:00:00. > :00:11.That is the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will now be
:00:12. > :00:16.going over live to the House of Lords. You can watch recorded
:00:17. > :00:23.coverage of all of today's business in the House of Lords after the
:00:24. > :00:29.daily politics later tonight. My lords, this amendment is by way of a
:00:30. > :00:34.probing amendment, really just to clarify the situation which has
:00:35. > :00:38.arisen which concerns pretty specifically and possibly uniquely
:00:39. > :00:46.the Guildhall School of music and drama. The Guildhall School is a
:00:47. > :00:51.very unusual institution. Partly because of its history and partly
:00:52. > :00:56.because of its ownership. It is an unincorporated body. It does not
:00:57. > :01:01.have a legal structure, which is common amongst higher education
:01:02. > :01:12.colleges. It was set up 137 years ago in 1880 by the city of the
:01:13. > :01:17.corporation as a conservator, and has never changed its corporate
:01:18. > :01:25.structure since those days. It is owned by the City of London
:01:26. > :01:30.Corporation. It's caught of governors is appointed by the city
:01:31. > :01:34.of the corporation. And indeed something close to one third of its
:01:35. > :01:39.funding comes from the city of Corporation. It is indeed an
:01:40. > :01:45.integral part of the whole structure of the city of, in the same way in
:01:46. > :01:49.deed that the Hamstead Heath and Epping Forest and so on are all run
:01:50. > :02:00.as well, as are various other schools. This gives the problem
:02:01. > :02:12.under the higher education research bill that it is a body that doesn't
:02:13. > :02:18.really fit into the definitions of what the white paper was trying to
:02:19. > :02:23.create, because the Government's white paper, which informs this bill
:02:24. > :02:28.obviously, indicates the Government 's principles for which the office
:02:29. > :02:32.for students under the powers confirmed under this clause would be
:02:33. > :02:42.comparable to those currently required by the AGF CE funded
:02:43. > :02:51.providers in line with the engine code of governors. There is every
:02:52. > :02:55.reason to assume that the governors' principles and visit by clause 15,
:02:56. > :02:59.which the students will be developing, will be applicable to
:03:00. > :03:04.the Guildhall with equal success. This clause however instead uses
:03:05. > :03:09.statutory backing for the principles, and the concern is that
:03:10. > :03:15.in moving to this more formalised position, some of the flexibility
:03:16. > :03:19.which currently exists will be lost, and the ability then to take account
:03:20. > :03:26.of the possibly unique governance structure of the Guildhall School of
:03:27. > :03:32.music will no longer be applicable. This amendment is really to try and
:03:33. > :03:36.flush out whether it is possible to have sufficient flexibility under
:03:37. > :03:39.the new structure to enable the Guildhall School of music to
:03:40. > :03:44.continue in the way that it has in the past, in other words to be an
:03:45. > :03:49.integral part of the Corporation of London. And that is really what this
:03:50. > :03:53.is trying to work out, as to whether things can go on as they are at the
:03:54. > :03:58.moment, or whether things indeed have to change for the Guildhall
:03:59. > :04:07.School of music with possibly unfortunate consequences. And on
:04:08. > :04:13.that basis, I beg to move. Page nine by 19.
:04:14. > :04:22.My lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who not the first time has
:04:23. > :04:25.raised in your lordship's house concern about the City of London
:04:26. > :04:29.Police operation. Clause 15 enables the OFS to take over the
:04:30. > :04:33.responsibility of scrutinising providers' governing documents
:04:34. > :04:38.against the interest of principles. I would like to reassure my noble
:04:39. > :04:42.friend that we do not anticipate any impact on current higher education
:04:43. > :04:47.institutions being recognised by the OFS as higher education providers in
:04:48. > :04:51.the future. The intended practical application of the current and
:04:52. > :04:54.future list is to ensure best practice within already existing and
:04:55. > :05:01.recognised higher education providers governing documents, and
:05:02. > :05:11.it is not the intention of these principles to provide documents. The
:05:12. > :05:14.OFS must consult on new principles with the requirement that there
:05:15. > :05:17.should be a principle protecting academic freedom for staff, which
:05:18. > :05:21.I'm sure the Guildhall has no difficulty with. The Bill does not
:05:22. > :05:25.prescribe what should be included in that list, so I say to my noble
:05:26. > :05:31.friend that there is nothing in clause 15 that should concern the
:05:32. > :05:34.Guildhall School of music, and it should continue to do the valuable
:05:35. > :05:40.work it has been doing for so long, and against that grand of assurance,
:05:41. > :05:47.I hope my honourable friend might be able to withdraw his reassurance. I
:05:48. > :05:50.am grateful to my friend for that because that is precisely what the
:05:51. > :05:57.Guildhall School of music is looking for, some kind of guidance as to
:05:58. > :06:10.what will occur as this bill becomes apparent, and so I beg leave to
:06:11. > :06:17.withdraw my amendment. My lords, I return with this amendment to top --
:06:18. > :06:20.topic that was raised at committee in some detail in relation to what
:06:21. > :06:27.might happen in a hypothetical situation where I higher education
:06:28. > :06:29.provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition relating to
:06:30. > :06:34.the quality of the education it is providing or it ability to implement
:06:35. > :06:37.a student production plan. The Bill is good on these issues, and it is
:06:38. > :06:43.important that we should have measures of this type in statute.
:06:44. > :06:46.But the question that arose during the earlier debate, and which arises
:06:47. > :06:51.still, because the satisfactory answer was not in my view entirely
:06:52. > :06:56.satisfactory is that the only penalty that is specified in the
:06:57. > :06:58.Bill is a financial penalty, in other words in breach of the
:06:59. > :07:04.registration conditions in the terms I have just outlined, an institution
:07:05. > :07:07.would face itself with a fine, which is not specified which can be quite
:07:08. > :07:12.substantial in relation to activities. The point was made
:07:13. > :07:16.during the debate in committee that there may be other sanctions
:07:17. > :07:19.available, and the question is why are these not also in the Bill,
:07:20. > :07:25.because it would surely be helpful to the OFS have a range of possible
:07:26. > :07:29.opportunities to get redress from institutions. And in particular, not
:07:30. > :07:34.necessarily go down a financial route which might of course have the
:07:35. > :07:37.ultimately situation which would not be very satisfactory in terms of the
:07:38. > :07:40.requirement of the Bill to reduce the amount of money that was
:07:41. > :07:45.available to spend on teaching students, so the question was, and
:07:46. > :07:48.specified in the amendment, whether it wouldn't be better to have a
:07:49. > :07:56.numbers cap as well as a financial penalty in that area, and I beg to
:07:57. > :08:03.move. The proposal of the new clause which is printed on the list. Within
:08:04. > :08:07.this part of the Bill concerning registration conditions, so far it
:08:08. > :08:12.appears there is nothing much about restricting enrolment. Clause 16
:08:13. > :08:21.enables monetary penalties, while in various other respects, clauses
:08:22. > :08:28.17-22 inclusive allow for penalties if and when desirable. But
:08:29. > :08:31.subsequent to the central matter, which is enrolment in the first
:08:32. > :08:37.place, in this context, by contrast, it appears erroneous that in certain
:08:38. > :08:42.circumstances a useful scope for the restriction should so far not have
:08:43. > :08:54.been addressed at all. However, with this proposed new clause, the noble
:08:55. > :09:00.lord Lord Stevenson had a timely and was worthy of support.
:09:01. > :09:08.I would like to rise and support the proposition. When we discussed it in
:09:09. > :09:13.committee, the Minister did say that he saw no reason why there should
:09:14. > :09:18.not be a wider range of penalties at the disposal of the office for
:09:19. > :09:21.students. It would be very helpful to have that, I think, confirmed in
:09:22. > :09:26.the Bill, because otherwise it seems to me that there is a possibility of
:09:27. > :09:31.challenge, of the OFS exceeding its powers, if it moved to restrict the
:09:32. > :09:42.number of students in a way that would seem on many occasions
:09:43. > :09:45.entirely appropriate. My lords, the noble baroness lady Woolf expressed
:09:46. > :09:48.concern steering committee that the OFS would not have appropriate
:09:49. > :09:53.powers to restrict student enrolment at a register higher education
:09:54. > :09:55.provider in the event of a breach of registration conditions, and I
:09:56. > :10:01.listened very carefully to her short speech just now. Lady garden and
:10:02. > :10:06.Lord Watson also spoke at the committee. This is a concern that
:10:07. > :10:14.the OFS would not have appropriate powers to restrict student enrolment
:10:15. > :10:19.at a registered provider in event of a breach of enrolment conditions,
:10:20. > :10:21.and will instead have to either impose monetary penalty or
:10:22. > :10:25.deregister the provider, both of which would have a negative impact
:10:26. > :10:28.on the Enron students. It is our intention that such sanctions would
:10:29. > :10:34.only be opposed in exceptional circumstances. The OFS would operate
:10:35. > :10:44.a risk-based system whereby any regulatory action is to be
:10:45. > :10:47.proportionate to the original issue. There are a range of measures such
:10:48. > :10:50.as agreeing a support strategy with the provider or directing that
:10:51. > :10:55.certain actions should be taken through to imposing specific ongoing
:10:56. > :10:59.registration conditions. And finally to sanctions. The imposition of a
:11:00. > :11:05.student number control is precisely the sort of regulatory reaction that
:11:06. > :11:09.can already be used under the powers in clause seven, which allows the
:11:10. > :11:14.OFS impose specific ongoing conditions. Imposing a student
:11:15. > :11:16.number control would not be to the detriment of students already
:11:17. > :11:20.studying with the provider, and would help to ensure that new
:11:21. > :11:22.students that were subsequently enrolled would enjoy high-quality
:11:23. > :11:29.suitably resourced teaching and learning. It is clearly not our
:11:30. > :11:37.intention that the OFS deregister is to Jewish and impose monetary -- it
:11:38. > :11:49.is not our intention that the OFS regulator is to impose monetary
:11:50. > :11:53.sanctions. The OFS could impose student number controls, but we
:11:54. > :11:57.believe it is unnecessary, as the Bill already provides the OFS with
:11:58. > :12:00.the Bill necessary to limit student numbers where appropriate, so
:12:01. > :12:06.without explanation, I ask the noble lord to withdraw his amendment. I am
:12:07. > :12:13.very grateful to the noble lord of the contributing to this debate. It
:12:14. > :12:20.is a point I hadn't spotted myself, and there is a mismatch here in
:12:21. > :12:26.terms of how Institute will be treated. Again, he hasn't quite gone
:12:27. > :12:30.as far as would-be obviously the right thing to do. He made the
:12:31. > :12:36.argument is rather better than I did, but then held back at the last
:12:37. > :12:46.minute, so I might encourage to go a little further and the opinion. Any
:12:47. > :12:51.who are content, say content. Not content, not content.
:12:52. > :16:17.The question is and 50 for being greedy. So content. Not content. Not
:16:18. > :21:39.content go to the left by the bar. The question is that
:21:40. > :23:58.amendment 54 be agreed to. My Lords, they have voted. Contents
:23:59. > :24:17.45, not contents 140, therefore the not contents have it.
:24:18. > :24:27.Amendment 55, Lord Stevenson of Palma Cara. My lords, we come to
:24:28. > :24:32.group 13 and Amendment 50 56, 57, all of which concern protection for
:24:33. > :24:36.students. We are to some extent returning with an issue touched on
:24:37. > :24:46.committee, although the specifics vary somewhat. My lords, we have
:24:47. > :24:53.heard often enough that any institution going bust, driving
:24:54. > :24:55.itself into the sand would be a very rare occurrence, and of course we
:24:56. > :25:00.are going to believe that, we desperately hope that is the case.
:25:01. > :25:05.But it could happen, and at some stage it is pretty much certain that
:25:06. > :25:12.it will happen. And when it does happen, the people that have to be
:25:13. > :25:18.the main concern of every one of the students, those men and women who
:25:19. > :25:20.have taken out a student loan to study at the institution have
:25:21. > :25:26.identified that is the place they want to be, have commenced their
:25:27. > :25:31.studies, in many cases very nearly completed their studies. And the
:25:32. > :25:37.three amendments therefore deal with various scenarios that students
:25:38. > :25:39.might face in the case of grave difficulty of the institution
:25:40. > :25:46.perhaps folding completely. Amendment 55 states that when the
:25:47. > :25:49.officers of students are suspended all registered, higher education
:25:50. > :25:52.provides registration, various provisions have to be made as to
:25:53. > :26:01.what the motives of suspension must promote. There are several appearing
:26:02. > :26:04.under subparagraph six. None of them mentioned what happened to existing
:26:05. > :26:11.students during the suspension period. The purpose of Amendment 55
:26:12. > :26:18.is to put that right, and as the noble Viscount Minister has
:26:19. > :26:22.mentioned on several occasions, and specifically in relation to
:26:23. > :26:25.amendment earlier today about the proposal to change the name of the
:26:26. > :26:28.office of students, the reason that was not possible he said was that
:26:29. > :26:34.students are right at the centre of this legislation. We want that to be
:26:35. > :26:40.very clear. Well, if that is to be as clear as that it must surely be
:26:41. > :26:45.accommodated within that particular clause to which I referred.
:26:46. > :26:49.Amendment 56 goes on to talk about ensuring that students if an
:26:50. > :26:52.institution becomes deregistered are fully notified as to when it
:26:53. > :26:57.happens. This was covered in committee. It seems to me to be self
:26:58. > :27:01.evident that that should take place. I cannot conceive of any notion as
:27:02. > :27:05.to why that would not be the case, and also for them to be told when
:27:06. > :27:11.the expiry of the access and participation plan will occur. In
:27:12. > :27:16.many ways I think the most important of these three is Amendment 50
:27:17. > :27:20.seven. That's about ensuring where a further education provider ceases to
:27:21. > :27:23.be a wood to provide courses for its students, the office for students
:27:24. > :27:29.must seek to place their students on similar courses at another provider.
:27:30. > :27:33.And, as I said, if the government is, as I believe they are, committed
:27:34. > :27:37.to having students at the centre of the legislation, why should students
:27:38. > :27:42.be left to suffer through no fault of their own when a higher education
:27:43. > :27:43.provider is no longer able to deliver the service to which those
:27:44. > :27:55.students signed up? They will be left quite probably if
:27:56. > :27:59.they cannot be found another course out of pocket over fees, because of
:28:00. > :28:04.course fees still have to be repaid, sorry, loans have to be repaid. We
:28:05. > :28:09.believe that the office for students has a due to to assist them in every
:28:10. > :28:14.way possible to insure they can assist them in their studies -- has
:28:15. > :28:18.a Judi to assist them. Overall these three amendments are about
:28:19. > :28:33.protecting students, which cause to which everyone would be happy to
:28:34. > :28:37.subscribe. Amendment proposed. I rise briefly to support Amendment 50
:28:38. > :28:43.seven. That earlier stages in the bill have welcomed the provisions of
:28:44. > :28:46.clause 13, which provides that the office for students can generate
:28:47. > :28:50.student protection plans, and I think that is to be welcomed. The
:28:51. > :28:53.problem as the noble Lord has indicated, we don't know what form
:28:54. > :28:56.that protection will take and I think there needs to be more on the
:28:57. > :29:01.face of the bill. I moved an amendment at committee stage to try
:29:02. > :29:07.to address this, but the government were not at that stage receptor. So
:29:08. > :29:11.I think we really do need to come back to this, as the noble Lord has
:29:12. > :29:15.said, it is the office for students. Students are meant to be at the
:29:16. > :29:20.heart of this measure, and yet students are not good to have any
:29:21. > :29:27.idea what protection they have when they undertake a course of study.
:29:28. > :29:33.Clause 13 does refer as an example to a course failing to be provided
:29:34. > :29:37.when it comes to protection, so what precisely is the protection being
:29:38. > :29:41.accorded to students? I think they need that reassurance if they are
:29:42. > :29:46.actually to pursue these causes to sign up for them in the first place,
:29:47. > :29:50.so then I think amendment 57 gets out this particular problem, and I
:29:51. > :29:58.welcome the fact that we are again considering it. I think student
:29:59. > :30:01.Chumak deserve to have some idea what type of protection there will
:30:02. > :30:12.be for them when they undertake a course of study. . I support the
:30:13. > :30:16.amendments to which I have put my name, and everything that the low
:30:17. > :30:20.balls Lords have said so far. When the higher education Bill was first
:30:21. > :30:24.introduced, the Minister, both Ministers, pointed out that the
:30:25. > :30:26.environment in which higher education takes place has changed
:30:27. > :30:32.dramatically in recent years, and indeed it has so students now, very
:30:33. > :30:36.large numbers, take out large loans, and they do so in the belief and
:30:37. > :30:41.confidence that the institutions that they attend have been in some
:30:42. > :30:46.sense guaranteed by government that they are doing something which they
:30:47. > :30:52.are safe in doing, that they will be able to complete their studies. Now
:30:53. > :30:58.that is fortunately in most cases true, but of course it isn't always
:30:59. > :31:00.necessarily true, and anybody who looks at experience in other
:31:01. > :31:07.countries will realise that institutions do fail, and indeed
:31:08. > :31:11.some are non-degree awarding institutions that have failed in the
:31:12. > :31:14.past. And indeed the competition markets authority says cheerfully on
:31:15. > :31:20.its website that the sign of a healthy sector is that you have some
:31:21. > :31:26.exit. Exit sounds quite cool, really, unless you happen to be one
:31:27. > :31:31.of the students in an exiting institution. The technical education
:31:32. > :31:36.Bill is also going through, and since I attend both, part of the
:31:37. > :31:40.time I whinge, but mostly it is a very informative exercise, because
:31:41. > :31:45.of course we do now have a tertiary sector as much as anything else. And
:31:46. > :31:51.the protections that are being introduced for students in further
:31:52. > :31:54.education colleges go well beyond anything that has been specified for
:31:55. > :31:59.students in higher education, and I think that is highly regrettable. I
:32:00. > :32:02.think that it is really important that in this new and changed
:32:03. > :32:10.environment, we realise that students need new and changed
:32:11. > :32:17.protection. And just to give an example, in the training sector, we
:32:18. > :32:22.have for a long time had very many quite small and sometimes quite
:32:23. > :32:27.large rapidly changing institutions, and just before these bills were
:32:28. > :32:34.introduced to the House, we had the first story of a training provider
:32:35. > :32:40.who went into liquidation, leaving many, many people with outstanding
:32:41. > :32:44.loans and no obvious recalls. In the few weeks since both bills have
:32:45. > :32:50.started to work their way through, we have had two other such failures,
:32:51. > :32:55.and I will be happy to let anybody know who is curious about their
:32:56. > :33:00.names, but once again, what you are left with is in this case adult
:33:01. > :33:07.learners who have loans and who have no ongoing course. And when I raised
:33:08. > :33:12.this with officials, I was told that the risks were less bad for
:33:13. > :33:16.university students because they were more mobile, less local. But
:33:17. > :33:21.that really isn't true. If you talk to many of our university
:33:22. > :33:26.institutions, you will find that actually, this is not true of my
:33:27. > :33:30.own, but it is true of many institutions, they have home
:33:31. > :33:35.students who are almost all highly local, often because they come from
:33:36. > :33:41.less advantaged families and are very unhappy about taking out major
:33:42. > :33:46.loans, so they are very local, and if the institution fails, they don't
:33:47. > :33:50.have anywhere else to go. So I would hope very much that Ministers would
:33:51. > :33:56.feel able ideally to accept particularly I would agree amendment
:33:57. > :33:59.57, which would seem to me to be the least we can do in an environment
:34:00. > :34:04.where we are in effect making a promise to students. If it turns out
:34:05. > :34:11.that they can't be kept, they ought to be looked after. Your Lordships
:34:12. > :34:15.have heard me speak in this context as Chancellor of the University of
:34:16. > :34:21.Birmingham and chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge arch business
:34:22. > :34:25.school, but years ago when I was qualifying as a chartered accountant
:34:26. > :34:30.at the Institute of chartered accountants in any unknown Wales, I
:34:31. > :34:35.spent a year at what is now London Metropolitan University, and I want
:34:36. > :34:39.to draw an analogy here. In 2012, London Metropolitan University where
:34:40. > :34:46.I have been a visiting professor as well, they lost their right to
:34:47. > :34:50.recruit international students. My lords, there were 2700 students at
:34:51. > :34:55.that time with valid visas who had come in good faith, international
:34:56. > :35:00.students, and they were given 60 days to find a place at another
:35:01. > :35:06.institution. This was not only jeopardising their lives, their
:35:07. > :35:11.futures, but it also put an institution with 30,000 students and
:35:12. > :35:16.2000 staff at jeopardy and in crisis. The implications of
:35:17. > :35:24.something like this is not only to that institution but in the context
:35:25. > :35:28.of international students and international student affairs,
:35:29. > :35:32.today, universities UK have released their report on international
:35:33. > :35:36.students, showing that there are nearly 450,000 international
:35:37. > :35:42.students in the UK, of which 130,000 are from the European Union. And the
:35:43. > :35:48.contribution that they make to Britain in gross terms is ?25
:35:49. > :35:53.billion is what they spend directly and indirectly in our economy, and
:35:54. > :35:55.with Brexit coming up, the uncertainty of international
:35:56. > :36:01.students let alone Huw students is already there. If they have the
:36:02. > :36:04.added uncertainty that if they join an institution but if that
:36:05. > :36:09.institution fails, they are left high and dry, I don't think that is
:36:10. > :36:13.right, I think that is affecting our economy and our ability to recruit
:36:14. > :36:16.international students. As it is we have immigration rules that are
:36:17. > :36:20.against international students, which we will talk about later on at
:36:21. > :36:26.this report stage. So I would urge the Government to take this very
:36:27. > :36:28.seriously, because it is our domestic students, giving them
:36:29. > :36:39.security, and also for our international students and our
:36:40. > :36:43.reputation around the world. I wasn't intending to speak on this
:36:44. > :36:51.issue. I just think it is really important that if any of us had
:36:52. > :36:57.children who we sent off to higher education, we would expect that that
:36:58. > :37:03.higher education institution would give them the support that they
:37:04. > :37:11.need. And there are of course private colleges which have their
:37:12. > :37:16.courses validated by individual universities, and of course those
:37:17. > :37:22.private colleges code under certain circumstances get into difficulties,
:37:23. > :37:27.and then ceased trading. What happens to the student? What happens
:37:28. > :37:33.to the student loan? What happens to those circumstances? As Baroness
:37:34. > :37:36.Wulf rightly says, we are already seeing this in further education,
:37:37. > :37:41.where training providers are going into liquidation. They are all
:37:42. > :37:45.right, they have gone into liquidation, but the poor student is
:37:46. > :37:50.left high and dry, so I hope when the Minister replies they might give
:37:51. > :37:58.assurances into this particular issue. My lords, I am grateful to
:37:59. > :38:02.all noble Lords who have spoken on this debate, which has raised the
:38:03. > :38:07.important issue of student protection in case of suspension of
:38:08. > :38:12.registration or indeed deregistration, and I think there is
:38:13. > :38:15.no disagreement that student protection is important, and that is
:38:16. > :38:18.why in the Bill we have gone further than ever before by including an
:38:19. > :38:24.express provision in the Bill enabling the OFS to ensure
:38:25. > :38:29.appropriate protections for students through a key condition of provider
:38:30. > :38:32.registration. The noble lord and others have made some help for
:38:33. > :38:37.suggestions regarding the likely content of student protection plans
:38:38. > :38:41.which we agree need to be robust and copper heads of in their coverage.
:38:42. > :38:45.These plans are likely to include a diverse range of measures to protect
:38:46. > :38:49.students as well as a diverse range of possible triggers for a student
:38:50. > :38:53.protection plan, including suspension of registration. In
:38:54. > :38:57.response to the concerns that have been expressed in this debate, I can
:38:58. > :39:01.say that draft guidance will be prepared for consultation with the
:39:02. > :39:06.sector and students as part of the regulatory framework consultation
:39:07. > :39:08.later this year, and we would expect it to include information on how and
:39:09. > :39:14.when a provider should refer students to student protection plan,
:39:15. > :39:16.for example during suspension of registration, and it would be wrong
:39:17. > :39:22.to pre-empt the consultation by including these measures in the Bill
:39:23. > :39:25.itself. But could I seek to reassure noble Lords who have spoken in this
:39:26. > :39:29.today that the measures that I have just referred to could include four
:39:30. > :39:35.example provision to teach a course to the end for existing students,
:39:36. > :39:38.offering students alternative courses at the same situation,
:39:39. > :39:40.making arrangements for affected students to switch to a different
:39:41. > :39:46.provider without having to start their course from scratch, and in
:39:47. > :39:50.response to an issue raised by the noble lord Watson, measures to
:39:51. > :39:55.compensate affected students financially. And I hope that those
:39:56. > :40:00.examples provide some reassurance to noble Lords that we do have in mind
:40:01. > :40:03.the contingency arrangements that they have outlined in this debate.
:40:04. > :40:09.Clause 17 of the Bill places a clear duty on the OFS to notify through
:40:10. > :40:13.its maintenance of the register when a provider has been suspended, and a
:40:14. > :40:19.similar duty is imposed on the OFS in clauses 19 and 23 when providers
:40:20. > :40:27.are deregistered. The OFS already has the power given in clause 72
:40:28. > :40:31.require a provider's governing body to make sure that students are
:40:32. > :40:34.informed about the action. However, widespread publicity of preliminary
:40:35. > :40:40.plans measures may not always be appropriate in every case. Before
:40:41. > :40:42.the OFS can impose a sanction of suspension and deregistration, it
:40:43. > :40:47.must notify a provider of its intent to do so, unless an urgent
:40:48. > :40:54.suspension is being imposed, and then allow the provider to argue its
:40:55. > :40:57.case or put the matter right. As I'm sure noble Lords will agree, the
:40:58. > :41:01.desired outcome for the benefit of students and the providers alike is
:41:02. > :41:04.that the provider takes the actions necessary to ensure that they comply
:41:05. > :41:09.with the conditions of registration that have been placed upon them, and
:41:10. > :41:13.so no further action would then be required. There are also important
:41:14. > :41:22.matters of confidentiality at play here. A key concern has previously
:41:23. > :41:25.been raised. HE providers would not wish the OFS to announce that they
:41:26. > :41:28.were carrying out an investigation into a provider, as this could lead
:41:29. > :41:38.to unnecessary whippy day shall damage. If the OFS subsequently
:41:39. > :41:46.decided not to take action. -- unnecessary reputational damage.
:41:47. > :41:48.This would not in our view generally be helpful or appropriate to
:41:49. > :41:54.students, and it is the inclusion of the words intention to that I find
:41:55. > :41:57.difficulty with in Amendment 50 six. My lords, an Amendment 57, I have
:41:58. > :42:02.listened to the thoughtful debate we have had this evening, and indeed I
:42:03. > :42:07.have read the debates in the Other Place on the issue of student
:42:08. > :42:09.transfer. We have tabled an amendment, number 100, on this
:42:10. > :42:15.important issue, which we have already discussed. Our amendment
:42:16. > :42:17.will acquire the OFS to monitor and report on student transfer
:42:18. > :42:22.arrangements by the registered higher education providers, and it
:42:23. > :42:27.will empower the OFS to facilitate, encourage or promote awareness of
:42:28. > :42:29.these arrangements. In doing so, the Government is creating the
:42:30. > :42:33.conditions to allow the necessary flexibility for students to make the
:42:34. > :42:36.right choices for themselves, and to have control over those decisions
:42:37. > :42:41.whatever the reason for their transfer. The amendment that is
:42:42. > :42:45.proposed, which noble Lords have spoken to, would result in the OFS
:42:46. > :42:48.trying to make arrangements for students to be placed on other
:42:49. > :42:54.courses if their current course closed. However, the decision of
:42:55. > :42:57.what courses to offer falls within the institutional autonomy of each
:42:58. > :43:02.provider, and while I recognise the importance of students being able to
:43:03. > :43:05.transfer, particularly where their institution ceases to offer their
:43:06. > :43:11.planned learning, it is not and nor should it be the OFS's gift to
:43:12. > :43:13.determine whether students and institutions accept students from
:43:14. > :43:19.elsewhere. This has never been the role undertaken by the OFS's
:43:20. > :43:22.predecessor, and there is no intention for it to be taken on by
:43:23. > :43:27.the OFS, so it must surely be preferable for the sector to be in
:43:28. > :43:30.control of transfer processes, including where appropriate as part
:43:31. > :43:34.of the student protection plan, and for the OFS to play a greater role
:43:35. > :43:39.in facilitating and encouraging the availability and take-up of such
:43:40. > :43:42.arrangements. And in response to my noble friend Lord Norton who was
:43:43. > :43:46.concerned that students want to know what protections they have, we have
:43:47. > :43:49.listened to concerns on this issue, and that is why in the Other Place
:43:50. > :43:56.we brought forward an amendment to require plans to be published, and
:43:57. > :43:58.therefore brought to the students' attention, and so this balanced
:43:59. > :44:02.approach is what our amendment sought to achieve, and against that
:44:03. > :44:09.background, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw Amendment 50 five.
:44:10. > :44:18.He did give the impression of a man thrashing around in a deep pool
:44:19. > :44:22.there, desperately trying to find something to cling onto and I have
:44:23. > :44:30.to say I did not find his arguments convincing. I did say when I was
:44:31. > :44:34.moving this group of amendments that it has been stated time and again
:44:35. > :44:40.that the government wanted students at the centre of the whole of this
:44:41. > :44:43.bill. I will quote it now, clause 18 said that when a decision is to
:44:44. > :44:47.suspend the provider's registration the notice must specify the date on
:44:48. > :44:53.which the suspension takes a fake, the effective purposes, the medial
:44:54. > :44:56.conditions at any and maintain the grounds of the suspension, it does
:44:57. > :45:04.not specify what happened to students during the suspension
:45:05. > :45:08.period. Why not? How would hinder any institution if that was placed
:45:09. > :45:12.on the face of the bill? It is surely the sort of thing that
:45:13. > :45:15.students are entitled to know, when the institution is getting into
:45:16. > :45:20.difficulty and I don't see why it should provide any difficulty at
:45:21. > :45:25.all. I have to say I did enjoy the analogy drawn by the noble Baroness
:45:26. > :45:31.with this bill and the technical and further education Bill, which is she
:45:32. > :45:34.said, is about the insolvencies of further education colleges and for
:45:35. > :45:38.the avoidance of any doubt, the minister in charge of the bill has
:45:39. > :45:42.ensured noble Lords that will never happen either so we are to believe
:45:43. > :45:45.that there is no greater chance of it happening in the further
:45:46. > :45:48.education sector and yet three quarters of the bill is about
:45:49. > :45:52.insolvency. It would have been helpful if the vehicle used for
:45:53. > :45:59.dealing with insolvencies in the further education Bill, the special
:46:00. > :46:02.education administrator, had some equivalent in this bill because it
:46:03. > :46:08.will be the case that situations will arise where he or she, or that
:46:09. > :46:13.kind of role is necessary and it cannot be carried out just by the
:46:14. > :46:19.office for students. To some extent, without having that particular
:46:20. > :46:23.person provided for in the bill, this section of it, in terms of
:46:24. > :46:30.colleges, further education students getting into difficulty, there is no
:46:31. > :46:33.such equivalent in higher education and we are left with a section of
:46:34. > :46:37.the bill which is rather like Hamlet without the prince. No one will be
:46:38. > :46:41.appointed by the court in this section and that is the difference
:46:42. > :46:44.between this and the further education Bill. He talked about
:46:45. > :46:50.draft guidance for consultations with staff and students on when a
:46:51. > :46:53.student protection plan becomes effective but the amendments here
:46:54. > :47:00.are not about pre-empting, we're talking about a situation after the
:47:01. > :47:07.college has got into difficulties and it is about reacting to that,
:47:08. > :47:12.not anticipating it. I think it is important that different is
:47:13. > :47:17.understood. I have to say to the Minister that particularly in
:47:18. > :47:21.relation to Amendment 57, which we certainly welcome support from both
:47:22. > :47:24.the crossbenchers and government benches, we have made it easier for
:47:25. > :47:30.the office for students because the wording says that the authors must
:47:31. > :47:32.seek to make arrangements for the students about provider to be
:47:33. > :47:37.offered places on a similar course with another higher education
:47:38. > :47:45.provided. We could have omitted the word seek to. We had been helpful to
:47:46. > :47:50.the government by only suggesting the OFS should seek to do that. I
:47:51. > :47:55.take the point that some students would not like to be told by the
:47:56. > :47:59.OFS, sorry, your University is closed, here is where you will go as
:48:00. > :48:03.of next week. That is not the way I would envisage it happening, it
:48:04. > :48:09.would be about choices. The noble Lord talk about student choices and
:48:10. > :48:14.they should as far as possible be provided by the OFS. They have the
:48:15. > :48:18.overall responsibility as the regulator and therefore they should
:48:19. > :48:21.be able to say to students, you are without a class at the moment, this
:48:22. > :48:26.is what we suggest. I acknowledge the point that the noble Baroness
:48:27. > :48:29.said that there will be cases where colleges are very local and students
:48:30. > :48:33.are not willing to travel to the next town or another part if it were
:48:34. > :48:36.London to complete their studies and on that basis they might decide that
:48:37. > :48:43.not completing the Saudis is possible but they should have
:48:44. > :48:47.choices. I find it very surprising, and I come back to this, students
:48:48. > :48:51.being at the centre of this bill and get the OFS is not to be allowed to
:48:52. > :49:00.seek to provide options for them to continue studies. I think that is a
:49:01. > :49:04.real failing of the government's commitment and I think we should be
:49:05. > :49:08.asking what is the real commitment in the interests of students and
:49:09. > :49:12.that should be the test. The test to which we should put it is to test
:49:13. > :49:22.the opinion of the house. The question is that this and would be
:49:23. > :49:26.agreeing to -- agreed to. I think the not contents. Be not contents
:49:27. > :49:40.it. Amendment 50 six. Amendment 57, Lord
:49:41. > :49:44.Stevenson not moved. On this amendment, and apologise for
:49:45. > :49:48.previous confusion, I wish to test the opinion of the house. The
:49:49. > :50:00.question is that this amendment be agreed to. I think the knot contents
:50:01. > :50:04.habit. Clear the bar. -- with the knot
:50:05. > :53:17.The question is that Amendment 57 Rugby agreed to. -- be agreed to.
:53:18. > :53:19.The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the
:53:20. > :59:53.left by the bar. The question is that amendment 57 be
:59:54. > :01:13.agreed to. Contents 36, not contents 138, so
:01:14. > :01:37.the not content to Mac have it. Amendments 58 and 59 moved formerly.
:01:38. > :01:47.The question is that amendments 58 and 59 be approved on block. The
:01:48. > :01:57.contents have it. Amendment 60, not moved. Amendment 61, not moved. I
:01:58. > :02:00.beg to move that further consideration on report be now
:02:01. > :02:04.adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report be
:02:05. > :02:10.now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say content. Contrary,
:02:11. > :02:14.not contents. The contents have it. And I beg to move the House do now
:02:15. > :03:24.adjourned. That the House do now adjourned.
:03:25. > :03:30.My lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the
:03:31. > :03:32.order paper, and in doing so I declare my interest is chair of the
:03:33. > :03:40.Leeds University Law schools advisory board. My lords, as the
:03:41. > :03:44.legal profession in England and Wales and the bodies that regulate
:03:45. > :03:45.it are independent from Government, we have not made any assessment