06/03/2017 House of Lords


06/03/2017

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

That is the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will now be

:00:00.:00:11.

going over live to the House of Lords. You can watch recorded

:00:12.:00:16.

coverage of all of today's business in the House of Lords after the

:00:17.:00:23.

daily politics later tonight. My lords, this amendment is by way of a

:00:24.:00:29.

probing amendment, really just to clarify the situation which has

:00:30.:00:34.

arisen which concerns pretty specifically and possibly uniquely

:00:35.:00:38.

the Guildhall School of music and drama. The Guildhall School is a

:00:39.:00:46.

very unusual institution. Partly because of its history and partly

:00:47.:00:51.

because of its ownership. It is an unincorporated body. It does not

:00:52.:00:56.

have a legal structure, which is common amongst higher education

:00:57.:01:01.

colleges. It was set up 137 years ago in 1880 by the city of the

:01:02.:01:12.

corporation as a conservator, and has never changed its corporate

:01:13.:01:17.

structure since those days. It is owned by the City of London

:01:18.:01:25.

Corporation. It's caught of governors is appointed by the city

:01:26.:01:30.

of the corporation. And indeed something close to one third of its

:01:31.:01:34.

funding comes from the city of Corporation. It is indeed an

:01:35.:01:39.

integral part of the whole structure of the city of, in the same way in

:01:40.:01:45.

deed that the Hamstead Heath and Epping Forest and so on are all run

:01:46.:01:49.

as well, as are various other schools. This gives the problem

:01:50.:02:00.

under the higher education research bill that it is a body that doesn't

:02:01.:02:12.

really fit into the definitions of what the white paper was trying to

:02:13.:02:18.

create, because the Government's white paper, which informs this bill

:02:19.:02:23.

obviously, indicates the Government 's principles for which the office

:02:24.:02:28.

for students under the powers confirmed under this clause would be

:02:29.:02:32.

comparable to those currently required by the AGF CE funded

:02:33.:02:42.

providers in line with the engine code of governors. There is every

:02:43.:02:51.

reason to assume that the governors' principles and visit by clause 15,

:02:52.:02:55.

which the students will be developing, will be applicable to

:02:56.:02:59.

the Guildhall with equal success. This clause however instead uses

:03:00.:03:04.

statutory backing for the principles, and the concern is that

:03:05.:03:09.

in moving to this more formalised position, some of the flexibility

:03:10.:03:15.

which currently exists will be lost, and the ability then to take account

:03:16.:03:19.

of the possibly unique governance structure of the Guildhall School of

:03:20.:03:26.

music will no longer be applicable. This amendment is really to try and

:03:27.:03:32.

flush out whether it is possible to have sufficient flexibility under

:03:33.:03:36.

the new structure to enable the Guildhall School of music to

:03:37.:03:39.

continue in the way that it has in the past, in other words to be an

:03:40.:03:44.

integral part of the Corporation of London. And that is really what this

:03:45.:03:49.

is trying to work out, as to whether things can go on as they are at the

:03:50.:03:53.

moment, or whether things indeed have to change for the Guildhall

:03:54.:03:58.

School of music with possibly unfortunate consequences. And on

:03:59.:04:07.

that basis, I beg to move. Page nine by 19.

:04:08.:04:13.

My lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who not the first time has

:04:14.:04:22.

raised in your lordship's house concern about the City of London

:04:23.:04:25.

Police operation. Clause 15 enables the OFS to take over the

:04:26.:04:29.

responsibility of scrutinising providers' governing documents

:04:30.:04:33.

against the interest of principles. I would like to reassure my noble

:04:34.:04:38.

friend that we do not anticipate any impact on current higher education

:04:39.:04:42.

institutions being recognised by the OFS as higher education providers in

:04:43.:04:47.

the future. The intended practical application of the current and

:04:48.:04:51.

future list is to ensure best practice within already existing and

:04:52.:04:54.

recognised higher education providers governing documents, and

:04:55.:05:01.

it is not the intention of these principles to provide documents. The

:05:02.:05:11.

OFS must consult on new principles with the requirement that there

:05:12.:05:14.

should be a principle protecting academic freedom for staff, which

:05:15.:05:17.

I'm sure the Guildhall has no difficulty with. The Bill does not

:05:18.:05:21.

prescribe what should be included in that list, so I say to my noble

:05:22.:05:25.

friend that there is nothing in clause 15 that should concern the

:05:26.:05:31.

Guildhall School of music, and it should continue to do the valuable

:05:32.:05:34.

work it has been doing for so long, and against that grand of assurance,

:05:35.:05:40.

I hope my honourable friend might be able to withdraw his reassurance. I

:05:41.:05:47.

am grateful to my friend for that because that is precisely what the

:05:48.:05:50.

Guildhall School of music is looking for, some kind of guidance as to

:05:51.:05:57.

what will occur as this bill becomes apparent, and so I beg leave to

:05:58.:06:10.

withdraw my amendment. My lords, I return with this amendment to top --

:06:11.:06:17.

topic that was raised at committee in some detail in relation to what

:06:18.:06:20.

might happen in a hypothetical situation where I higher education

:06:21.:06:27.

provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition relating to

:06:28.:06:29.

the quality of the education it is providing or it ability to implement

:06:30.:06:34.

a student production plan. The Bill is good on these issues, and it is

:06:35.:06:37.

important that we should have measures of this type in statute.

:06:38.:06:43.

But the question that arose during the earlier debate, and which arises

:06:44.:06:46.

still, because the satisfactory answer was not in my view entirely

:06:47.:06:51.

satisfactory is that the only penalty that is specified in the

:06:52.:06:56.

Bill is a financial penalty, in other words in breach of the

:06:57.:06:58.

registration conditions in the terms I have just outlined, an institution

:06:59.:07:04.

would face itself with a fine, which is not specified which can be quite

:07:05.:07:07.

substantial in relation to activities. The point was made

:07:08.:07:12.

during the debate in committee that there may be other sanctions

:07:13.:07:16.

available, and the question is why are these not also in the Bill,

:07:17.:07:19.

because it would surely be helpful to the OFS have a range of possible

:07:20.:07:25.

opportunities to get redress from institutions. And in particular, not

:07:26.:07:29.

necessarily go down a financial route which might of course have the

:07:30.:07:34.

ultimately situation which would not be very satisfactory in terms of the

:07:35.:07:37.

requirement of the Bill to reduce the amount of money that was

:07:38.:07:40.

available to spend on teaching students, so the question was, and

:07:41.:07:45.

specified in the amendment, whether it wouldn't be better to have a

:07:46.:07:48.

numbers cap as well as a financial penalty in that area, and I beg to

:07:49.:07:56.

move. The proposal of the new clause which is printed on the list. Within

:07:57.:08:03.

this part of the Bill concerning registration conditions, so far it

:08:04.:08:07.

appears there is nothing much about restricting enrolment. Clause 16

:08:08.:08:12.

enables monetary penalties, while in various other respects, clauses

:08:13.:08:21.

17-22 inclusive allow for penalties if and when desirable. But

:08:22.:08:28.

subsequent to the central matter, which is enrolment in the first

:08:29.:08:31.

place, in this context, by contrast, it appears erroneous that in certain

:08:32.:08:37.

circumstances a useful scope for the restriction should so far not have

:08:38.:08:42.

been addressed at all. However, with this proposed new clause, the noble

:08:43.:08:54.

lord Lord Stevenson had a timely and was worthy of support.

:08:55.:09:00.

I would like to rise and support the proposition. When we discussed it in

:09:01.:09:08.

committee, the Minister did say that he saw no reason why there should

:09:09.:09:13.

not be a wider range of penalties at the disposal of the office for

:09:14.:09:18.

students. It would be very helpful to have that, I think, confirmed in

:09:19.:09:21.

the Bill, because otherwise it seems to me that there is a possibility of

:09:22.:09:26.

challenge, of the OFS exceeding its powers, if it moved to restrict the

:09:27.:09:31.

number of students in a way that would seem on many occasions

:09:32.:09:42.

entirely appropriate. My lords, the noble baroness lady Woolf expressed

:09:43.:09:45.

concern steering committee that the OFS would not have appropriate

:09:46.:09:48.

powers to restrict student enrolment at a register higher education

:09:49.:09:53.

provider in the event of a breach of registration conditions, and I

:09:54.:09:55.

listened very carefully to her short speech just now. Lady garden and

:09:56.:10:01.

Lord Watson also spoke at the committee. This is a concern that

:10:02.:10:06.

the OFS would not have appropriate powers to restrict student enrolment

:10:07.:10:14.

at a registered provider in event of a breach of enrolment conditions,

:10:15.:10:19.

and will instead have to either impose monetary penalty or

:10:20.:10:21.

deregister the provider, both of which would have a negative impact

:10:22.:10:25.

on the Enron students. It is our intention that such sanctions would

:10:26.:10:28.

only be opposed in exceptional circumstances. The OFS would operate

:10:29.:10:34.

a risk-based system whereby any regulatory action is to be

:10:35.:10:44.

proportionate to the original issue. There are a range of measures such

:10:45.:10:47.

as agreeing a support strategy with the provider or directing that

:10:48.:10:50.

certain actions should be taken through to imposing specific ongoing

:10:51.:10:55.

registration conditions. And finally to sanctions. The imposition of a

:10:56.:10:59.

student number control is precisely the sort of regulatory reaction that

:11:00.:11:05.

can already be used under the powers in clause seven, which allows the

:11:06.:11:09.

OFS impose specific ongoing conditions. Imposing a student

:11:10.:11:14.

number control would not be to the detriment of students already

:11:15.:11:16.

studying with the provider, and would help to ensure that new

:11:17.:11:20.

students that were subsequently enrolled would enjoy high-quality

:11:21.:11:22.

suitably resourced teaching and learning. It is clearly not our

:11:23.:11:29.

intention that the OFS deregister is to Jewish and impose monetary -- it

:11:30.:11:37.

is not our intention that the OFS regulator is to impose monetary

:11:38.:11:49.

sanctions. The OFS could impose student number controls, but we

:11:50.:11:53.

believe it is unnecessary, as the Bill already provides the OFS with

:11:54.:11:57.

the Bill necessary to limit student numbers where appropriate, so

:11:58.:12:00.

without explanation, I ask the noble lord to withdraw his amendment. I am

:12:01.:12:06.

very grateful to the noble lord of the contributing to this debate. It

:12:07.:12:13.

is a point I hadn't spotted myself, and there is a mismatch here in

:12:14.:12:20.

terms of how Institute will be treated. Again, he hasn't quite gone

:12:21.:12:26.

as far as would-be obviously the right thing to do. He made the

:12:27.:12:30.

argument is rather better than I did, but then held back at the last

:12:31.:12:36.

minute, so I might encourage to go a little further and the opinion. Any

:12:37.:12:46.

who are content, say content. Not content, not content.

:12:47.:12:51.

The question is and 50 for being greedy. So content. Not content. Not

:12:52.:16:17.

content go to the left by the bar. The question is that

:16:18.:21:39.

amendment 54 be agreed to. My Lords, they have voted. Contents

:21:40.:23:58.

45, not contents 140, therefore the not contents have it.

:23:59.:24:17.

Amendment 55, Lord Stevenson of Palma Cara. My lords, we come to

:24:18.:24:27.

group 13 and Amendment 50 56, 57, all of which concern protection for

:24:28.:24:32.

students. We are to some extent returning with an issue touched on

:24:33.:24:36.

committee, although the specifics vary somewhat. My lords, we have

:24:37.:24:46.

heard often enough that any institution going bust, driving

:24:47.:24:53.

itself into the sand would be a very rare occurrence, and of course we

:24:54.:24:55.

are going to believe that, we desperately hope that is the case.

:24:56.:25:00.

But it could happen, and at some stage it is pretty much certain that

:25:01.:25:05.

it will happen. And when it does happen, the people that have to be

:25:06.:25:12.

the main concern of every one of the students, those men and women who

:25:13.:25:18.

have taken out a student loan to study at the institution have

:25:19.:25:20.

identified that is the place they want to be, have commenced their

:25:21.:25:26.

studies, in many cases very nearly completed their studies. And the

:25:27.:25:31.

three amendments therefore deal with various scenarios that students

:25:32.:25:37.

might face in the case of grave difficulty of the institution

:25:38.:25:39.

perhaps folding completely. Amendment 55 states that when the

:25:40.:25:46.

officers of students are suspended all registered, higher education

:25:47.:25:49.

provides registration, various provisions have to be made as to

:25:50.:25:52.

what the motives of suspension must promote. There are several appearing

:25:53.:26:01.

under subparagraph six. None of them mentioned what happened to existing

:26:02.:26:04.

students during the suspension period. The purpose of Amendment 55

:26:05.:26:11.

is to put that right, and as the noble Viscount Minister has

:26:12.:26:18.

mentioned on several occasions, and specifically in relation to

:26:19.:26:22.

amendment earlier today about the proposal to change the name of the

:26:23.:26:25.

office of students, the reason that was not possible he said was that

:26:26.:26:28.

students are right at the centre of this legislation. We want that to be

:26:29.:26:34.

very clear. Well, if that is to be as clear as that it must surely be

:26:35.:26:40.

accommodated within that particular clause to which I referred.

:26:41.:26:45.

Amendment 56 goes on to talk about ensuring that students if an

:26:46.:26:49.

institution becomes deregistered are fully notified as to when it

:26:50.:26:52.

happens. This was covered in committee. It seems to me to be self

:26:53.:26:57.

evident that that should take place. I cannot conceive of any notion as

:26:58.:27:01.

to why that would not be the case, and also for them to be told when

:27:02.:27:05.

the expiry of the access and participation plan will occur. In

:27:06.:27:11.

many ways I think the most important of these three is Amendment 50

:27:12.:27:16.

seven. That's about ensuring where a further education provider ceases to

:27:17.:27:20.

be a wood to provide courses for its students, the office for students

:27:21.:27:23.

must seek to place their students on similar courses at another provider.

:27:24.:27:29.

And, as I said, if the government is, as I believe they are, committed

:27:30.:27:33.

to having students at the centre of the legislation, why should students

:27:34.:27:37.

be left to suffer through no fault of their own when a higher education

:27:38.:27:42.

provider is no longer able to deliver the service to which those

:27:43.:27:43.

students signed up? They will be left quite probably if

:27:44.:27:55.

they cannot be found another course out of pocket over fees, because of

:27:56.:27:59.

course fees still have to be repaid, sorry, loans have to be repaid. We

:28:00.:28:04.

believe that the office for students has a due to to assist them in every

:28:05.:28:09.

way possible to insure they can assist them in their studies -- has

:28:10.:28:14.

a Judi to assist them. Overall these three amendments are about

:28:15.:28:18.

protecting students, which cause to which everyone would be happy to

:28:19.:28:33.

subscribe. Amendment proposed. I rise briefly to support Amendment 50

:28:34.:28:37.

seven. That earlier stages in the bill have welcomed the provisions of

:28:38.:28:43.

clause 13, which provides that the office for students can generate

:28:44.:28:46.

student protection plans, and I think that is to be welcomed. The

:28:47.:28:50.

problem as the noble Lord has indicated, we don't know what form

:28:51.:28:53.

that protection will take and I think there needs to be more on the

:28:54.:28:56.

face of the bill. I moved an amendment at committee stage to try

:28:57.:29:01.

to address this, but the government were not at that stage receptor. So

:29:02.:29:07.

I think we really do need to come back to this, as the noble Lord has

:29:08.:29:11.

said, it is the office for students. Students are meant to be at the

:29:12.:29:15.

heart of this measure, and yet students are not good to have any

:29:16.:29:20.

idea what protection they have when they undertake a course of study.

:29:21.:29:27.

Clause 13 does refer as an example to a course failing to be provided

:29:28.:29:33.

when it comes to protection, so what precisely is the protection being

:29:34.:29:37.

accorded to students? I think they need that reassurance if they are

:29:38.:29:41.

actually to pursue these causes to sign up for them in the first place,

:29:42.:29:46.

so then I think amendment 57 gets out this particular problem, and I

:29:47.:29:50.

welcome the fact that we are again considering it. I think student

:29:51.:29:58.

Chumak deserve to have some idea what type of protection there will

:29:59.:30:01.

be for them when they undertake a course of study. . I support the

:30:02.:30:12.

amendments to which I have put my name, and everything that the low

:30:13.:30:16.

balls Lords have said so far. When the higher education Bill was first

:30:17.:30:20.

introduced, the Minister, both Ministers, pointed out that the

:30:21.:30:24.

environment in which higher education takes place has changed

:30:25.:30:26.

dramatically in recent years, and indeed it has so students now, very

:30:27.:30:32.

large numbers, take out large loans, and they do so in the belief and

:30:33.:30:36.

confidence that the institutions that they attend have been in some

:30:37.:30:41.

sense guaranteed by government that they are doing something which they

:30:42.:30:46.

are safe in doing, that they will be able to complete their studies. Now

:30:47.:30:52.

that is fortunately in most cases true, but of course it isn't always

:30:53.:30:58.

necessarily true, and anybody who looks at experience in other

:30:59.:31:00.

countries will realise that institutions do fail, and indeed

:31:01.:31:07.

some are non-degree awarding institutions that have failed in the

:31:08.:31:11.

past. And indeed the competition markets authority says cheerfully on

:31:12.:31:14.

its website that the sign of a healthy sector is that you have some

:31:15.:31:20.

exit. Exit sounds quite cool, really, unless you happen to be one

:31:21.:31:26.

of the students in an exiting institution. The technical education

:31:27.:31:31.

Bill is also going through, and since I attend both, part of the

:31:32.:31:36.

time I whinge, but mostly it is a very informative exercise, because

:31:37.:31:40.

of course we do now have a tertiary sector as much as anything else. And

:31:41.:31:45.

the protections that are being introduced for students in further

:31:46.:31:51.

education colleges go well beyond anything that has been specified for

:31:52.:31:54.

students in higher education, and I think that is highly regrettable. I

:31:55.:31:59.

think that it is really important that in this new and changed

:32:00.:32:02.

environment, we realise that students need new and changed

:32:03.:32:10.

protection. And just to give an example, in the training sector, we

:32:11.:32:17.

have for a long time had very many quite small and sometimes quite

:32:18.:32:22.

large rapidly changing institutions, and just before these bills were

:32:23.:32:27.

introduced to the House, we had the first story of a training provider

:32:28.:32:34.

who went into liquidation, leaving many, many people with outstanding

:32:35.:32:40.

loans and no obvious recalls. In the few weeks since both bills have

:32:41.:32:44.

started to work their way through, we have had two other such failures,

:32:45.:32:50.

and I will be happy to let anybody know who is curious about their

:32:51.:32:55.

names, but once again, what you are left with is in this case adult

:32:56.:33:00.

learners who have loans and who have no ongoing course. And when I raised

:33:01.:33:07.

this with officials, I was told that the risks were less bad for

:33:08.:33:12.

university students because they were more mobile, less local. But

:33:13.:33:16.

that really isn't true. If you talk to many of our university

:33:17.:33:21.

institutions, you will find that actually, this is not true of my

:33:22.:33:26.

own, but it is true of many institutions, they have home

:33:27.:33:30.

students who are almost all highly local, often because they come from

:33:31.:33:35.

less advantaged families and are very unhappy about taking out major

:33:36.:33:41.

loans, so they are very local, and if the institution fails, they don't

:33:42.:33:46.

have anywhere else to go. So I would hope very much that Ministers would

:33:47.:33:50.

feel able ideally to accept particularly I would agree amendment

:33:51.:33:56.

57, which would seem to me to be the least we can do in an environment

:33:57.:33:59.

where we are in effect making a promise to students. If it turns out

:34:00.:34:04.

that they can't be kept, they ought to be looked after. Your Lordships

:34:05.:34:11.

have heard me speak in this context as Chancellor of the University of

:34:12.:34:15.

Birmingham and chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge arch business

:34:16.:34:21.

school, but years ago when I was qualifying as a chartered accountant

:34:22.:34:25.

at the Institute of chartered accountants in any unknown Wales, I

:34:26.:34:30.

spent a year at what is now London Metropolitan University, and I want

:34:31.:34:35.

to draw an analogy here. In 2012, London Metropolitan University where

:34:36.:34:39.

I have been a visiting professor as well, they lost their right to

:34:40.:34:46.

recruit international students. My lords, there were 2700 students at

:34:47.:34:50.

that time with valid visas who had come in good faith, international

:34:51.:34:55.

students, and they were given 60 days to find a place at another

:34:56.:35:00.

institution. This was not only jeopardising their lives, their

:35:01.:35:06.

futures, but it also put an institution with 30,000 students and

:35:07.:35:11.

2000 staff at jeopardy and in crisis. The implications of

:35:12.:35:16.

something like this is not only to that institution but in the context

:35:17.:35:24.

of international students and international student affairs,

:35:25.:35:28.

today, universities UK have released their report on international

:35:29.:35:32.

students, showing that there are nearly 450,000 international

:35:33.:35:36.

students in the UK, of which 130,000 are from the European Union. And the

:35:37.:35:42.

contribution that they make to Britain in gross terms is ?25

:35:43.:35:48.

billion is what they spend directly and indirectly in our economy, and

:35:49.:35:53.

with Brexit coming up, the uncertainty of international

:35:54.:35:55.

students let alone Huw students is already there. If they have the

:35:56.:36:01.

added uncertainty that if they join an institution but if that

:36:02.:36:04.

institution fails, they are left high and dry, I don't think that is

:36:05.:36:09.

right, I think that is affecting our economy and our ability to recruit

:36:10.:36:13.

international students. As it is we have immigration rules that are

:36:14.:36:16.

against international students, which we will talk about later on at

:36:17.:36:20.

this report stage. So I would urge the Government to take this very

:36:21.:36:26.

seriously, because it is our domestic students, giving them

:36:27.:36:28.

security, and also for our international students and our

:36:29.:36:39.

reputation around the world. I wasn't intending to speak on this

:36:40.:36:43.

issue. I just think it is really important that if any of us had

:36:44.:36:51.

children who we sent off to higher education, we would expect that that

:36:52.:36:57.

higher education institution would give them the support that they

:36:58.:37:03.

need. And there are of course private colleges which have their

:37:04.:37:11.

courses validated by individual universities, and of course those

:37:12.:37:16.

private colleges code under certain circumstances get into difficulties,

:37:17.:37:22.

and then ceased trading. What happens to the student? What happens

:37:23.:37:27.

to the student loan? What happens to those circumstances? As Baroness

:37:28.:37:33.

Wulf rightly says, we are already seeing this in further education,

:37:34.:37:36.

where training providers are going into liquidation. They are all

:37:37.:37:41.

right, they have gone into liquidation, but the poor student is

:37:42.:37:45.

left high and dry, so I hope when the Minister replies they might give

:37:46.:37:50.

assurances into this particular issue. My lords, I am grateful to

:37:51.:37:58.

all noble Lords who have spoken on this debate, which has raised the

:37:59.:38:02.

important issue of student protection in case of suspension of

:38:03.:38:07.

registration or indeed deregistration, and I think there is

:38:08.:38:12.

no disagreement that student protection is important, and that is

:38:13.:38:15.

why in the Bill we have gone further than ever before by including an

:38:16.:38:18.

express provision in the Bill enabling the OFS to ensure

:38:19.:38:24.

appropriate protections for students through a key condition of provider

:38:25.:38:29.

registration. The noble lord and others have made some help for

:38:30.:38:32.

suggestions regarding the likely content of student protection plans

:38:33.:38:37.

which we agree need to be robust and copper heads of in their coverage.

:38:38.:38:41.

These plans are likely to include a diverse range of measures to protect

:38:42.:38:45.

students as well as a diverse range of possible triggers for a student

:38:46.:38:49.

protection plan, including suspension of registration. In

:38:50.:38:53.

response to the concerns that have been expressed in this debate, I can

:38:54.:38:57.

say that draft guidance will be prepared for consultation with the

:38:58.:39:01.

sector and students as part of the regulatory framework consultation

:39:02.:39:06.

later this year, and we would expect it to include information on how and

:39:07.:39:08.

when a provider should refer students to student protection plan,

:39:09.:39:14.

for example during suspension of registration, and it would be wrong

:39:15.:39:16.

to pre-empt the consultation by including these measures in the Bill

:39:17.:39:22.

itself. But could I seek to reassure noble Lords who have spoken in this

:39:23.:39:25.

today that the measures that I have just referred to could include four

:39:26.:39:29.

example provision to teach a course to the end for existing students,

:39:30.:39:35.

offering students alternative courses at the same situation,

:39:36.:39:38.

making arrangements for affected students to switch to a different

:39:39.:39:40.

provider without having to start their course from scratch, and in

:39:41.:39:46.

response to an issue raised by the noble lord Watson, measures to

:39:47.:39:50.

compensate affected students financially. And I hope that those

:39:51.:39:55.

examples provide some reassurance to noble Lords that we do have in mind

:39:56.:40:00.

the contingency arrangements that they have outlined in this debate.

:40:01.:40:03.

Clause 17 of the Bill places a clear duty on the OFS to notify through

:40:04.:40:09.

its maintenance of the register when a provider has been suspended, and a

:40:10.:40:13.

similar duty is imposed on the OFS in clauses 19 and 23 when providers

:40:14.:40:19.

are deregistered. The OFS already has the power given in clause 72

:40:20.:40:27.

require a provider's governing body to make sure that students are

:40:28.:40:31.

informed about the action. However, widespread publicity of preliminary

:40:32.:40:34.

plans measures may not always be appropriate in every case. Before

:40:35.:40:40.

the OFS can impose a sanction of suspension and deregistration, it

:40:41.:40:42.

must notify a provider of its intent to do so, unless an urgent

:40:43.:40:47.

suspension is being imposed, and then allow the provider to argue its

:40:48.:40:54.

case or put the matter right. As I'm sure noble Lords will agree, the

:40:55.:40:57.

desired outcome for the benefit of students and the providers alike is

:40:58.:41:01.

that the provider takes the actions necessary to ensure that they comply

:41:02.:41:04.

with the conditions of registration that have been placed upon them, and

:41:05.:41:09.

so no further action would then be required. There are also important

:41:10.:41:13.

matters of confidentiality at play here. A key concern has previously

:41:14.:41:22.

been raised. HE providers would not wish the OFS to announce that they

:41:23.:41:25.

were carrying out an investigation into a provider, as this could lead

:41:26.:41:28.

to unnecessary whippy day shall damage. If the OFS subsequently

:41:29.:41:38.

decided not to take action. -- unnecessary reputational damage.

:41:39.:41:46.

This would not in our view generally be helpful or appropriate to

:41:47.:41:48.

students, and it is the inclusion of the words intention to that I find

:41:49.:41:54.

difficulty with in Amendment 50 six. My lords, an Amendment 57, I have

:41:55.:41:57.

listened to the thoughtful debate we have had this evening, and indeed I

:41:58.:42:02.

have read the debates in the Other Place on the issue of student

:42:03.:42:07.

transfer. We have tabled an amendment, number 100, on this

:42:08.:42:09.

important issue, which we have already discussed. Our amendment

:42:10.:42:15.

will acquire the OFS to monitor and report on student transfer

:42:16.:42:17.

arrangements by the registered higher education providers, and it

:42:18.:42:22.

will empower the OFS to facilitate, encourage or promote awareness of

:42:23.:42:27.

these arrangements. In doing so, the Government is creating the

:42:28.:42:29.

conditions to allow the necessary flexibility for students to make the

:42:30.:42:33.

right choices for themselves, and to have control over those decisions

:42:34.:42:36.

whatever the reason for their transfer. The amendment that is

:42:37.:42:41.

proposed, which noble Lords have spoken to, would result in the OFS

:42:42.:42:45.

trying to make arrangements for students to be placed on other

:42:46.:42:48.

courses if their current course closed. However, the decision of

:42:49.:42:54.

what courses to offer falls within the institutional autonomy of each

:42:55.:42:57.

provider, and while I recognise the importance of students being able to

:42:58.:43:02.

transfer, particularly where their institution ceases to offer their

:43:03.:43:05.

planned learning, it is not and nor should it be the OFS's gift to

:43:06.:43:11.

determine whether students and institutions accept students from

:43:12.:43:13.

elsewhere. This has never been the role undertaken by the OFS's

:43:14.:43:19.

predecessor, and there is no intention for it to be taken on by

:43:20.:43:22.

the OFS, so it must surely be preferable for the sector to be in

:43:23.:43:27.

control of transfer processes, including where appropriate as part

:43:28.:43:30.

of the student protection plan, and for the OFS to play a greater role

:43:31.:43:34.

in facilitating and encouraging the availability and take-up of such

:43:35.:43:39.

arrangements. And in response to my noble friend Lord Norton who was

:43:40.:43:42.

concerned that students want to know what protections they have, we have

:43:43.:43:46.

listened to concerns on this issue, and that is why in the Other Place

:43:47.:43:49.

we brought forward an amendment to require plans to be published, and

:43:50.:43:56.

therefore brought to the students' attention, and so this balanced

:43:57.:43:58.

approach is what our amendment sought to achieve, and against that

:43:59.:44:02.

background, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw Amendment 50 five.

:44:03.:44:09.

He did give the impression of a man thrashing around in a deep pool

:44:10.:44:18.

there, desperately trying to find something to cling onto and I have

:44:19.:44:22.

to say I did not find his arguments convincing. I did say when I was

:44:23.:44:30.

moving this group of amendments that it has been stated time and again

:44:31.:44:34.

that the government wanted students at the centre of the whole of this

:44:35.:44:40.

bill. I will quote it now, clause 18 said that when a decision is to

:44:41.:44:43.

suspend the provider's registration the notice must specify the date on

:44:44.:44:47.

which the suspension takes a fake, the effective purposes, the medial

:44:48.:44:53.

conditions at any and maintain the grounds of the suspension, it does

:44:54.:44:56.

not specify what happened to students during the suspension

:44:57.:45:04.

period. Why not? How would hinder any institution if that was placed

:45:05.:45:08.

on the face of the bill? It is surely the sort of thing that

:45:09.:45:12.

students are entitled to know, when the institution is getting into

:45:13.:45:15.

difficulty and I don't see why it should provide any difficulty at

:45:16.:45:20.

all. I have to say I did enjoy the analogy drawn by the noble Baroness

:45:21.:45:25.

with this bill and the technical and further education Bill, which is she

:45:26.:45:31.

said, is about the insolvencies of further education colleges and for

:45:32.:45:34.

the avoidance of any doubt, the minister in charge of the bill has

:45:35.:45:38.

ensured noble Lords that will never happen either so we are to believe

:45:39.:45:42.

that there is no greater chance of it happening in the further

:45:43.:45:45.

education sector and yet three quarters of the bill is about

:45:46.:45:48.

insolvency. It would have been helpful if the vehicle used for

:45:49.:45:52.

dealing with insolvencies in the further education Bill, the special

:45:53.:45:59.

education administrator, had some equivalent in this bill because it

:46:00.:46:02.

will be the case that situations will arise where he or she, or that

:46:03.:46:08.

kind of role is necessary and it cannot be carried out just by the

:46:09.:46:13.

office for students. To some extent, without having that particular

:46:14.:46:19.

person provided for in the bill, this section of it, in terms of

:46:20.:46:23.

colleges, further education students getting into difficulty, there is no

:46:24.:46:30.

such equivalent in higher education and we are left with a section of

:46:31.:46:33.

the bill which is rather like Hamlet without the prince. No one will be

:46:34.:46:37.

appointed by the court in this section and that is the difference

:46:38.:46:41.

between this and the further education Bill. He talked about

:46:42.:46:44.

draft guidance for consultations with staff and students on when a

:46:45.:46:50.

student protection plan becomes effective but the amendments here

:46:51.:46:53.

are not about pre-empting, we're talking about a situation after the

:46:54.:47:00.

college has got into difficulties and it is about reacting to that,

:47:01.:47:07.

not anticipating it. I think it is important that different is

:47:08.:47:12.

understood. I have to say to the Minister that particularly in

:47:13.:47:17.

relation to Amendment 57, which we certainly welcome support from both

:47:18.:47:21.

the crossbenchers and government benches, we have made it easier for

:47:22.:47:24.

the office for students because the wording says that the authors must

:47:25.:47:30.

seek to make arrangements for the students about provider to be

:47:31.:47:32.

offered places on a similar course with another higher education

:47:33.:47:37.

provided. We could have omitted the word seek to. We had been helpful to

:47:38.:47:45.

the government by only suggesting the OFS should seek to do that. I

:47:46.:47:50.

take the point that some students would not like to be told by the

:47:51.:47:55.

OFS, sorry, your University is closed, here is where you will go as

:47:56.:47:59.

of next week. That is not the way I would envisage it happening, it

:48:00.:48:03.

would be about choices. The noble Lord talk about student choices and

:48:04.:48:09.

they should as far as possible be provided by the OFS. They have the

:48:10.:48:14.

overall responsibility as the regulator and therefore they should

:48:15.:48:18.

be able to say to students, you are without a class at the moment, this

:48:19.:48:21.

is what we suggest. I acknowledge the point that the noble Baroness

:48:22.:48:26.

said that there will be cases where colleges are very local and students

:48:27.:48:29.

are not willing to travel to the next town or another part if it were

:48:30.:48:33.

London to complete their studies and on that basis they might decide that

:48:34.:48:36.

not completing the Saudis is possible but they should have

:48:37.:48:43.

choices. I find it very surprising, and I come back to this, students

:48:44.:48:47.

being at the centre of this bill and get the OFS is not to be allowed to

:48:48.:48:51.

seek to provide options for them to continue studies. I think that is a

:48:52.:49:00.

real failing of the government's commitment and I think we should be

:49:01.:49:04.

asking what is the real commitment in the interests of students and

:49:05.:49:08.

that should be the test. The test to which we should put it is to test

:49:09.:49:12.

the opinion of the house. The question is that this and would be

:49:13.:49:22.

agreeing to -- agreed to. I think the not contents. Be not contents

:49:23.:49:26.

it. Amendment 50 six. Amendment 57, Lord

:49:27.:49:40.

Stevenson not moved. On this amendment, and apologise for

:49:41.:49:44.

previous confusion, I wish to test the opinion of the house. The

:49:45.:49:48.

question is that this amendment be agreed to. I think the knot contents

:49:49.:50:00.

habit. Clear the bar. -- with the knot

:50:01.:50:04.

The question is that Amendment 57 Rugby agreed to. -- be agreed to.

:50:05.:53:17.

The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the

:53:18.:53:19.

left by the bar. The question is that amendment 57 be

:53:20.:59:53.

agreed to. Contents 36, not contents 138, so

:59:54.:01:13.

the not content to Mac have it. Amendments 58 and 59 moved formerly.

:01:14.:01:37.

The question is that amendments 58 and 59 be approved on block. The

:01:38.:01:47.

contents have it. Amendment 60, not moved. Amendment 61, not moved. I

:01:48.:01:57.

beg to move that further consideration on report be now

:01:58.:02:00.

adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report be

:02:01.:02:04.

now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say content. Contrary,

:02:05.:02:10.

not contents. The contents have it. And I beg to move the House do now

:02:11.:02:14.

adjourned. That the House do now adjourned.

:02:15.:03:24.

My lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the

:03:25.:03:30.

order paper, and in doing so I declare my interest is chair of the

:03:31.:03:32.

Leeds University Law schools advisory board. My lords, as the

:03:33.:03:40.

legal profession in England and Wales and the bodies that regulate

:03:41.:03:44.

it are independent from Government, we have not made any assessment

:03:45.:03:45.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS