wide and critical reading.

Finally, in economics, content has been updated toinclude the latest issues and topics—for example, financialregulation and the role of central banks.

Copies of the content for these reformed GCSEsand A-levels will be available later today at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications.

Alongside these announcements, Ofqual is todaysetting out its decisions on how these new GCSEs andA-levels should be assessed—with linear assessmentrather than modules, and a greater focus on examsrather than controlled assessment.

All of these reformed A-levels will be ready for firstteaching in schools from September 2015, and reformedGCSEs from September 2016.

Awarding organisations will publish their detailedspecifications for these A-levels this autumn and forthese GCSEs next autumn—giving schools plenty oftime to prepare.

New A-levels and GCSEs from 2016

Based on the advice of the A-level content advisoryboard established by the Russell Group of leadinguniversities, I have also already announced that A-levelsin mathematics, languages and geography will be reformedfor first teaching from September 2016.

I can announce today that GCSEs and A-levels inreligious studies, design & technology, drama, dance,music and PE—and GCSEs in art & design, computerscience and citizenship—will also be reformed andbrought up to these new, higher standards for firstteaching at the same time, in September 2016.

Awarding organisations and subject experts willdraft content for these new A-levels and GCSEs overthe coming months, and we will consult on theirrecommendations for content—while Ofqual consultson its recommendations for assessment—later in theyear.

All our reforms to GCSEs and A-levels complementthe changes we have already made to technical andvocational qualifications, removing those which arenot endorsed by businesses or employer bodies fromleague tables, and leaving only those which representreal achievement.

Taken together, these changes mean that every youngperson in this country will have the opportunity tostudy high-quality, rigorous, demanding qualificationsacross the academic and vocational curriculum fromSeptember 2016 onwards.

These changes will increase the rigour of qualifications,strengthening the respect in which they are held byemployers and universities alike.

Young people in England deserve world-classqualifications and a world-class education—and thatis what our reforms will deliver.

Elections: Guidance for Civil ServantsStatement

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My right honourablefriend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and PaymasterGeneral (Francis Maude) has made the following WrittenMinisterial Statement.

Guidance has today been issued to civil servants inUK departments and those working in non-departmentalpublic bodies and other arm’s-length bodies on theprinciples that they should observe in relation to theconduct of government business in the run-up tothe forthcoming elections for membership of the EuropeanParliament, and to local authorities in England andNorthern Ireland, and for five directly elected Mayors.These elections will take place on Thursday 22 May 2014.The period of sensitivity preceding the elections startson 2 May.

Copies of the guidance have been placed in theLibraries of the House and on the Cabinet Officewebsite at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/election-guidance-for-civil-servants

Energy: OilStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Energy and Climate Change (BaronessVerma) (Con): My right honourable friend the Ministerof State for Energy (Michael Fallon) has made thefollowing Written Ministerial Statement.

Today, the Department of Energy and ClimateChange (DECC) is publishing the conclusions of itsreview of the role of UK’s refining and fuel importsectors. I am grateful to all those who contributed tothis review.

WS 129 WS 130[LORDS]Written Statements Written Statements

As we progress toward a low-carbon economy inthe UK, oil products are, and will continue to be,crucial to our economy and to consumers in the UKfor some years to come. The review was designed toassess the respective contributions that domesticproduction and imports make to resilient fuel supplies.It sought to understand better the global context andchallenges facing the oil supply sector, and the impactthat market distortions and the regulatory frameworkhave on competitiveness. It also considered what rolethe Government should play in supporting the sector.

Given the recent closures of refineries in the UK, thereview had a particular focus on the refining sector inthe UK but it also considered the midstream sectormore broadly, including the role of the imports sectorand the benefits it brings.

The review concluded that resilience and security ofsupply in the UK is supported by retaining a mix ofdomestic refining and imported product. This is in linewith the government’s energy security of supply strategywhich recognises the benefits of supply diversity. Globalcommercial factors will continue to affect the refiningmarket in the UK and the EU more broadly, andfurther closures across the continent are likely in future.A package of actions has been developed by government,which taken together, could help improve the operatingenvironment for the refining and import sectors.

These measures include the setting up of a newjoint government and industry Midstream Oil TaskForce. This will provide a strategic and collaborativeway of working and will deliver a number of theactions from the review. The task force will beindependently chaired and draw its members fromacross the midstream oil sector.

DECC is also today publishing the governmentresponse to our consultation on the future managementof the compulsory oil stocking mechanism in the UK.In this the Government set out their support for theestablishment of an industry-owned and operated centralstocking entity in the UK which will encourage a moreefficient system that incentivises the development ofUK oil storage capacity. There are still importantissues to address before the Government can agree tomove to legislation, and so we are now asking obligatedcompanies to prepare a roadmap towards legislation,addressing these issues.

The review and the government response to theconsultation can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/call-for-evidence-role-of-uk-refining-and-fuel-import-sectors and https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-management-of-the-compulsory-stocking-obligation-in-the-uk respectively.Copies of both publications have been placed in theLibrary of the House.

Energy: ONR/DWP FrameworkStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con):My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People(Mike Penning MP) had made the following WrittenStatement.

Following my announcement on 1 April 2014 ofthe launch of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)as an independent public corporation, I will place acopy of the ONR Annual Plan for 2014-15 in theHouse Library. The Annual Plan has also been publishedon the ONR website at: http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2014/onr-annual-plan-14-15.pdf

I can confirm, in accordance with Schedule 7,Section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there havebeen no exclusions to the published document on thegrounds of national security.

I will place a copy of the ONR/DWP FrameworkDocument, which sets out the sponsorship arrangementsbetween the department and the ONR, in the HouseLibrary. It is also available on the ONR website at:http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2014/onr-dwp-framework.pdf

Energy: Scotland Analysis ProgrammeStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Energy and Climate Change (BaronessVerma) (Con): My right honourable friend the Secretaryof State for Energy and Climate Change (EdwardDavey) has made the following Written MinisterialStatement.

The Government have today published the 12th paperin the Scotland Analysis Programme series to informthe debate on Scotland’s future within the UnitedKingdom.

Scotland Analysis: Energy (Cm 8826) examines thebenefits of the current single energy market acrossGreat Britain (GB) for managing energy policy andexamines the potential implications of independence.

The paper concludes that the current single markethas underpinned the success of the Scottish energyindustry, has helped to keep Scottish energy bills downand is the most effective way of managing energyliabilities, but were Scotland to become a separateindependent state, the current integrated GB energysystem could not continue as it is now.

Scottish consumers and businesses currently benefitfrom spreading the cost of supporting Scottish energynetwork investment, renewables and programmes tosupport remote consumers over 30 million householdsand businesses as part of the GB energy market. In theevent of independence, Scotland’s 3 million householdsand businesses would have to meet these costs alone.Scottish consumers would end up paying more, possiblyconsiderably more, for energy infrastructure in anindependent Scottish state than they do as part ofthe UK.

The paper also sets out that only a small proportionof electricity demand in England and Wales (4.59%) isprovided by Scotland. In the event of independence,England and Wales would not be reliant on Scotlandto keep the lights on nor would the UK be reliant onScotland to meet its renewables targets.

Future papers from the Scotland analysis programmewill be published over the course of 2014 to ensurethat people in Scotland have access to the facts andinformation ahead of the referendum.


Equitable Life Payment SchemeStatement

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordDeighton) (Con): My honourable friend the FinancialSecretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid) has today madethe following Written Ministerial Statement.

As of 31 March 2014, the Equitable Life PaymentScheme has made payments totalling £901 million to860,972 policyholders. The scheme has published afurther progress report, which can be found at: http://equitablelifepaymentscheme.independent.gov.uk/

The scheme has gone to significant lengths to traceeligible policyholders, and since the last report inJanuary 2014 the scheme has traced over 110,000additional policyholders. Over the coming months thescheme will be reviewing its records to ensure that allproportionate and effective actions to trace the remainingpolicyholders have been completed before the schemeshuts.

Any holders of a policy who believe themselves tobe eligible should call the scheme on 0300 0200 150.The scheme can verify the identity of most policyholderson the telephone, which means any payment due canusually be received within two weeks.

Government Services: G4SStatement

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD): My right honourablefriend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and PaymasterGeneral (Francis Maude) has made the following WrittenMinisterial Statement.

The Government are s committed to opening uppublic contracts, with a wide, diverse range of providerscompeting to deliver high-quality services.

Following the material concerns that emerged lastyear, relating to overcharging on Ministry of Justiceelectronic monitoring contracts, G4S has engagedconstructively with the Government.

The Government’s approach has been rigorous,and on 12 March my right honourable friend theSecretary of State for Justice was able to announcethat G4S has agreed to repay £108.9 million, excludingVAT, to reimburse the taxpayer for overcharging foundin an audit of Ministry of Justice contracts, and tocover direct costs to Government arising from theseissues. This also included £4.5 million to cover the costof overpayments made on two contracts for facilitiesmanagement in the courts. This was a significantannouncement and a positive step for G4S.

Throughout, the Government have engaged closelywith G4S to understand their plans for corporaterenewal. These discussions have been constructive and,following scrutiny by officials, review by the OversightGroup and reports from our independent advisors(Grant Thornton), the Government have now acceptedthat the Corporate Renewal Plan represents the rightdirection of travel to meet our expectations as a customer.

This does not affect any consideration by the SeriousFraud Office, which acts independently of Government,in relation to the material concerns previously identified.

However, we are reassured that G4S is committed toact swiftly should any new information emerge fromongoing investigations.

The changes G4S has already made and itscommitment to go further over coming months arepositive steps that the Government welcome. However,corporate renewal is an ongoing process and theGovernment place a strong emphasis on their full andtimely implementation of the agreed corporate renewalplan. The Crown Representative together with GrantThornton will continue to monitor progress as theirplan is implemented, reporting to Government on aregular basis. I hope this will enable our confidence togrow.

The public rightly expect government suppliers tomeet the highest standards and for taxpayers’ moneyto be spent properly and transparently. Since 2010 theGovernment have been working to reform contractmanagement and improve commercial expertise inWhitehall. These reforms have had a substantial impact,saving £3.8 billion in 2012/13 alone. But much more isrequired, which is why we are redoubling efforts overcoming months, including working to build commercialskills across the Civil Service and to create a world-classCrown Commercial Service that supports all departments.

Pensions Bill: Single-tier PensionContingencies Fund Advance

Statement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con):My honourable friend the Minister for Pensions (SteveWebb) has made the following Written MinisterialStatement.

The Department for Work and Pensions has obtainedapproval for a further advance from the ContingenciesFund of £549,000 for the continued development ofIT for the single-tier pension before Royal Assent.This advance is necessitated by the lead-in time fordelivery in April 2016 which requires IT work to beundertaken prior to Royal Assent of the Pensions Bill.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of£549,000 for this new service has been sought in theMain Supply Estimate 2014-15 for the Department forWork and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgentexpenditure estimated at £549,000 will be met by repayablecash advances from the Contingencies Fund. Therepayment is expected to be made in the financial year2014/15.

This advance will allow the single-tier programmeto continue to work to meet the timetable of April 2016to implement the single tier new service.

Railways: High Speed 2Statement

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): My right honourable friendthe Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin)has made the following Ministerial Statement.


I am today announcing to the House the outcomeof the 2013 consultation on property compensationfor the London to West Midlands HS2 route (PhaseOne).

That consultation, which ran from 12 September to4 December 2013, set out a package of assistance forowner-occupiers of properties affected by Phase Oneof HS2 that went beyond the legal requirements forcompensation in recognition of the exceptional natureof the HS2 project.

While elements of today’s decision will be launchedimmediately, I want to make sure we get this decisionabsolutely right, so I will be asking for further viewson the newer aspects of this package before we finaliseit.

The details of the package are as follows:Express Purchase—this is being launched todayand is for those people living closest to the line, inwhat is known as the “surface safeguarded” area.Under this scheme owner-occupiers may be able tosell their home to the Government, if they wish todo so at its full unblighted market value (as itwould be if HS2 did not exist), plus 10 % (up to£47,000) and reasonable moving expenses, includingstamp duty.Voluntary Purchase—for people in rural areasoutside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metresaway from the line. Owner-occupiers in this areamay be able to sell their home to the Governmentfor its full unblighted value at any time up until ayear after the line opens. We intend for this to belaunched later this year.Need to sell—this scheme does not have aboundary and is available to owner-occupiers whohave a compelling reason (including job relocation,ill health) to sell their house but are unable to do sobecause of HS2. The Government would pay thefull, unblighted value for these properties. We alsointend to launch this later this year, when it willreplace the Exceptional Hardship Scheme whichwill continue to operate in the meantime.All three options will be accompanied by a rent-back

option. This is for owner-occupiers who, having soldtheir property to government, would prefer to carryon living there and may be able to rent it back, subjectto property suitability checks. This will also beimplemented immediately.

These compensation arrangements incorporate arange of improvements to our original proposals, takingaccount of points made by members of the public,property experts and others during the consultation.For example, I have decided that the Need to Sellscheme, as the name suggests, will require applicantsonly to show they have a compelling need to sell,rather than demonstrating that they would suffer hardshipif they could not sell.

In recognition of the exceptional nature of HS2, weare also considering going further than providingcompensation and will undertake a further limitedconsultation on the following proposals:

As an alternative to the Voluntary Purchase offer,we are proposing a cash payment of between £30kto £100k—for owner-occupiers in rural areas

outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metresaway from the line who do not want to sell theirhome and move.Home owner payment—this is proposed to applyto owner-occupiers between 120 metres and300 metres from the route in rural areas. This couldenable people in these areas to share in the benefitsof HS2, which will run near them but will notprovide them with a direct benefit. The details of(amounts and eligibility) any payments would needto be determined following consultation.Initial thinking is that payments could be from

£7,500 to £22,500 depending on how near the routethe property is located. This would come into effectfollowing parliamentary approval of the HS2 routebetween London and the West Midlands.

These decisions and the forthcoming consultationdo not apply to other proposed HS2 route sections. Iintend to bring forward further proposals for supportingproperty owners alongside future decisions on extensionsto the HS2 route.

In addition to these proposals, we need to ensureresidents’ views have an effective way of being heard.HS2 Ltd will develop a Residents’ Charter, designed tohelp residents know their rights, and will appoint anindependent Residents’ Commissioner who will ensurethat they adhere to the commitments made in thecharter. The Charter and Commissioner will provideresidents with a voice and representation.

Together, the Charter and the Commissioner willensure that residents are informed of any developmentsfairly and efficiently. The Charter will contain a numberof principles against which HS2 Ltd will be measuredin their communications with people affected by thedevelopment of the railway.

I have decided not to introduce a “property bond”,which was one of the proposals that was consulted onin 2013. I appreciate that this will disappoint manywho were advocating such an approach. We studiedthe idea very carefully but felt that it was untried,would not facilitate the smooth operation of a normalproperty market and would add to uncertainty ratherthan reduce it.

I believe these proposals represent the best possiblebalance between properly compensating people affectedby the line and providing value for money for thetaxpayer. The Voluntary Purchase offer and the Needto Sell scheme are intended to be launched later thisyear, following the further consultation which I aim tocommence shortly and intend to conclude before theend of the year.

A full description of these proposals is in today’sCommand Paper, Property Compensation Consultation2013 for the London-West Midlands HS2 route: DecisionDocument. I have published this report on www.gov.ukand provided copies to the Libraries of both Houses.

TerrorismStatement

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): My righthonourable friend the Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment (Theresa May) has today made the followingWritten Ministerial Statement.


Protecting the safety of the UK and our interestsoverseas is the primary duty of Government. Terrorismremains the greatest threat to the security of thiscountry.

I have today published the annual report for theGovernment’s strategy for countering terrorism,CONTEST (Cm 8848). It covers the progress madeduring 2013 towards implementing the strategy wepublished in July 2011. Copies of the report will bemade available in the Vote Office.

The principal threat to the UK continues to befrom militant Islamist terrorists and many of thethreats we face continue to have significant overseasconnections, highlighting the importance of our workwith international partners. The most significantdevelopment in connection with terrorism during 2013has been the growing threat from terrorist groups inSyria. Several factions of Al Qa’ida are active in Syria,supported by rapidly increasing numbers of foreignfighters, including numbers in the low hundreds fromthis country and thousands from elsewhere.

2013 saw two terrorist murders, the first in GreatBritain since 2005. There were also attempted terroristattacks against mosques in the West Midlands and13 British nationals were killed in terrorist attacks byAl Qa’ida-linked groups overseas, the highest numbersince 2005.

Significant resources and capabilities have beenput in place to deal with the threat. The number ofsuccessful prosecutions and plots foiled over the past

year demonstrates the skill and professionalism of thepolice and security and intelligence agencies, as well asthe strength of the systems and structures developedfor our counterterrorist work over many years. In the12 months to September 2013, there were 257 terrorism-related arrests in Great Britain; 48 people were chargedwith terrorism offences and 73 with other offences.These figures are comparable to any other 12-monthperiod since 2001.

The wide range of activity under CONTEST isappropriate for the threats we face and the strategyhas been proven over many years. But aspects of ourstrategy have to evolve to respond to changing threats.During 2013 the Government have continued to providethe police and security and intelligence agencies withthe powers and capabilities they need to do their job.

These powers are necessary, proportionate and subjectto close oversight and scrutiny. We have a sustainedcross-government effort to deal with the new andwider range of terrorist threats we now face overseas.We have increased the pace and range of our Preventwork. We are making our border and our aviationsector even more secure. And we are reshaping ouremergency response to deal with new terrorist methodsand techniques.

The UK’s counterterrorism response is widely regardedas among the most effective in the world. We willcontinue to do everything we can to stay ahead of thethreat and to protect the public.


Written AnswersWednesday 9 April 2014

Afghanistan: DronesQuestion

Asked by Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatinvestigations and fact-finding inquiries they haveestablished into the incidents of civilian casualtiescaused by drone strikes in Afghanistan. [HL6362]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): I refer mynoble friend to the Answer given by my right honourablefriend, the then Minister for the Armed Forces (AndrewRobathan), in the House of Commons on 21 May 2013(Official Report, col. 714W) and the Answer given bymy right honourable friend the Minister for the ArmedForces (Mark Francois) in the House of Commons on7 November 2013 (Official Report, col. 307W).

Agriculture: Common Agricultural PolicyQuestion

Asked by Baroness ByfordTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the

three crop rule included in the new CommonAgricultural Policy relates to single parcels of landowned or rented by one person or company, orwhether the entire holding can be treated as oneparcel of land. [HL6564]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley)(Con):Therequirementsof thecropdiversificationmeasure of greening, also known as the “three croprule”, apply to the total arable area of a holding.

Farmers with between 10ha and 30ha of eligiblearable land will usually need to grow at least twocrops. Farmers with over 30ha of eligible arable landwill usually need to grow at least three crops. Compliancewith the measure will be assessed at the holding level,not the parcel level.

Animals: AntibioticsQuestion

Asked by Lord HyltonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they

will adopt measures similar to those recently takenby the United States Food and Drugs Administrationto curb the routine use of antibiotics in the food ofhealthy animals. [HL6510]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord DeMauley) (Con): Any routine use of antibiotics in thefood of healthy animals as growth promoters has beenbanned in the EU since 2006.

AnnuitiesQuestion

Asked by Lord Lea of Crondall

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentageof annuities purchased over the last five years forwhich data are available were worth (1) between£500 and £2,000 per annum, (2) between £2,001and £5,000 per annum, (3) between £5,001 and£10,000 per annum, and (4) between £10,000 and£20,000 per annum, in value at the point ofpurchase. [HL6524]

Lord Newby (LD): There is no requirement forindividuals to report the purchase of an annuity andthe Government does not collect data on thenumber or purchase value of annuities. Industry datais collected and published by the Association of BritishInsurers and may be found on their website https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Industry-data/

ApprenticeshipsQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey have taken to link apprenticeships to professionalregistration in order to establish recognised industrystandards for apprenticeship and traineeship schemes.

[HL6576]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): We are reformingApprenticeships by putting employers in the drivingseat of designing new Apprenticeship standards. Thesewill include skills and any specific requirements forprofessional registration, so that on completion a successfulapprentice can achieve professional registration whereappropriate.

Traineeships are a flexible programme aimed atproviding young people with skills and experiencethey need to be able to compete for Apprenticeshipsand other sustainable jobs. At the core of Traineeshipsare work preparation training, English and maths anda work experience placement with an employer. Linksto professional registration are not a requirement forTraineeships, but providers have the flexibility to addadditional content which could include sector-specifictraining or qualifications where these are publiclyfunded.

Atos HealthcareQuestion

Asked by Lord Morrow

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Freud on 24 March(WA 63), and in the light of recent developments,what were the circumstances leading to the withdrawalof Atos Healthcare from its contract, including allrelevant dates of notifications. [HL6468]

WA 291 WA 292[9 APRIL 2014]Written Answers Written Answers

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con): Followingdetailed negotiations with Atos Healthcare, theGovernment have reached a settlement for Atos to exitthe contract to deliver Work Capability Assessmentsbefore it is due to end in August 2015. Atos did notreceive any compensation from the taxpayer for thisearly termination but made a substantial financialsettlement to the Department for Work and Pensions.

Bank of England Act 1998Question

Asked by Lord Barnett

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyconsider that an agreement between the Chancellorof the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank ofEngland overrides the reserve powers given to HMTreasury in Section 19(2) of the Bank of EnglandAct 1998. [HL6413]

Lord Newby (LD): The powers set out in Section 19of the Bank of England Act 1998 cannot be removedor amended except by further legislation approved byParliament which amends that section of the 1998Act.

The Treasury may only make an order giving directionsunder Section 19 after consultation with the Governorof the Bank of England, if the directions are requiredin the public interest and by extreme economiccircumstances.

Since the Monetary Policy Committee was givenoperational independence in 1997, covering the worstfinancial crisis in generations leading to the deepestrecession since the Second World War, these powershave never been used.

Children: Disabled ChildrenQuestion

Asked by Lord Jopling

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Nash on 26 March(WA 121), whether other Departments hold thedata requested in the question; and whether theywill now answer the question originally put.

[HL6402]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State forSchools(Lord Nash) (Con): Local authorities are required toreport annually on the numbers of children in needwho have a disability (as defined by Section 6 of theEquality Act 2010) as part of the Children in NeedCensus data collection. These data are collected underSection 83 of the Children Act 1989 by the Departmentfor Education. As part of this collection, local authoritiesreport on the number of children with disabilities whoare subject to child protection investigations underSection 47 of the Children Act 1989. However, it is notpossible to separately identify those with chronic fatiguesyndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis.

The number of children in need with a disability ispublished in “Characteristics of Children in Need”,and can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/characteristics-of-children-in-need-in-england-2012-to-2013

Children: Refugee ChildrenQuestion

Asked by Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what prioritythey give to education and psychological care supportin their bilateral and multilateral work with refugeechildren. [HL6364]

Baroness Northover (LD): DfID is placing increasingemphasis on the educational and psychological needsof refugee children. DfID provides funding to a numberof humanitarian agencies to meet these needs, includingthe UN High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations,Children’s Fund, the International Committee of theRed Cross and the International Organisation forMigration, and through the UN’s Central EmergencyRelief Fund. For the Syria crisis, DfID has put inplace a £30 million No Lost Generation Initiative toprovide protection, psycho-social support and educationfor affected children.

Civil Aviation AuthorityQuestion

Asked by Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, asthe major shareholder in National Air Traffic Services,they intend to meet the costs of the employee sharescheme if the Civil Aviation Authority confirmtheir proposal that those costs will no longer beprovided for in the next regulatory settlement.

[HL6597]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): The regulatory settlement isa matter for the CAA. We would expect the NATSboard, in the first instance, to continue to consider thebenefits of the employee share scheme and the termson which it operates.

Council TaxQuestion

Asked by Baroness King of Bow

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theDepartment for Communities and Local Governmentwill be paying new burdens funding to compensatelocal authorities for the additional costs of introducinglocal Council Tax Reduction Schemes in 2015–16.

[HL6477]

WA 293 WA 294[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowellof Beeston) (Con): In line with the new burdens doctrine,we will be assessing the need for continued new burdensfunding for Local Council Tax Support in 2014-15,alongside consideration of the allocation of LocalCouncil Tax Support Administration subsidy.

Defence: ProcurementQuestion

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what specifictraining is received by Ministry of Defence officialsin negotiating equipment and services procurementcontract terms and conditions effectively and inguaranteeing best value for money. [HL6456]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): Ministry ofDefence (MoD) procurement activity ranges from thepurchase of low-value consumable items through tocomplex equipment acquisition, support and services.These activities involve multi-disciplinary teams, includingengineering, technical, finance, project managementand procurement staff. There is clear separation ofresponsibilities between those authorising the initialrequirement, those giving financial authority and thoseempowered to place contracts.

The MoD currently has around 1,700 civilian staffin the commercial function of which 1,200 are inactive commercial roles and are authorised to signcontracts with suppliers.

Commercial staff must demonstrate the necessarylevels of functional competence and experience to belicensed and receive a formal commercial delegation.Some 60% of commercial staff currently hold, or areworking towards, qualifications in the Chartered Instituteof Purchasing and Supply (CIPS). This is expected torise to around 75% in 2015. The MoD is also developingan advanced commercial skills programme to provideadditional training relevant to the MoD complexacquisition process, which goes beyond standard CIPStraining.

Education: GCSEsQuestions

Asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentageof pupils in English schools were entered for musicGCSE in each of the last 4 years. [HL6443]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State forSchools(Lord Nash) (Con): The requested information [1] hasbeen provided in the following table.

Percentage of pupils at the end of key stage 4 entered for music anddrama GCSEs in England, 2009/10 to 2012/13

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Drama 13 12 11 11

Percentage of pupils at the end of key stage 4 entered for music anddrama GCSEs in England, 2009/10 to 2012/13

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Music 7 7 7 7

Note: Figures underlying the percentages are available in table 7of the “GCSE and equivalent results” statistical first release foreach year. 2012/13 figures are based on revised data, all otheryears are final. Data includes entries by pupils in previousacademic years.[1] These figures are published in the “GCSE and equivalentresults” statistical first releases for each year at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-gcses-key-stage-4

Asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentageof pupils in English schools were entered for dramaGCSE in each of the last 4 years. [HL6444]

Lord Nash: The requested information [1] has beenprovided in the following table.

Percentage of pupils at the end of key stage 4 entered for music anddrama GCSEs in England, 2009/10 - 2012/13

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Drama 13 12 11 11Music 7 7 7 7

Note: Figures underlying the percentages are available in table 7of the “GCSE and equivalent results” statistical first release foreach year. 2012/13 figures are based on revised data, all otheryears are final. Data includes entries by pupils in previousacademic years.[1] These figures are published in the “GCSE and equivalentresults” statistical first releases for each year at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-gcses-key-stage-4

EgyptQuestion

Asked by The Lord Bishop of Coventry

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatconsideration they have given to making developmentaid to Egypt contingent on political and judicialreform. [HL6392]

Baroness Northover (LD): DfID does not have acountry office or bilateral programme in Egypt butprovides support through the Arab Partnership Fundand the British Embassy in Cairo. The Arab Partnershipseeks to support political and economic reform inEgypt, focusing on accountability, improved governance,public voice and economic opportunity. Assistance isnot provided through or to the Egyptian Government,but is channelled through civil society and internationalfinancial institutions in support of long-term reform.

Government Departments: BudgetsQuestion

Asked by Lord Mendelsohn

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what isthe percentage cost over-run established by themanagement board for any budget in the Department


for Culture, Media and Sport to merit being tabledat the departmental management board; and howmany times in the last 12 months that has occurred.

[HL6280]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): DCMS does nothave a prescribed percentage for which a forecastoverspend is tabled at the executive board. Each monththe board receives a summary of the forecast expenditureagainst budget and a commentary in which any significantforecast variances to individual budgets are describedand explained.

Government Departments: StaffQuestion

Asked by Lord BeechamTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how many

VAT inspectors, tax inspectors and senior tax inspectorswere employed by HM Revenue and Customs inthe financial year 2009–10; and how many will beemployed in 2014–15. [HL6503]

Lord Newby (LD): HM Revenue & Customs wasformed by the merger of Inland Revenue and HMCustoms & Excise in 2005 and the VAT Inspector andTax Inspector are no longer roles in the organisation.There are some 17,000 tax professionals in HM Revenue& Customs carrying out a range of duties from tacklingnon-compliance with tax obligations to advising Ministerson changes in legislation.

While the overall numbers of tax professionals haslargely been maintained from 2009/10 to the presentday, and will be into 2014/15, the way in which thosetax professionals have been deployed has changed toaddress priority areas of tax risk. This is reflected inthe compliance yield, which almost doubled between2005 and 2011 to £13.9 billion, and increased again toreach £20.7 billion in 2012/13 as key risks were addressed.

HM Revenue & Customs continues to recruitsubstantial numbers of graduates and suitable internalcandidates to develop as senior tax professionals, around600 in the period 2012/13 to 2014/15, to maintainnumbers and enhance capability.

Health: AnaemiaQuestion

Asked by Baroness Masham of IltonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what success

they have had in reducing emergency hospitaladmissions relating to ambulatory care-sensitiveconditions, with particular regard to cases of iron-deficiency anaemia. [HL6487]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): Overall, emergencyadmissions for these conditions have increased overthe period 2003-04 to 2012-13 by an average of 2% to5% per year. The exception is for Vitamin B12 deficiencyanaemia, whose rate of emergency admissions decreasedon average 6% per year over the same period, but therate of admissions is small in comparison with the rateof admissions for the other conditions. The rate ofemergency admissions for sideropenic dysphagia is nilover the period.

Health: Chronic Pulmonary AspergillosisQuestions

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the incidence of chronic pulmonaryaspergillosis (1) in the United Kingdom, and(2) worldwide. [HL6511]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): Data on the incidence ofchronic pulmonary aspergillosis is not collected centrally.

However, the following table provides data on thenumber of finished admission episodes with a primaryor secondary diagnosis of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis.Data is held for England only.

Count of finished admission episodes (FAEs)1 witha primary or secondary diagnosis2 of pulmonaryaspergillosis3 for the period 2010-11 to 2012-134.

Activity in English National Health Service Hospitalsand English NHS commissioned activity in theindependent sector

Year FAEs

2010-11 1,6352011-12 2,3022012-13 2,363

Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and SocialCare Information Centre

Notes:1. Finished admission episodesA finished admission episode (FAE) is the first period ofinpatient care under one consultant within one healthcareprovider. FAEs are counted against the year or month in whichthe admission episode finishes. Admissions do not represent thenumber of inpatients, as a person may have more than oneadmission within the period.2. Number of episodes in which the patient had a primary orsecondary diagnosisThe number of episodes where this diagnosis was recorded in anyof the 20 (14 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and 7 prior to 2002-03)primary and secondary diagnosis fields in a Hospital EpisodeStatistics (HES) record. Each episode is only counted once, evenif the diagnosis is recorded in more than one diagnosis field ofthe record.3. Clinical CodingThe following ICD-10 codes have been used to define pulmonaryaspergillosis:B44.0D Invasive pulmonary aspergillosisJ99.8A Respiratory disorders in other diseases classifiedelsewhereB44.1D Other pulmonary aspergillosisJ99.8A Respiratory disorders in other diseases classifiedelsewhere4. Assessing growth through time (Inpatients)HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. Changes to thefigures over time need to be interpreted in the context ofimprovements in data quality and coverage (particularly inearlier years), improvements in coverage of independent sectoractivity (particularly from 2006-07) and changes in NHSpractice. For example, changes in activity may be due to changesin the provision of care.


Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to raise awareness of chronic pulmonaryaspergillosis among the medical community.

[HL6513]

Earl Howe: The National Specialised Centre forPulmonary Aspergillosis has been raising awarenessof the condition in the United Kingdom andinternationally through the aspergillus website atwww.aspergillus.org.uk; through an online healthprofessional education portal called Leading InternationalFungal Education at www.LIFE-Worldwide.org; andinternationally through the Global Action Fund forFungal Infections at www.GAFFI.org.

The centre also works nationally to improve theunderstanding of aspergillosis. For example, it addressedthe British Thoracic Society’s annual meeting lastyear. It also works locally with trainee doctors andwith hospitals to help them understand more aboutthe condition.

Health: ContraceptionQuestion

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what researchhas been conducted into the effects of allowingyoung women to have a supply of the morning-afterpill at home. [HL6371]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The National Institutefor Health and Care Excellence (NICE) conducted anevidence review to underpin its recent guidance oncontraception. The relevant recommendation makesclear that emergency contraception should not berelied on as a regular method of contraception andshould only be provided in advance under certaincircumstances.

NICE recommends that advance supply should berestricted to one course of emergency contraception,contrary to media reports which suggested that theguidance would allow young people to “stockpile”emergency contraception.

Health: DefibrillatorsQuestion

Asked by Lord Storey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatconsideration they have given to the use of a universallogo on defibrillators. [HL6417]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): There are currently nofirm plans for a universal logo on defibrillators. However,NHS England is considering all avenues to increasethe uptake of bystander resuscitation, including theuse and location of defibrillators.

Health: Folic AcidQuestions

Asked by Lord Rooker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL Deb,col. 706), what was the age distribution of thosefrom whom the blood samples for folate statusanalysis were taken; and what was the breakdownof country of collection. [HL6343]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The total number ofblood samples collected across the United Kingdomin the National Diet and Nutrition Survey years 1-4(2008-09–2011-12) and analysed for folate status was2,447. The breakdown by age and by country is shownin the following tables.

Age group Number of samples analysed for folate

1.5-3 years 364-10 years 22811-18 years 52119-64 years 1,31865 years + 344All ages 2,447

Country Number of samples analysed for folate

England 1,222Scotland 618Wales 262Northern Ireland 345Total UK 2,447


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL Deb,col. 706), what was the cost of collecting the bloodsamples for folate status analysis. [HL6344]

Earl Howe: Blood samples in the National Diet andNutrition Survey were collected by nurse fieldworkersfor adults and older children and paediatric phlebotomistsfor young children who visited participants in theirhomes. The total costs of nurse fieldwork for years1 to 4 (2008-09 to 2011-12) was £747,000. This includedthe cost of other components of the survey carried outby the nurse fieldworker during the visits, includingtaking physical measurements and administering a24-hour urine collection.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL Deb,col. 706), what was the cost of processing the bloodsamples for folate status analysis. [HL6345]

Earl Howe: The overall cost of analysing bloodsamples for folate in the National Diet and NutritionSurvey (NDNS) years 1 to 4 (2008-09 to 2011-12) wasapproximately £250,000. There were also additional


costs for preparation, storage and transport of samplesto laboratories. The analytical costs were partly met bythe NDNS contractor who absorbed additional costsresulting from a move to new analytical methodsduring the contract.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL Deb,col. 706), whether they have had any discussionswith the Scottish Government in respect of thecollection of and work on blood samples for folateanalysis. [HL6346]

Earl Howe: Public Health England has not had anydirect discussions with the Scottish Government aboutthe collection and analysis of blood samples for folatein the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS).The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in Scotland fundedcollection of dietary data and blood samples, includingfolate analysis, from additional participants in Scotlandfor years 1 to 4 of the survey. The FSA in Scotlandwas represented at the international expert workshopon folate methodology in 2008 which recommended achange of methods for NDNS. The FSA in Scotlandis also a member of the project management board forNDNS and has had opportunity to input into allaspects of the survey.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL Deb,col. 706), on what dates the blood samples for folatestatus analysis were delivered for analysis; and whatwere the storage arrangements prior to delivery.

[HL6347]

Earl Howe: Blood samples collected in the NationalDiet and Nutrition Survey years 1 to 4 (2008-09 to2011-12) were delivered for folate analysis to the Centerfor Disease Control (CDC) laboratories in Atlanta,Georgia, United States, between February and November2012. Samples were stored at MRC Human NutritionResearch in Cambridge at - 800C prior to being shippedto CDC and were transported on dry ice.

Health: Medical TrialsQuestions

Asked by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave any plans to expedite current medical trials inthe light of recent comment by senior medicalfigures about the time taken to undertake suchtrials.

[HL6538]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessonsthey have learned in relation to drug trials from thetrial set up to test the effectiveness of drugs incombating the global influenza pandemic in 2009,in particular in respect of delays in the trial process.

[HL6539]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): Two comparative trialsof influenza vaccines were commissioned by the NationalInstitute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2009 and setup through an expedited process. The trial in childrenwas set up in under four weeks from receipt of awardletter to administration of first vaccine. In addition,the NIHR has subsequently commissioned a group ofresearch projects in anticipation of possible futurepandemic flu epidemics. All projects have obtainednecessary trial approvals and are currently waiting tobe adapted to an emerging epidemic should the needarise, to be active within weeks.

The Government are aware that clinical trials cantake too long to set up, which is why we have agreedand funded the plans of the Health Research Authority(HRA) for assessment and approval of research. TheHRA will provide a single approval for research in theNational Health Service to radically streamline andsimplify how trials and other studies are set up.Implementation will include procedures for expeditedreview, building on arrangements that already existthrough the research ethics committees process andwithin the co-ordinated system for NHS approvals.

Higher Education: Student LoansQuestion

Asked by Lord Barnett

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on26 March (HL Deb, col. 528), whether there arecurrent negotiations to sell more student loans; andwhether the full terms are the same as those for theprevious £160 million sold. [HL6409]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): The Governmenthave announced their intention to realise value for thetaxpayer through sales from the pre-2012 incomecontingent repayment (ICR) student loan book. Salesare expected to be conducted in a number of tranchesand the intention is to complete the sale of the firsttranche before the end of the 2015/16 financial year.

The terms of ICR loans are not the same as thosefor the mortgage style loans previously sold, includingthe most recent sale, which raised £160 million inNovember 2013.

Hilda MurrellQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on26 March (WA 122), what are the relevant triggerdates for consideration of any documents they mayhold relating to Hilda Murrell. [HL6517]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): The relevanttrigger date for the one file that the HO holds relatingto Hilda Murrell is July 2014, when the Home Office


will make an application to that month’s Lord Chancellor’sAdvisory Council to allow this file to be transferred tothe National Archives. Providing this application isapproved, this file will be available for perusal bymembers of the public by 31 December 2014.

KenyaQuestion

Asked by Lord Ashcroft

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Baroness Northover on24 March (WA 85), what subjects were discussed at,and what were the conclusions of, the workshopsheld between scientists and members of localcommunities; and what assessment the Departmentfor International Development has made of thevalue for money of those workshops. [HL6358]

Baroness Northover (LD): Before 2010 the UK fundeda project to help Kenyan farmers access modern scientificweather forecasts. As part of this project workshopswere held between scientists and members of localcommunities.

The workshops explored how poorer Kenyan farmerscould better understand and make use of the bestmodern, scientifically based seasonal weather forecasts,using all effective channels of communication, so thatthe scientific forecasts could become more widely accessibleand trusted by farmers and poorer communities.

These meetings helped deliver improved forecastsfor seasonal rains, based on the best science andaccessible by poor farmers in Kenya, whose livelihoodsdepend on these rains. This enabled these farmers toadapt their planting accordingly to maximise theirproductivity.

Local Authorities: Children in CareQuestion

Asked by The Earl of Listowel

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidancethey offer to local authorities in respect of persuadingchildren in their care to leave that care at the age of16 or 17. [HL6610]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State forSchools(Lord Nash) (Con): The Government amended thestatutory framework regarding 16- and 17-year-oldsceasing to be looked after in January 2014. The newregulation requires that where a child aged 16- or 17years-old is looked after other than by virtue of a careorder, the decision of the local authority to ceaselooking after that child must be approved by theirdirector of children’s services. The intention behindthe Regulation is to help ensure that young people donot leave care until they are ready and properly prepared.The Department for Education will, in the summer,revise the ‘Care Planning, Placement and Case Review’statutory guidance to explain how local authoritiesshould implement the new duty.

Local Authorities: Duty of CareQuestion

Asked by The Earl of Listowel

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what supportthey are offering local authorities to implement thestaying put duty in the Children and Families Act2014. [HL6609]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State forSchools(Lord Nash) (Con): The Government will be givinglocal authorities an additional £40 million over thenext three years to help implement the new ‘StayingPut’ duty. The Department for Education will shortlybe publishing revised ‘Transitions to Adulthood’statutoryguidance, which will include specific guidance for localauthorities on implementing the duty.

Local Authorities: FundingQuestion

Asked by Lord Wills

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, incalculating the non-ring-fenced funding providedto local authorities to deliver statutory obligations,they make any assumptions about the proportionsof that funding likely to be used in fulfilling each ofthose obligations; and if so, what assumptions theyhave made of the likely expenditure on electoralregistration. [HL6514]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowellof Beeston) (Con): The total amount of funding providedthrough the local government finance settlement inEngland is set at the time of the appropriate SpendingReview. In setting this amount the Government considersthe likely pressures and efficiency savings that can bemade on a range of services, together with the overallfiscal environment, including the need to tackle thedeficit left by the last Administration. This amountmay be subsequently amended either through Budgetsor Autumn Statements.

It is up to local authorities to decide how to settheir budgets, taking into account local spending priorities.

Local Government: FinanceQuestion

Asked by Lord Wills

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theycalculate the local government finance settlement.

[HL6515]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowellof Beeston) (Con): The method of calculating the localgovernment finance settlement is set out in the LocalGovernment Finance Report (England) for each year.The report for 2014/15 was approved by Parliament on12 February. A copy of this report can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-finance-report-2014-to-2015


NHS: Clinical Commissioning GroupsQuestion

Asked by Lord Bradley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyclinical commissioning groups have been establishedin Greater Manchester; and how many of thosehave appointed a general practitioner as the ChiefAccountable Officer. [HL6502]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): There are 12 clinicalcommissioning groups (CCGs) in Greater Manchester,of which three have general practitioners (GPs) asChief Accountable Officers. The National Health ServiceAct 2006, as amended by the Health and Social CareAct 2012, established the legal framework within whichCCGs operate, and specifies that GPs are able tobecome Accountable Officers.

NHS: Victim SupportQuestion

Asked by Lord Morrow

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the trial use of victim supportworkers in accident and emergency settings in Englandto identify potential victims of domestic violence;and whether they plan to extend the scheme on apermanent and wider basis. [HL6518]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): The HomeOffice is working closely with Co-ordinated ActionAgainst Domestic Abuse, which is conducting an in-depthevaluation of the effectiveness of basing IndependentDomestic Violence Advocates in both hospital accidentand emergency and maternity units. The report is duein 2015-16. Six services are taking part in the evaluation:

Worth Services (based in West Sussex)Bristol Royal Infirmary IDVA serviceDomestic Violence: Health and Maternity Project(Imperial College, Standing Together and AdvanceAdvocacy)Cambridge Addenbrooke’s IDVA serviceNorth Devon Women’s AidNewcastle Victim SupportEmerging evidence from the evaluation can befound at:www.caada.org.uk/policy/CAADA_Themis_Research_Briefing_1.pdfThe coalition Government will study the full findings

from the evaluation before making a decision on whetherthe scheme is extended on a permanent and widerbasis.

Overseas Aid: Population FundingQuestion

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what currentand future core and specific funding they provideor plan to provide to (1) the United Nations PopulationFund, (2) the International Planned ParenthoodFederation, (3) Marie Stopes International, and(4) Women and Children First UK. [HL6532]

Baroness Northover (LD): In 2013/14 DfID providedMarie Stopes International with £4.35 million andInternational Planned Parenthood Federation with£8.6 million of funding through Programme PartnershipArrangement (PPA) grants. Continuation of this PPAfunding has been provisionally agreed for 2014/15 and2015/16. DfID provided United Nations PopulationFund (UNFPA) with £20 million of core funding eachyear for the period 2010/11to 2013/14 and plan toprovide the same in 2014/15 subject to satisfactoryprogress on key reforms.

Women and Children First UK do not receive corefunding but have been awarded a grant through theGlobal Poverty Action Fund which totals £246,101over three years from 2014-17.

PalestineQuestion

Asked by Lord Turnberg

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measuresare in place to ensure that United Kingdomhumanitarian aid to Palestine is not diverted tosponsor terrorist activities. [HL6437]

Baroness Northover (LD): DfID has extensiveprecautions in place to ensure that UK money doesnot support Hamas or other terrorist organisationseither directly or indirectly, in compliance with UKand EU legislation on terrorist financing. Measuresinclude extensive due diligence and fiduciary riskassessments of all our partners and an anti-terrorclause in all new Memoranda of Understanding. Wealso choose to channel our funds through experiencedpartners such as UN agencies and the World Bankwho have a strong system in place to comply with thislegislation.

ParkingQuestion

Asked by Lord Wigley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what ordershave been made under Schedule 4 to the Protectionof Freedoms Act 2012 relating to charging forparking on private land; and on what dates each ofthose orders came into force. [HL6452]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): No orders have been madeunder Schedule 4.


Police: Undercover PolicingQuestions

Asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe statement by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 6 March(HL Deb, col. 1522), whether the proposed judge-ledpublic inquiry into undercover policing will be astatutory one that falls within the Inquiries Act 2005.

[HL6414]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): The judge-ledpublic inquiry into undercover policing will be establishedunder the Inquiries Act 2005. As I said to the Housewhen I repeated the Home Secretary’s statement on6 March 2014 (Official Report, cols. 1518-26), there issignificant further work that needs to take place beforethe public inquiry can begin its work. That furtherwork will inform the scope of the inquiry and its termsof reference.

Asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe statement by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 6 March(HL Deb, col. 1522), whether the proposed publicinquiry into undercover policing will look into (1) theuse of sexual relationships by undercover police,and (2) the stealing of identities of dead babies byundercover police. [HL6415]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The judge-led public inquiryinto undercover policing will be established under theInquiries Act 2005.

As I said to the House when I repeated the HomeSecretary’s statement on 6 March 2014 (Official Report,cols. 1518-26), there is significant further work thatneeds to take place before the public inquiry can beginits work. That further work will inform the scope ofthe inquiry and its terms of reference.

Royal Navy: ArtificersQuestion

Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyintend to reintroduce the artificer rate into theRoyal Navy. [HL6553]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): No, the RoyalNavy has disestablished the Artificer system in favourof a more coherent engineering technician structurewhich sets a headmark of achieving accreditationthrough the appropriate professional institutions andapprenticeships.

Royal Navy: FrigatesQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyfrigates (1) are deployed on operational tasks, (2) arefully stored, including complete ammunition outfit,(3) have a full complement according to the Type 23approved watch and station bill, and (4) are inrepair or maintenance periods. [HL6551]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): As of 3 April2014 four Frigates are deployed in UK waters oroverseas on operational tasks and six are engaged intraining or work-up periods. The remaining three Frigatesare in refit. We do not release the details of theammunitions carried by deployed ships as to do sowould, or would be likely to prejudice the capability,effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces. I canhowever confirm that all Royal Navy ships deploywith the ammunitions and personnel required to undertaketheir operational tasking.

Royal Navy: ShipsQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyRoyal Navy ships were newly commissioned in thefinancial year 2013–14. [HL6554]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): HMS DUNCANwas commissioned on 26 September 2013. In the samemonth, HMS PROTECTOR was purchased outrightby the Royal Navy, having previously operated on along lease.

In November 2013, the Ministry of Defence announcedits intention to purchase three new offshore patrolvessels.

This demonstrates Her Majesty’s Government’scontinuing commitment to investing in a strong andversatile Royal Navy capable of securing and protectingour national interests for the future.

Schools: AsbestosQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the report, Asbestos in Schools,published by the All-Party Parliamentary Groupon Occupational Safety and Health; what assessmentthey have made of the view of the Committee onCarcinogenicity of the vulnerability of children toasbestos; what recent figures they have for the incidenceof asbestos-related diseases in children and teachers;and when they intend to publish their response tothe evidence submitted to their review of policy onasbestos management in schools. [HL6545]


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Nash) (Con): The Department for Educationis currently reviewing its policy on asbestos managementin schools and intends to publish the outcome of thereview by the end of June. The scope of the reviewincludes the conclusions of the Committee onCarcinogenicity’s statement on the relative vulnerabilityof children and the recommendations from the reportAsbestos in Schools: The Need for Action produced bythe All-Party Parliamentary Group on OccupationalSafety and Health. The Health and Safety Executivepublishes figures on asbestos-related deaths—includingoccupational information—on its website. We do notknow of any figures detailing the incidence of asbestos-related diseases in children.

SyriaQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of reports of an attack on 21 Marchon Kessab in northern Syria; whether they havemade any estimate of the number of those killed inthe attack and of those who have fled the town as aresult; whether they have received any reports aboutthe desecration of churches in the town; and whatassessment they have made of the possible involvementof the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraqand Sham in the attack.

[HL6490]

TheSeniorMinisterof State,DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government & Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Baroness Warsi) (Con): We are concerned bythe reports of violence in Kessab, although it is impossibleto establish an accurate figure of the numbers ofpeople who have been killed or displaced. We believethat the majority of the ethnic Armenian populationof the town has left, along with many other Syrians,because of the fighting in the area. We have notreceived any confirmed reports of churches beingdesecrated and we call for all places of worship to berespected. We understand that a range of groups hasbeen involved in the fighting, including the Al-NusraFront. We urge all sides to the conflict in Syria torespect international humanitarian law and the rightsof all Syrians. Both the Syrian National Coalition andthe Free Syrian Army have repeatedly made clear theircommitment to protecting all civilians, regardless ofreligious, ethnic and political affiliation.

Taxation: FraudQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidelinesare followed by HM Revenue and Customs and theCrown Prosecution Service in determining whetherto investigate or prosecute VAT carousel fraud.

[HL6472]

Lord Newby (LD): HM Revenue and Customs(HMRC) seek to disrupt VAT carousel (Missing TraderIntra-Community—MTIC) fraud using both civil andcriminal interventions.

When using criminal action HMRC seek to investigatethe “guiding minds” behind MTIC fraud, as well as,selectively, other participants, including key enablers.

Such cases are notified and referred to the relevantindependent prosecutors. The final charging decisionis made by the prosecuting agency, based on theevidence presented as a result of the HMRC investigation.Cases in England and Wales will be referred to theCrown Prosecution Service (CPS).

TobaccoQuestion

Asked by Lord Tebbit

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave funded any organisations seeking to ban orrestrict the use of tobacco. [HL6387]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe) (Con): The department doesnot fund any organisation that seeks to ban the use oftobacco. The department has provided grant fundingto Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). On itswebsite, ASH is described as “a campaigning publichealth charity that works to eliminate the harm causedby tobacco”.

Transport: CyclingQuestion

Asked by Lord Pendry

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the lightof British Cycling’s Time to Choose Cycling campaign,what progress has been made in promoting cyclingas a safe and viable transport method around theUnited Kingdom. [HL6592]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): Cycling is normal and funand we are committed to making it a safer travelchoice so more people can appreciate the benefits ofphysical activity. Cycling can help tackle congestion,reduce CO2 emissions and improve air quality.

In August last year the Prime Minister set out hisambition for increasing cycling. This included £94 millionfor Cycling Ambition Grants which covered eightcities and four national parks across England. Theseeight cities all have ambitious targets to increase cyclingover the coming years.

In addition, we have invested £15 million for cyclingand walking links in communities and almost £15 millionfor cycling infrastructure at rail stations—our railfunding has been the major enabler in doubling theamount of cycle-rail facilities at stations since 2009.We also continue to support Bikeability training forchildren—we provide funding of up to £40 per trainingplace—and over a million children have been trained.


Finally, to help realise the Prime Minister’s ambitionfor cycling, we are working with stakeholders andGovernment to produce a Cycling Delivery Plan forpublication later this year.

Vehicles: Air QualityQuestion

Asked by Lord Bradshaw

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of whether lower quality fuel usedin road vehicles has any impact on air quality.

[HL6618]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): We have made no specificassessment of the impact of low quality fuels since allfuel supplied for road vehicles has to comply with theMotor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations,and these requirements are set in order to reduce theenvironmental impacts of vehicles.

In practice, all producers supply fuel that also meetsthe EN 590 (Diesel) or EN 228 (Petrol) industrystandards. The Composition and Content Regulations,and the standards, have been revised over time, mostnotably to remove lead from petrol and to ensure thatall road fuel is effectively sulphur-free. There shouldbe little difference between the air quality emissionsfrom vehicles running on fuels that meet the statutoryand industry standards.

Vehicles: Particulate FiltersQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportionof road vehicles in Great Britain are fitted withefficient particulate filters; and what assessmentthey have made of the potential benefit from fittingsuch devices. [HL6615]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Baroness Kramer) (LD): We have no firm information,but our best current estimate is that about 17% of carscurrently in use are fitted with wall-flow diesel particulatefilters. We have made no estimate of the proportion oflorries, buses, and coaches that are fitted with dieselparticulate filters. Reduction in airborne particulatehas clear public health benefits. Some 29,000 prematuredeaths are estimated to occur each year as a result ofairborne particulate, and poor air quality has healthcosts estimated at £15 billion annually for the UK.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whetherparticulate filters fitted to road vehicles are subjectto testing to ensure that those devices remain ingood working order. [HL6616]

Baroness Kramer: The annual roadworthiness testsinclude a test for diesel smoke, using an opacimeter,which is intended to detect a diesel particulate filterthat has suffered a mechanical failure or which hasbeen removed from a vehicle. The department hasamended the MoT testers’ manual so as to include avisual check to confirm that a diesel particulate filteris present where one was fitted as standard by thevehicle manufacturer. Further information is availableat the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-mot-to-test-for-diesel-particulate-filter


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what informationthey have as to whether the origin or formulation ofthe diesel oil used has any bearing on the amount ofparticulates which are trapped in particulate filtersfitted to road vehicles. [HL6617]

Baroness Kramer: The formulation of diesel fuelcan have an effect upon the amount of particulatematter formed during combustion. There is evidence,for instance, that biodiesel blends produce slightly lessparticulate matter, in general, than do pure petroleum-based diesel fuels. We would not, however, expect thedifferences in rates of particulate formation betweenfuels meeting the statutory requirements of the MotorFuels (Composition and Content) Regulations, andmeeting the EN 590 industry standard to affect theoperation of diesel particulate filters.

War CrimesQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave any plans to place the evidence gathered by theMetropolitan Police War Crimes Unit during itsoperation in a publicly available archive. [HL6496]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, HomeOffice (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): No. Evidencegathered in investigations by the Metropolitan PoliceWar Crimes Unit concerning war crimes is an operationalmatter for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and,where files were submitted for prosecution, the CrownProsecution Service.


Wednesday 9 April 2014

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TOWRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No.Commonwealth Games 2014: Security............................ 127

Education: Qualification Reform..................................... 127

Elections: Guidance for Civil Servants............................. 130

Energy: Oil....................................................................... 130

Energy: ONR/DWP Framework...................................... 131

Energy: Scotland Analysis Programme ............................ 132

Col. No.Equitable Life Payment Scheme....................................... 133

Government Services: G4S .............................................. 133

Pensions Bill: Single-tier Pension Contingencies FundAdvance....................................................................... 134

Railways: High Speed 2.................................................... 134

Terrorism ......................................................................... 136


ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

Afghanistan: Drones ....................................................... 291

Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy ....................... 291

Animals: Antibiotics ........................................................ 291

Annuities ......................................................................... 292

Apprenticeships ............................................................... 292

Atos Healthcare............................................................... 292

Bank of England Act 1998 .............................................. 293

Children: Disabled Children ............................................ 293

Children: Refugee Children.............................................. 294

Civil Aviation Authority .................................................. 294

Council Tax ..................................................................... 294

Defence: Procurement...................................................... 295

Education: GCSEs........................................................... 295

Egypt ............................................................................... 296

Government Departments: Budgets................................. 296

Government Departments: Staff ...................................... 297

Health: Anaemia.............................................................. 297

Health: Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis........................ 298

Health: Contraception ..................................................... 299

Health: Defibrillators....................................................... 299

Health: Folic Acid............................................................ 300

Health: Medical Trials ..................................................... 301

Higher Education: Student Loans.................................... 302

Col. No.Hilda Murrell................................................................... 302

Kenya .............................................................................. 303

Local Authorities: Children in Care................................. 303

Local Authorities: Duty of Care ...................................... 304

Local Authorities: Funding.............................................. 304

Local Government: Finance ............................................ 304

NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups ............................ 305

NHS: Victim Support ...................................................... 305

Overseas Aid: Population Funding .................................. 306

Palestine........................................................................... 306

Parking ............................................................................ 306

Police: Undercover Policing ............................................. 307

Royal Navy: Artificers...................................................... 307

Royal Navy: Frigates........................................................ 308

Royal Navy: Ships............................................................ 308

Schools: Asbestos ............................................................ 308

Syria ................................................................................ 309

Taxation: Fraud ............................................................... 309

Tobacco ........................................................................... 310

Transport: Cycling ........................................................... 310

Vehicles: Air Quality ........................................................ 311

Vehicles: Particulate Filters .............................................. 311

War Crimes...................................................................... 312

NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

[HL6280] ......................................................................... 297

[HL6343] ......................................................................... 300

[HL6344] ......................................................................... 300

[HL6345] ......................................................................... 300

[HL6346] ......................................................................... 301

[HL6347] ......................................................................... 301

[HL6358] ......................................................................... 303

[HL6362] ......................................................................... 291

[HL6364] ......................................................................... 294

[HL6371] ......................................................................... 299

[HL6387] ......................................................................... 310

[HL6392] ......................................................................... 296

[HL6402] ......................................................................... 293

[HL6409] ......................................................................... 302

[HL6413] ......................................................................... 293

[HL6414] ......................................................................... 307

[HL6415] ......................................................................... 307

[HL6417] ......................................................................... 299

[HL6437] ......................................................................... 306

[HL6443] ......................................................................... 295

[HL6444] ......................................................................... 296

[HL6452] ......................................................................... 306

[HL6456] ......................................................................... 295

[HL6468] ......................................................................... 292

[HL6472] ......................................................................... 309

[HL6477] ......................................................................... 294

[HL6487] ......................................................................... 297

[HL6490] ......................................................................... 309

Col. No.[HL6496] ......................................................................... 312

[HL6502] ......................................................................... 305

[HL6503] ......................................................................... 297

[HL6510] ......................................................................... 291

[HL6511] ......................................................................... 298

[HL6513] ......................................................................... 299

[HL6514] ......................................................................... 304

[HL6515] ......................................................................... 304

[HL6517] ......................................................................... 302

[HL6518] ......................................................................... 305

[HL6524] ......................................................................... 292

[HL6532] ......................................................................... 306

[HL6538] ......................................................................... 301

[HL6539] ......................................................................... 301

[HL6545] ......................................................................... 308

[HL6551] ......................................................................... 308

[HL6553] ......................................................................... 307

[HL6554] ......................................................................... 308

[HL6564] ......................................................................... 291

[HL6576] ......................................................................... 292

[HL6592] ......................................................................... 310

[HL6597] ......................................................................... 294

[HL6609] ......................................................................... 304

[HL6610] ......................................................................... 303

[HL6615] ......................................................................... 311

[HL6616] ......................................................................... 312

[HL6617] ......................................................................... 312

[HL6618] ......................................................................... 311

Volume 753 WednesdayNo. 144 9 April 2014

CONTENTS


QuestionsJapanese Knotweed ....................................................................................................................................................... 1293NHS: Hospital Medication .......................................................................................................................................... 1295Climate Change: Extreme Weather............................................................................................................................. 1298Housing: Discretionary Housing Payment.................................................................................................................. 1300Hereditary Peers By-Election ...................................................................................................................................... 1302

Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and SunderlandCombined Authority Order 2014Motion to Approve ........................................................................................................................................................ 1302

County Court Remedies Regulations 2014Motion to Approve ........................................................................................................................................................ 1303

Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation) Order 2014Motion to Approve ........................................................................................................................................................ 1303

Higher EducationMotion to Take Note .................................................................................................................................................... 1303

Convergence ProgrammeMotion to Approve ........................................................................................................................................................ 1386

Written Statements....................................................................................................................................................... WS 127

Written Answers............................................................................................................................................................ WA 291

(hansard) house of lords · 2014-04-10 · house of lords wednesday, 9 april 2014. 11 am...

Documents