The impact of exiting the European Union on Higher Education
The impact
of exiting the European Union on Higher Education
House of Commons Education Select Committee
Pembroke College, Oxford (11.i.17)
Evidence panel:
Senior
Tutor, Trinity College, Cambridge
VC Coventry
University
VC Oxford
Brooke’s University
Pro-VC
(Brexit) Oxford University
The discussion took the form of questions
from the MPs present (three Lab, one SNP, one Con (chair)) to the evidence
panel. The second evidence panel was more subject-specific but I’ve covered the
majority of the points in this briefing.
The discussion focused on what the challenges
and possible advantages would be for the university sector in exiting the
European Union (some might suggest this conversation might have been more
helpful prior to a decision being made!). In general, the feeling was quite
clear – Brexit poses a significant risk to HE, and any benefits that might
arise are more coincidental and would indeed be possible if the UK remained
within the EU.
The points raised here are those that seemed
most pertinent to me and are my interpretation.
Key points which arose:
The current visa situation for those outside
the EU (particularly India/China) is not fit for purpose, with administration
and processing times and costs for applicants (and also their dependents)
becoming prohibitive. If a visa system is to be introduced for EU citizens,
then the process is going to be nigh on impossible to manage unless significant
improvements are seen. In addition, the current cap on Tier 2 visas is
unsustainable.
Freedom of movement for staff and students is
essential if we are to retain the current levels of collaboration and
investment across the EU. ‘Mixed classrooms’ are better for creativity and
collaboration and we risk losing this – not only through policy but also through
the way that politicians have been speaking about others in the EU. This is
having an effect on EU citizens who are stating this as an increasing reason
for declining research jobs and studentships in the UK.
A strong case was made for a sector specific
deal if we are to go for a ‘hard Brexit’. The question of immigration figures
was explored in detail – that currently the government targets of reducing
immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’ should not include students, who the
public did not see as ‘immigrants’. This was quite a depressing discussion all
in all – of course, the government may well see students as ‘easy targets’ when
attempting to reduce immigration figures (c.f. Home Office reports on this
topic), but there was a strong feeling that immigration figures shouldn’t be
manipulated in this way (indeed, only 1% of students overstay).
The clear point was made that it wasn’t
‘borders’ that decided the number of immigrants, but rather employers applying
government policy. This policy needs to take into account the fact that we
currently receive more than we send in terms of EU migration in the HE sector,
and there was a question as to whether it might still be possible to prioritise
EEA students. These students are currently eligible for tuition fee and
maintenance loans and indeed bursaries – and many are using them, particularly
from Eastern Europe. Cutting off this source of funding will almost certainly
reduce the pool of talent, particularly in areas such as maths.
Collaboration was seen as the key benefit of
the EU, more than funding. For example, why would you reduce a talent pool of
600 million people to 60 million – this would never fly in a clinical trial!
There was a fear that Brexit may lead to science being pushed out of universities,
meaning that the crucial link with teaching is lost, ultimately leading to
major problems in the UK economy and in the sector more generally. 50% of
research in the UK currently involves overseas partners, with 5/10 in the EU.
There was a general feeling that the UK would
benefit hugely from Associate Country status with regard to Horizon 2020
funding, the ERC and other EU bodies. Losing access here would be catastrophic,
not just because funding would be lost but more importantly because collaboration
would be curtailed significantly.
It is absolutely essential that transitional
arrangements regarding Horizon 2020 be made if the sector is not to go into
complete free-fall.
The myth that current research funding is not
spread fairly was debunked – it is spread on the basis of the REF, which is
peer reviewed. Similar systems should be used if we are to ensure fair spread
in the future.
Current EU relationships need to be retained,
not strained, to ensure possible collaborations continue – travel and work
abroad makes better global citizens and better researchers. UK Universities
currently lead the way in Europe and we are at risk of losing this status. We
have a relatively mobile sector, with prompt advancement for young academics,
which is attractive.
Universities should be placed at the centre
of any ongoing strategy decisions – they have the research which can influence
and shape decisions, and can be better used to influence policy into the
future, particularly on industrial stategy.
If we are to move from central EU
funding/Horizon 2020, then there is the potential to reduce the current strings
and risks associated with EU structural funding when setting up a UK-based
system.
Concerns were raised regarding the Erasmus+
scheme – this is seen as integral to the success of British universities, both
in terms of export and import. If we are to fund this ourselves, we need to
ensure this is done properly and if the system is to be expanded to include the
rest of the world (which, conversely, would mean potentially cutting ties with
any current system) plans should be drawn up prior to the process to ensure
this actually happens. Losing such a scheme would be a total disaster.
Switzerland was posited as an example of a modified Erasmus scheme, which has
cost the country £20 million. Interestingly, Switzerland has now been
readmitted to Horizon 2020 funding due to their way of applying their
referendum result regarding freedom of movement (perhaps a model for the UK?).
Any new networks that we form won’t have the
underlying structures of the EU and are on the background of China and India
being in the ascendency.
At present the levels of uncertainty facing
EU researchers (importing and exporting) is intolerable. 20% of Russell Group
researchers are non-UK EU nationals, and we should secure their futures at the
very least. The wolves are at the door - Ireland is seeing Brexit as an
opportunity, Germany (often English speaking) is offering non-teaching research
opportunities, and whereas we currently get the most ERC funding, Germany is
now the major threat. The Netherlands and Scandinavia, both with high levels of
English, are also looking to gain from Brexit – and we risk losing our top
healthcare system if we don’t ensure our students can continue to work across
systems. The ERC is still keen to keep UK academics on board.
There was a general feeling that universities
wanted to hear more from the government about the benefits of international
researchers and students, with some form of public affirmation.
There was a feeling that we need to move
beyond ‘management of risk’ towards a feeling of openness and Britain being
‘open for business’. In my opinion, these words weren’t backed up by any real
solid suggestions.
Government so far really hasn’t bothered to
engage with universities (this group is of course an all-party parliamentary
group – the government itself has not engaged). This is causing great concern –
groups such as UUK have attempted to lobby on behalf of the sector, and Jo
Johnson MP has shown interest but there needs to be a serious engagement if
this process is to achieve anything that might assuage the concerns and ensure
success in the HE sector. There is no specific structure in the Brexit
department for the HE sector to engage with nor in the Department for Education
on this topic.
Many ‘opportunities’ opening themselves up
(i.e. improvement of visas, better engagement with rest of world, motivation to
strengthen European links) are really just reflections of failure of strategy
in the past and don’t really require Brexit to be achieved. However, for the HE
sector to survive this, then effort needs to be made to tackle these issues
with some urgency.
Applications from the EU are down at
undergraduate level, postgraduate applications are increased (likely due to
short courses and perceived ‘time running out’) and numbers of postgraduates
applying to study in the EU are increasing.
An interesting side point was that the
current fee calculation made by Lord Willetts was based on the current numbers
and proportions of students not changing, which will no longer be the case once
EU students no longer form part of the Home/EU bloc. This is politically quite
interesting, although whether the NUS take it up is a whole different question.
The committee asked for hard evidence on many
of these points – I am sure they would be delighted to receive it from anyone
who has it.
Oxford is setting up a Brexit observatory –
this could be an interesting project to monitor.
Comments
Post a Comment