Emergency Lobby of Parliament over HE Bill – 12 noon 26.4.17 – Parliament Sq

URGENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND CIRCULATION

Lobby of Parliament

Government ‘concessions’ not nearly enough, say academics and UCU

London Region UCU has called a lobby of Parliament today (26 April) at 12 noon. The lobby is supported by UCU and the Campaign for the Public University.

What is at stake

The Government has made some concessions to attempt to get the Higher Education and Research Bill onto the statute books before the General Election. The Bill faced nearly 250 amendments proposed by the House of Lords. They need votes in both Houses of Parliament to get approval.

The House of Commons will take a decision on the future of the Bill later today. London Region UCU has called a protest and lobby in Parliament Square from 12 noon. Union members are being urged to write to MPs.

Analysis by UCU, the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) and the HE Convention is that these “concessions” do not go far enough.

Yesterday UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt wrote to all members. She writes that

Amendments which are NOW AT RISK include:

1. blocking plans for a crude rating of teaching quality
2. removing the link between teaching excellence and tuition fees
3. ensuring any organisation awarding degrees meet improved quality standards
4. removing international students from net migration targets
5. protecting overseas staff

Prof David Midgley, a leading member of the CDBU, notes that the Government has provided little detail in its response to many of the Lords Amendments, and some amendments are not addressed at all.

His analysis, published today by the HE Convention, observes that the Government has potentially made minor concessions on points 1 and 3 above, but has refused to remove the link between the TEF and fees, and has made no improvements to protect international students and staff.

Republished from UCU London Region.

Analysis of Government responses to Lords amendments – David Midgley (CDBU)

Higher Education and Research Bill

A summary of the Government’s responses to the Lords amendments, as published on 25 April 2017.

Amendment 1 (definition of a university):

Struck down in favour of guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with interested parties (to be inserted in clauses 51 and 52: Use of university title, etc.).

Amendments 12 (prohibiting ranking), 209 and 210 (Schedule 2, i.e. fee
limit, subjecting the prescription of by the Secretary of State to
affirmative procedure):

Struck down. The effect of the various insertions proposed instead is difficult to decipher, but the insertion at p. 67, l. 12 appears to exempt the power of the Secretary of State to award above-inflation rises in the fee limit at the top end from the strong form of parliamentary control (i.e. by affirmative procedure).

Amendment 15 (registration of students on the electoral roll):

Struck down in favour of “such steps as the OfS considers appropriate for facilitating cooperation between the provider and one or more electoral registration officers”, etc.

Amendment 23 (quality assurance subject to independent evaluation):

Struck down in favour of deleting sub-sections 5 and 6 in Clause 25 (referring to “standards”) and inserting a new clause (at p. 16, l. 23) requiring the Secretary of State to appoint a person independent of the OfS, and with suitable experience, who would “command the confidence of registered higher education providers”, and who would produce a thorough report on the assessment and rating procedures (i.e. the TEF), including the descriptors used for rating purposes and the impact of the process on the “providers” concerned, “after the initial period” (i.e. the first year after section 25 becomes operative); and that the report be laid before Parliament.

Amendment 71 (conditions of registration):

Struck down, removing the requirement that a new provider demonstrate satisfactory validation arrangements for 4 years before authorisation. Some re-drafting is also proposed in this area.

Amendments 78 and 106 (the Judge amendments):

Struck down in favour of allowing the tribunal concerned to take into account “evidence that was not available to the OfS” and making explicit the range of options open to the tribunal.

Amendment 156 (international students):

Struck down in favour of requiring (in clause 59: publication of information) the consideration of information that would be useful to international students and institutions that provide for them, including information about numbers of international students.

Notes

Page references are to The Bill as introduced to the Lords (HL Bill 76).

The consolidated list of Lords amendments referred to (posted 6.4.17).

Lords amend HE Bill to defend international staff and students – 13 March

Amendment 156 in the House of Commons List of Amendments

On 13 March, the House of Lords passed the following amendment to the HE Bill by 313 votes to 219.

150: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—

“Students and academic staff at higher education providers

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to encourage international students to attend higher education providers covered by this Act, and UKRI must take every possible opportunity to encourage and facilitate the maximum co-operation between British higher education and research establishments and those based outside the UK, in particular with projects and programmes funded by the European Union.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no student, either undergraduate or postgraduate, who has received an offer to study at such a higher education provider, be treated for public policy purposes as a long term migrant to the UK, for the duration of their studies at such an establishment.

(3) Persons, who are not British citizens, who receive an offer to study as an undergraduate or postgraduate, or who receive an offer of employment as a member of academic staff at a higher education provider, shall not, in respect of that course of study, or that employment, be subject to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force for a person in their position on the day on which this Act was passed.”

As Lord Hannay, proposing, explained:-

In summary, the amendment, first, places a duty on the Secretary of State to encourage overseas students to come here for their higher education.

Secondly, it urges UKRI, the new organisation co-ordinating research, to encourage and facilitate the maximum international research co-operation, in particular with EU projects and programmes, which may be less easy to do after Brexit than it has been as a full member—which we still are.

Thirdly, it seeks to put an end to the policy of treating students for public policy purposes as long-term economic migrants. This subject has been debated many times in the House without anyone, except the lonely person on the ministerial Bench, expressing a contrary view.

Fourthly, it seeks to ensure that no further restrictive immigration rules, beyond those that currently exist, are placed on undergraduate and postgraduate students with the offer of a place to study here, or on academic staff with an offer of employment. I underline the word “offer” because it is not intended that they should have free movement rights to come here and look for these things; they would need to have the offer.

Lords amend HE Bill to regulate privatisation – March 8

On Wednesday March 8, the Lords made two further important amendments to the HE Bill. These concern Quality Assurance and Degree Awarding Powers.

These amendments support greater government regulation of the process of privatisation, which the Higher Education and Research Bill is intended to facilitate. They introduce “checks and balances” on the process, rather than stop privatisation altogether. But they should still be strongly supported, in the interests of our students, our society and our universities.

Amendment 72 – Quality Assurance

Amendment 72 challenges the premise of a one-size-fits-all metric for evaluating the “quality” of higher education.

Amendment 23 in the House of Commons List of Amendments

The HE Bill undermines the current role played by the Quality Assurance Agency in acting as an inspector and guarantor of quality in HE and replaces up-front regulation with TEF scores, ranking and retrospective intervention.

It is as if the Government proposed to remove inspection and licensing of abattoirs, say, and instead relied on prosecutions to enforce consumer safety standards. In some respects the HE Bill is worse: market forces operate in the food industry because each customer makes tens of thousands of individual purchases, and can therefore act when faced with poor quality. But a student does not get to return their degree and ask for their money back. They are at the mercy of miss-selling and fraud, which has happened in the USA and Australia.

For a detailed discussion of these issues see the Alternative White Paper for Higher Education.

Lords amend HE Bill to limit impact of TEF – March 6

On Monday, March 6,  the Lords voted 263 to 211 for Amendment 19 to the HE Bill.

Amendment 12 in the House of Commons List of Amendments

“Regulated course fees etc: use in relation to section 26

(1) The scheme established under section 26 must not be used to rank English higher education providers as to the regulated course fees they charge to a qualifying person; or the unregulated course fees they charge to an international student; or the number of fee paying students they recruit, whether they are qualifying persons or international students.

(2) In this section “regulated course fees”, “qualifying person” and “international student” have the same meaning as in section 11.”

This would have the effect of prohibiting the use of the TEF ranking:

1.  in either the setting of the student fee cap or
2. the number of students that a university can recruit.

As Lord Kerslake explained in the debate, the latter would apply to both national and international students, so preventing the possibility that the TEF ranking might be linked to the issuing of student visas.

The first of these has been a key debate of the NUS’ campaign against the TEF. The second arises in relation to Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s call at the Conservative Party Conference to use the TEF to remove the right of universities to sponsor overseas students. It would also prevent the Government of the day using TEF scores to cap student numbers by subject or institution, something that future governments may wish to do in the face of rising student loan deficit.

Why the NSS is garbage – Lord Lipsey

The National Students Survey results matter. First, they are used by students to evaluate institutions by comparison with rival institutions. Secondly, they are one of the metrics to be used in the TEF, in awarding gold, silver or bronze markings to institutions which apply to take part. These ratings will decide if an institution can or cannot raise its fees beyond £9K.

The idea that student satisfaction should play a major role in the rating of universities is controversial. Research shows that there is no correlation between student satisfaction and student results in terms of degree grade. However the government has opted to increase the importance of student choice, competition and satisfaction in the higher education landscape; and this short note does not seek to address the rights and wrongs of that.

Rather it focusses on a narrow point: whether the National Student Survey (NSS), the chosen instrument to measure student satisfaction, is fit for purpose or not. Here the evidence is unequivocal: the NSS is statistical garbage. The reasons are widely understood by the statistical community and were set out inter alia by the Royal Statistical Society in its response to the government’s technical consultation about the TEF.

Alert: HE Bill back in Lords for voting on amendments – from 6 March

Dear colleagues

After weeks of detailed line-by-line debate at Committee Stage over two months, the Higher Education and Research Bill returns to the full House of Lords debate at the ‘Report Stage’ from Monday March 6th. The House will be voting on a set of amendments put forward to a full vote by the Committee.

It is fair to say that the Lords have subjected the Bill to a far greater level of critical scrutiny than the Commons, where Jo Johnson has so-far relied on an inbuilt Conservative majority voting with the party whip to see off any criticism.

Voting at Second and Third Readings on the unaltered Bill divided simply on party lines. The Conservative and DUP MPs voted for the Bill. Every other MP voted against the Bill.

There is now a real opportunity for those of us opposed to the Bill to influence events. 

Amendments passed by the Lords will be sent back to the Commons for the Final Reading. At that point, Conservative and DUP MPs will have to decide whether they should support the amendments.

• All colleagues can use the UCU Lobby a Lord tool to raise concerns with Lords and ask them to vote in support of critical amendments.
• Colleagues, especially those in Conservative and DUP constituencies, should restart the process of lobbying their MPs. There is a Lobby Your MP tool on the UCU website. Try to find out where your MP is having a constituency surgery and arrange to meet them in person.

As some 200 amendments are proposed, and some may be difficult to follow, Prof David Midgley for the CDBU has prepared the attached briefing on what the CDBU believe are the key amendments. UCU has also produced this briefing.

We will also provide up-dated information on the progress of amendments through the Lords on the Convention website.

Relevant documents

• The full list of amendments to be considered by the Lords (PDF)
• Commentary on the key amendments, from the CDBU
• Briefing for the Lords from UCU
• The HE Bill in a nutshell

Letter to Evening Standard

London’s Universities Under Threat

(submitted to Evening Standard – also see this article)

Add your name

London is a global education powerhouse. Unique in having four institutions in the top 40 rankings of the world’s best universities, together London’s higher education institutions account for nearly £6 billion annually in revenue, with £2.5 billion in export earnings. They attract nearly a quarter of a million students to the city – nearly half from abroad – and they support about 150,000 jobs directly and indirectly.

London’s universities are so successful because of their very high standards and hard-earned reputations for excellence. People want to study and teach here because of the great opportunities these institutions offer. It is therefore with dismay that we view the Government’s new Higher Education and Research Bill, currently making its way through the House of Lords. The bill risks undermining everything we have recently built up in London.

The Government proposes an entirely new and untested process for measuring the quality of university teaching provision whereby a set number of universities would be awarded gold, silver or bronze status. If, in line with current predictions, some London universities fail to achieve gold, why would students seek to apply to them and why would employers value their degrees and their graduates? This policy is just one of a number of proposed measures which undermine and restrict the freedom of universities to control their own research and teaching strategies. For example, in creating a new Government body with the power to strip institutions of their royal charters, it puts the academic freedom upon which great universities are built in doubt.

As academics who work in universities in London, we are deeply concerned about the contents of this bill. We urge members of the House of Lords to work constructively towards fundamental amendments to this potentially disastrous hotch-potch of incoming legislation – and for people to make their concerns known to their MP.

Sean Wallis (University College London, UCU NEC member and HE Convention)
Tim Horder (University of Oxford, Council for the Defence of British Universities)
Lee Jones (Queen Mary, University of London, Campaign for the Public University)
Prof Des Freedman (Goldsmiths University of London, UCU Branch Secretary)
Rachel Cohen (City, University of London, UCU NEC member)
Sir Brian Vickers, FBA (School of Advanced Study, University of London)
Prof Nadje Al Ali (SOAS, University of London)
Laura Hammond (SOAS)
David Lunn (SOAS)
Prof Reinhard Bachmann (SOAS)
Eleanor Newbigin (SOAS)
Ian Pace (City)
Newton Armstrong (City)
Aaron Einbond (City)
Alexander Lingas (City)
Shay Loya (City)
Valerie Coultas (Kingston University)
Simon Choat (Kingston)
Nigel Ling (Kingston)
Alexander Perrin (Kingston)
Rosie McNiece (Kingston, UCU Rep)
David Rogers (Kingston)
Alexandra Stara (Kingston)
Saladin Meckled-Garcia (University College London, UCU Branch President)
Sherrill Stroschein (UCL)
Martin Fry (UCL)
Prof Susan Michie (UCL)
Prof Lucie Clapp (UCL)
Martin Rosendaal (UCL)
Prof Peter Scott (UCL Institute of Education)
Prof Ronald Barnett (UCL (retd.))
Prof John F. Allen (UCL (retd.))
Prof Anson Mackay (UCL)
Hugh Goodacre (UCL)
Peter Agocs (UCL)
Trevor Murrells (King’s College London)
Heidi Lempp (KCL)
Prof Satvinder S. Juss (KCL)
Prof David Papineau (KCL)
Prof Maria Rosa Antognazza (KCL)
Prof Michael Beaney (KCL)
Prof Catherine Boyle (KCL)
Prof Malcolm Fairbairn (KCL)
Prof Erica Carter (KCL)
Prof Ben Rampton (KCL)
Prof David Treece (KCL)
Prof Jill Maben (KCL)
Prof Sherrilyn Roush (KCL)
Prof David Owens (KCL)
Prof Pat Thane (KCL)
Prof Silvina Milstein (KCL)
Prof Kate Crosby (KCL)
Prof Richard Howells (KCL)
Prof Shanta Persaud (KCL)
Prof Elaine Player (KCL)
Joachim Aufderheide (KCL)
Bill Brewer (KCL)
John Callanan (KCL)
Andrea Sangiovanni (KCL)
Jurgis Karpus (KCL)
Maria Alvarez (KCL)
Nadine Elzein (KCL)
Daniel Matlin (KCL)
Ellen Fridland (KCL)
Siobhan McIlvanney (KCL)
Deborah Chinn (KCL)
Richard E Overill (KCL)
Prof Clare Pettitt (KCL)
Deborah Robson (KCL)
Anette Schroeder-Rossell (KCL)
Andy Grant (KCL)
Max Saunders (KCL)
Clare Birchall (KCL)
Tom Brown (KCL)
Garry Stillwell (KCL)
Max Edling (KCL)
Sebastian Matzner (KCL)
Steve Phelps (KCL)
Sarah Salih (KCL)
Emily Butterworth (KCL)
Gabrielle Lyons (KCL)
Emma Tebbs (KCL)
Jenny Harris (KCL)
Jo Armes (KCL)
Paul T Seed (KCL)
Siobhan McIlvanney (KCL)
Rob Keeley (KCL)
Daniel Orrells (KCL)
Prof Leila Simona Talani (KCL)
Katherine Schofield (KCL)
Thomas Hyde (KCL)
Bérénice Guyot-Réchard (KCL)
Stylianos Hatzipanagos (KCL)
Gay Sutherland (KCL)
Victor Fan (KCL)
Graeme Lockwood (KCL)
Juan Baeza (KCL)
Johanna Malt (KCL)
Elvia Jeannette Uribe (KCL)
Miranda Stanyon (KCL)
Prof Guy Cook (KCL (retd.))
Eleanor Janega (KCL and LSE)
Eliot Michaelson (KCL)
Humeira Iqtidar (KCL)
Jill Hohenstein (KCL)
David Garrard (KCL and Oxford Brookes)
Luiz da Motta-Teixeira (KCL)
Prof David Adger (Queen Mary University of London)
Prof Sheila Hillier (Queen Mary (retd.))
Prof Daniel Harbour (Queen Mary)
Simon Carr (Queen Mary)
Graham White (Queen Mary)
Luisa Marti (Queen Mary)
Fiona McEwen (Queen Mary)
Prof Finn Fordham (Royal Holloway, University of London)
Prof Michael Gold (Royal Holloway)
Prof Barry Langford (Royal Holloway)
Prof Anne Sheppard (Royal Holloway)
Prof Andrew Bowie (Royal Holloway)
Charalambos Dendrinos (Royal Holloway)
Maire Davies (Royal Holloway)
Hazel Pearson (Queen Mary)
Adrian Budd (London South Bank University)
Chris Magill (LSBU)
Prof E.A. Brett (London School of Economics and Political Science)
Prof John Sidel (LSE)
Prof David Lewis (LSE)
Prof Robert H. Wade (LSE)
Peter Wilson (LSE)
Mike Cushman (LSE, UCU fixed term and hourly paid officer)
Katerina Dalacoura (LSE)
Michael Mason (LSE)
Laura Mann (LSE)
Lloyd Gruber (LSE)
Prof Leslie Sklair (LSE (retd.))
Shirin Madon (LSE)
Prof Jean-Paul Faguet (LSE)
Kate Meagher (LSE)
Sarah Taylor (LSE)
Prof Michael Wayne (Brunel University London)
Prof Lucia Boldrini (Goldsmiths, University of London)
Prof Frank Krause (Goldsmiths)
Prof Blake Morrison (Goldsmiths)
Padraig Kirwan (Goldsmiths)
Jane Desmarais (Goldsmiths)
Charlotte Scott (Goldsmiths)
Deac Rossell (Goldsmiths)
Maura Dooley (Goldsmiths)
Ross Raisin (Goldsmiths)
Miranda El-Rayess (Goldsmiths)
Ros Barber (Goldsmiths)
Frances Wilson (Goldsmiths)
Jack Underwood (Goldsmiths)
Naomi Wood (Goldsmiths)
Tamar Steinitz (Goldsmiths)
Prof Maggie Humm (University of East London (retd.))
Martin Gray (St George’s University of London)
Matthew King (Guildhall School of Music & Drama)
Prof Brendan Delaney (Imperial College London)
Prof Warren Chernaik (University of London (retd.))
Richard Williams (Oxford, (KCL Alumnus))
Kathleen O’Donnell (Oxford Brookes)
Dr Jonathan Hale (Nottingham)
Prof Stephen Goss (Surrey)
Volker Wieland (ESCP Europe)
Dr Michael Pace-Sigge (University of Eastern Finland)
Sam Hayden (Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance)

Add your name to this letter

Name(required)

Email(required)

Academic title / union position

Institution

Submit

Δ

Lobby a Lord today!

The Second Reading of the Higher Education and Research Bill in the House of Lords will take place on 6 December.

Members of the House of Lords rely on information from the public.

Please help them stand up for Higher Education.

Send a letter to a Lord today explaining why you believe the HE Bill will be so damaging to HE.

What you can do

• Use this online tool to send a letter (courtesy of UCU).
• The Convention for Higher Education has published a letter-writing pack for the Lords, which contains arguments you may wish to use.

See also

• HE Bill in a nutshell
• Example letters to MPs (noting devolution)

Videos of Brighton Convention event

What is wrong with the Higher Education and Research Bill?

Here are four videos of speeches at a Brighton event organised to publicise, both to staff and students and to the general public, the damage to the quality and character of Higher Education consequent on the proposed structures for the HE sector in the future.

Tom Hickey (Alternative White Paper and HE Convention)

Sorana Vieru (NUS Vice President for HE)