People and Planet have been one of the organisations at the forefront of opposing the World Trade Organisations' GATS proposals which will see every 'market', including education, opened up for full 'free-market competition'. As the deadline for submissions to the DTI to stop education being 'opened up' passes, here's the full submission made by People & Planet.
By Jess Worth and Steven Kelk
1. Introduction
People & Planet have been following the progress of the GATS negotiations since 2000, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in this consultation. As we work in the Higher Education sector, we are particularly concerned about the implications of GATS for UK Higher Education (HE) and have concentrated our research efforts on investigating this element of the negotiations.
We believe in the fundamental importance to Higher Education of the following characteristics:
·Equity of access
·Quality
·Diversity of subjects
·Academic freedom
·Promotion of social goals
In order to achieve these, we agree with the consultation document that the following are important and should be preserved:
·high quality and standards
·the ability of government to apply regulatory measures necessary to achieve education policy objectives
·the ability of government to determine funding levels and to provide adequate funding for the tuition and support of UK students
·the right to subsidise domestic institutions without having to make those subsidies available to foreign providers
We therefore believe that publicly funded, publicly provided UK Higher Education must be resolutely protected and its cause championed over and above market forces, in direct contrast to the viewpoint that the failure to expose the public sector to direct competition is a market distortion that must be rectified.
Public funding and the public provision of Higher Education is essential: because the cost of education in a deregulated market is dictated by demand, thus limiting opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds; because public funding sustains subject areas which are academically, socially or economically necessary yet unsustainable in a commercial environment; because it promotes stability by insulating teaching and research from short-term fluctuations in market demand, and protects academic freedom because it limits dependency on private funding; and because it allows the promotion of social goals - such as widening access, expanding teacher training etc.
We are deeply concerned about GATS because our research suggests that liberalisation of Higher Education services (and related areas) is incompatible with the ethos of defending and actively promoting the cause of public Higher Education, and as a consequence puts at risk many of the desirable characteristics of public funding and provision we list above. We have looked into this issue in extensive detail and we enclose a copy of the resulting report, 'Trading It Away: how GATS threatens UK Higher Education' by Steven Kelk and Jess Worth. It incorporates expert opinions from international trade lawyers and Higher Education policy experts, including Vice-Chancellors. We ask that it be considered as part of our submission.
2. Liberalisation of Higher Education - why we are concerned
The consultation states that privately funded education is already 'fully' covered by GATS , that the state school system is exempt , and that the main potential areas for further liberalisation are therefore in Further and Higher Education . It reveals that the EU has been asked for full liberalisation in (amongst others) Higher Education services, and then asks the question, 'What, if any, areas of public education that could currently be viewed as supplied through competition with the private sector should be ring-fenced from GATS commitments, and why?'
This implies that a decision may have already been made to undertake further liberalising commitments in HE services, and we are therefore led to conclude that, given the otherwise liberal character of the UK's HE schedule, the government is planning to liberalise beyond the existing 'privately funded services' limitation, opening up the sector to full liberalisation and then 'ring-fencing' parts that the government wants to protect. We are deeply concerned about this approach.
As we discuss extensively in 'Trading It Away', Article I.3 would appear to be of little use as protection for the existing UK HE system , and thus liberalisation beyond the privately funded services limitation could open up the whole public HE sector to GATS rules. According to our research any further liberalisation could impact negatively and unpredictably on our public HE sector and should therefore not be risked. Unfortunately we find it difficult to see how the government will be able to fulfil its assurance that, within the GATS framework, a country's subsidies for HE will not be made available to foreign providers. It does not seem clear to us how the government could undertake further liberalisation without it having some impact on its ability to determine the funding, quality and regulation of the sector. We elaborate on our reasons for these concerns below.
If it is not the government's intention to liberalise beyond the privately funded services limitation, then we are confused as to how - given the liberal character of the UK's HE schedule - further liberalisation could be undertaken in such circumstances. We are unsure as to what else those trading partners asking for full HE liberalisation could be asking for.
Our concerns about the implications of HE liberalisation are heightened by the prospect of undertaking this liberalisation in the midst of a period of significant domestic upheaval in the sector. The GATS agreement is unprecedented in its breadth and depth, extremely complex and technical, with key areas that remain ill-defined, ambiguous and untested. There is a danger that upcoming domestic reforms will combine unpredictably with GATS, especially if these reforms significantly alter the public/private funding balance (see section 7). GATS is designed to be effectively irreversible. We don't see how the government can be sure that GATS will not damage UK Higher Education at some point in the future, when the future of the sector is currently so unclear, and when new far-reaching GATS disciplines are still being decided upon.
A 'ring-fencing' approach would not seem to us to rectify these problems. Firstly, our analysis suggests that it would be wrong to assume that some further liberalisation is desirable, for reasons we set out below and in 'Trading It Away'. Secondly, ring-fencing would close down policy flexibility (owing to the difficulty of reversing GATS commitments), open up the public sector to potential accusations of de facto discriminatory cross-subsidisation by other WTO members (see Section 6.2), and close down commercially-feasible market space that the public sector might need to pursue internal cross-subsidisation and thus remain viable. Thirdly, as pointed out in the consultation document, ring-fenced areas are precisely those that are then targeted by WTO members in future negotiations, so ring-fencing is no guarantee of long-term protection.
Instead we are of the opinion that a much safer approach would be to exclude the whole of UK Higher Education from GATS. The in-built commitment to progressive liberalisation will remain a threat to HE even if it is not liberalised further in the present GATS negotiating round. The GATS text should be updated to render HE permanently safe.
3. Why UK Higher Education should not be covered by GATS rules
Through extensive investigation we have come to the position that any further liberalisation of HE services is too dangerous to be undertaken. Rather than setting out all of our findings in detail here, we request that this submission is read in conjunction with 'Trading It Away'. We summarise its main conclusions below.
3.1 GATS could affect UK Higher Education funding
The consultation document clearly states that the government will agree to nothing under GATS that could allow foreign universities to make claims on public funding. However, whilst we welcome this assurance we are unable to see how such an occurrence can be avoided, certainly in the longer term, if a decision is taken to proceed with further liberalisation.
a. GATS rules do cover subsidies
The consultation document's brief discussion of subsidies states that 'GATS currently contains no rules on subsidies.' This appears to overlook the fact that, if the government does not pro-actively state otherwise, the application of National Treatment rules to HE could give foreign universities the right to claim public funding on the grounds of non-discrimination. The protection provided by the EU's 'carve out' for public sector funding is highly questionable, and reassurances from some of our trading partners that GATS liberalisation is not intended to displace or damage public sector HE appears questionable given that the same partners are believed to be pushing for maximum HE liberalisation under GATS.
Therefore, in the event that the UK commits to full liberalisation, this would potentially put only Article 1.3 - which, it would seem, is not particularly relevant to HE - as the only thing safeguarding public funding (and other preferential treatment) from foreign HE providers. There is considerable uncertainty within the WTO itself as to the extent to which National Treatment impacts on subsidies, opening up the risk of a challenge at the WTO. Negotiations around a specific subsidies article are ongoing and not yet complete - so the prospect of more onerous disciplines emerging cannot be ruled out. It therefore seems to us that the government's confidence about funding, at least in the longer term, may be misplaced. Furthermore, as we mentioned above, any attempts to ring-fence funding in the current GATS round will become targets for removal in future GATS negotiating rounds.
b. 'Opening up' public funding to foreign universities could trigger the reduction of public funding for universities
If National Treatment rules are applied to the whole of UK Higher Education, it could mean that foreign, for-profit universities (amongst others) will be able to compete for public funds alongside UK state universities. We fear that this could trigger the reduction and possible eventual elimination of public funding for UK universities. Even if the agreement does not immediately affect up-front funding levels per student, we do not believe that pitching existing UK universities into full-blown competition for UK students (and the government funding that follows each one) with foreign, often for-profit universities operating in the UK will benefit the sector and allow the government to meet its social goals.
c. Catalysing the introduction of higher fees, with knock-on problems such as student debt, tiering and inequality of access
The prospect of re-directing government funding towards new market entrants (such as for-profit universities) is problematic for several reasons. Firstly it is debatable whether government should be subsidising and thus reinforcing educational institutions who (in an increasing number of cases) will have the overriding goal of pleasing their shareholders. For example, a for-profit provider will presumably make decisions on an issue such as fees based on how much it will boost profits, rather than how it will affect (for example) student access.
Secondly, throwing universities into fierce competition for public funding with one another inevitably lessens the extent to which institutions can rely on public funding, because it becomes so much more difficult to obtain. As such GATS may encourage existing universities to soften the blow by seeking greater private funding, either from industry or - particularly likely - from students. We believe the perceived benefits to 'student choice' of opening out public funding under GATS are illusory. The many benefits of public funding to students, academics and the country as a whole will be seriously eroded if public funding is shifted completely 'consumer-side' and used to turn universities against each other in a fiercely competitive and bottom-line driven free market.
d. Making cross-subsidisation deeply impractical
With their very survival at stake existing UK universities will increasingly focus on the bottom-line when providing courses, potentially robbing students (and the country as a whole) of courses which are important from a social, academic or cultural point of view but which are deemed commercially unviable. We are also concerned by the prevailing assumption in trade circles that - putting aside the sensitive question of whether core activities such as undergraduate degree provision should be liberalised - it is unquestionably acceptable and desirable to liberalise 'non-core' education services provided by existing UK universities in direct competition with the private sector. UK universities are increasingly reliant on bringing in surplus revenues from such areas, and exposing them to fierce competition in these areas will not be without potentially adverse consequences.
3.2 GATS could damage quality and affect the government's ability to regulate in the public interest
The consultation states that GATS will not damage quality or the ability of government to determine the regulation of state education. We are again concerned that confidence here could be misplaced.
a. GATS could damage quality
We are particularly worried that the liberalisation of HE under GATS will undermine the qualities of a broad, holistic education, further commodifying the learning process and further redefining students simply as consumers. We are worried that trade agreements view 'educational products' through a highly instrumental, reductionist lens and thus threaten to undermine many of the holistic, difficult-to-measure qualities of HE. It is also far from clear how GATS could impact on quality at a technical level. It is not clear, for example, to what extent the government would be allowed to extend less-favourable treatment (under GATS) to foreign-based e-Universities compared to, for example, universities actually physically based in the UK.
b. Quality and the 'domestic regulation' negotiations
We are worried that the ongoing domestic regulation negotiations may in the future require all domestic regulations to be made 'no more burdensome than necessary' or 'least trade-restrictive' in achieving their particular goal. In other words, the WTO (not the government or HE stakeholders) becomes the final arbiter of which types of government regulation are acceptable.
We are concerned that such a requirement could entrench a minimalist, instrumentalist definition of quality, or weaken quality overall. We understand that certain major powers within the WTO are dedicating a large amount of attention to these domestic regulation negotiations and any new rules that do emerge may apply to domestic regulation in all services, not just in those sectors that the government has chosen to liberalise. We believe this to be an unwarranted, unnecessary and undesirable interference in UK HE regulation, especially if it entails governments facing 'necessity tests' and having perfectly reasonable regulations challenged because there is some other way, no matter how contrived, of achieving the goal in a way that is less likely to dent the profits of education corporations.
c. GATS prevents other important types of regulation
Good regulation of the HE sector is of paramount importance if major concerns such as adequate funding, high quality and equality of access are to be met. This is particularly relevant given that HE is increasingly being used as a mechanism to achieve positive social change.
It troubles us greatly that GATS potentially makes certain types of regulation, that could have socially- or academically- important aims, very difficult for current and future governments. For example, the requirement that access to the UK market not be differentiated on the basis of 'legal entity' means that it could become impossible to stem the tide of for-profit universities, or insist that a condition of entry is that the management of the institution can be influenced by input from staff and students (through Senate and Council structures, for example.) Because GATS prevents numerical limits on the amount of activity in a sector, this could seriously compound the competition-related difficulties mentioned in the funding section.
The possible requirement that domestic regulation be 'no more burdensome than necessary', which has been interpreted as 'least trade-restrictive', could severely damage a wide range of regulations, not just those relating to quality. For example, it has recently been touted that aiming to recruit a certain number of financially disadvantaged students may become a condition of public funding. Such a regulation is arguably not 'least trade-restrictive' because it would be less restrictive to trade if core funding had no strings attached, and extra top-up subsidies were made available to institutions enrolling disadvantaged students. Yet the first regulation would probably be far more effective at ensuring all universities take the strain in alleviating access problems, preventing a situation where disadvantaged students are concentrated at one end of the market, as well as being less of a drain on the public purse.
GATS potentially prevents the government from stipulating that incoming universities form partnerships with local FE colleges and HE providers. Such partnerships could be an important regulatory tool in ensuring that the presence of foreign universities brings benefits to local students, yet is precisely the sort of regulation that GATS prevents.
d. GATS is effectively irreversible
We are deeply unhappy that governments have a once-only chance to list regulatory derogations from GATS commitments (i.e. when the commitments are made), thus locking the sector into an effectively irreversible trade-oriented framework. Given the current and potential domestic restructuring underway in the UK, surely it would be unwise to abandon regulatory flexibility when the sector is on the verge of major, unprecedented changes?
4. R&D services
As the consultation recognises, issues surrounding R&D services are very complex. It seems to us that, given that cross-subsidisation in many universities is particularly pronounced from research to teaching, public education institutions would be particularly vulnerable to accusations of de facto discrimination if they subsidise teaching activities using research funds that only they have access to (in the event that R&D services remain relatively unliberalised.)
Thus, we feel that R&D liberalisation should not be undertaken, not only because it may result in foreign research providers being endowed with legal rights on public research funds, but also because of the danger that liberalisation in this sector could catalyse the separation of research and teaching activities at Higher Education institutions.
5. Undermining co-operative internationalisation of Higher Education
We fear that GATS could undermine parallel attempts by the HE community to encourage the progressive 'internationalisation' of Higher Education. This process, characterised by the advancement of co-operative relationships between different countries based on non-profit delivery, is at odds with the competitive, commercial processes promoted by GATS. Attempts to combine the two are inadvisable, as GATS rules would in reality take precedence over UN-brokered agreements such as the Lisbon Convention, which promotes the international recognition of qualifications. Overall, the benefits of internationalisation appear to lie, and are best pursued, outside the GATS framework, while most of the dangers to UK HE seem to lie within it.
6. Lack of clarity in definitions and classifications
We are concerned about the ambiguity that appears to surround the definition of several key elements of the GATS agreement. Certainly, in the course of our research, we have not been able to obtain authoritative definitions of certain aspects of direct relevance to Higher Education. Given that, in the event of a dispute, such definitions will be decided not by member states but by the WTO dispute settlement body, it would seem unwise to proceed with liberalisation whilst in a position of uncertainty.
6.1 The EU's horizontal limitations
The relationship of two limitations in the EU's schedule seem particularly important with regard to Higher Education. These are the 'public utilities' horizontal limitation and 'The supply of a service, or its subsidisation, within the public sector is not in breach of this commitment.' Our research suggests that there is serious cause for concern that UK Higher Education will not be classed as a 'public utility'. We also suspect that it will not be considered a service 'supplied within the public sector', so subsidisation protection does not apply. We recommend that a legal opinion is sought by the government as to whether UK Higher Education is covered and thus protected by one or more of the aforementioned horizontal limitations. It further leads us to ask what the difference is between a 'public utility', a 'service supplied within the public sector', and - indeed - a service supplied 'in the exercise of governmental authority'?
6.2 Shifting classifications
We understand that several of our trading partners are asking for commitments in subsectors that are not, at present, part of the CPC. For example, if a trading partner is asking for commitments in 'training services', and they argue that such a subsector can be introduced as a sub-category of higher/adult/other education services, we believe there is a risk that existing public education institutions may be found guilty of de facto National Treatment violations arising from cross-subsidisation between activities. In particular, if the introduction of new subsectors captures activities already undertaken by, for example, public universities, we believe that committing to liberalisation in such new sectors but refraining from liberalisation in Higher Education services could lead to accusations of de facto discrimination, on the grounds that ring-fenced public funding in HE is being used to cross-subsidise activities that fall within the liberalised sector.
For example, in a modified CPC with education services AND training services, there could be a danger that Legal Practice Courses (LPCs) - which some universities provide in competition with the private sector - would fall under training services, thus potentially giving way to the cross-subsidisation problems described above, in the event of differential liberalisation in these sectors.
This problem seems endemic while categories between sectors are unclear. It also seems to be a problem likely to increase in importance if new subsectors are introduced and/or the definition of existing sectors is refined. It is not clear to us how, in the event of further liberalisation, universities which engage in a multitude of activities could be protected from accusations that they (for example) illegally cross-subsidise into other service sectors, either directly (through internal cash transfers) or indirectly (e.g. through resource and infrastructure sharing.)
Similar concerns apply to 'Other education services', especially since the consultation implies that if a request in this category can be adequately defined, then liberalisation may be considered. Again, it seems likely that cross-subsidisation could be impacted upon. We are further concerned that, due to this lack of an adequate definition, stakeholders in the existing education system who might be affected by liberalisation in Other services and/or the introduction of new sectoral definitions, have not been given an opportunity to fully contribute to this consultation.
6.3 Subsidies and subsidiaries - foreign universities could be eligible for public funding?
The EU's existing schedule currently deploys horizontal limitations that legitimise differential treatment between foreign subsidiaries and foreign branches. We note in particular the limitation on subsidy awards under National Treatment which reads 'None, other than for branches established in a Member State by a non-Community company. Eligibility for subsidies from the Communities or Member States may be limited to juridical persons established within the territory of a Member State or a particular geographical sub-division thereof.' The status of subsidiaries with regard to subsidy awards under National Treatment needs to be clarified, because the above text is, in our opinion, unclear.
This is a crucial point, because our analysis indicates that, if full liberalisation of Higher Education services was undertaken with the EU's horizontal limitations remaining as they are now, there is a real danger that a foreign university, operating as a subsidiary, and situated within the UK, could in principle be eligible to enter into a public funding relationship with the government, on the grounds of non-discrimination. If further liberalisation of HE requires new protections on subsidisation, it is difficult to see how, realistically, such a carve-out for subsidisation can be indefinitely sustained in the context of progressive liberalisation.
7. GATS and domestic HE restructuring
UK Higher Education is likely to undergo tumultuous changes in the next few years, as a result of domestic policy shifts. The interface between domestic restructuring and further GATS liberalisation raises a series of questions.
With regard to the 'privately funded services' limitation, there appears to be a danger that a radical change in the public/private funding balance for our currently public universities could alter the scope and application of GATS commitments, both present and future. Is an education service that is partly privately funded and partly publicly funded 'privately funded' in the sense of the limitation? Is the ratio of private/public funding important in this regard? In the event of a challenge at the WTO, which legal system would 'privately funded' be tested in relation to - that of the member state in question, the EU single market, international norms, something else?
This information seems critical yet we have thus far we have encountered no authoritative explanation, which seems to be a pre-requisite for meaningful consultation. Given that the limitation applies to services rather than institutions, we fear that some educational activities undertaken by existing UK HE institutions - those which already incorporate a high proportion of private funding - may already be covered by existing GATS commitments. In such a climate of uncertainty, we do not feel reassured that HE can be protected against an unforeseen triggering of GATS commitments, both present and future, resulting from domestic restructuring.
We also note a number of recent press articles which suggest that the protocols for the award of degree-granting powers and the use of the title 'University' may be due for revision in the government's forthcoming HE strategy paper. One possible motivation for such a reform path, it is claimed, is so that the government's flagship corporate university - the NHSU (NHS 'university') - can call itself a University in the Privy Council-endorsed sense of the word.
We are concerned that potential impact of GATS liberalisation on fledgling projects such as the NHSU may not have been considered, nor that the government has considered the extent to which undertaking unilateral domestic liberalisation in this area (i.e. of degree-granting powers and endowment of University status), potentially for the benefit of institutions such as the NHSU, will trigger unforeseen obligations to foreign HE providers, under both present and future GATS commitments. We are also concerned that liberalisation in such areas will have the effect of increasing comparability between public and non-public institutions, thus bolstering the cause of our trading partners in the WTO who might (for example) be inclined to argue for access to public subsidies for their HE providers.
7.1 'Silent' liberalisation?
Recent events elsewhere in Europe have also brought to our attention the fact that the UK government could effectively liberalise the UK Higher Education system under GATS, with many of the associated negative impacts we have described, without necessarily acquiescing to further, schedule-based liberalisation. That is, the government could extend new rights under GATS to foreign HE providers simply by undertaking unilateral domestic reforms aimed at extending to the private sector rights currently restricted to the public sector. (For example, access to public funding.) Combining such a precedent with the UK's existing GATS commitment to non-discrimination between domestic and foreign 'privately funded education services' suggests that foreign HE providers would then also inherit these rights. We hope to be reassured that the present government will not exploit this 'silent' liberalisation opportunity, and we are keen to hear the government's thoughts on how future governments might be prevented from taking such a course of action.
As a general comment, we note that trends in domestic UK HE reform are increasingly towards blurring the boundaries between previously (relatively) well-defined parts of the education sector. We note, for example, the desire of the government to bring FE closer to HE (i.e. the notion of 'multiversities') and the increasing deployment of training programmes by HE institutions. Our concern is that, while the uncertain scope of CPC sectoral definitions makes the effect of GATS liberalisation complex and unpredictable even in a stable, well-defined domestic environment, the weakening of 'traditional' definitions in the UK's domestic regulatory environment can only heighten the risks of GATS liberalisation further.
8. Concerns about developing countries and the role of business
We share the concerns of the World Development Movement and many others, that GATS could negatively affect provision of primary and secondary education, healthcare, water, energy and other basic services worldwide, and believe this to be particularly problematic for developing countries. We support the calls of developing countries within the WTO for a full assessment of how GATS will impact on them to be conducted before they are required to sign up to any further liberalisation.
We are concerned that the GATS process appears to be dominated by the interests of industrialised countries and their companies, who have been heavily involved in lobbying for an ambitious GATS agreement right from its very beginnings. The LOTIS minutes demonstrated to us that the kind of close working relationship on GATS which the government has with business is incomparable to the frustrating wall of silence which NGOs and parliamentarians seem to hit when trying to find out information in enough detail for it to be useful.
9. Lack of information makes consultation incomplete
Whilst we welcome the government's move to consult stakeholders about the potential impacts of GATS, we feel that our analysis of the risks is necessarily incomplete. There could well be major issues that we have missed, because we have not been able to gain access to the detailed information needed in order to conduct a thorough enough analysis and fully participate in this consultation. For example, requests can be detailed, targeting specific regulations and restrictions, but these have not been made publicly available. This consultation has only presented us with a very brief and general summary, and the government's analysis of the issues at stake, which has been inadequate information on which to base our response - we refer back to the section on definitions and classifications, for example.
Lack of transparency and access to information is a problem that has dogged the GATS process from the very start. We are aware of the argument about commercial sensitivities but we feel that the implications of GATS on such a wide range of stakeholders are too serious to keep shrouded in secrecy.
We are also concerned about the timescale in which this consultation has been undertaken. The consultation was launched on October 10th 2002 and ends on January 3rd 2003. Only 19 WTO members (out of 129, not counting EU member states) had tabled requests to the EU at the time of writing, so the consultation only covers these requests. Despite reassurances that the consultation website would be updated with any requests that came in during the consultation period, this has so far failed to happen despite the fact that at least 9 further requests (including one relating to primary and secondary education) are known to have been tabled, and the consultation period is almost over. Furthermore, the consultation ends in January yet further relevant requests, particularly those relating to 'horizontal' issues, could come in at any time after that. It is not clear how stakeholders are going to be able to comment on these requests.
Most worryingly, we know that this consultation is taking place in parallel to discussions amongst EU member states as to how to respond to the requests they have received. We know that requests relating to education services, public utilities and subsidies were on the agenda for discussion on 27th November. The European Commission will present a first draft initial offer to the EU member state governments in mid January 2003. Member states then comment on the draft until mid-February 2003, when the offers will then go through the finalisation process. It seems unlikely that such a timetable will allow for adequate scrutiny of the responses to this consultation, nor opportunities for parliamentary discussion and public feedback. This suggests to us that the outcome of this consultation may not be central to the formation of UK government policy or EU policy on the GATS. We very much hope that the government can demonstrate to us that this is not the case by acting on the concerns raised in this, and other, submissions.
10. Conclusion
Given the extraordinary complexity and wide-ranging implications of GATS, the lack of clear definition surrounding several of its most significant elements, the many dangers posed by its application to Higher Education, the lack of perceived benefits to students and universities in the UK, and the unpredictable implications of the interface between imminent domestic restructuring and current and future GATS commitments, it would seem extremely inadvisable to undertake further liberalisation of education services and other sectors that impact on education - such as R&D. We recommend in the strongest terms that the government does not risk it.
Instead we recommend that the government calls a halt the current negotiations, and undertakes a full assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of liberalisation. This must be subject to full stakeholder participation, public debate and parliamentary scrutiny, based on access to detailed information about what is being proposed. Finally, we would like to see GATS rewritten in order to permanently protect UK Higher Education and public services in general, and safeguard governments' ability to regulate in the public interest now and in the future. Given the nature of GATS, we do not see how else this crucial goal can be achieved.
