In an effort to curb foreign influence buying, universities could have to report all donations from overseas.
An amendment proposed to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill would force universities to disclose the names of any foreign donors giving more than £50,000.
The names would be published by the Office for Students, which is a watchdog of the Office for Students. This is done to restore trust in the public and expose potential conflicts of interests.
Last year, ministers launched an investigation into whether Chinese academics were sending sensitive information to Beijing by asking them at universities that receive money from China.
British technology could also be used in the support of minorities’ repression.
Following a multi-million dollar donation from Nguyen Th Phuong Thao, a Vietnamese billionaire, Linacre College will now be called Thao College. Thao was founded in 1962 by Thomas Linacre. Thao made his money via budget airlines. Named after Thomas Linacre (a 15th-century English scholar, physician, and humanist), the college was established in 1962.
An amendment proposed to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill would force universities to disclose the names of any foreign donors giving more than £50,000. Jesse Norman, Tory MP and the author of the amendment, has submitted it to Parliament.
Many universities are dependent on funding from Chinese students. Because of commercial sensitive and contractual agreements, some universities have refused to identify foreign donors.
Jesse Norman (Tory MP) submitted an amendment to the bill.
This motion is supported by Sir Robert Buckland and Damian Green, MPs, as well as Robert Halfon (chairman of the Commons Education Select Committee).
Mr Norman said: ‘This is not a clause that in my mind is aimed at any specific individual or country or identifiable potential source of undue influence.
‘It is designed to improve the functioning and improve the reputation of British higher education, which after all is one of the jewels of the UK’s international reputation.’
Mr Halfon added: ‘Universities have been embroiled in controversial donations from Chinese firms, and from the Middle East over the past few years.
‘I am pleased to support this amendment which will ensure that proper scrutiny and transparency is applied and I hope that the Government will consider this amendment sympathetically.’
A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents vice chancellors, said: ‘UK universities are global institutions and will continue to welcome students from around the world.
‘As autonomous institutions they will are already responsible for developing policies and practices to manage and mitigate any associated risks.
‘These will be developed with reference to available advice, information and other guidance and Universities UK has worked with Government on a range of initiatives, including the “Managing risks in Internationalisation” guidelines to make sure that decision makers at universities have access to information they need to make informed choices.’
It emerged in November that Oxford University’s Linacre college will be renamed in honour of Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao – Vietnam’s first self-made female billionaire – who donated £155million
A Russell Group spokesman said: ‘Nobody disagrees with the importance of a transparent system of funding that has the confidence of the public.
‘Universities work hard to comply with the extensive transparency requirements that are already in place, including the recently enacted National Security and Investment Act.
‘The proposed amendment seems to require the collection and reporting of data on everything from the personal financial circumstances of individual overseas students who are being supported by family members, to historic contractual data relating to major research partnerships, and everything in between.
‘This would put a significant reporting burden on universities, risk overwhelming the OfS with a huge volume of returns from the sector and potentially deter inward investment from international businesses without adding meaningfully to the way we work to protect free speech.
‘We are ready to work with Government and parliamentarians to respond to their concerns, but we don’t believe the proposed amendment is the right approach.’