27/04/2017

:00:28. > :00:37.Could the ministers say, is this a particularly complex area, is this

:00:38. > :00:41.why legislation did not come forward in 2016? Is it proving more

:00:42. > :00:45.difficult or is there some other reason why nothing was done within

:00:46. > :00:49.the timescale which as far as I know the Government originally suggested

:00:50. > :00:55.they would do so? There were various vehicles that the Government

:00:56. > :00:58.explored, the opportunity for a sponsored private member 's' bill

:00:59. > :01:01.and as I have said before without pre-empting what may have happened

:01:02. > :01:06.or will happen in the coming months, I think it is important to recognise

:01:07. > :01:09.that there were opportunities, certain legislative vehicles which

:01:10. > :01:12.were in the current timetable which could have been used as an

:01:13. > :01:17.opportunity to legislate in this respect. What does remain the case

:01:18. > :01:20.is that I have given a personal commitment to the current

:01:21. > :01:24.Government, and it is an important area to legislate in and we will

:01:25. > :01:27.continue to do so at the earliest opportunity if indeed it is a

:01:28. > :01:36.Conservative Government re-elected on the 8th of June. I endorse every

:01:37. > :01:40.single word that the noble Baroness made there. Whatever Government is

:01:41. > :01:46.elected in a few weeks' time, it should be top of the agenda to deal

:01:47. > :01:49.with for the new travel secretary. I am sure those who aspire to hold

:01:50. > :01:58.that position had taken note of the noble Lord's comments. Can he advise

:01:59. > :02:02.us if the Government plans to make any economic assessment of the

:02:03. > :02:07.imposition of bicycle lanes on London businesses, in particular,

:02:08. > :02:10.small businesses mobile tradesmen such as stonemasons who have

:02:11. > :02:16.effectively had to stop serving London businesses? As my noble

:02:17. > :02:22.friend is aware, the issue of cycle lanes is primarily a responsible at

:02:23. > :02:24.of London. I know there have been views expressed in this House and

:02:25. > :02:30.house and elsewhere, and I'm sure those will be taken into account if

:02:31. > :02:36.reviews are carried on of cycle lanes and their operation in London.

:02:37. > :02:38.Can he assure us that pledges made to legislate on this matter will not

:02:39. > :02:45.become a manifesto commitment? LAUGHTER

:02:46. > :02:47.Again, I'm not going to prejudge the commitments within a manifesto. I

:02:48. > :02:51.think I have made it as clear as I can at this juncture of what the

:02:52. > :02:55.intention was of the current Government, what my personal view is

:02:56. > :02:58.in this respect as someone who oversees legislation and indeed the

:02:59. > :03:04.operation and coordination of such activity in London with the Mayor of

:03:05. > :03:08.London and whatever Government I -- I am sure will continue to work with

:03:09. > :03:13.the Mayor of London to regulate this industry in the years to come. The

:03:14. > :03:19.confusion and despair seen as a result of this makes one think of

:03:20. > :03:25.meat is. Of course, there was a mutiny 228 years ago on the Bounty.

:03:26. > :03:29.228 years ago tomorrow. The Navy sent out ships to find the

:03:30. > :03:32.mutineers. Today we would find difficulty doing that, and with that

:03:33. > :03:41.have to be peddled as well to get there? I would like the noble Lord

:03:42. > :03:45.to agree that we need more ships. Pedalling and votes, I think that is

:03:46. > :03:49.something perhaps we have done in Hyde Park and elsewhere, but my day

:03:50. > :03:52.would not be complete had I not received a history lesson from the

:03:53. > :03:55.noble Lord and as ever I greatly appreciate that.

:03:56. > :04:03.LAUGHTER I beg leave to ask the question. Can

:04:04. > :04:10.I draw the House's attention to my entry on the register of interests?

:04:11. > :04:14.The Government is committed to making patient and care records

:04:15. > :04:18.digital, real-time and interoperable by 2020. Ahead of that, summary care

:04:19. > :04:22.records which provide essential information about a patient such as

:04:23. > :04:25.their medication, allergies and adverse reactions, are now available

:04:26. > :04:32.in many parts of the country in key areas of the NHS such as ambulances

:04:33. > :04:40.and A services. Health professionals can view these with

:04:41. > :04:44.patient consent. Thank you. I am rather concerned that the data

:04:45. > :04:49.guardians report, the third report, that was out last year, does not

:04:50. > :04:57.fully address the issue as to who that electronic patient data belongs

:04:58. > :05:03.to. Does it belong to the GPs, to NHS England, took NHS digital? And

:05:04. > :05:08.this is particularly important because GPs now, some GPs, are

:05:09. > :05:13.moving towards only localised electronic patient sharing, which

:05:14. > :05:16.will in my view happen -- have an adverse effect on the efficiency of

:05:17. > :05:20.the NHS, so can my noble friend the minister assure the House and myself

:05:21. > :05:27.that electronic patient data records will be made nationally and that it

:05:28. > :05:33.is the patient and the patient's choice as to who has access to those

:05:34. > :05:36.records? My noble friend makes an important point about the use of

:05:37. > :05:41.data and there is a balance to be struck. The first point to be made

:05:42. > :05:46.about the use of data is that patients need to be part of any

:05:47. > :05:50.decision about the sharing of data. In 2012, the NHS Future Forum

:05:51. > :05:55.rubbished an independent report on this issue and used the phrase, no

:05:56. > :05:58.decision about me without me, to describe the role of patients. Of

:05:59. > :06:02.course, there is a deed to share data. It needs to be shared among

:06:03. > :06:08.clinicians, particularly when they are treating a patient themselves.

:06:09. > :06:12.There can be wider concerns, for example, a public health pandemic or

:06:13. > :06:15.some such other incident where it needs to be shared widely but that

:06:16. > :06:20.can only be done with a patient being informed and offering their

:06:21. > :06:25.consent. Isn't there a problem here is that if all the focus is at

:06:26. > :06:31.national level, that takes usually a very long time and inhibits local

:06:32. > :06:34.progress? Wouldn't he agree that one of the great challenges is actually

:06:35. > :06:39.being able to share information between the health service and

:06:40. > :06:42.social care, if integrated care, particularly for older people, who

:06:43. > :06:46.are discharged from hospital, is to be delivered? I wonder if he could

:06:47. > :06:51.say if any progress is being made around what is clearly a challenging

:06:52. > :06:56.area of getting full integration and local level.

:06:57. > :07:03.The truth is there is patchy use of data within the health service and

:07:04. > :07:07.practically all GPs not offer a laconic patient records, something

:07:08. > :07:12.like 9 million people have registered to make appointments

:07:13. > :07:16.online -- electronic patient records. But it is not at the same

:07:17. > :07:21.level with trusts and there is the paper usage and the intention has

:07:22. > :07:28.been to get to 2020 with a paperless NHS which means you would have, with

:07:29. > :07:31.patient consent, the ability to share data around the patient

:07:32. > :07:35.pathway in any part of the health service. Given the continued

:07:36. > :07:40.revelations of data security breaches along with the absence of

:07:41. > :07:45.response from last year's report from Dame Fiona Caldicot, how is the

:07:46. > :07:50.government in to avoid a repeat of the fiasco several years ago over

:07:51. > :07:54.care data and does he agree with me that it is vitally important that

:07:55. > :08:00.patients are given confidence of the security of their data so that they

:08:01. > :08:05.will not withdraw from allowing their data to be used for vital

:08:06. > :08:13.medical research? The noble lady is quite right, the national data guide

:08:14. > :08:18.produced a report last summer and has been the intention to reply to

:08:19. > :08:21.that report and purdah has had an inevitable impact on it

:08:22. > :08:25.unfortunately but the points she made in that about the simplified

:08:26. > :08:30.process for opting out and also being clear there are vital users

:08:31. > :08:35.that suitably anonymised data which can be made which benefit patients

:08:36. > :08:37.directly, particularly through clinical medical research, and

:08:38. > :08:41.making sure they know about that so they can choose to have their data

:08:42. > :08:46.shared, it is encouraging that only around 2% of people of all patients

:08:47. > :08:50.have opted to have their summary care records not being shared so it

:08:51. > :08:53.suggests that went explained properly and with suitable

:08:54. > :09:00.safeguards, people are happy to share their data.

:09:01. > :09:07.He will have studied the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee

:09:08. > :09:15.report, NHS treatment of overseas patients, it is chaired by the

:09:16. > :09:20.Labour Party at present, which has identified a leakage of up to ?2

:09:21. > :09:26.billion a year in the treatment of patients who are either not entitled

:09:27. > :09:31.to NHS treatment free in Britain or whose treatment should be reimbursed

:09:32. > :09:40.by the countries from which they come. The target the government has

:09:41. > :09:42.for this leakage is only 500 million a year. We undertake that in the

:09:43. > :09:48.event of the government being successful in the election, that the

:09:49. > :09:53.government will make a real effort to stem this leakage which is dilute

:09:54. > :09:56.Inc the impact of the health service on the British people? -- by

:09:57. > :10:05.. What I can tell my noble friend about is the work the government has

:10:06. > :10:11.been doing on this issue which is to make sure that I identity checks for

:10:12. > :10:15.overseas patients in hospitals to ensure that those people who are not

:10:16. > :10:19.entitled to free care either through reciprocal arrangement or other

:10:20. > :10:22.means do pay for the care provided for them whilst making sure that

:10:23. > :10:28.anybody who is in need of urgent care does not have that care not

:10:29. > :10:36.given to them, even if they have to then pay later. Would the Minister

:10:37. > :10:42.made clear to the house that there are four health services in the UK,

:10:43. > :10:47.not one? And what negotiations are taking place with his colleagues, it

:10:48. > :10:53.is equivalent colleagues in the other administrations in the UK to

:10:54. > :10:59.ensure that there is one common computer system across the whole of

:11:00. > :11:04.the UK? Because electronic patient records depend upon their being one

:11:05. > :11:11.computer system and not a variety across the whole country. The noble

:11:12. > :11:14.Lord is quite right that the UK Government speaks only for the

:11:15. > :11:22.English health system. There is a different here between having single

:11:23. > :11:25.ICT systems, we've been down that road with billions wasted, rather

:11:26. > :11:31.than having systems that can speak to one another and having a code of

:11:32. > :11:36.usage around data security robustness that will provide for

:11:37. > :11:40.people, particularly in border areas, to make sure there is the

:11:41. > :11:47.kind of ongoing access to information that I believe he is

:11:48. > :11:51.talking about. My Lords, while of course patient confidentiality must

:11:52. > :11:58.be respected always, in the recent next steps in the five-year forward

:11:59. > :12:06.view of the NHS there was a very concerning item looking at urgent

:12:07. > :12:10.treatment centres. I find it worrying that personalised care

:12:11. > :12:15.plans for patients in mental health crisis or at the end of life would

:12:16. > :12:19.only be available in 40% of emergency care settings, assuming

:12:20. > :12:23.that the target of the report is met. If the government prepared to

:12:24. > :12:30.look at these figures? And considered them carefully? I think

:12:31. > :12:35.the picture that the noble lady paint is the one where we are

:12:36. > :12:38.starting from a position of not a great amount of sharing,

:12:39. > :12:42.particularly outside primary health care, and that is what the

:12:43. > :12:45.government has been trying to address, the primary route of doing

:12:46. > :12:50.that has been through the global digital exemplars which are enabling

:12:51. > :12:53.data cherry with the appropriate safeguards in acute trusts and

:12:54. > :12:58.mental health trusts and the intention is to increase that by the

:12:59. > :13:05.time. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the

:13:06. > :13:08.order paper. My lord, no such discussions have taken place, it is

:13:09. > :13:13.the role of the local authorities to manage their networks efficiently

:13:14. > :13:16.and determine their own policies for balancing the needs of their

:13:17. > :13:19.communities but local authorities are required to have due regard to

:13:20. > :13:23.the need to eliminate discrimination, advanced equality of

:13:24. > :13:29.opportunity and foster good relations under section 149,

:13:30. > :13:39.subsection one of the equality act 2010. I thank my noble friend for

:13:40. > :13:47.his answer. Exactly a month ago I mentioned the problems I was having

:13:48. > :13:54.with partying in Lambeth and since then the target has been wrecked in

:13:55. > :13:59.the disabled bay where I live. Sometimes for three weeks in a row

:14:00. > :14:09.and always with a blue badge on display has been moved. Clearly

:14:10. > :14:15.somewhat at Lambeth Council is reading Hansard because the young

:14:16. > :14:20.man I saw who walked away from the car in question without any apparent

:14:21. > :14:28.disability has clearly been tipped off by someone in the council not to

:14:29. > :14:33.park in the disabled by. Blue badge misuse is a serious offence yet

:14:34. > :14:40.Lambeth says that in this case there is the evidence. Even though I have

:14:41. > :14:46.been obliged that the blue badge in question was issued by Lambeth not

:14:47. > :14:53.to a young man but to a 59-year-old woman. May I ask my noble friend the

:14:54. > :15:00.Minister on behalf of all those disabled people who genuinely rely

:15:01. > :15:04.on their blue badge and who do not have the privilege of standing up

:15:05. > :15:10.and asking a question in your Lordships house, may I ask that he

:15:11. > :15:16.urges all local authorities to prioritise tackling blue badge fraud

:15:17. > :15:27.including when it involves their own staff? I think my noble friend and

:15:28. > :15:30.first of all, I'm sure all Lordships are indeed very pleased to learn

:15:31. > :15:36.that Camden Council are following our proceedings very closely.

:15:37. > :15:42.Lambeth, I apologise, I'm sure Camden are as well! The issue which

:15:43. > :15:49.he raced specifically about Lambeth and it is a serious one, I think the

:15:50. > :15:52.abuse of blue badges in any place is something that is taken very

:15:53. > :15:59.seriously and enforcement, while it is a matter for local authorities,

:16:00. > :16:03.it is a criminal offence to park and misuse a blue badge. And offenders

:16:04. > :16:10.may be prosecuted and fined up to ?1000. I would also say that in 2013

:16:11. > :16:13.the Department for Transport also introduced new legislation to enable

:16:14. > :16:18.on strict civil enforcement officers to seek misused badges, when

:16:19. > :16:22.previously only the police could do this. The point about sharing of

:16:23. > :16:26.good practice, I understand there are a series of road shows in which

:16:27. > :16:29.the department is involved with local authority is intended

:16:30. > :16:34.effective to do that, sharing best practice and to end this abuse. The

:16:35. > :16:41.powers of local authorities are worth clarifying a few years ago in

:16:42. > :16:48.a bill I had the honour of taking to your Lordships house. I just wonder

:16:49. > :16:57.whether it is bearing fruit. Thus the noble lord have any figures to

:16:58. > :17:04.say about this? The noble lady is right to raise, the actual numbers

:17:05. > :17:07.in terms of specific prosecutions is still low income person to the

:17:08. > :17:11.reports received partly based on this need to produce evidence but as

:17:12. > :17:15.somebody involved in local government for ten years and who had

:17:16. > :17:19.responsibility at local level for this, part of it is education. A lot

:17:20. > :17:23.of people sometimes park inadvertently and think it is OK for

:17:24. > :17:27.a few minutes. The more serious issue is a blatant abuse of those

:17:28. > :17:30.spaces by blue badge holders and I think that is an area where there

:17:31. > :17:33.needs to be great education and I believe that the road shows which

:17:34. > :17:38.are sharing best practice will help to address the issue of enforcement

:17:39. > :17:43.more effectively. Another friend advise the house how often checks

:17:44. > :17:56.are made of the abuse of blue badges? Blue badges and disabled

:17:57. > :18:00.parking bays are assessed as part of any traffic enforcement which takes

:18:01. > :18:03.place in the local authority so whilst there are certainly to my

:18:04. > :18:08.knowledge not any specific initiatives undertaken to check on

:18:09. > :18:12.this as part of the general enforcement of traffic management

:18:13. > :18:16.ruled at a local level they are conducted readily in each local

:18:17. > :18:20.area. I refer to the response ability of local authorities to

:18:21. > :18:24.enforce the blue but scheme but is there not a difficulty is blue

:18:25. > :18:29.badges issued by one local authorities are used incorrectly in

:18:30. > :18:31.another local authority? Don't we have to have that enforcement

:18:32. > :18:38.procedures to make sure they are not abused? -- better enforcement

:18:39. > :18:41.procedures. I agree that this is a vital point and that is what I

:18:42. > :18:44.believe the issue of how we work across the board and sharing good

:18:45. > :18:52.practice will address part of the issues. I do again enforce the point

:18:53. > :18:55.that part of this is about education and information and dissemination

:18:56. > :18:59.about this and other those involved in traffic enforcement should know

:19:00. > :19:04.the specific rules in ensuring that effective enforcement can be carried

:19:05. > :19:09.out. My Lords, I wonder if I could invite the Minister to extend his

:19:10. > :19:14.comments to another aspect that affect people with disabilities of

:19:15. > :19:18.all kinds which is about parking on pavements or obstructing pavements.

:19:19. > :19:21.This has become an increasing problem for people with mobility

:19:22. > :19:26.problems of one kind or another and I wonder if when looking at this

:19:27. > :19:31.problem he could also bear in mind the need to keep pavements clear for

:19:32. > :19:37.people? Again, the noble Lord raises an important point and outside

:19:38. > :19:43.London and indeed 13 boroughs in London I know pavement parking is

:19:44. > :19:48.permitted and it causes a big issue in terms of access not just dare I

:19:49. > :19:51.say for the disabled, as someone who still has a reasonably young

:19:52. > :19:54.children, one in a pushchair, for young families as well try to get

:19:55. > :20:00.through and he makes a valid suggestion and we will ensure that

:20:01. > :20:05.is part of the discussion. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question

:20:06. > :20:08.standing in my name and I should mention that I co-chaired the

:20:09. > :20:13.all-party parliament group on North Korea. My Lords, we have made clear

:20:14. > :20:19.that North Korea must stop its destabilising behaviour. It nuclear

:20:20. > :20:23.and ballistic missile programmes are a violation of multiple United

:20:24. > :20:27.Nations Security Council resolutions and a threat to regional and

:20:28. > :20:31.international security. We fully support action at the United Nations

:20:32. > :20:35.Security Council to counter this threat and maintain pressure on the

:20:36. > :20:40.regime put up the Foreign Secretary will shortly be discussing North

:20:41. > :20:46.Korea's illegal activity at the UN Security Council. Yesterday's

:20:47. > :20:51.presidential invitation to the White House of all 100 members of the

:20:52. > :20:55.United States Senate for a briefing on the unfolding and dangerous

:20:56. > :20:58.crisis on the Korean peninsula underscores its gravity but as does

:20:59. > :21:04.the recollection that the last Korean War cost nearly 3 million

:21:05. > :21:10.lives including those of 1000 British servicemen. With one quarter

:21:11. > :21:14.of North Korea's DVP used on armaments and over a million men

:21:15. > :21:20.under arms, how are we use our own present Pyongyang, Beijing and at

:21:21. > :21:24.the Security Council to engage China and to avert North Korea's present

:21:25. > :21:30.and long-term threat and to forestall a catastrophic outcome

:21:31. > :21:39.closer to home, why wasn't the North Korea national insurance Corporation

:21:40. > :21:42.not able to use London to generate over ?130 million to support both

:21:43. > :21:46.the regime and its nuclear weapons programme?

:21:47. > :21:56.Turning to the specific before I answer the more general. With

:21:57. > :22:03.regards to the Korea wrote national insurance company, the EU designated

:22:04. > :22:08.the London office on April the 28th 2016 and since that date, the UK has

:22:09. > :22:14.taken appropriate actions to sanction the firm and has absolutely

:22:15. > :22:20.followed that through. We issued a white paper on sanctions just last

:22:21. > :22:25.week as we take it so seriously. We continue to work not only through

:22:26. > :22:30.our critical engagement with the North Korean Government in Pyongyang

:22:31. > :22:33.through our embassy there, but also at the United Nations, because it is

:22:34. > :22:39.only by work amongst the United Nations Security Council, operating

:22:40. > :22:46.with China asserting an influence, that they can be any change to

:22:47. > :22:51.Korean behaviour. Can I reinforce the point that the absolute key to

:22:52. > :22:56.this incredibly dangerous situation is the full engagement and support

:22:57. > :22:59.of the Chinese Government and the sharing of their concerns with our

:23:00. > :23:04.concerns and those of the rest of the world? And is it not possible

:23:05. > :23:10.that HMG may be able to play a particularly useful intermediary

:23:11. > :23:15.role in this area? As always, he makes an important point, and I can

:23:16. > :23:20.give an assurance that the Foreign Secretary is meeting the Chinese

:23:21. > :23:24.representatives when he travels later this day to New York, and

:23:25. > :23:28.already has had very frequent discussions with China. It is

:23:29. > :23:35.notable that the whole of the United Nations Security Council agreed that

:23:36. > :23:41.there should be sanctions exerted on North Korea, including China, and

:23:42. > :23:46.China has shown good faith in that, in its sanctions. My lords. My

:23:47. > :24:04.lords. With brief questions we can hear

:24:05. > :24:07.from the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour benches. What is the

:24:08. > :24:14.response of Her Majesty's Government to the opinion expressed today by

:24:15. > :24:18.the member of the administration of George W Bush, and is no shrinking

:24:19. > :24:20.violet in these matters, that the solution to the crisis with North

:24:21. > :24:25.Korea will not rest in military action, not least because of the

:24:26. > :24:30.dangers that would present to the citizens of South Korea? My right

:24:31. > :24:36.honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he

:24:37. > :24:42.sees military action as being undesirable. We have not, with our

:24:43. > :24:48.allies in America, take an offensive action. It is North Korea that has

:24:49. > :24:55.been offensive in its actions. Clearly, the position of our on the

:24:56. > :25:00.border does mean that any military action would be an absolutely

:25:01. > :25:07.disastrous. That is why we are all with allies in the United Nations

:25:08. > :25:10.working together to ensure there is a stronger will, particularly by

:25:11. > :25:17.China, to exert its interest on North Korea to avoid an escalation

:25:18. > :25:22.of what we have seen over the last few weeks. Given the uncertainty

:25:23. > :25:25.about North Korea, not least after the discussions by the American

:25:26. > :25:28.President yesterday with the Senate, if there is the possibility of

:25:29. > :25:33.military engagement by the United States against North Korea, would

:25:34. > :25:37.there be a situation similar to what the Foreign Secretary suggested this

:25:38. > :25:41.morning in relation to Syria, which would engage British troops, and if

:25:42. > :25:49.that is the case, what attempts will be made to consult Parliament given

:25:50. > :25:53.that the elected house will cease to exist in very few Alice' time? It is

:25:54. > :25:56.a straightforward fact that the United States has made it clear that

:25:57. > :26:02.they are not seeking military action. What they are installing but

:26:03. > :26:10.that is a defensive missile system, and working with allies, South

:26:11. > :26:14.Korea, in the area. What came across very strongly yesterday from the

:26:15. > :26:18.announcement by the secretaries of State in America is that they are

:26:19. > :26:23.seeking a peaceful resolution. They made back clear, they made it clear

:26:24. > :26:33.that what they want to do is bring North Korea to its senses not to its

:26:34. > :26:37.knees. I welcome the response in terms of the Security Council, but

:26:38. > :26:42.will she reassure us that the Foreign Secretary will be in

:26:43. > :26:47.communication when he is in New York with his counterpart in the United

:26:48. > :26:54.States, to ensure that these two great allies act in concert to

:26:55. > :26:56.ensure effective sanctions? Yes, both in New York but also on a more

:26:57. > :27:12.regular basis. I beg leave to ask a question of

:27:13. > :27:16.which I have given private notice. It is as follows. To ask Her

:27:17. > :27:20.Majesty's Government what assessment they have made up the situation

:27:21. > :27:24.regarding child refugees in de Calais and Dunkirk areas, and

:27:25. > :27:31.whether they will take immediate steps to allow a significant number

:27:32. > :27:35.to enter the UK? In 2016, the UK transferred more than 750 children

:27:36. > :27:40.from France as part of the comprehensive support for the Calais

:27:41. > :27:44.camp clearance. The UK also offered support to France following the

:27:45. > :27:49.recent fire at Dunkirk. We continue to work closely with the French to

:27:50. > :27:55.transfer eligible children under section 67 of the Immigration Act

:27:56. > :28:01.under the Dublin regulation. The fastest route to safety is to claim

:28:02. > :28:05.asylum in France. I welcome the fact that the Government announced in a

:28:06. > :28:09.ministerial statement today that a further 130 children will be taken

:28:10. > :28:13.into this country under section 67 of the Immigration Act. Even if the

:28:14. > :28:18.reason is the Home Office having to hang its head in shame because they

:28:19. > :28:24.made an administrative error that is part of collating the figures. That

:28:25. > :28:32.comes out of Yes Minister. I want to put this to the minister. Will the

:28:33. > :28:35.Government now consult local authorities, because there are many

:28:36. > :28:39.not just in England but in other parts of the UK, who have expressed

:28:40. > :28:43.a willingness to take more child refugees. Is the minister not aware

:28:44. > :28:48.that many representations have been made recently about the available of

:28:49. > :28:56.local authority faces? The administrative error is most

:28:57. > :29:01.unfortunate, and for that I apologise. I wouldn't want to see

:29:02. > :29:05.that happening. The good news is that we have an additional 130

:29:06. > :29:11.places and I think we should all be very pleased about that. I think the

:29:12. > :29:16.important thing here is that no child has been disenfranchised, any

:29:17. > :29:22.eligible child has been taken this part, 200 children have been taken

:29:23. > :29:27.this far, so we haven't even got to the 350, so I wouldn't want the

:29:28. > :29:31.noble lord to think that any child is disenfranchised because of this

:29:32. > :29:35.administrative error, which is, as I have said, most regrettable. In

:29:36. > :29:40.terms of the consultation, we have consulted local authorities and I

:29:41. > :29:44.would like to say to noble lords, just for the record, that there are

:29:45. > :29:50.4000 unaccompanied children in local authority care as we speak, and some

:29:51. > :29:55.local authorities, like Kent and Croydon, host a disproportionate

:29:56. > :29:59.number of judging. We are always very glad to hear local authorities

:30:00. > :30:05.coming forward to take children through the National transfer

:30:06. > :30:11.scheme, or indeed to take refugee children. But, my lords, it is not

:30:12. > :30:17.like we had not consulted properly. I know the Immigration Minister

:30:18. > :30:21.wrote to all local authorities, a national launch event was held, and

:30:22. > :30:28.over ten metre events were held in every part of England as well as in

:30:29. > :30:33.Scotland and one in Wales. -- and over ten regional events were held.

:30:34. > :30:36.There were reports last week in the context of child refugees that an

:30:37. > :30:40.assumption was being made that if such a child is disabled, they would

:30:41. > :30:43.be debarred, because they were regarded as being too burdensome.

:30:44. > :30:49.Will she take the opportunity to deny in all... With all possible

:30:50. > :30:56.strength but that could be the Government's policy. It would never

:30:57. > :31:02.be the Government's policy. I don't think it would be any government's

:31:03. > :31:05.policy to disenfranchise a disabled child because they were too

:31:06. > :31:12.burdensome. A child will be assessed under the criteria of Dublin or the

:31:13. > :31:15.Vulnerable Children's Refugee Scheme. No child would ever be

:31:16. > :31:21.disenfranchised because they were disabled and I can very strongly

:31:22. > :31:27.confirm that. My two questions for the minister. Is the minister aware

:31:28. > :31:31.that Help Refugees will press ahead with their pending court case as

:31:32. > :31:38.their information data shows that further clerical errors exist? And

:31:39. > :31:46.secondly, will become at except that we have a moral and legal duty to

:31:47. > :31:49.these children, and reopen the Dublin Scheme to make sure that

:31:50. > :31:54.these areas are ironed out once and for all and that we act with utmost

:31:55. > :32:02.haste in bringing these unfortunate children to the UK? The Government

:32:03. > :32:09.has been far too slow in acting. As of my first answer, we haven't

:32:10. > :32:16.closed the Dublin Khan scheme. We have 200 children here. There is

:32:17. > :32:19.potential for another 280 two arrive. And in terms of the court

:32:20. > :32:23.case, I look forward to the outcome of the court case and I would not

:32:24. > :32:31.want to comment on it at this stage. My lords, France or Europe is not

:32:32. > :32:34.some war-torn country. So I am delighted that refugees are being

:32:35. > :32:39.able to get to a place of safety, whether that is in France or indeed

:32:40. > :32:44.here. My concern, of course, is that they are the most vulnerable

:32:45. > :32:47.children and women and -- the most full of all women and children are

:32:48. > :32:51.still in Syria and on its borders and can the minister say what

:32:52. > :32:55.support the Government has given in this vital work? I am very pleased

:32:56. > :32:58.to be able to do that and she is absolutely right that the most

:32:59. > :33:05.vulnerable are actually still in the regions. And last year, the former

:33:06. > :33:11.prime minister made an announcement to double the amount of assistance

:33:12. > :33:16.going to the region to ?2.4 billion. Double the amount it had been

:33:17. > :33:20.previously. But my noble friend makes exactly the right point that

:33:21. > :33:25.we should be sending help to the regions where it is most needed. I

:33:26. > :33:30.think it would have been better if the Government had come with an oral

:33:31. > :33:36.statement to the House on this issue, rather than putting it in a

:33:37. > :33:39.written statement just as we are about to seize sitting and it is of

:33:40. > :33:46.considerable interest to the House. But when we discuss this in the

:33:47. > :33:49.House the night the fabric, -- on the ninth of fabric, the Government

:33:50. > :33:53.had in the official report or statement in the Commons that

:33:54. > :33:56.McQuaid, local authorities told as they have capacity for about 400

:33:57. > :34:05.asylum seeking unaccompanied children until the end of this

:34:06. > :34:11.financial year, that been 2016-17. And I asked the noble lady the

:34:12. > :34:15.minister what capacity have local authorities told the Government they

:34:16. > :34:20.have for unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the next

:34:21. > :34:27.financial year? Namely 2017-18. On the basis that the current level of

:34:28. > :34:33.Government funding is continued. I did not get a direct reply to that

:34:34. > :34:37.question I asked. She has said the Government has been in constant

:34:38. > :34:42.touch with local authorities, so can the minister gives the figure? What

:34:43. > :34:46.capacity have local authorities told the Government they have for

:34:47. > :34:50.unaccompanied asylum seekers and children in the next financial year,

:34:51. > :34:57.namely this one, 2000 7-18, on the basis that the current level of

:34:58. > :35:08.Government funding is continuing? As I outlined... As my right on both

:35:09. > :35:12.run in the Other Place outlined in the written ministerial statement

:35:13. > :35:17.yesterday, the capacity for the section 67 children is 480. In terms

:35:18. > :35:26.of future commitments, obviously, we are ours from dissolution, so I

:35:27. > :35:33.cannot make any future declarations at the dispatch box, much as I would

:35:34. > :35:40.want to, those figures will be forthcoming should we be successful

:35:41. > :35:47.in the general election. She says that there are 4000 children in

:35:48. > :35:57.foster care. Are these 4000 asylum seeking unaccompanied youngsters to

:35:58. > :36:02.be voted on? 4000 asylum seeking children? An issue about that of the

:36:03. > :36:08.children dispersed in France, the 600 have made their way back to

:36:09. > :36:13.Calais because they have been most not accepted in a very friendly way?

:36:14. > :36:22.I'm not sure why children who had been accepted for local authority

:36:23. > :36:34.accommodation here would want to go back to Calais. I'm sure there are

:36:35. > :36:41.various reasons for that. To France. Sorry, I've slightly misheard the

:36:42. > :36:50.tenet of the noble Lord's question you asked if 4000 unaccompanied

:36:51. > :36:56.children in local authority care in this country, and there are, and

:36:57. > :37:12.other children who were not eligible for either Dubs or Dublin have been

:37:13. > :37:16.dispersed within France. My Lords, in these debates which we have on

:37:17. > :37:20.the issue, the focus is almost exclusively on local authorities,

:37:21. > :37:26.suggesting they are the only and best providers. Is that the case and

:37:27. > :37:29.if so what is the arrangement by which other providers can link into

:37:30. > :37:34.the system in order to increase the numbers of places available? I'm

:37:35. > :37:38.glad my noble friend asked that question because the one thing the

:37:39. > :37:46.government has been keen to promote is the community sponsorship scheme

:37:47. > :37:54.which the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken part in in Lambeth Palace,

:37:55. > :38:01.to take Syrian families and indeed in my own local authority of

:38:02. > :38:04.Trafford we also have the community sponsorship scheme and I never let

:38:05. > :38:09.the time pass up without encouraging noble lord who might know any

:38:10. > :38:18.community sponsors who might be willing to come forward to take

:38:19. > :38:25.families. My Lords, on Monday I advised the house that subject to

:38:26. > :38:29.the progress of business we hoped to prorogue when today's business was

:38:30. > :38:34.completed. The timing of prorogation today will depend on the time this

:38:35. > :38:39.house takes to complete its business which is a course in the hands of

:38:40. > :38:44.the house itself. We will adjourn and after we have considered the

:38:45. > :38:49.motion in the name of Lord Clarke of Windermere and then resume for the

:38:50. > :38:54.Royal commission. I anticipate this will not be for the -- before the

:38:55. > :39:02.middle of the afternoon but when times are more certain we will

:39:03. > :39:06.indicate them. Finally my Lords, I should alert the house to some

:39:07. > :39:16.breaking news. We now have dates for state opening. On Monday the 19th of

:39:17. > :39:27.June. And for the first meeting of parliament on Thursday the 13th and

:39:28. > :39:33.Wednesday, I'm sorry, I'm getting the days muddled! These are a little

:39:34. > :39:37.unusual as noble Lords will note. Tuesday the 13th and Wednesday the

:39:38. > :39:42.14th of June the house will meet for the purposes of swearing in. I

:39:43. > :39:47.understand the house authorities will shortly be issuing a Lords

:39:48. > :39:52.notice confirming the arrangements for state opening and disillusion

:39:53. > :39:59.including the use of the facilities of the house. The third reading of

:40:00. > :40:04.the local ordered public access to documents Bill, Baroness eaten. My

:40:05. > :40:16.Lords I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time.

:40:17. > :40:28.The question is, that this Bill be now read a third time, as many of

:40:29. > :40:36.that will -- that opinion say content, the content is have it. The

:40:37. > :40:41.question is that this build now pass, as many of that opinion say

:40:42. > :40:46.content, the country not content, the contents have it. The third

:40:47. > :40:51.reading of the merchant shipping such conduct Bill. I beg to move

:40:52. > :40:58.that this Bill be read a third time. The question is that this Bill be

:40:59. > :41:05.read a third time. The contents habit. My lord I beg to move that

:41:06. > :41:15.this Bill now pass. The question is that this Bill now pass. The

:41:16. > :41:18.contents have it. The third reading chip of the guardianship missing

:41:19. > :41:23.Persons Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. The

:41:24. > :41:32.question is that this Bill be read a third time. The contents have it. My

:41:33. > :41:39.lord I beg to move that this Bill now pass. The question is that this

:41:40. > :41:45.Bill do now pass. The contents habit. The third reading of the

:41:46. > :41:50.barriers registration Bill. I beg to move that this bill be read a third

:41:51. > :41:59.time. The question is that this Bill be read a third time. The contents

:42:00. > :42:10.habit. My lord I beg to move that this Bill now do pass. The question

:42:11. > :42:17.is that this Bill now do pass. The contents have it. Consideration of

:42:18. > :42:43.commons wheezing and a moment to the higher education and research Bill.

:42:44. > :42:57.The question is, I apologise that the Commons reason and amendment be

:42:58. > :43:36.now considered. The contents have it. Motion A, Viscount Younger.

:43:37. > :43:44.I beg to move motion A that this house do not insist on it amendment

:43:45. > :43:49.one and do agree with the Commons in their amendments one A, one B, once

:43:50. > :43:55.the and one D in new. I would like to say that I'm pleased to return to

:43:56. > :43:58.the higher education research Bill which has been strengthened in this

:43:59. > :44:06.house by the attention and expertise shown by noble Lords. Turning first

:44:07. > :44:12.to the amendments, there has been much debate and discussion about the

:44:13. > :44:17.importance of interlinked to protect both institutional autonomy and use

:44:18. > :44:21.of the term University. In particular noble Lord Lord Stevenson

:44:22. > :44:27.and Lord Kerslake and the noble Baroness is, Lady Woolf, Lady Brown

:44:28. > :44:30.and Lady Gardner spoke eloquently at the committee stage about the

:44:31. > :44:35.importance of ensuring there is proper protection in place and as a

:44:36. > :44:40.result your door sips agreed amendment one. -- your Lordships. We

:44:41. > :44:45.agreed with many of the sentiments behind the amendment, to continue to

:44:46. > :44:49.protect institutional autonomy and responded with a significant package

:44:50. > :44:53.of amendments designed to provide robust and meaningful protection of

:44:54. > :44:57.this important principle, so vital to the success of our higher

:44:58. > :45:03.education sector. Today the government proposes further

:45:04. > :45:07.amendments to continue to protect the value and trepidation of the

:45:08. > :45:11.University title and I am pleased to report that these amendments were

:45:12. > :45:16.agreed yesterday in the other place. Our amendments ensure that before

:45:17. > :45:20.permitting the use of University title, the office for students must

:45:21. > :45:25.have regard to factors in guidance given by the Secretary of State.

:45:26. > :45:29.Further to that, before giving the guidance, the Secretary of State

:45:30. > :45:32.must consult bodies that represent higher education providers and

:45:33. > :45:38.students and any other appropriate person. This will ensure the

:45:39. > :45:42.guidance is correctly focused. Let me also reassure noble lord that

:45:43. > :45:48.this consultation will be full and abroad. It will reference processes

:45:49. > :45:51.and practices overseas, for example in Australia, and provide an

:45:52. > :45:55.opportunity to look at a broad range of factors to consider before

:45:56. > :45:59.granting the University title. This may include factors such as track

:46:00. > :46:07.record in excellent teaching, sustained scholarship, cohesive

:46:08. > :46:10.academic communities, interdisciplinary approaches,

:46:11. > :46:13.supported learning infrastructures, dissemination of knowledge, public

:46:14. > :46:17.facing role of universities, academic freedom and freedom of

:46:18. > :46:22.speech, and wider support for students and pastoral care. These

:46:23. > :46:26.factors chime with the comments on the definition of a university given

:46:27. > :46:32.by my honourable friend the Minister in the other place and he has said

:46:33. > :46:34.previously, in a limited sense a university can be described as

:46:35. > :46:40.predominantly a degree level provide up with rewarding powers and if we

:46:41. > :46:44.want a broader definition, we can say that the university is also

:46:45. > :46:48.expected -- expected to be an institution that brings together a

:46:49. > :46:50.body of scholars to book eight cohesive and self-critical academic

:46:51. > :46:55.community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people,

:46:56. > :46:58.the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect

:46:59. > :47:03.teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of

:47:04. > :47:07.research, scholarship and professional practice. To

:47:08. > :47:10.distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school

:47:11. > :47:15.'s role to be, we can say that the University is a place where students

:47:16. > :47:17.are developing higher analytical capacities, critical thinking,

:47:18. > :47:24.curiouser Diabate the world and higher levels of abstract capacity

:47:25. > :47:28.in their thinking. -- curiosity in the world. The strength of the

:47:29. > :47:31.university sector is based on its diversity and we continue to

:47:32. > :47:34.recognise that a one size fits all approach is not in the interests of

:47:35. > :47:40.students and wider society and particularly small providers that

:47:41. > :47:43.are right the creative arts, agriculture and theology have a lot

:47:44. > :47:47.more students with highly specialised career aims the

:47:48. > :47:51.opportunity to study at university. As we said in the White Paper, and

:47:52. > :47:55.throughout the passage of this Bill, the diversity of the sector and

:47:56. > :47:58.opportunities for students have grown as a result of the important

:47:59. > :48:04.changes introduced by the Labour government in 2004, namely the

:48:05. > :48:09.lifting of the requirement for universities to have student in five

:48:10. > :48:13.subject areas and award research degrees. We do not expect to go back

:48:14. > :48:17.on the specific changes that were made. Turning to the teaching

:48:18. > :48:21.excellence framework, I would like to thank noble Lord again for the

:48:22. > :48:27.constructive engagement and consideration in particular the

:48:28. > :48:31.noble Lord Lord Kerr slick and the noble Lord Lord Blunkett for the

:48:32. > :48:35.time and energy they have put into this issue -- Lord Kerr 's lake. We

:48:36. > :48:39.all agree students deserve high quality teaching and need access to

:48:40. > :48:44.clear information as they make one of the most important decisions of

:48:45. > :48:53.their lives so far. The crux of our debate has always focused on the

:48:54. > :48:57.operation of the TEF and without financial incentives it would not

:48:58. > :49:02.focus on teaching and help students make better choices and that is why

:49:03. > :49:06.we are proposing to remove the two amendments this house previously

:49:07. > :49:10.voted in which would render the TEF unworkable but it was clear from our

:49:11. > :49:13.previous debate that no blood remained concerned about the

:49:14. > :49:20.operation of the TEF and the link between it and fees -- noble Lords

:49:21. > :49:24.remained concerned. We have listened to concerns raised and I'm delighted

:49:25. > :49:29.to be able to put before this house is a set of amendments which I

:49:30. > :49:33.believe directly address the most fundamental concerns raised during

:49:34. > :49:41.our previous debates. I'm pleased to endorse amendment 23 C which

:49:42. > :49:46.requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of

:49:47. > :49:50.the TEF within one year of the clause commencing. Crucially the

:49:51. > :49:54.amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay this report before

:49:55. > :49:59.Parliament. This will ensure greater parliamentary accountability for the

:50:00. > :50:02.framework as it moves forward. The report itself must cover many of the

:50:03. > :50:08.aspects that have concerned members of this house and the other place

:50:09. > :50:14.including firstly whether the metrics used are fit for use in the

:50:15. > :50:18.TEF, secondly if the names of the ratings are appropriate for use,

:50:19. > :50:22.thirdly the impact of the TEF on the ability providers to carry out their

:50:23. > :50:26.research in teaching and other continents and finally an assessment

:50:27. > :50:30.of whether the scheme is, all things considered, in the public interest.

:50:31. > :50:35.I am happy to repeat the commitment made in the other place that the

:50:36. > :50:38.Secretary of State will take account of the review and if he or she

:50:39. > :50:43.considers it appropriate, will provide guidance to the OFS

:50:44. > :50:47.accordingly included on any changes to the scheme that the review

:50:48. > :50:51.suggests are needed, whether in relation to the metrics or any of

:50:52. > :50:59.the other items that the review will look at. We have also had concerned

:51:00. > :51:03.about the impact of the link between TEF and fees. We recognise the

:51:04. > :51:06.important role of parliament in setting feed caps and that is why

:51:07. > :51:14.I'm also pleased to seek your support for our amendments 12 a, B,

:51:15. > :51:18.F and G, which meant the polity procedure required to alter in lieu

:51:19. > :51:22.limit amounts to ensure any regulations that raise fees would be

:51:23. > :51:27.septic as a minimum to the authority procedure which provide a greater

:51:28. > :51:30.level polity oversight and the current legislation. But the more

:51:31. > :51:37.these amendments demonstrate our commitment to a considered roll-out

:51:38. > :51:42.of differentiated fees. Amendments in lieu 12 C and B will delay the

:51:43. > :51:45.link between differentiating TEF ratings and tuition fee caps so this

:51:46. > :51:50.will not be introduced over three years with the first year of

:51:51. > :51:52.differentiated fees as a result of TEF ratings being no earlier than

:51:53. > :51:58.the academic year beginning of autumn 2020. I would like to clarify

:51:59. > :52:03.this point as I know that it is slightly complex.

:52:04. > :52:12.Until August 2020 there will be no different show -- differentiation of

:52:13. > :52:14.fee uplift. The fee cap will not differ according to the different

:52:15. > :52:19.ratings they might be afforded. These amendments mean that until

:52:20. > :52:23.that point or English providers participating in TEF will receive

:52:24. > :52:27.the full inflation rate uplift, regardless of their rating. It will

:52:28. > :52:31.be up to devolved administrations as before to determine whether they are

:52:32. > :52:35.content for their institutions to participate in TEF and what impact

:52:36. > :52:40.participation may have on their fees. So in practice, this means

:52:41. > :52:43.that differentiated fees will not be introduced until after the

:52:44. > :52:46.independent review as reported to the Secretary of State and

:52:47. > :52:50.Parliament. I would therefore like to reiterate and reassure this House

:52:51. > :52:53.today by repeating the commitment made by the minister for

:52:54. > :52:59.universities in the Other Place yesterday that the ratings awarded

:53:00. > :53:04.this year will not be used determine differentiated fees unless a

:53:05. > :53:07.provider chooses not to re-enter TEF after the independent review.

:53:08. > :53:11.Therefore, this year's ratings will only count towards a differentiated

:53:12. > :53:14.fees if after the review, the provider does not ask for a fresh

:53:15. > :53:20.assessment before the next one is due. An opportunity that will be

:53:21. > :53:23.open to all participants. Before moving to our other amendments,

:53:24. > :53:27.would like to reiterate to this House that we remain committed to

:53:28. > :53:30.ensuring that the TEF will evolve to assess the teaching of quality at

:53:31. > :53:34.subject level as well as institutional level. I know that

:53:35. > :53:39.many noble lords feel very strongly, as we do, that the move to subject

:53:40. > :53:42.level needs to happen as quickly as possible. However, we recognise that

:53:43. > :53:45.subject level assessments are more challenging and that is why the

:53:46. > :53:49.Government has previously announced an extension to the roll-out of

:53:50. > :53:53.subject level TEF with an additional year of piloting. This follows the

:53:54. > :53:57.best practice demonstrated in the research excellence framework and

:53:58. > :54:04.means that subject level assessments will not take place until spring

:54:05. > :54:14.2020. I beg to move. The question is that motion let a be agreed to. I

:54:15. > :54:20.rise to speak to motion letter a. The Lords amendment defined the

:54:21. > :54:24.functions of the University essentially protecting the use of

:54:25. > :54:28.university title by describing the characteristics of an organisation

:54:29. > :54:37.which can be granted such title. The several purposes of this amendment

:54:38. > :54:43.included ensuring institutions called link themselves universities

:54:44. > :54:45.engaged in scholarship, both as part of student learning, learning that

:54:46. > :54:51.would take place in an environment where disciplines meet and melt, and

:54:52. > :54:55.that universities would recognise the special place they hold in

:54:56. > :54:58.society by contributing to our society not only by teaching and

:54:59. > :55:03.dissemination of knowledge but also for example by partnering with

:55:04. > :55:09.charities, schools and colleges, local, regional initiatives, to

:55:10. > :55:13.deliver a benefit well beyond their immediate staff and students.

:55:14. > :55:16.International research clearly demonstrates the impact that engaged

:55:17. > :55:22.universities can have on local communities. Many other countries,

:55:23. > :55:26.including for example Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Canadian

:55:27. > :55:31.provinces, Germany, Spain and India have a definition of university or

:55:32. > :55:35.or its functions and activities in legislation. So an overarching

:55:36. > :55:38.objective of the Lords amendment was to protect the reputation of

:55:39. > :55:44.universities in this country, going beyond the situation in the bill

:55:45. > :55:49.when the OFS might consent to the institutions' use of the university

:55:50. > :55:52.title if that institution were a registered higher education

:55:53. > :55:55.provider. I think this would have community to the world, and I think

:55:56. > :55:59.that is particularly important at a time when we are leaving be you,

:56:00. > :56:04.that are higher education system is open for expansion and innovation,

:56:05. > :56:10.but that university title in England is not given easily. It would tell

:56:11. > :56:13.potential students about the sort of institution and learning environment

:56:14. > :56:16.that they should expect from a university, and I think it would

:56:17. > :56:27.also encourage new entrants to the sector.

:56:28. > :56:36.I appreciate that the Government has worked to ensure that university

:56:37. > :56:42.autonomy is a strong feature of the bill but I'm disappointed elsewhere.

:56:43. > :56:46.However, I'm reassured that the Government amendments in the Other

:56:47. > :56:50.Place, in view of the Lords amendment, required the OFS to have

:56:51. > :56:54.regard to factors set out in guided by the secretary of the state by

:56:55. > :56:57.awarding the university title and I'm pleased that the Secretary of

:56:58. > :57:02.State will consult on these factors. Indeed, I'm strongly welcoming of

:57:03. > :57:06.the comments by the minister for universities' science, research and

:57:07. > :57:13.innovation in the Other Place yesterday. That is about the

:57:14. > :57:17.consultation being full and brought and about the type of factors that

:57:18. > :57:23.would be included in the consultation. I agree that this is

:57:24. > :57:29.an approach which can deliver both widely supported and strong guidance

:57:30. > :57:32.for the office the students, with criteria to award the university

:57:33. > :57:36.title. So I would like to record my thanks to the ministers and their

:57:37. > :57:40.team and I would just like to put one final question to the noble

:57:41. > :57:45.Viscount, the minister, today. In the week that we have heard that

:57:46. > :57:47.China has sent senior Government officials into its leading

:57:48. > :57:53.universities because of concerns over Government criticism and

:57:54. > :57:57.westernisation, does he not think that it would have been a great

:57:58. > :58:02.message for us to have been positively encouraging, if not

:58:03. > :58:07.insisting, that universities act as critics of Government and the

:58:08. > :58:14.conscience of society, as the Lords amendment also suggested? My Lords,

:58:15. > :58:20.I should first declare my interest as chair of the Board of Governors

:58:21. > :58:24.of Sheffield Hallam University. I should also record that the Vice

:58:25. > :58:28.Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, Chris husbands, has been leading

:58:29. > :58:34.work on incrimination of the teaching excellence framework on

:58:35. > :58:39.behalf of the Government. -- implementation. It falls to me to

:58:40. > :58:45.lead the response on the set of governments amendments in motion B

:58:46. > :58:49.and D. It is important to say that this part of the bill has been

:58:50. > :58:56.subject to many contributions during debates. From the start, it has been

:58:57. > :59:02.clear that there has been general support for the Government's decide

:59:03. > :59:04.to raise the profile importance accorded to teaching in our

:59:05. > :59:09.universities. That has not been a point of issue. There has also been

:59:10. > :59:18.a general understanding that fees will over time need to rise with

:59:19. > :59:23.inflation. The concerns have been with the Government's approach to

:59:24. > :59:31.introducing TEF at the link being made between the TEF and increases

:59:32. > :59:36.in fees. In particular, that the TEF was being introduced with undue

:59:37. > :59:40.haste, that the gold, silver, bronze rankings being put forward by both

:59:41. > :59:49.inappropriate and potentially damaging to the sector. And that the

:59:50. > :59:54.TEF was not the right basis for allowing differential fee increases.

:59:55. > :00:00.The amendments now being put forward by the Government in place of our

:00:01. > :00:07.amendments I think go a considerable way to addressing those strong

:00:08. > :00:13.concerns. As the minister has said, the review will be independently led

:00:14. > :00:19.and must cover the process by which the ratings are determined, whether

:00:20. > :00:23.the metrics are fit for purpose, whether the classification is

:00:24. > :00:27.awarded are appropriate, what the impact of the scheme will be on

:00:28. > :00:33.higher education providers, and whether the TEF is in the public

:00:34. > :00:39.interest. By any measure, that is a comprehensive review, and we will

:00:40. > :00:46.all await with interest the outcome. It is essential that any future

:00:47. > :00:51.Secretary of State takes full account of its findings and

:00:52. > :00:58.recommendations. All above tests are important. But I would place to give

:00:59. > :01:04.emphasis on the review of the rankings and the public interest

:01:05. > :01:08.test. In this context, there is one point that I would like the minister

:01:09. > :01:13.did horrify, and I have notified the minister's office in advance -- I

:01:14. > :01:18.would like the minister to clarify. I would be grateful if the minister

:01:19. > :01:25.could confirm that it will be open to a review to say that we should

:01:26. > :01:32.either stay within the current rankings, propose an alternative set

:01:33. > :01:38.of rankings, or indeed conclude that ranking of universities of any sort

:01:39. > :01:43.is simply not appropriate in what is a very diverse sector. I look

:01:44. > :01:49.forward to the minister's response. The ability to differentiate

:01:50. > :01:54.increases linked to the TEF has not been removed from the bill as we

:01:55. > :02:01.proposed. But the Government's amendment will delay any

:02:02. > :02:05.differentiation until at least the academic year 2020-21, and as the

:02:06. > :02:08.minister has said, this will allow time for the review to be completed,

:02:09. > :02:13.and its conclusions properly considered. And in the meantime, it

:02:14. > :02:18.is something that all sides of the House supported, existing

:02:19. > :02:23.universities involved in the process will get the full inflationary

:02:24. > :02:28.uplift. I believe this is a significant and very welcome move by

:02:29. > :02:33.the Government, and I know that it has not been likely conceded. There

:02:34. > :02:38.remains, though, the issue of publication of the results of the

:02:39. > :02:42.trial TEF assessment process. I understand, although it would be

:02:43. > :02:48.helpful for the minister to confirm, that these results will not now be

:02:49. > :02:54.published until after the election, when a new ministerial team are in

:02:55. > :02:58.place. I hope that that new ministerial team will consider very

:02:59. > :03:04.carefully how the issue of publication should be handled,

:03:05. > :03:09.particularly given the implication that TEF will be subject to a wide

:03:10. > :03:13.ranging view. I set at committee stage that I could not think of

:03:14. > :03:20.anyone better placed to lead the work on the TEF and Chris husbands.

:03:21. > :03:23.That firmly remains my view. He and his fellow assessors have applied

:03:24. > :03:30.themselves diligently and fairly to the task they were given. The fault

:03:31. > :03:37.here, I fear, lay in the way that they were commissioned by the

:03:38. > :03:40.Government to undertake the task. The independent review and the delay

:03:41. > :03:46.will provide an opportunity to get this right. In particular, I think

:03:47. > :03:52.that the gold, silver and bronze rankings are not long for this

:03:53. > :03:58.world. I hope that what comes out is a much more sufficient indicated --

:03:59. > :04:09.sophisticated and evidence -based approach to subjects, as proposed by

:04:10. > :04:13.a noble lord. Finally, as I am unlikely to speak again in this

:04:14. > :04:16.debate, I would like to pay tribute to peers on this side of the House

:04:17. > :04:25.for their valuable work in reviewing and amending this bill, to the noble

:04:26. > :04:32.lord Lord Stevenson and two lady Garden and to others in this House

:04:33. > :04:38.for being both willing to listen and to respond to our concerns. That is

:04:39. > :04:44.what this thread should be about. This is still not the bill that we

:04:45. > :04:48.might have wanted, but it is considerably improved from when it

:04:49. > :04:53.came into this House. I hope that there will be no further bills on

:04:54. > :04:58.higher education for a considerable period of time. And the sector will

:04:59. > :05:02.be given the chance to have the stability it needs to do what it

:05:03. > :05:12.does best to represent the interests of this country. I share some of the

:05:13. > :05:15.disappointment accepted by my noble friend Baroness Brown about the

:05:16. > :05:21.definition of a university. But I take great comfort at a significant

:05:22. > :05:28.step forward, which may have escaped the attention of some members of the

:05:29. > :05:35.public, I am extremely grateful to both the minister Joe Johnson and

:05:36. > :05:40.the noble Viscount Younger, for having listened to those who have

:05:41. > :05:46.expressed significant concerns about the inroads into freedom of speech

:05:47. > :05:53.in our universities. And the growth of the most unpleasant racism

:05:54. > :05:59.expressed in the widespread extent of anti-Semitic activity. I am sure

:06:00. > :06:05.all members of the House will support me in expressing gratitude

:06:06. > :06:14.to the two ministers for having understood that and having addressed

:06:15. > :06:17.it, albeit off the face of the bill. Universities' obligations and

:06:18. > :06:24.freedom of speech have been extended and all universities have been

:06:25. > :06:29.reminded by the minister of the definition of anti-Semitism, which

:06:30. > :06:35.has been adopted internationally. That, I think, is a great step

:06:36. > :06:39.forward towards repairing the replication of our universities,

:06:40. > :06:43.which has been suffering internally, if not internationally.

:06:44. > :06:53.I also take some comfort from the fact that the last president of the

:06:54. > :06:58.National Union of Students has not been re-elected in part because some

:06:59. > :07:03.consider some of their remarks have been racist and I believe we are

:07:04. > :07:08.moving into a new era as far as that is concerned. I would also like to

:07:09. > :07:16.take this opportunity of saluting Sir Eric Pickles, the government's

:07:17. > :07:20.envoy for post-Holocaust issues, who joined in the fight to preserve

:07:21. > :07:25.freedom of speech and stop anti-Semitism and this is very good

:07:26. > :07:30.news. We will miss him sorely. And finally, especially on these

:07:31. > :07:35.benches, it has been evident in the discussions about this bill just how

:07:36. > :07:41.much expertise there is in this house about higher education,

:07:42. > :07:44.chancellors, vice chancellors, administrators and professors have

:07:45. > :07:49.all joined in and we have eventually been listened to. I think that goes

:07:50. > :07:55.to establish the value of the expertise accumulated in this house.

:07:56. > :07:59.Some of it may be very elderly but there is a great deal of expertise

:08:00. > :08:07.in higher education and it has come in the end, shone through. My lord

:08:08. > :08:12.could I firstly draw attention to my declaration of interest on the

:08:13. > :08:15.register. It is not my intention to repeat the excellent contributions

:08:16. > :08:22.that have already been made but I would like to put on record my

:08:23. > :08:27.commendation for Chris husbands, the vice Chancellor of what some

:08:28. > :08:32.unwisely called the University in which I'm involved, the other

:08:33. > :08:40.university in Sheffield. His work is of excellent quality and I hope very

:08:41. > :08:46.much that we will be able to build on that in the years to come. I

:08:47. > :08:53.would however like to repeat what Lord Kerslake said in terms of what

:08:54. > :08:59.happens after the general election in ensuring that nothing is done,

:09:00. > :09:02.particularly in relation to the evaluation in the ratings, that

:09:03. > :09:10.damages in any way the enormous contribution of the higher education

:09:11. > :09:15.sector in this country both to the well-being of students themselves

:09:16. > :09:20.but to our economy and our standing in the world. I think there can be

:09:21. > :09:26.no doubt after the considerable debates we have had in this house

:09:27. > :09:35.that there is a deep commitment along with the Minister and the

:09:36. > :09:40.noble Viscount in hearing this house to improving teaching and to

:09:41. > :09:48.recognising the critical role of teaching excellence framework going

:09:49. > :09:52.forward in ensuring that along with the research excellence framework,

:09:53. > :09:58.it is worth putting on the record at this late stage, there is still a

:09:59. > :10:02.major tendency to value what will pull in major grants for research

:10:03. > :10:08.even when the research might be of doubtful value rather than the

:10:09. > :10:16.importance of balancing the commitment to high-quality teaching

:10:17. > :10:19.learning with the REF and that is what I'm committed and have said to

:10:20. > :10:26.Joe Johnson in the Commons and repeat today, a real support for the

:10:27. > :10:31.endeavour to put teaching very much at the top of the agenda. Could I

:10:32. > :10:38.also commend the government for having listened. This has been an

:10:39. > :10:42.exemplar in terms of the way in which we can work across the

:10:43. > :10:53.different divides politically in this house and beyond, and I hope

:10:54. > :10:59.that, and I refer now to speculation in the more reliable media, no one

:11:00. > :11:06.will be punished in any way for having been prepared to listen and

:11:07. > :11:10.debate. The idea that a minister should not be able to express their

:11:11. > :11:17.view internally within the government is a disgrace. And I know

:11:18. > :11:21.that, I don't wish to bring in party political matters, but I know

:11:22. > :11:26.Conservative MPs are said to call the Prime Minister mummy but I

:11:27. > :11:31.remember mummy telling me that she heard me once and heard me twice and

:11:32. > :11:35.didn't want to hear me again but you can't conduct government on that

:11:36. > :11:40.basis. And therefore whatever happens on the 8th of June, I hope

:11:41. > :11:46.we will move forward understanding that the spirit of cooperation

:11:47. > :11:49.create better legislation which is more easily implementable and

:11:50. > :11:55.received a wider welcome that would otherwise be the case and therefore

:11:56. > :12:00.achieves is objected also I would like to thank the Minister for his

:12:01. > :12:08.words, repeating those of Jo Johnson, relating to the move as

:12:09. > :12:14.rapidly as possible to subject rather than institutional comparator

:12:15. > :12:21.and I think this is an important part of what we are debating on what

:12:22. > :12:29.has Amendment 72 morphed into Amendment 23 and is back with is in

:12:30. > :12:32.a different form today. I also want to say how impressed I've been as a

:12:33. > :12:39.new member of this house with the crossbench contributions and I

:12:40. > :12:44.repeat the commendation that Lord Kerslake made rather than going over

:12:45. > :12:50.them again. I do think that ministers and civil servants have

:12:51. > :12:59.been of the highest possible calibre in being prepared to listen and

:13:00. > :13:03.respond and I thank them for it. ... Associate us with the eloquent words

:13:04. > :13:07.we have heard here. There will inevitably be a measure of

:13:08. > :13:10.disappointment not all of your Lordships whisper and has been

:13:11. > :13:15.accepted unequivocally by the other house but we have made immense

:13:16. > :13:19.strides and we are deeply appreciative of the way in which the

:13:20. > :13:25.ministers have listened and come forward with proposals here. If I

:13:26. > :13:28.can pick up one thing about which we are particularly pleased, that there

:13:29. > :13:33.will be Adelaide in implementing this while there is a review because

:13:34. > :13:37.there are some key measures within this Bill which do need more

:13:38. > :13:42.reflection to see if they are the right path to be treading -- there

:13:43. > :13:46.will be a delay. I think we can appreciate that has been built in

:13:47. > :13:51.but we appreciate the measures the government has taken to come towards

:13:52. > :13:57.us on these issues. My Lords, first I should declare an interest as a

:13:58. > :14:01.full-time employment Council member of Kings College London. I had not

:14:02. > :14:06.expected to speak in this part of the debate and I will be speaking

:14:07. > :14:10.again later but since I am on my feet I would also like to reiterate

:14:11. > :14:15.and agree with everybody who has said how much we appreciate the ways

:14:16. > :14:20.in which the government has listened to opinions and to this house

:14:21. > :14:27.generally and I also feel we have come a long way. And in this context

:14:28. > :14:33.and speaking in order to bring back a couple of points that were made in

:14:34. > :14:38.the earlier debates by the noble duke, the Duke of Wellington, and

:14:39. > :14:42.myself in the context of amendments table and since the noble duke is

:14:43. > :14:49.unable to be here this morning, I am going to make them briefly on both

:14:50. > :14:59.of our behalf is. I think like pretty much everybody here we

:15:00. > :15:02.welcome strongly the delay in implementing the issue and I would

:15:03. > :15:09.like to endorse the remarks on this and I'm delighted to hear that we

:15:10. > :15:14.are moving very fast to a situation where we have sub sect level rather

:15:15. > :15:18.than institutional level assessments. -- subject level. I

:15:19. > :15:26.would like to make the point that one of the reasons we became so

:15:27. > :15:29.concerned about the TEF is putting a label on institutions is potentially

:15:30. > :15:35.very damaging to it. One of the things which has been to me rather

:15:36. > :15:43.an eye-opener is the extent to which perhaps inevitably, I have been

:15:44. > :15:46.rather surprised by the extent to which the sector in the view of

:15:47. > :15:57.government is the organised universities you get -- universities

:15:58. > :16:02.UK and at by how few good mechanisms there are for the bill team and the

:16:03. > :16:06.Department to actually get the voice of students as opposed to

:16:07. > :16:08.occasionally that of the National unions are students and students

:16:09. > :16:12.have been desperately concerned about this. They are in a world

:16:13. > :16:16.where they are paying fees and the reputation of the institutions is so

:16:17. > :16:21.great and they have been worried and is deeply opposed to anything which

:16:22. > :16:28.just put a single label on them and I think it is this single national

:16:29. > :16:32.ranking which caused many concerns. Therefore what I would like to say

:16:33. > :16:36.is a couple of things which are really for the incoming secretary of

:16:37. > :16:40.state and government and Minister which I hope they will bear in mind.

:16:41. > :16:43.The first is something which other people have already alluded to, the

:16:44. > :16:47.fact that we have a pilot going on and a system of graves which is

:16:48. > :16:50.going on and I understand it is underweight and there are enormous

:16:51. > :16:55.lessons to be learned from it but I very much hope that after the

:16:56. > :16:59.election the government will think very hard about how they use that

:17:00. > :17:05.information and publish it and whether or not they are in any sense

:17:06. > :17:11.obliged to come forward with the type of single rank National League

:17:12. > :17:17.table which has caused so much anxiety to students. And I do think

:17:18. > :17:26.that it is of great concern and it is hard to see how this serves the

:17:27. > :17:31.purpose which is also expressed in the current Conservative manifesto

:17:32. > :17:37.of preserving the reputation of our great university sector. The other

:17:38. > :17:43.thing which I do feel is something I would love the incoming government

:17:44. > :17:49.to think about is how to widen out their contacts with not just the

:17:50. > :17:52.organised sector, not just universities UK, but with the

:17:53. > :17:57.academics and students who are really what the sector is about. We

:17:58. > :17:59.have great universities not because we have activist managerial vice

:18:00. > :18:04.chancellors but because they are autonomous in large measure

:18:05. > :18:09.internally as well as these are the weak state and that is a real

:18:10. > :18:12.concern and since you are going to have an office for students, it

:18:13. > :18:18.would be very good if post election we could actually make it genuinely

:18:19. > :18:26.an office for students. Thank you. My Lords, this is a very big Bill

:18:27. > :18:30.and I share the feeling of Lord in lieu that is perhaps one we will not

:18:31. > :18:37.seek for a long time to come and we should enjoy what we are seeing. I

:18:38. > :18:42.think we should bear in mind that this bill attracted over 700

:18:43. > :18:46.amendments and has resulted at the latest count in 31 major concessions

:18:47. > :18:49.made by the government to the voices raised both in the other place but

:18:50. > :18:57.particularly here in relation to some of these issues. The noble

:18:58. > :19:01.Baroness was right to reflect on the fact that we have in the Kvist

:19:02. > :19:05.although impotent is indeed the end of the process rather than the whole

:19:06. > :19:13.process -- in front of us is important. In the list of things

:19:14. > :19:17.that have moved in the bill that are important aspect not just freedom of

:19:18. > :19:20.speech which is tremendously important but also measures which

:19:21. > :19:25.will improve collaboration in the sector and will help reverse the

:19:26. > :19:30.decline in part-time students and will assist those mature students

:19:31. > :19:36.who wish to come back and paves the way for more working if they are

:19:37. > :19:38.going out of flexible causes. These are more changes to the

:19:39. > :19:41.infrastructure of the higher education system and will make it

:19:42. > :19:44.better and have not been picked up today because they were dealt with

:19:45. > :19:47.early in the process but they are important as have not been

:19:48. > :19:51.forgotten. We also do not have anything today about the UK are eye

:19:52. > :19:57.and the developments in that area which is to change radically the

:19:58. > :20:03.consensus operating in science and research more generally -- in the UK

:20:04. > :20:06.RI. It is important to reflect the changes went through after debate

:20:07. > :20:09.and discussion after some minor adjustment but not many primarily

:20:10. > :20:14.because there was an effort made to make sure that the words being used

:20:15. > :20:17.to describe the changes made were understood properly and a lot of

:20:18. > :20:20.time was spent in going around talking to people and make sure they

:20:21. > :20:29.were happy with that. This whole process has been -- is an example of

:20:30. > :20:35.what this house is good at, which should be more widely developed

:20:36. > :20:38.within the political debate, that there is room for civilised debate

:20:39. > :20:47.and discussion about every issue, it does not have to be party political,

:20:48. > :20:50.it can be small p political but it can aim to arrive at a better

:20:51. > :20:56.overall solution and I am sure what we're achieving today has ticked the

:20:57. > :21:03.box on all these areas. The four motion introduced by the noble

:21:04. > :21:07.Viscount the Minister which I'm grateful to him before and he spent

:21:08. > :21:13.time, having been warned by us not to spend so much time on his feet,

:21:14. > :21:16.be time for that as ended and was necessary to go through that process

:21:17. > :21:20.but we have all benefited from it because these words are important in

:21:21. > :21:23.understanding the changes made at relatively high speed in the last

:21:24. > :21:26.few days in order to get this bill to a point where it could pass

:21:27. > :21:30.through both houses so I'm grateful to him for that and I think his

:21:31. > :21:33.words are important and as far as I could tell they were the same as

:21:34. > :21:38.those used in the other place, close reading of Hansard might be required

:21:39. > :21:42.but I'm confident that this ability is there to make sure women right

:21:43. > :21:45.place. On the definition at university I have confidence that is

:21:46. > :21:50.what is now in the statute will get us to appoint that will reach out to

:21:51. > :21:54.a point which will allow us to have a better understanding it

:21:55. > :21:55.constitutes a university which will be of benefit to us both internally

:21:56. > :22:10.in the UK and On the TEF which has been the main

:22:11. > :22:16.issue, the main concern, three points. I think it is important that

:22:17. > :22:21.we pick out the flurry of amendments that the main factor that this is

:22:22. > :22:27.that together Parliament retains a lock on how the TEF will be

:22:28. > :22:31.delivered and the design and the implementation. I think that is

:22:32. > :22:36.important, partly because of the way in which the review will work but

:22:37. > :22:39.partly also because of the change to an affirmative regulation of

:22:40. > :22:43.unnecessary regulations of this. I think that is good and I welcome

:22:44. > :22:51.that. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the focus that may be

:22:52. > :22:56.behind it in relation to course level issues. I wonder if I could

:22:57. > :23:04.just ask the Minister if he can reflect a little on that. I don't

:23:05. > :23:09.think this is an Iva- or, is that the less that can be said about an

:23:10. > :23:15.institutional measure and the more that can be said on what is actually

:23:16. > :23:18.going on in the courses and subjects taught in university, the battle

:23:19. > :23:22.that will be and I wonder if he would like to confirm that that is,

:23:23. > :23:26.at least in part with the government is also trying to get to because

:23:27. > :23:32.that will take a lot the heat out of the issues that remain in this area.

:23:33. > :23:36.On the issue of the of the pilot result, which was touched on by Lord

:23:37. > :23:40.Kerslake, there are questions about that and I look forward to hearing

:23:41. > :23:45.the responses. It seems to mirror reflecting on the issues we have in

:23:46. > :23:49.front of us that way you are committing to carry out a review of

:23:50. > :23:54.this is you, digging up the trains and examining how these uses are put

:23:55. > :23:59.together, reflecting on how it is presented, how it appears in public,

:24:00. > :24:03.I think it would be injudicious to make too much of an issue about the

:24:04. > :24:09.publication of the pilots, which are only pilots, which we all know are

:24:10. > :24:18.not perfect and not the way that this thing runs in the long run. It

:24:19. > :24:24.would be helpful if more could be said on this point. My Lords, there

:24:25. > :24:28.is a fourth motion, I think it is a technical one, it wasn't referred to

:24:29. > :24:31.much by the noble Lord the minister but it is consequential on

:24:32. > :24:34.amendments to affirmative regulations and affects the rather

:24:35. > :24:38.narrow issue, the question of accelerated degrees, where an

:24:39. > :24:42.institution wishes to complete in a shorter period of time than is

:24:43. > :24:46.conventional in this case, the course or degree it is teaching,

:24:47. > :24:49.that it will be possible for it to raise fees to compensate for that. I

:24:50. > :24:54.think this is probably a good thing but I wonder if, when it comes to

:24:55. > :24:59.responding that you can confirm that these amendments do not affect the

:25:00. > :25:02.good progress we're making on trying to make a more flexible system

:25:03. > :25:08.available in higher education will encourage people to come in, take

:25:09. > :25:10.part in the course, go out and work, come back, all the flexibility that

:25:11. > :25:14.goes with credit transfer and flexible courses should not be

:25:15. > :25:21.debarred because course fee structures are being inflexible. My

:25:22. > :25:26.Lords, I would like to make a Fisher brief comments in response to those

:25:27. > :25:30.contributors to this short debate. Can I just start by agreeing with

:25:31. > :25:35.the comments made by the noble Lord Lord Stevenson and 2-mac about the

:25:36. > :25:38.spirit in which this bill has been taken to the House. I agree with

:25:39. > :25:44.pretty much everything the noble Lord has said. I would like to start

:25:45. > :25:48.by addressing some points made by baroness Lady Brown, particularly in

:25:49. > :25:52.terms of protecting university title. I would like to thank once

:25:53. > :25:56.again the noble Lords for the active engagement around new clause one and

:25:57. > :26:01.in particular the noble Baroness for making such strong arguments for the

:26:02. > :26:04.need to protect the value of University title. We recognise the

:26:05. > :26:09.need for strong protections, which is reflected in our amendment in

:26:10. > :26:14.you. The noble Baroness Lady Brown also asked about universities asking

:26:15. > :26:20.as critics of government -- acting of critics. There was a mention of

:26:21. > :26:24.China. I agree that universities and stuff must have proper freedoms to

:26:25. > :26:30.question and test perceived wisdom. And to put forward new ideas and

:26:31. > :26:34.controversial or unpopular opinions. Which is why we have ensured that

:26:35. > :26:41.these continue to be enshrined in legislation and the public interest

:26:42. > :26:46.government 's conditions which will be imposed on only registered

:26:47. > :26:50.providers as the UFS considers appropriate, it's important at this

:26:51. > :26:54.late stage in the bill to reemphasise this and I thank the

:26:55. > :27:07.noble Baroness for that. I would like to thank Lord Dursley for the

:27:08. > :27:12.progress made on the TEF. I would like to respond to him and reassure

:27:13. > :27:17.the noble Lord Lord blanket. Lord Kerslake asked of the independent

:27:18. > :27:20.review would be open to amending the existing rankings, a different set

:27:21. > :27:26.of rankings on a system of ranking at all. I'm pleased to give the

:27:27. > :27:29.noble Lords of this House the categorical answer that yes, the

:27:30. > :27:36.independent review is required by our amendment which leads us to

:27:37. > :27:41.consider whether those names are appropriate. The review is also

:27:42. > :27:45.required to consider whether such schemes are in the public interest

:27:46. > :27:48.and other matters that they consider relevant. The independent reviewer

:27:49. > :27:53.would therefore be free to describe the matters described by the noble

:27:54. > :27:58.Lords so I hope that answers that question. The noble Lord Lord

:27:59. > :28:03.Kerslake and the noble Lord Lord blanket asked if the trial results

:28:04. > :28:07.of TEF would not be published until after the election and I can confirm

:28:08. > :28:11.that the Higher Education Funding Council will publish this's TEF

:28:12. > :28:16.results after the general election on eighth June. I would like to say

:28:17. > :28:22.briefly some thanks to the noble Baroness Lady Deitch for kind

:28:23. > :28:25.comments about the important issues of freedom of speech and more

:28:26. > :28:28.generally for the considerable contribution and she has made

:28:29. > :28:34.personally on these important issues. Moving on to courses which I

:28:35. > :28:40.think the noble Lord Lord Stevenson raised, absolutely, it is desirable

:28:41. > :28:43.to move towards the assessment of courses, because as we know,

:28:44. > :28:48.students when they are looking at which university to go to, look, or

:28:49. > :28:55.perhaps they should look, thinking of my own children, at what causes

:28:56. > :29:00.are most suitable for them, that is a desirable way forward and doesn't

:29:01. > :29:03.mean that the full spotlight is on the focus themselves which I suggest

:29:04. > :29:11.is the gist of the questions about is very much the spirit of what I'm

:29:12. > :29:17.aiming to do. The noble Lord Lord blanket praised Chris husbands and I

:29:18. > :29:23.would like to say that I do agree indeed that Chris Husband has made a

:29:24. > :29:27.significant contribution towards the TEF and I want to thank noble Lord

:29:28. > :29:34.Lord blanket as well for his contributions to this debate and

:29:35. > :29:37.praise for the TEF chair. The noble Baroness Lady Woolf raised some

:29:38. > :29:42.points about not publishing the results of this your's ratings. I

:29:43. > :29:47.would like to point out that the first TOWIE assessments are well

:29:48. > :29:54.under way, and almost 300 providers, I think it's actually 299, opted to

:29:55. > :29:58.participate, fully aware that by participating they would receive the

:29:59. > :30:05.ratings, so they would be published. I should make that clear in terms of

:30:06. > :30:09.the point that she raised. I do believe that I have covered, there

:30:10. > :30:17.is one final point that I would like to cover raised by the noble Lord

:30:18. > :30:21.Lord Stevenson. He asked if this affects the ability for flexible

:30:22. > :30:24.learning and I can confirm that they do not. So we do agree with him

:30:25. > :30:29.about the importance of flexible learning. And with that my Lords I

:30:30. > :30:34.beg to move. The question is that the motion may be agreed to do. As

:30:35. > :30:38.many that are in agreement say content, the contrary say not

:30:39. > :30:43.content, the contents have it. The motion may be moved formerly. The

:30:44. > :30:46.question is that motion brother Mike B agreed to, those in favour say

:30:47. > :31:01.content, those against sin not content. My Lords I beg to move

:31:02. > :31:06.motion C that this has agrees with the Commons in the amendments of 15

:31:07. > :31:09.A and 15 B in lieu. Turning to the issue of appeals against revocation

:31:10. > :31:14.of degree awarding powers and University title. We introduced

:31:15. > :31:18.amendments during the passage of the bill in this house which provide

:31:19. > :31:24.additional safeguards around the revocation of degree awarding powers

:31:25. > :31:29.and University title. By clearly setting out when these powers can be

:31:30. > :31:33.used. This was in recognition when these are last resort powers,

:31:34. > :31:38.amendments were also passed relating to appeals against such decisions.

:31:39. > :31:41.But report stage in this House the noble and learned and Lord Lord

:31:42. > :31:47.Judge and others advanced compelling arguments about the need for strong

:31:48. > :31:55.appeals provisions in cases where a provider's degree awarding powers

:31:56. > :31:59.title revoked. Including the first we take tribunal to take the

:32:00. > :32:04.decision. We absolutely agree that the powers in this respect need to

:32:05. > :32:08.be subjected to the right safeguards so I am pleased to say that the

:32:09. > :32:14.other place has agreed these amendments in lieu, amendment 78 a

:32:15. > :32:18.278 age. The same aims as a Lords amendment 78 and 106 but would align

:32:19. > :32:23.the wording more closely with that used elsewhere in the legislation.

:32:24. > :32:28.The amendments allow an appeal on a limited grounds and permit the first

:32:29. > :32:32.tier tribunal to retake any decision of the OS as to revoke degree

:32:33. > :32:40.awarding powers or University title. I would like to thank the noble and

:32:41. > :32:44.learned and Lord Lord Judge along with the noble Baroness Lady Felix

:32:45. > :32:48.Abril powers of the committee for the time, energy and expertise that

:32:49. > :32:52.they have put into the scrutiny of this bill. Moving to the issue of

:32:53. > :32:56.student electoral registration, in both this House and the other place,

:32:57. > :33:00.we have heard powerful and convincing arguments about the

:33:01. > :33:05.importance of student electoral registration. I do commend the noble

:33:06. > :33:08.Baroness 's Lady Royal and Lady Garden and other noble lords who

:33:09. > :33:11.have spoken eloquently on this issue. We all agree that

:33:12. > :33:16.participation in the democratic process by all parts of society is

:33:17. > :33:19.vital for a healthy democracy. We have thought carefully about the

:33:20. > :33:26.issues raised both in this place and the other place. In place of the

:33:27. > :33:31.amendment passed on this issue at report stage I'm pleased to invite

:33:32. > :33:35.this House to agreed amendments 15 A- 15 B in lieu, which will improve

:33:36. > :33:42.the electoral registration of students. The amendments to this by

:33:43. > :33:47.permitting the UART FS two compose a process of registration which will

:33:48. > :33:52.require governing bodies to take steps required by the U FS to

:33:53. > :34:00.facilitate cooperation with the bodies in England. The amendment

:34:01. > :34:04.replaces requirement within the new regulatory frame network while

:34:05. > :34:08.equally importantly maintaining an altered the statutory roles and

:34:09. > :34:12.responsibilities of ER ohs for ensuring the accuracy of the

:34:13. > :34:21.register. These amendments will complement the existing powers of

:34:22. > :34:24.the Euros. The UFS will have regard to ministerial guidance, is sued

:34:25. > :34:28.under the general laws of the bill. This layout of the government

:34:29. > :34:33.expects in relation to the electoral registration condition alongside

:34:34. > :34:37.expectations about the other function of the UART FS. In using

:34:38. > :34:40.the term co-operation in the amendment we anticipate that the

:34:41. > :34:45.ministerial guidance will state that is part of this corporation Mac that

:34:46. > :34:49.the URI FS should require providers to facilitate student electoral

:34:50. > :34:57.registration. We also anticipate that the guidance will state that

:34:58. > :35:03.providers will cooperate with ERos for purposes of maintaining the

:35:04. > :35:06.accuracy of electoral registers. There are many excellent examples

:35:07. > :35:10.across the sector of methods to encourage students to join the

:35:11. > :35:13.electoral register including models put in place by the universities of

:35:14. > :35:18.Sheffield and Cardiff which provide examples of good practice. I also

:35:19. > :35:22.wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness Lady Royal

:35:23. > :35:25.for championing this issue and recognising the work that she and

:35:26. > :35:31.others have taken forward on registration at the University of

:35:32. > :35:34.Bath. Through our amendments the URL as well have power to impose an

:35:35. > :35:41.electoral registration condition to deal with higher education providers

:35:42. > :35:44.not doing enough to cooperate with administrators. When imposed the

:35:45. > :35:49.commission takes effect as their requirement. It will oblige action

:35:50. > :35:53.to be taken. The clear rain is whether you are FS to look across

:35:54. > :36:01.the sector and when needed to make sure that necessary action is taken.

:36:02. > :36:07.The committee than Compal steps to be taken so that registration can be

:36:08. > :36:11.facilitated. Noncompliance as with any registration condition is

:36:12. > :36:15.possible including from you FS sanctions and I want to reiterate

:36:16. > :36:19.our commitment that the ability of students to register to vote should

:36:20. > :36:23.be as broad and strong as possible. To conclude, my Lords, the

:36:24. > :36:25.government shares the aim of increasing the number of students

:36:26. > :36:30.among young people registered to vote. We agree with the noble Lords

:36:31. > :36:33.that it is vital that we have a healthy democracy that works for

:36:34. > :36:37.everyone and the views of students and young people are reflected in a

:36:38. > :36:41.democratic process. My Lords I believe that this amendment will

:36:42. > :36:46.help achieve this goal and I beg to move.

:36:47. > :36:59.The question is seen would be agreed to. -- Motion C. I speak to motion

:37:00. > :37:05.at the very briefly. The original bill produced an appeal system that

:37:06. > :37:09.was far too narrow. The Amendment proposed by the Lords and myself

:37:10. > :37:15.suggested it should be wider. We used words which were reflective of

:37:16. > :37:18.advocacy rather than law. We argued that the ground of appeal should be

:37:19. > :37:25.on the basis of the decision being wrong. That view appealed to this

:37:26. > :37:29.House. We have reconsidered it am a we have discussed it with the

:37:30. > :37:34.secretary of state and the Minister. The Amendment now proposed by the

:37:35. > :37:39.Government makes much better lot and in those circumstances I support the

:37:40. > :37:42.Government's amendments. Villa my Lords, I declare my interest as the

:37:43. > :37:48.register and I am very grateful to the Government for tabling

:37:49. > :37:52.amendments a and 15 B and I put on record my specific things to the

:37:53. > :37:56.ministers Joe Johnson and Chris Skidmore along with her officials

:37:57. > :37:59.for their time and their willingness to find a compromise following the

:38:00. > :38:07.adoption by this House of my Amendment. This issue of advocacy by

:38:08. > :38:10.my honourable friend, who has done much work on the registration of

:38:11. > :38:21.students to vote and by organisations like Catt ballot, the

:38:22. > :38:25.voice and use of Association of the lecture ministers was very upland

:38:26. > :38:28.selecting my case and I have to say the chief executive John Turner

:38:29. > :38:31.expressed some surprise that the Minister suggested at the report

:38:32. > :38:38.states that the association did not take a positive view. It is divided

:38:39. > :38:41.on the issue, but I trust they will now do everything possible to ensure

:38:42. > :38:46.all universities comply with this new requirement, this new

:38:47. > :38:50.obligation, at the earliest opportunity. I well understand that

:38:51. > :38:54.we all have the same aim to enable the greatest number of students to

:38:55. > :38:58.register to vote and will shape the future of this country so it works

:38:59. > :39:02.for the future of young people. It will probably not be possible for

:39:03. > :39:06.ministerial guidelines to be published before the enrollment of

:39:07. > :39:12.students this autumn, so I hope that whatever minister is in office will

:39:13. > :39:18.draw attention of higher education institutions to best practice that

:39:19. > :39:23.exists, for example that has been cited today and I am very proud of

:39:24. > :39:26.what Bass has done in this in these endeavors. Could the Minister... I

:39:27. > :39:32.am very grateful to the Minister for the just and in the guidance, very

:39:33. > :39:39.welcome, but I wonder if he could say when the guidance is likely to

:39:40. > :39:44.be published and also when the Government, if it is the

:39:45. > :39:47.Conservative government, might expect higher education institutions

:39:48. > :39:51.to comply with the new obligations, because while smooth might not have

:39:52. > :39:57.another general election for perhaps five years, there will be local

:39:58. > :40:03.Government elections in May 2018 and it's my fervent hope that all

:40:04. > :40:07.institutions would have a system in place by then. My Lords, I read a

:40:08. > :40:11.rate my thanks and I look forward to working with the next Government to

:40:12. > :40:14.ensure that maximum number of students registered to vote, so not

:40:15. > :40:20.only their voices are heard, but their views are expressed in the

:40:21. > :40:24.ballot box, thus enabling them to exert maximum influence that they

:40:25. > :40:32.should in the Democratic life of this country. As it won't speak

:40:33. > :40:35.again on this particular bill, I also think the way in which all

:40:36. > :40:39.benches have cooperated and collaborated on this bill has been

:40:40. > :40:43.extraordinary and very, very welcome. To be partisan and just for

:40:44. > :40:48.a moment, I have to say a great thanks goes to my normal friend Lord

:40:49. > :40:50.Stevenson and the support he is received from Molly Critchley. I

:40:51. > :40:55.miss my noble friend will be stepping down from the front bench

:40:56. > :40:58.shortly and I think he has done the most superb job am a notch as for

:40:59. > :41:01.the Labour benches but for the House as a whole. I look forward to

:41:02. > :41:08.working with him on the back benches. Thank you, my Lords. And I

:41:09. > :41:11.very really add support, having been a staunch supporter of this

:41:12. > :41:15.Amendment, and in trying to engage young people in the importance of

:41:16. > :41:20.voting and elections? I think this is a very valuable step in pointing

:41:21. > :41:24.out to enable them to get involved in the university level. Once again,

:41:25. > :41:29.grateful for the Amendment which has come in from the Government. If I

:41:30. > :41:31.may say, if we are trying to involve young people in voting, wouldn't it

:41:32. > :41:39.be wonderful if we could now think of lowering the voting age to 16 to

:41:40. > :41:47.allow more of them to do so? The Amendment in this motion was regards

:41:48. > :41:53.to the appeals system is, I think, greatly improved, as my noble friend

:41:54. > :41:58.Lord judge has said and I am delighted that this has happened,

:41:59. > :42:05.because I think it is of vital importance in relation to the very,

:42:06. > :42:15.very serious matters that the Office for Students has power to deal with.

:42:16. > :42:20.My Lords, I want to thank the ministers and I include in this

:42:21. > :42:28.particular thanks Lord Young for a reason which I will explain in a

:42:29. > :42:33.moment, and also the Minister in the comments for the very kind way in

:42:34. > :42:39.which various reactions of mine to this extremely important bill have

:42:40. > :42:48.been handled. Lords, I want to mention one particular matter which

:42:49. > :42:56.does not arise especially under this motion, but from my point of view,

:42:57. > :43:01.it's rather important. When the noble Baroness Lady Brown raised the

:43:02. > :43:08.issue with regards to the new power to search the headquarters of higher

:43:09. > :43:16.education providers, she indicated that this new power was something

:43:17. > :43:20.that the higher at education suppliers anticipated with some

:43:21. > :43:30.apprehension. In response to that, my noble friend read out the

:43:31. > :43:38.statutory requirements before such a war could be granted in schedule

:43:39. > :43:43.five of the bill. And I ventured to suggest, I had listened to a lot of

:43:44. > :43:46.this in and without, particularly talking myself, but on this

:43:47. > :43:51.particular occasion it occurred to me that one of the assurances that

:43:52. > :43:57.the academic community were entitled to get was that these particular

:43:58. > :44:01.restrictions, which are quite powerful and important, would be

:44:02. > :44:08.definitely the subject of consideration by the magistrate. And

:44:09. > :44:13.I suggested that the magistrate should sign a document to that

:44:14. > :44:17.effect. I got a letter almost immediately, which is still on the

:44:18. > :44:25.website, to say that such a thing was unheard of and I thought, well,

:44:26. > :44:31.in that case, it's 20 years since I handed over with confidence my

:44:32. > :44:41.responsibilities for this part of what is now the Ministry of Justice

:44:42. > :44:44.to my noble successor, so it is a long time since I dealt with this

:44:45. > :44:49.particular thing directly. But that is what I was told. I thought, in

:44:50. > :44:52.that case, the thing to do is to alter the words of the word to make

:44:53. > :44:57.it clear that the war in carries that with that. And that was

:44:58. > :45:01.objected to for all sorts of reasons, which are lordships may

:45:02. > :45:09.remember, and some of them were put forward by my noble friend Lord

:45:10. > :45:13.Young at the report stage. I felt rather strongly about it, as he

:45:14. > :45:18.recognised, and he kindly said that he would consider it further at the

:45:19. > :45:20.full report stage, which gave me an opportunity, which otherwise I

:45:21. > :45:27.wouldn't have had, to raise the matter at report stage. I was still

:45:28. > :45:34.very insistent on this because I couldn't see any objection to it and

:45:35. > :45:38.I'm greatly obliged to the Minister in the comments, Ian Johnson, for

:45:39. > :45:44.raging at the last minute that I would get a chance to deal directly

:45:45. > :45:48.with the Ministry of Justice, from which the objections to my

:45:49. > :45:59.amendments were coming. -- for arranging. In that afternoon, I was

:46:00. > :46:03.able to meet the official in the department, the Ministry of Justice,

:46:04. > :46:10.and that part of it for which I say I used to have long-ago

:46:11. > :46:14.responsibility, and he eventually told me that in fact, the procedure

:46:15. > :46:23.for dealing with warrants had now been altered by orders of the Lord

:46:24. > :46:28.Chief Justice, particularly in criminal cases, so at the end of the

:46:29. > :46:32.application for the war and, strangely enough, there is a place

:46:33. > :46:38.for the magistrate to indicate whether or not he or she agrees that

:46:39. > :46:43.the war and should be granted and if so what the reasons are for their

:46:44. > :46:47.decision. And he said that he thought this was probably the

:46:48. > :46:52.general tract is in relation to warrants, because this is not a

:46:53. > :46:59.criminal warrant under this bill, in relation to warrants in the

:47:00. > :47:04.magistrate court. Am I know about -- noble friend did in fact say that

:47:05. > :47:11.that was the position when we came to move the motion on the third

:47:12. > :47:26.reading. I want therefore to express my gratitude to the ministers and

:47:27. > :47:29.also the team, the build team from the Department for Education, for

:47:30. > :47:36.their kind treatment of me in connection to this and other matters

:47:37. > :47:41.as well. But I do think that it is important that, where a ministry

:47:42. > :47:48.other then the Minister directly responsible for the bill, gives the

:47:49. > :47:51.advice to block an Amendment coming from somebody who, after all, is

:47:52. > :47:58.thought of as a Government supporter, should be blocked, in a

:47:59. > :48:06.way that depends on their expertise and for which, with all respect to

:48:07. > :48:08.Mr Johnson's rate for righty of imminence, he wouldn't be

:48:09. > :48:14.particularly interested in the magister 's courts procedure for a

:48:15. > :48:24.warrant. So it's nothing really to do with him. It is similarly for my

:48:25. > :48:31.nubile friend -- noble friend,, it is damaging way of damaging your

:48:32. > :48:36.colleagues without apparently much responsibility and my qualifications

:48:37. > :48:42.therefore for thanks in relation to the work that has been done behind

:48:43. > :48:45.the scenes here is modified to an extent by that particular matter

:48:46. > :48:53.which I think the ministers responsible for the bill have a

:48:54. > :48:58.right to have it made clear that it was nothing to do with them and it's

:48:59. > :49:06.come from a source for which they have only the responsibility of

:49:07. > :49:09.being in the one Government. I was going to intervene on this point

:49:10. > :49:16.because I think the case for excepting the amendments have been

:49:17. > :49:22.made very strongly by Baroness were real and Lord judge, but this has

:49:23. > :49:29.put me in mind of two things I thought we should share with the

:49:30. > :49:33.House. First of all, the noble lord has been quite active on this bill

:49:34. > :49:36.on a narrow issue and therefore I have got to know him better and he

:49:37. > :49:40.kindly shared with me a speech he gave recently at a rather arcane

:49:41. > :49:46.group of people who seem to be interested in the Minister does a

:49:47. > :49:50.lot, a matter I'm sure the Lord goes to ever be, but the first time I

:49:51. > :49:54.heard of it. They debate series important issues. His address was

:49:55. > :50:00.about the quality of legislation going through your Lordship's house.

:50:01. > :50:06.I recommended to all noble Lords, because I observed a little of what

:50:07. > :50:09.he has said, and she has been... When the annals of this Parliament

:50:10. > :50:15.are written up, I hope there is space for this little vignette of

:50:16. > :50:18.persistence over every other aspect of life, which have resulted in a

:50:19. > :50:22.terrific results. They didn't quite give the nuance that he thought he

:50:23. > :50:24.was going to end up with that I just want to share that with the House

:50:25. > :50:29.because there weren't many of us there late at night when this was

:50:30. > :50:35.finally resolved, but it is worth bearing in mind. The Lord makes the

:50:36. > :50:41.point that, very often in considering legislation, there is a

:50:42. > :50:45.mentality that sits in on the building which is called the tyranny

:50:46. > :50:49.of the bill, and the tyranny of the bill is an article of faith which is

:50:50. > :50:53.that the bill must be right, and it must be right because the people who

:50:54. > :50:56.put it together has spent most of their professional lives working on

:50:57. > :51:01.this piece of legislation, particularly in the case of higher

:51:02. > :51:07.education, they are not going to give up a,, let alone a word or a

:51:08. > :51:13.phrase, without considerable resistance. Any praise avidly backed

:51:14. > :51:17.legislation in both houses and get around that and I mention this point

:51:18. > :51:23.because we found this a lot of times that the results that we are seeing

:51:24. > :51:26.today, they weren't always... Perhaps I shouldn't have done, but I

:51:27. > :51:29.did say because I mentioned it at the time and I thought of that, that

:51:30. > :51:33.we were in a spirit of cooperation trying to get a better legislation.

:51:34. > :51:37.It didn't feel like that at the time. Certainly not on day one of

:51:38. > :51:42.the committee, when we had every chance to compromise on the issue,

:51:43. > :51:47.the Minister offered the chance to take away the issue and look at it

:51:48. > :51:50.every conceivable reason to say no every conceivable reason to say no

:51:51. > :51:55.and I don't think that was to the benefit of the bill. But the point

:51:56. > :51:57.that the Lord was making was that he was blocked at every attempt to get

:51:58. > :52:04.this very sensible measure through, a measure which he is, he was too

:52:05. > :52:08.kind to say it, but he knew a lot more about it than probably anybody

:52:09. > :52:13.else on the planet, and they still said he was wrong, but he persisted

:52:14. > :52:16.but and got it to the point where it was agreed, but it was agreed in a

:52:17. > :52:20.slightly craven way, which is the point I want to make. The front

:52:21. > :52:29.bench still resisted the need to amend the bill to reflect the know

:52:30. > :52:33.-- noble lordLord, and they found a way to do it anyway. I'm not sure

:52:34. > :52:37.that's the best way we make legislation, idly thought that with

:52:38. > :52:43.you. -- I leave that thought with you.

:52:44. > :52:52.My Lords I want to make a view brief comments in response to this debate.

:52:53. > :52:56.Can start by thanking the noble and learned and Lord Lord Judge for his

:52:57. > :53:01.kind comments and supporting government amendments. We welcome

:53:02. > :53:06.his support and thank him and also Lord Lisvane for his work and

:53:07. > :53:12.engagement this issue. I would also like to thank the noble Baroness

:53:13. > :53:17.Lady Royal for her persistence and passionate commitment to the cause

:53:18. > :53:21.of student electoral registration including as I said earlier at her

:53:22. > :53:26.own university, the University of Bath. She asked me when the guidance

:53:27. > :53:31.on student electoral registration would be published. Can I reassure

:53:32. > :53:39.her that he ministerial guidance to the U F as will be assured shortly

:53:40. > :53:44.after it is established. And its guidance to providers will be issued

:53:45. > :53:47.in mid-2018 in preparation for the move to the new regulatory

:53:48. > :53:51.frameworks are the sector will have the chance to express its views on

:53:52. > :53:57.the regulatory framework during the public consultation this autumn. I

:53:58. > :54:04.listened carefully to the comments made by my noble and learned and

:54:05. > :54:09.friend, Lord Mackay. Can I say first of all that I thank him for his time

:54:10. > :54:13.and expertise and engagement on the bill. He was obviously referring

:54:14. > :54:20.specifically to the matter of the warrants. I would like to apologise

:54:21. > :54:25.for any misunderstandings that arose through the process to say rather

:54:26. > :54:30.than being drawn into further debate on the matter I hope he understands

:54:31. > :54:35.that, although it was somewhat protracted, we as I say got there in

:54:36. > :54:45.the end. With that, my Lords, I beg to move. That motion C be agreed to,

:54:46. > :54:51.as many of the opinion is a content, the contrary not content, the

:54:52. > :54:57.contents have it. Motion D moved formerly. The question is that

:54:58. > :55:01.motion D be agreed to, those of that opinion is a content, the contrary

:55:02. > :55:10.not content, the contents have it. Motion E, Viscount Younger. My

:55:11. > :55:17.Lords, I beg to move motion E that the Lords to agree with the comment

:55:18. > :55:23.in their - the Commons on the amendment. Our reforms are designed

:55:24. > :55:26.to make it simply for high-quality providers to contribute to greater

:55:27. > :55:32.student choice and ensure that our higher education sector remains

:55:33. > :55:37.innovative and can respond to changing economic demands. We must

:55:38. > :55:40.be clear that new providers cannot come at the price of lowering the

:55:41. > :55:44.quality bar. We are committed to protecting the value of English

:55:45. > :55:47.degrees and throughout the passage of the bill we have added to the

:55:48. > :55:54.legislative protections to achieve this. At report stage in this house

:55:55. > :56:00.we have tabled an amendment based on a proposal from the noble Baroness

:56:01. > :56:07.Lady Woolf requiring the UFS to request advice from a relevant body

:56:08. > :56:11.on quality standards before awarding powers or revoking them on the

:56:12. > :56:17.grounds of quality of provision. The rule of the body would be similar to

:56:18. > :56:24.that of the A 's CDP. The position we are putting in place will build

:56:25. > :56:30.on the valuable work they have done over the years. For further strength

:56:31. > :56:33.of this requirement for expert advice in particular this amendment

:56:34. > :56:38.makes clear that if there's not a designated quality body to carry out

:56:39. > :56:41.the role the committee that the UFS must establish to carry it out must

:56:42. > :56:48.feature a majority of members who are not members of UFS. Additionally

:56:49. > :56:53.in appointing those bodies, their advice must be informed that the

:56:54. > :56:59.interest listed in the tours, this will ensure good information. This

:57:00. > :57:02.amendment also makes it clear that the advice must include a view on

:57:03. > :57:08.whether the provider under consideration can maintain quality

:57:09. > :57:13.and standards, and in line with the arguments put forward by Lady Woolf,

:57:14. > :57:16.it requires the UFS to notify the Secretary of State as as soon as

:57:17. > :57:19.possible after it grants degree awarding powers to a provider who

:57:20. > :57:24.has not previously delivered a degree course and validation

:57:25. > :57:28.agreement. So let me be clear that, is the case at the moment, I would

:57:29. > :57:33.expect the Secretary of State's guidance to the UFS on degree

:57:34. > :57:37.awarding powers to continue to require that a provider's

:57:38. > :57:41.eligibility be reviewed if there was any change in its circumstances such

:57:42. > :57:47.as a murder or a change of ownership. The UFS has powers under

:57:48. > :57:50.the bill to remove degree awarding powers from a provider whether our

:57:51. > :57:54.concerns as to the quality and standards of its higher education

:57:55. > :57:58.provision following such change. I can confirm that we expect the UFS

:57:59. > :58:02.to seek advice from the relevant body on any such quality concerns

:58:03. > :58:08.before taking the step of revocation. My Lords, I beg to move.

:58:09. > :58:15.The question is that motion E B agreed to. I would like to first of

:58:16. > :58:21.all take the opportunity to thank the government and noble minister

:58:22. > :58:27.and Minister for higher education sincerely for listening so carefully

:58:28. > :58:34.and patiently to the arguments that I and many others put forward on

:58:35. > :58:43.these issues. I would like to follow other noble Lords by saying that

:58:44. > :58:45.while this has been a grind all parts of the house have found

:58:46. > :58:51.something to discuss and agree and in that sense it has been, I would

:58:52. > :58:54.not say enjoyable but certainly an educational and ultimately a

:58:55. > :58:57.positive process. I would like to repeat that I appreciate the time

:58:58. > :59:05.that everyone in the Lords is put into this and very much appreciate

:59:06. > :59:10.the work put in by the team. This clause which I am very happy to see

:59:11. > :59:16.moving towards the statute book does seem to be slightly ill understood

:59:17. > :59:20.perhaps outside this chamber, certainly outside this building. I

:59:21. > :59:23.think it might be worth my while to reiterate some of what I think is

:59:24. > :59:27.important about it. I would be grateful if the minister would let

:59:28. > :59:31.me and the house know if he disagrees with anything I am about

:59:32. > :59:36.to say, not too slowly. It seems to me that one of the major reasons

:59:37. > :59:38.this bill is so important is that it sets out what is happening in the

:59:39. > :59:45.sector could, possibly for decades to come. And that is a reason why we

:59:46. > :59:50.have to take account, both of whether it can provide innovation

:59:51. > :59:57.and new ideas and allow the sector to move but also whether it's going

:59:58. > :00:04.to provide guarantees of quality and standards and protect students, many

:00:05. > :00:11.of whom take out large loans, and the whole country against what is

:00:12. > :00:12.always possible, which is that some institutions and some people will

:00:13. > :00:16.not have the interests of the not have the interests of the

:00:17. > :00:20.country and the sector at heart. And I do think that innovation is a very

:00:21. > :00:24.important part of it and I would like to also take this opportunity

:00:25. > :00:30.to welcome in this house the fact that the government has recently

:00:31. > :00:33.given some money to the new university being established in

:00:34. > :00:37.Herefordshire which I think is important because of the role it

:00:38. > :00:41.will play in helping to develop engineering skills and to work with

:00:42. > :00:45.small businesses and supply chains and I just think that's the sort of

:00:46. > :00:48.institution we need many more of it and I am really pleased that the

:00:49. > :00:53.government has given its support. But I think it is also worth

:00:54. > :00:57.remembering that one of the things that has bothered us very much in

:00:58. > :01:01.thinking how this bill should go forward is the knowledge that it's

:01:02. > :01:06.only too easy to create a situation in which institutions arise and gain

:01:07. > :01:14.access to public funds, whose existence is very hard to justify

:01:15. > :01:19.and can do enormous harm. And it is not just this country although the

:01:20. > :01:22.US has given us the largest and most catastrophic bankruptcy is leaving

:01:23. > :01:26.students stranded. It's after all not long ago that the Home Office

:01:27. > :01:30.was moving to investigate and shut down higher institution

:01:31. > :01:35.establishments in this country which were... This part of the bill has

:01:36. > :01:40.always been enormously important. And I am extremely happy because it

:01:41. > :01:45.seems to me that one of the things that this clause does is instituted

:01:46. > :01:52.quality assurance process which focuses the whole attention of the

:01:53. > :01:57.office the students on a number of critical issues when this is

:01:58. > :02:01.granting awarding powers and which also clarifies the importance of

:02:02. > :02:06.independent advice from outside institutions. Again, this is always

:02:07. > :02:10.important because an institution creates its own understandings and

:02:11. > :02:15.the world. And I think that the the world. And I think that the

:02:16. > :02:18.potential strengthening and improvement of the advice which the

:02:19. > :02:23.UFS will get from outside which will build on the cue a A but will

:02:24. > :02:28.potentially be more independent and therefore will be both an additional

:02:29. > :02:33.safeguard and add more to the process, is very, very often. And

:02:34. > :02:41.the other thing about this clause is that it clarifies the general public

:02:42. > :02:45.the way in which the government envisages new institutions coming

:02:46. > :02:49.through and it clearly envisages two pathways, that many people will come

:02:50. > :02:55.through validation which is a process which is has grown over the

:02:56. > :02:59.years, but if an institution is to get degree awarding powers from day

:03:00. > :03:05.one, and this is something of which the Secretary of State must be

:03:06. > :03:09.aware, noble Lord Willetts earlier pointed out that anything that goes

:03:10. > :03:12.wrong tends to rant on the desk of the Secretary of State. What seems

:03:13. > :03:15.to me important here is that we have an extra element, not of formal

:03:16. > :03:21.accountability but something that will bring into the process is both

:03:22. > :03:25.a clear ability for the Secretary of State to create a new institution

:03:26. > :03:28.which has to be awarding powers because this is seen as something

:03:29. > :03:34.they are capable of from day one but also something in which this process

:03:35. > :03:42.has to be public and one which cannot slide through. Unobserved. So

:03:43. > :03:45.really I think this is an area in which we have made enormous progress

:03:46. > :03:49.and maybe all this would have happened anywhere but I am extremely

:03:50. > :03:54.happy to see it on the face of the bill. I'd like to finish once more

:03:55. > :03:59.by expressing my gratitude to everyone who has worked on the bill

:04:00. > :04:03.and has listened to our concerns and my appreciation of all the comments

:04:04. > :04:11.and information and hard work that the colleagues in the House across

:04:12. > :04:17.all benches but it would. And I welcome this amendment. I would like

:04:18. > :04:26.to endorse everything that the noble lady has said. I want on behalf of

:04:27. > :04:31.the House to thank her for luck hard work and effort she has put into

:04:32. > :04:36.securing these changes. This part of the bill in its original form was

:04:37. > :04:44.the one that gave cause to a great deal of worry, for me the most

:04:45. > :04:48.worrying of all because in my view it threatened the reputation of

:04:49. > :04:55.higher education, not only in this country but overseas as well. I

:04:56. > :05:00.think we are now in a much better place, the only thing that I would

:05:01. > :05:07.ask is that there is some monitoring of how it works in practice. I think

:05:08. > :05:13.it is very important that there should be some evaluation to make

:05:14. > :05:15.absolutely clear to the higher education sector and those who might

:05:16. > :05:20.want to enter it that there are going to be rigorous tests of both

:05:21. > :05:24.quality and standards before any quality and standards before any

:05:25. > :05:30.institution can have degree awarding powers and access to grants and

:05:31. > :05:35.loans through the system of financial support that we have.

:05:36. > :05:40.Having said that, I am grateful to the government and the Minister for

:05:41. > :05:44.bringing forward this amendment because I think it is a huge

:05:45. > :05:50.improvement to the bill compared with what we had originally. I moved

:05:51. > :05:55.briefly to intervene to say that at the end of the directions on this

:05:56. > :06:03.important aspect of the bill, I think we ended with a more rigorous,

:06:04. > :06:05.more transparent and more demanding regime for alternative providers in

:06:06. > :06:10.higher education and we have ever had before. I regretted that it was

:06:11. > :06:14.not possible to get legislation during the previous parliament that

:06:15. > :06:18.would have gone alongside the initiatives we took that we

:06:19. > :06:24.certainly have a very significant regulatory regime in place now.

:06:25. > :06:29.The Baroness has been one of the people pressing for this I would

:06:30. > :06:37.question one point she has said, she said that the Home Office had closed

:06:38. > :06:40.down lots of higher education institutions because they were bogus

:06:41. > :06:45.and didn't need proper standards. I think those were colleges, which you

:06:46. > :06:48.can call yourself a college and there were people getting into

:06:49. > :06:57.Britain because they said they were studying at colleges, but there has

:06:58. > :07:00.always been a regime for validating degree awarding powers. I think

:07:01. > :07:04.would be dangerous if we get in this House that there have been lots of

:07:05. > :07:08.bogus higher education institutions, which I don't think has been the

:07:09. > :07:13.case. The problem was colleges. And even there, the Home Office did get

:07:14. > :07:20.occasionally over exuberant. At least one college which won a Queens

:07:21. > :07:27.award was subsequently closed down. They were tried to stop people from

:07:28. > :07:30.coming to study a vocational qualification in a college, but

:07:31. > :07:34.setting that point aside, we now have a very rigorous regime and I

:07:35. > :07:41.hope we will now see the spirit of what Baroness Wolf said practice,

:07:42. > :07:45.which is that we need innovation in higher education in this country and

:07:46. > :07:47.although it is great when existing providers innovate, we know in many

:07:48. > :07:52.sectors the best way to get innovation is for new people coming

:07:53. > :07:56.in doing things differently, but I hope we can all agree, especially

:07:57. > :08:02.with his regime in place, we can give a very warm welcome to new

:08:03. > :08:08.higher education is attuned to this country. From these benches, we

:08:09. > :08:14.would agree as well that this is the result of the work, we have got a

:08:15. > :08:21.much better regulatory framework, rigorous tests for degree awarding

:08:22. > :08:24.powers are important. I was very much taken with the Minister's

:08:25. > :08:28.comments when he said there should be no lowering of quality in

:08:29. > :08:34.protecting the value of university degrees. There are private

:08:35. > :08:38.providers, the majority of private knowledge do a fantastic job. But

:08:39. > :08:44.let us not kid ourselves that there are still some other colleges, and I

:08:45. > :08:49.would use the bogus colleges, which, with these new powers, these new

:08:50. > :08:53.regulations, will not carrying on letting the quality of our

:08:54. > :08:57.university degrees down and they will not let university students

:08:58. > :09:01.down. It cannot be right, for example, that a student is enrolled

:09:02. > :09:05.to do a degree course which is validated by one of our

:09:06. > :09:11.universities, the only requirement is one GCSE. That cannot be right in

:09:12. > :09:15.our higher education system. So these new powers, from what the

:09:16. > :09:23.Minister has said, will ensure that we can be proud of all of our

:09:24. > :09:26.private providers as well. I echo much of what has already been said,

:09:27. > :09:31.particularly the introductory remarks about the noble Baroness

:09:32. > :09:34.Baroness Wolf, who has inviting this corner we have been supporting her

:09:35. > :09:37.all the way, I'm glad we have reached the point where we are all

:09:38. > :09:43.very happy with what we have got to. The main focus of the amendments

:09:44. > :09:48.report and also of the ones that are report and also of the ones that are

:09:49. > :09:52.now being presented by the Government in Leo, are about the

:09:53. > :10:02.ongoing arrangements in universities and colleges, sorry, universities,

:10:03. > :10:05.in order to provide higher education providers to provide higher degree

:10:06. > :10:10.level politicians. The problem with what happens when eight existing

:10:11. > :10:13.provider is taken over by merger or purchase, still I think needs a

:10:14. > :10:17.little bit of care and concern because there is a fear within the

:10:18. > :10:22.sector that this might well become a feature, perhaps an unwelcome

:10:23. > :10:25.feature, not against new institutions. We always said we

:10:26. > :10:28.would support those, we'll want them to be proper institutions, with

:10:29. > :10:30.procedures and processes in place, and on that basis would

:10:31. > :10:34.that. But if there is an issue where that. But if there is an issue where

:10:35. > :10:38.a commercial imperative rather than academic imperative, I wonder if the

:10:39. > :10:43.Minister can make some comments about what he anticipates will be

:10:44. > :10:51.the arrangements should that merger or takeover be in play?

:10:52. > :10:57.My Lords, I would like to start by echoing the thoughts made by the

:10:58. > :11:02.noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, by thinking the Baroness Lady Wolf in

:11:03. > :11:07.safeguarding the quality of English degrees and also her engagement in

:11:08. > :11:12.the bill's overall, which I may not have said so far. I would like to

:11:13. > :11:15.agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of diversity in the

:11:16. > :11:20.sector and agree that new providers, such as the new bottle on technology

:11:21. > :11:25.and engineering, will serve the interests of students and wider

:11:26. > :11:27.society well. The noble Baroness Lady Blackstone and board stories

:11:28. > :11:31.spoke about the important point about all of the of standards, which

:11:32. > :11:36.has been a theme throughout this bill. I would like to agree with

:11:37. > :11:41.them that we must maintain quality and standards in the sector and the

:11:42. > :11:43.bill is designed to do just that. Our Amendment further restrictions

:11:44. > :11:51.the bill's provisions in that respect, which are help the House

:11:52. > :11:56.now is behind. The noble lord Lord Stevenson, at the very end of his

:11:57. > :12:00.brief comments, asked about change of circumstances, in other words,

:12:01. > :12:06.what happens every degree power older is sold to someone with no

:12:07. > :12:11.experience, will there be a review? And if they were sold to a body with

:12:12. > :12:15.no track record, we would expect their eligibility to continue to

:12:16. > :12:19.hold degree awarding powers, but it would be subject to a full review.

:12:20. > :12:26.That review would be implicit. I would like to finish by thanking my

:12:27. > :12:30.noble friend Lord will it for his engagement throughout the bill's

:12:31. > :12:36.passage. The bill, if I may say so, builds on his work as minister and

:12:37. > :12:42.the proposals for his original White Paper of 2011, headed students at

:12:43. > :12:47.the heart of the system. My words, I beg to move. The question is that

:12:48. > :12:56.motion he be agreed to. As many are of that, say content, not content

:12:57. > :13:01.say not. The contents have it. The question is that motion as it be

:13:02. > :13:04.agreed to. As many are of that opinion is a content, to the

:13:05. > :13:13.contrary not content, the contents have it. Motion G. My Lords, I beg

:13:14. > :13:19.to move most motion G that this House does not insist on Amendment

:13:20. > :13:24.156 and you agree with the comments in their commitments 1568, 156 B and

:13:25. > :13:30.156 C in Leo. I welcome this chance to discuss what's more international

:13:31. > :13:35.students will stop we have heard some of the most passionate debates

:13:36. > :13:37.in this House. Let me just say that the Government welcomes genuine

:13:38. > :13:42.international students who come to study in the United Kingdom on

:13:43. > :13:47.Monday enhanced our educational institutions both financially and

:13:48. > :13:49.culturally, the in Everest the experience of domestic students and

:13:50. > :13:54.they become important ambassadors for the United Kingdom in later

:13:55. > :13:58.life. For these reasons, we have no plans to target or reduce the scale

:13:59. > :14:02.of student migration to the United Kingdom and, as I have said before,

:14:03. > :14:06.and as a house full of heard, we have no plans to cap the number of

:14:07. > :14:13.genuine students you can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an

:14:14. > :14:16.institution's ability to recruit a genuine international students based

:14:17. > :14:23.on its TEF rating or any other basis. Therefore, I do not believe

:14:24. > :14:27.that the Amendment is desirable. Discussed in this House on this

:14:28. > :14:31.issue has provided us with an important opportunity to reflect on

:14:32. > :14:33.the message we send out to the world on the welcome that international

:14:34. > :14:39.students receive when they apply to study in the UK. We want or promote

:14:40. > :14:43.this offer and make sure it is understood and communicated and I

:14:44. > :14:48.would like to set out what the new duty as. Firstly, the duty will

:14:49. > :14:52.extend the information publication duty on the designated data body on

:14:53. > :14:59.the Office for Students so it explicitly covers what information

:15:00. > :15:02.would be helpful to current work respect of international students

:15:03. > :15:05.and the registered higher education providers back recurred them are

:15:06. > :15:11.thinking of doing so. The new duty will also require consideration of

:15:12. > :15:14.publication of information on international student numbers. My

:15:15. > :15:17.Lords, this goes further than ever before to ensure that international

:15:18. > :15:24.students get the information that they need about our offer. Alongside

:15:25. > :15:27.this, we believe we need a campaign to raise awareness and that is why,

:15:28. > :15:39.in tandem, we are refreshing our international engagement strategy.

:15:40. > :15:43.We will seek reviews on, we will distribute there are embassies

:15:44. > :15:45.overseas and the British Council as well as universities themselves.

:15:46. > :15:51.This will ensure that the right messages yet to the right places. My

:15:52. > :15:55.Lords, we have a good story to tell and we are keen that is told. We are

:15:56. > :15:59.remains one of the best places in remains one of the best places in

:16:00. > :16:04.the world for research and innovation. Let me assure you that

:16:05. > :16:08.the UK research and innovation will continue to fund an extensive range

:16:09. > :16:12.of international collaborations, directly facilitating partnerships

:16:13. > :16:18.between UK research establishments and their international

:16:19. > :16:24.counterparts. We expect the UK are I board members and UK are I itself to

:16:25. > :16:27.take a clear role in fostering collaboration internationally. We

:16:28. > :16:33.have already included the need to take an international perspective in

:16:34. > :16:37.the job specification of the UKRI board, which is currently being

:16:38. > :16:41.recruited. To underline this, I will confirm that we will ask UKRI to set

:16:42. > :16:45.out in its annual report what work it has undertaken to foster and

:16:46. > :16:59.support such collaborations. My Lords, I beg to move. I would like

:17:00. > :17:00.first to respond to the noble lord Minister's opening statement on this

:17:01. > :17:04.motion and thank him for some of the motion and thank him for some of the

:17:05. > :17:11.things that were set, which picked up one of seems that is in the

:17:12. > :17:14.Amendment that he is proposing to be rejected. I think it is a great pity

:17:15. > :17:18.that they are not on the face of the bill, but he has made some helpful

:17:19. > :17:22.remarks there. I would say in relation to the Government's

:17:23. > :17:32.Amendment that is being moved, that I think it shows yet again that we

:17:33. > :17:37.are slight cross purposes over this. This is not a statistical matter. Of

:17:38. > :17:41.course as to the six enter into it, but is not basically a statistical

:17:42. > :17:52.matter. It is about to be public policy purposes we take with regard

:17:53. > :17:56.to overseas students and so even the improved, suggesting improved ways

:17:57. > :18:01.of statistically analysing overseas students, they don't really address

:18:02. > :18:05.what my Amendment was meant to address. I just want to speak

:18:06. > :18:08.therefore, on I hope you will forgive me for not saying anymore

:18:09. > :18:13.about his Amendment, which I have no objection to at all, but which I

:18:14. > :18:19.don't think actually answers the problems which my Amendment and the

:18:20. > :18:27.Amendment which was moved I the Baroness Royal, the Baroness garden

:18:28. > :18:35.and Lord Miles was the main thrust of which was, to bring an end to

:18:36. > :18:42.what I would regard as a bearing practice of treating overseas hire

:18:43. > :18:45.education students for Public policy purposes as long-term migrants and

:18:46. > :18:53.that, alas, will continue. That Amendment in this House was carried

:18:54. > :18:59.in the last month by a majority of 94 omicron from all groups in this

:19:00. > :19:06.House. So I'm afraid I do speak with deeper Gretz, tinged with some

:19:07. > :19:10.bitterness, at the summary rejection of this Amendment. If the bill

:19:11. > :19:16.before us had followed a normal course, I believe, although I cannot

:19:17. > :19:20.prove this of coarse, I believe that summaries more compromise would have

:19:21. > :19:25.been breached either in the other place where there was substantial

:19:26. > :19:29.support for the Amendment, or through a negotiation between the

:19:30. > :19:37.two houses. The washup process, which we are busy completing now,

:19:38. > :19:43.but to a premature end any such possibility and the fact that the

:19:44. > :19:47.Government felt it necessary to state that, if this Amendment was

:19:48. > :19:54.not brought, they would kill the whole bill, sheds a pretty odd

:19:55. > :19:59.lights on their priorities and on their intransigence will stop

:20:00. > :20:07.altogether, I suggest a rather shabby business. Now, ceasing to

:20:08. > :20:11.treat overseas hire education students for public policy purposes

:20:12. > :20:18.as long-term migrants is not only, I would suggest, a rational choice and

:20:19. > :20:23.one which has, which the chief competitors of this country in the

:20:24. > :20:30.market for overseas students, mainly the US, Australia and Canada, have

:20:31. > :20:33.already adopted, it is also... Has a wide degree of cross party support

:20:34. > :20:39.from a whole series of parliamentary select committees from both houses,

:20:40. > :20:43.most recently just this week from the education committee in the other

:20:44. > :20:49.place. A recent survey by universities and UK shows that a

:20:50. > :20:54.large majority of those polled do not recurred oversea students as

:20:55. > :20:57.economic migrants, do not consider that they contribute to the

:20:58. > :20:59.immigration problems which are the focus of so much public debate at

:21:00. > :21:11.this stage in this country. And the fall in numbers of overseas

:21:12. > :21:18.applications which we are seeing at the moment amply demonstrates how we

:21:19. > :21:27.are already losing market share, and undermining the future validity of a

:21:28. > :21:31.crucial part of our society and our economy, our universities. This

:21:32. > :21:35.morning I listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary

:21:36. > :21:40.replying to a question on this on the Today programme. He made most of

:21:41. > :21:47.the points that I have just made. So I have no quarrel with what the

:21:48. > :21:53.Foreign Secretary said, merely with what the government is doing. A bad

:21:54. > :21:58.choice has been made in my view and no convincing rationale for making

:21:59. > :22:01.that choice has been forthcoming from the government. In conclusion I

:22:02. > :22:12.would say this, the problem will not go away. And the rejection will not

:22:13. > :22:21.be the end of the story. The damage that this system of treating

:22:22. > :22:28.students as economic migrants will continue to inflict on our

:22:29. > :22:37.universities and soft power assets in the decades ahead. I believe we

:22:38. > :22:39.will need to come back to this issue when the government brings forward

:22:40. > :22:48.as it stated in its white Paper on the Great Repeal bill, comes forward

:22:49. > :22:55.with post-Brexit legislation. I would hope that a period of

:22:56. > :22:58.reflection will bring wise counsel and the realisation that predict

:22:59. > :23:16.victory is like this one are a kind with which we could well do without.

:23:17. > :23:19.My Lords, I would like to briefly congratulate Lord Hannay on the

:23:20. > :23:23.energy he has put into scrutinising the bill, the debates we have had

:23:24. > :23:29.have made it clear that on all sides of the House week support legitimate

:23:30. > :23:33.students coming from overseas to study both because it enhances the

:23:34. > :23:36.academic experience of British students and is good for overseas

:23:37. > :23:46.students and is a great British export. Signalling again that the

:23:47. > :23:53.policy remains to attract legitimate overseas students was more welcoming

:23:54. > :23:57.than Hannay accepted that Lord Hannay accepted although I

:23:58. > :24:00.understand why he made his reservations, he says statistics are

:24:01. > :24:06.less important than policy but I think that the point we had a moment

:24:07. > :24:11.ago from the minister about these new statistics does have

:24:12. > :24:18.considerable potential value. Aside from the general arguments one point

:24:19. > :24:21.about the debate is a genuine empirical disagreement about how

:24:22. > :24:27.many students from abroad overstay in this country. A lot of the debate

:24:28. > :24:34.is shaped by a view that we have a problem with a lot of other stayers.

:24:35. > :24:41.If there is such a problem we need to tighten the regime, if not, if it

:24:42. > :24:46.can be established authoritatively that there is no such problem I

:24:47. > :24:50.think that would be a significant contribution to the debate and the

:24:51. > :24:55.statistics at the moment are very unreliable. If someone comes to

:24:56. > :24:59.study and tells someone doing one of these surveys they are studying and

:25:00. > :25:03.then stays on to work for time and leaves and answers the question when

:25:04. > :25:08.they leave, what have you been doing, and they say, working, they

:25:09. > :25:12.count as a leaving worker, not a student. If someone comes to study

:25:13. > :25:17.thinking they are here for more than a year but end up because many

:25:18. > :25:21.masters courses are advertised as your bid you can complete them in 11

:25:22. > :25:26.months, they leave, having been in Britain for 11 months, they do not

:25:27. > :25:30.count as one of those students departing. There are lots of

:25:31. > :25:34.problems like this in the statistics. They have proved a bane

:25:35. > :25:37.in the debate about overseas students and their numbers. I very

:25:38. > :25:42.much hope that the important initiative which the Minister has

:25:43. > :25:46.announced today, and which was discussed in the other house

:25:47. > :25:50.yesterday, he enables us to get to the bottom of those empirical

:25:51. > :25:52.questions that would be an important contribution to the debate about the

:25:53. > :25:59.minister can confirm that those type of questions will be within the

:26:00. > :26:04.scope of the exercise and we will learn more about it. I also hope

:26:05. > :26:08.that, thinking of all the time we have spent on attracting overseas

:26:09. > :26:13.students to this country that we might briefly remind the government

:26:14. > :26:20.of the importance of encouraging British students to study abroad.

:26:21. > :26:23.And dare one say it, if they were to study abroad for more than a year it

:26:24. > :26:27.would reduce net migration, not that that's the main reason for promoting

:26:28. > :26:32.it. But when one looks at half a million students going from abroad

:26:33. > :26:37.to study in Britain and 30,000 British students studying abroad

:26:38. > :26:41.especially if we are to be a dynamic global presence even post-Brexit we

:26:42. > :26:45.do need to do better at promoting and encouraging students to go

:26:46. > :26:48.abroad and one way to do that is to make it easier for them to take out

:26:49. > :26:55.loans to finance this study abroad and I hope that is something we will

:26:56. > :27:01.look at. For my last intervention I would like briefly to congratulate

:27:02. > :27:08.the ministerial team that has brought this bill to a conclusion.

:27:09. > :27:12.Viscount Younger has been courteous throughout the debate. Jo Johnson

:27:13. > :27:21.has been extraordinarily diligent in spending time in this chamber,

:27:22. > :27:27.observing our debate. This is a very substantial piece of legislation, we

:27:28. > :27:34.only legislate... This legislation finally puts in place regulatory

:27:35. > :27:37.regime that matches higher education in Britain. We could not have

:27:38. > :27:45.carried on with the old grant giving body an informal regulator using the

:27:46. > :27:51.power of the purse to rhetoric the sector, this is a better, more

:27:52. > :27:57.transparent, rules -based system. I think our debates in this house on

:27:58. > :28:04.all sides, it is clear that we care passionately about the autonomy of

:28:05. > :28:08.higher education institutes, the new provisions we have been debating

:28:09. > :28:12.today and hands that autonomy. I have to say, looking back, one of my

:28:13. > :28:17.regrets, thinking of this debate, is, while we intended to look at

:28:18. > :28:25.this from an English perspective from one of the conversations I have

:28:26. > :28:30.heard from vice chancellors, it is clear to me were the biggest threat

:28:31. > :28:33.to our autonomy rise, it is the relationship between the Scottish

:28:34. > :28:38.Government and its universities, if I may say so, it is far more

:28:39. > :28:44.intrusive, far more overbearing than anything that would be acceptable in

:28:45. > :28:49.England. And sometimes we have had an English minister with English

:28:50. > :28:56.teaching responsibilities facing challenges about autonomy for which

:28:57. > :29:00.he is not actually responsible. I hope we will be as avid in

:29:01. > :29:04.scrutinising and protecting the autonomy of Scottish universities

:29:05. > :29:11.which matters enormously in Scotland and more widely. We have a better

:29:12. > :29:17.regulatory regime. We have spoken up for autonomy. And also very

:29:18. > :29:22.significantly, the focus on teaching has reminded us of the importance of

:29:23. > :29:28.the education experience in the University and after so much

:29:29. > :29:32.attention it is excellent that we have spent such time focusing on

:29:33. > :29:35.teaching. Therefore I would like to thank the Minister is, thank their

:29:36. > :29:40.built-in for the way in which they have engaged with many of us as we

:29:41. > :29:45.have had questions to make sense of specific proposals and try to engage

:29:46. > :29:52.with them and indeed this has been a cross-party debate. We've had

:29:53. > :29:57.excellent interventions from experts in crossbenchers, people who work in

:29:58. > :30:00.and understand how education works and that is enormously enhanced our

:30:01. > :30:04.debate. We have heard from opposition benches and I agree that

:30:05. > :30:08.Lord Stevenson has made a very important contribution from the

:30:09. > :30:11.opposition front bench and from the Lib Dem benches I had to remind

:30:12. > :30:16.myself sometimes that we had worked on this together in coalition! And

:30:17. > :30:20.some of the measures now proving so controversial could trace their

:30:21. > :30:23.origins to a government in which I think there was even the Secretary

:30:24. > :30:28.of State that I worked with who belonged to a certain party

:30:29. > :30:31.opposite! But I think all parties have worked together on this and I

:30:32. > :30:37.think we can be proud of the bill now going forward. My Lords, if I

:30:38. > :30:44.may just follow the noble Lord, Lord Willets. In echoing so much of what

:30:45. > :30:51.he said. But I want to start with what the Prime Minister said when

:30:52. > :30:57.she announced the election and she referred to the unelected House of

:30:58. > :31:04.Lords. My Lords, this unelected House of Lords is at its best when

:31:05. > :31:08.it does what it has done in this bill. This is probably one of the

:31:09. > :31:13.most amended bills in the history of Parliament with over 500 amendments.

:31:14. > :31:19.It is because of the expertise that exists in this has across the board,

:31:20. > :31:24.depth and breadth of expertise that no chamber anywhere in the world

:31:25. > :31:29.comes close to buy a factor of maybe ten. For me universities Minister

:31:30. > :31:33.has just spoken. Chancellors of universities, vice chancellors of

:31:34. > :31:35.universities, former vice chancellors of universities at

:31:36. > :31:39.Cambridge, head of Oxbridge colleges and I could go on. Where in the

:31:40. > :31:45.world would you get that and we have had it in this bill. And I'd like to

:31:46. > :31:50.thank the global Lord the Minister Viscount Younger for always being

:31:51. > :31:55.polite and decent and for having listened. It may not be where many

:31:56. > :32:05.others want to be but there has been a lot of movement and the government

:32:06. > :32:10.seen a minister so insidious in attending stages of this bill. And

:32:11. > :32:15.it shows visibly that he is listening. I'd like to thank the

:32:16. > :32:21.noble Lord Lord Hannay for his initiative, he is a former

:32:22. > :32:25.Chancellor of the University of Birmingham where I am proud to be

:32:26. > :32:29.Chancellor today. My Lords at every stage of this bill normally you are

:32:30. > :32:33.not meant to repeat things come you can't make a second reading speech

:32:34. > :32:37.later in a bill. But here there's been a new information and new

:32:38. > :32:41.reports coming out at every stage. So for example and EU UK report

:32:42. > :32:47.revealed that international students, the contribution is much

:32:48. > :32:51.higher than we had ever thought. We quoted ?14 billion, it's actually

:32:52. > :32:56.?26 billion a year. New information to add to what Lord temp max three

:32:57. > :33:04.was trying to do with this amendment. And on top of that the

:33:05. > :33:09.education committee's report on extending opportunities for higher

:33:10. > :33:13.education dated April 25, my lords. Before I go further this unanimous

:33:14. > :33:19.consensus around the country, little known in this house when we won this

:33:20. > :33:23.amendment to close to a hundred votes, that international students

:33:24. > :33:27.should not be included in the not migration figures. The National

:33:28. > :33:31.Union of Students have said as long as they are included in the net

:33:32. > :33:36.migration to districts policies that adversely affect them owing to

:33:37. > :33:38.governmental desire to reduce levels of immigration will only exacerbate.

:33:39. > :33:43.And then they said that the government's abject failure to offer

:33:44. > :33:46.anything substantial and removing international students from net

:33:47. > :33:52.migration targets is, in their words, outrageous. There's immense

:33:53. > :33:55.support for doing so from cross-party parliamentarians, from

:33:56. > :33:59.UK students and from the general public. It is not acceptable that

:34:00. > :34:04.the government continues to ignore this support. So my Lords I come to

:34:05. > :34:08.the report that no one has spoken about, of the House of Commons

:34:09. > :34:14.education committee and their report, published just now, 25th of

:34:15. > :34:18.April. In it they have an entire section on international students

:34:19. > :34:24.and the migration target. They say clearly that as far as we all know

:34:25. > :34:28.this target of 100,000 still exists and yet overall net migration we all

:34:29. > :34:35.know as 273,000, that's the latest figure. Government always gives of

:34:36. > :34:39.removing international students from the figures is, UN rules means we

:34:40. > :34:44.have to include them and treat them as immigrants. My Lords, yes, those

:34:45. > :34:48.are the UN rules. And the government's about answer is always,

:34:49. > :34:54.there's no cap to number of international students, any number

:34:55. > :34:56.welcome. My lords it is a perception that is created by continuing to

:34:57. > :35:03.include them and treat them as immigrants that is the danger. And

:35:04. > :35:07.the Home Secretary and the Tory party conference spoke about

:35:08. > :35:10.possibly reducing the number of international students and that is

:35:11. > :35:15.scary. It's a message that goes out to the outside world. And the

:35:16. > :35:18.Commons education committee said that the majority of their written

:35:19. > :35:22.evidence and witnesses at their meetings were very clear that

:35:23. > :35:26.international students should be removed from the net migration and

:35:27. > :35:32.it would help offset the risks to higher education from leaving the

:35:33. > :35:35.EU. In fact their evidence was unanimous, saying that international

:35:36. > :35:41.students were positive force for education. ?25.8 billion ago,

:35:42. > :35:46.creating over 200,000 jobs. Contributing to the richness of our

:35:47. > :35:53.universities as well as the UK's soft power. And then it is poll

:35:54. > :35:58.after poll, my lords. The contrast poll after the referendum, said,

:35:59. > :36:01.said only 24% of the public thought international students were

:36:02. > :36:08.immigrants. And there was only a 2% difference when split into the Leave

:36:09. > :36:13.25% and the Remained 23%. So whether you are a Brexiteer or a remainder,

:36:14. > :36:19.people don't think international students are immigrants.

:36:20. > :36:24.My Lords, other countries, competitor countries, have targets

:36:25. > :36:28.to increase the number of international students. The demand

:36:29. > :36:33.for countries like India for studying abroad is increasing at 8%

:36:34. > :36:36.a year and yet the NUS poll found that slightly half of overseas

:36:37. > :36:41.students thought that the British Government was either not welcoming

:36:42. > :36:48.or not welcoming at all to international students and there are

:36:49. > :36:53.half as many Indian students today, or 2015, as it was in 2010. But in

:36:54. > :36:58.Canada and Germany, it is growing by 8% a year. This is why, please

:36:59. > :37:04.answer this question, why is it that, with the UK's main competitors

:37:05. > :37:08.for international students, the United States of America, Canada and

:37:09. > :37:12.Australia, all categorized international students as temporary

:37:13. > :37:16.migrants rather than permanent immigrants? Why can't we do the

:37:17. > :37:23.same? What are we scared of? And then the statistics that the noble

:37:24. > :37:29.Lords spoke of, the Minister spoke of, what statistics him a my Lords?

:37:30. > :37:34.The statistics are bogus because they are based on the international

:37:35. > :37:38.passage survey. There are some estimates that 90,000 international

:37:39. > :37:45.students overstay, other estimates of 40,000. And yet they are our

:37:46. > :37:49.supposedly a report, eight Home Office commission report that shows

:37:50. > :37:53.only 1% of international sins overstay their visas, according to

:37:54. > :37:59.the Times. That would be 1500. At this report is not being released.

:38:00. > :38:04.Tell us why this report is not being released and this is supposedly

:38:05. > :38:08.based on new exit checks that the Government has. My Lords, I have

:38:09. > :38:13.been a lone voice in this Parliament and I feel like a lone voice in this

:38:14. > :38:19.country, asking the Government to bring back physical, visible exit

:38:20. > :38:24.checks at all our ports and airports and borders. The Prime Minister Tony

:38:25. > :38:29.Blair took them away in 1998, it is negligent from a security point of

:38:30. > :38:34.view, negligent from illegal immigration point of view, negligent

:38:35. > :38:37.from the ability to count the number of international sins coming in and

:38:38. > :38:42.out of the country. Every passport, EU and non-EU should be scheduled

:38:43. > :38:46.this country, every passport should be scanned when people leave the

:38:47. > :38:49.country. Then we would know the correct statistics. Why can't the

:38:50. > :38:53.Government implement this straightaway? So, my Lords, I

:38:54. > :38:58.conclude the committee said that over the last few years six

:38:59. > :39:01.parliamentary committees have recommended the removal of students

:39:02. > :39:08.from the net migration target with opinions at the highest level. It

:39:09. > :39:12.was spoken about were started, I believe even Liam Fox, they all

:39:13. > :39:17.believe that the international students should not be treated as

:39:18. > :39:23.immigrants and removed from the net migration figures. My Lords,

:39:24. > :39:28.Margaret Thatcher was famously known as, this lady is not for turning.

:39:29. > :39:35.Well, the Prime Minister, by continually saying there would be no

:39:36. > :39:41.election till 2020, is I think, this lady is for turning. So why, why is

:39:42. > :39:45.she not listening to us? Why, because this is such a

:39:46. > :39:49.disappointment, this is ruining the reputation of our country, other

:39:50. > :39:55.universities, of our economy. My Lords, perception becomes reality.

:39:56. > :39:58.It didn't need to be in this bill, my Lords, the Government of Prime

:39:59. > :40:03.Minister can still do this unilaterally and removed

:40:04. > :40:07.international student from the net migration figures. And I would

:40:08. > :40:11.remind the Prime Minister and the Government that, it is better to

:40:12. > :40:19.fail doing the right thing than to succeed doing the wrong thing. My

:40:20. > :40:24.Lords, I will not attempt to emulate the Lord by giving a full speech,

:40:25. > :40:29.but I would like to make a couple of brief points. I strongly supported

:40:30. > :40:33.the noble lord Handley when he introduced his Amendment and have

:40:34. > :40:38.spoken many times on the subject in your Lordship's house. I deeply

:40:39. > :40:44.regret the fact that the Government has not felt able to accept his

:40:45. > :40:49.Amendment and committed to the other place. I echo everything that has

:40:50. > :40:58.been said about the understanding, the capacity for listening, both of

:40:59. > :41:01.the Minister of your Lordship's house and Joe Johnson, but I think

:41:02. > :41:10.it is a pity that an opportunity has been lost. I'm sure we will return

:41:11. > :41:16.to the subject as the noble lord said in a future Immigration Bill.

:41:17. > :41:19.But although I welcome what the Government has said, or what the

:41:20. > :41:23.Minister has said today, and what is in the Commons Amendment before us,

:41:24. > :41:30.I don't think it does go far enough and I think there is going to be

:41:31. > :41:35.real interest in how the Government is able to produce good statistics.

:41:36. > :41:43.My Lords, it is 35 years ago almost to the day when a female -- famous

:41:44. > :41:47.BBC reporter from the Falklands said, we counted them all out and be

:41:48. > :41:55.counted them all in. Well, we need to start doing that with students

:41:56. > :42:02.and in all students. My Lords, however gently, it damages are

:42:03. > :42:08.reputation as a place where, all over the world, students at

:42:09. > :42:14.undergraduate and postgraduate levels can feel welcome. The more we

:42:15. > :42:18.can do to achieve that the better and we must do everything we can to

:42:19. > :42:25.make sure there is no input is at the Terrance. My Lords, I am sorry

:42:26. > :42:29.that, after a very good morning where the Government has made some

:42:30. > :42:35.really good concessions which we are all extremely grateful for, this

:42:36. > :42:39.particular subject is not as great as it should be. -- the concession

:42:40. > :42:43.on the subject. I hope my noble friend of the front bench will take

:42:44. > :42:51.note of that and I hope that we will come back before too long with a

:42:52. > :42:58.reinforced Government front bench and a new determination to accept

:42:59. > :43:03.the logic of the Amendment. Can I strongly support the noble lord's

:43:04. > :43:09.Amendment and indoors which everything the noble lord has just

:43:10. > :43:12.said. We were reminded of the days of Coalition, when I was his

:43:13. > :43:16.opposite number in this House, and I remember the debates that went on

:43:17. > :43:20.between the secretary of State for this and the Home Secretary and on

:43:21. > :43:25.this particular topic where there was, he could never get any movement

:43:26. > :43:29.on seeing the logic colony, and what baffles dairy many of us is that the

:43:30. > :43:33.Government reiterates that there was no cap on genuine international

:43:34. > :43:36.students, and then they say I'm a we will count them as migrants and we

:43:37. > :43:41.are determined to reduce the number of migrants. It is that sequence

:43:42. > :43:44.which makes it so incomprehensible that the Government can't see how

:43:45. > :43:49.very unwelcoming it is to put those things together. We do find it

:43:50. > :43:53.completely baffling that we are not getting any movement on this. We

:43:54. > :43:57.recognise it as an issue that is probably outside the departmental

:43:58. > :44:01.brief of the Minister, but I think I would echo the voices that have been

:44:02. > :44:04.said already that we really do hope that very soon there will be

:44:05. > :44:09.movement on this. The noble lord always speaks with great passion and

:44:10. > :44:13.eloquence on the subject with evidence and with the facts behind

:44:14. > :44:17.him. My Lords, I think this is probably the last time that I shall

:44:18. > :44:24.speak in this bill, so I would like to reiterate that very sincere

:44:25. > :44:28.thanks to the Minister... I shouldn't be getting that wrong at

:44:29. > :44:31.the stage. And to the Minister Joe Johnson, to the build team and the

:44:32. > :44:35.other colleagues who have actually been so helpful to us on what has

:44:36. > :44:41.turned out to be a very long drawn out discussion on this bill. And the

:44:42. > :44:47.Amendment switch of come through today, I think have already improved

:44:48. > :44:51.the bill we have before us. It would obviously have been lovely if we

:44:52. > :44:54.could've had all her amendments, as I said before, but we do recognise

:44:55. > :44:59.that we have done a very good job in making this bill a whole lot better

:45:00. > :45:05.than it was before. I. I can I also echo the things noble lord Lord

:45:06. > :45:08.Stevenson, who has led a collaboration of the engaged, from

:45:09. > :45:13.our benches, from his badges, from the cross benches and occasionally

:45:14. > :45:17.some from the Conservative edges on particular issues as well, to try

:45:18. > :45:21.ensure that we can all get the very best possible out of this bill and

:45:22. > :45:26.indeed to my noble friend Lord story who has been a tower of strength

:45:27. > :45:31.this as well. So, finally, it is to say I think we have made this very

:45:32. > :45:36.much better bill than when it reached us and I'm very grateful to

:45:37. > :45:42.the Minister for helping that to happen. Can I say, in relation to

:45:43. > :45:46.what the Lord said about the Prime Minister's remarks on calling the

:45:47. > :45:51.election, I don't think she said... And I'm only relying on my memory, I

:45:52. > :45:56.don't think she said the unelected House of Lords, what she did say was

:45:57. > :46:01.unelected Lords who had made it clear that, for everything they

:46:02. > :46:07.could do to stop Brexit would be done. Something like that. I don't

:46:08. > :46:12.think it really was a reference to the House of Lords as a whole,

:46:13. > :46:19.because apart from anything else, it wouldn't fit the description. I also

:46:20. > :46:24.want to support what Lord Woolwich said about the hope, he knows much

:46:25. > :46:29.more about the atmosphere in Whitehall than I do, he said that he

:46:30. > :46:36.hoped the research promoted in this might well have a good effect in

:46:37. > :46:38.that erection. Finally, I want to agree with what has been said

:46:39. > :46:50.about the noble lord Lord Stevenson, I hope you will enjoy the freedom of

:46:51. > :46:53.not being on the front bench. I want to include in that all his

:46:54. > :47:00.colleagues in the French bench, and the front bench of the Liberal

:47:01. > :47:03.party, and some of my efforts, I have enjoyed the Corporation and I

:47:04. > :47:13.am very grateful. -- front bench. And the cooperation of many of the

:47:14. > :47:15.Prime Minister referred to us all as Prime Minister referred to us all as

:47:16. > :47:23.some pitchers more than anything else, which is not a consummate in

:47:24. > :47:26.some ways. -- saboteurs. This is a section of the bill for which I

:47:27. > :47:33.think we must except we have made no progress at all. It would probably

:47:34. > :47:38.be wrong of me to give too much detail of what happens on the

:47:39. > :47:41.washer, I was only there for a very small part of it, most of the time I

:47:42. > :47:44.was left hanging on her mobile phone in a remote area which did not work

:47:45. > :47:50.very well and I was getting more frustrated, on my inability to have

:47:51. > :47:55.any influence at all on some of the debates. But one would hope that the

:47:56. > :47:59.arguments that we've found today would lead to at least a discussion

:48:00. > :48:03.about what should be the way forward on a very comp Lex and rather

:48:04. > :48:10.annoying area that we unable seem to be able to get into focus. The fact

:48:11. > :48:14.was, it was made very clear the start, I understand, that the

:48:15. > :48:18.Minister concerned was unable to discuss any concessions in this area

:48:19. > :48:24.and it was ruled off the table from the very beginning. I think it plays

:48:25. > :48:28.a little bit to the conversation we had earlier that there is something

:48:29. > :48:31.dysfunctional about Whitehall on crosscutting issues. We all know the

:48:32. > :48:34.wicked issues are difficult ones, the ones that no one wants to play

:48:35. > :48:41.on, no minister will take full responsibility for. Because prime

:48:42. > :48:47.ministers are not always as powerful as the public misconceptions have,

:48:48. > :48:49.you will not make the progress which is to achieve something genuinely

:48:50. > :48:52.about the whole of the Government, this is a whole that has been

:48:53. > :49:00.created in this area that it think we have fallen into. What appears to

:49:01. > :49:03.be almost uncanny ability of the current Prime Minister to be able to

:49:04. > :49:07.exercise control in a very remote part of the Government. I think

:49:08. > :49:11.there are two other things I would like to say before we hear from the

:49:12. > :49:17.Minister, as he wants this. The first is, I do think a little of

:49:18. > :49:22.what Mort Willetts has said about the need to use the fact that we've

:49:23. > :49:27.been rebuffed here again -- Lord Willetts, to try and get this case

:49:28. > :49:30.right would be a good thing to do. I would like to focus not just on the

:49:31. > :49:35.statistics, they are very important, but it think it might be ambitious

:49:36. > :49:41.to think we will get a counting income accounting out system because

:49:42. > :49:45.of the issue here, the issue is, who was controlling the entry of our

:49:46. > :49:49.students to our universities? The Lord Willetts said we would have the

:49:50. > :49:57.best regulated sector, in terms of the UK if not the world, ...

:49:58. > :50:02.Shouldn't we be trusting them to get the best students that would benefit

:50:03. > :50:06.from the education here? The truth is, it is all second guessed by the

:50:07. > :50:08.Home Office and who have their own teams of people who interview the

:50:09. > :50:13.students nominated by the institutions come and set the quota

:50:14. > :50:17.levels, although they are said to be unlimited, although they are in

:50:18. > :50:21.practice set and only increased on application. It will change the code

:50:22. > :50:24.is available to every institution if they feel that an institution is

:50:25. > :50:30.making mistakes in terms of the people they recruit, not just

:50:31. > :50:34.because at the point of entry, my Lords, but what happens to the

:50:35. > :50:36.students after they've left the responsibility of the institutions,

:50:37. > :50:41.with a get out to the wider world, if they are able to get a job or

:50:42. > :50:44.even if they do disappear from the statistics, somehow the original

:50:45. > :50:48.institution that brought them and is responsible for them. That seems to

:50:49. > :50:51.be a double penalty, in terms of what they are doing but also for

:50:52. > :50:54.future recruitment issues. I think all of this has got to be picked up

:50:55. > :50:58.and looked out. This is not a good system. There is a pilot ongoing, a

:50:59. > :51:05.pilot which is affecting Masters courses, deliberately chosen so the

:51:06. > :51:08.results would be available earlier. There is some hope that we might be

:51:09. > :51:12.able to use that system to drive a different approach to this were

:51:13. > :51:16.trusted institutions, well regulated under a new system which has the

:51:17. > :51:19.support of both houses, is able to make the decisions necessary to

:51:20. > :51:22.recruit the right students to benefit from our system and that the

:51:23. > :51:27.filthy response abilities and duties and activities that everyone we know

:51:28. > :51:30.will do with the soft power of going back to create economic activity

:51:31. > :51:34.before they do to and be good citizens both here in the world. At

:51:35. > :51:37.the moment, we have failed completely and I really regret that.

:51:38. > :51:41.I have the bitterness and were granted as much as the noble lord

:51:42. > :51:46.has share his pain. But I think we must move on from here, this has

:51:47. > :51:50.not, this must not go away, it is too important for the economic

:51:51. > :51:53.future of our country, the institutions concerned who need the

:51:54. > :51:55.students if they're going to be successful and make progress, and

:51:56. > :51:58.for the individuals concerned to her getting the benefits of the

:51:59. > :52:01.education here. I do hope we will make progress at a the disaster we

:52:02. > :52:15.now face. My Lords, the noble Lord Hannay

:52:16. > :52:25.spoke after my initial remarks, I understand how he and others. Views

:52:26. > :52:28.on this international student topic that I do appreciate his

:52:29. > :52:36.understanding of the current process needed to move forward, alluded to

:52:37. > :52:48.by him and the noble Lord Stevenson. In terms of concluding remarks I

:52:49. > :52:52.would like to say that we have had an exceptionally rich debate in the

:52:53. > :53:00.last weeks and months. As the minister in the Other Least noted

:53:01. > :53:05.this House is contributed enormously to the bill, expertise and step has

:53:06. > :53:09.been cleared not just because the nub of amendments but also the

:53:10. > :53:14.quality of the debate. The government has reflected deeply on

:53:15. > :53:18.these points throughout the debate and I hope has understands this now

:53:19. > :53:23.including the most recent amendments, the voice of the sector

:53:24. > :53:28.has also been hurt and I'm glad that the universities work and able to

:53:29. > :53:32.give support to the package of amendments tabled in the other place

:53:33. > :53:36.at the start of this week. I recommend without reservation that

:53:37. > :53:41.the noble Lords give support to this bill, as Lord Willets said it

:53:42. > :53:46.represents the most important legislation to the sect of 45 years

:53:47. > :53:49.and will set the framework for our world-class education sector and

:53:50. > :53:55.global leading research-based to continue to thrive in the 21st

:53:56. > :53:59.century. My lords I beg to move. The question is that motion G B agreed

:54:00. > :54:06.to, those of that opinion will say content, the contrary not content,

:54:07. > :54:11.the contents I have it. Motion H move formally. The question is that

:54:12. > :54:17.motion capital H B agreed to. Those of that opinion say content, the

:54:18. > :54:22.contrary not content, the contents have it. Consideration of Commons

:54:23. > :54:50.reason and amendment to the Digital economy Bill, Lord Ashman pine.

:54:51. > :55:01.My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House does not exist... I

:55:02. > :55:08.beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments being considered. The

:55:09. > :55:13.question is that the Commons reasons and amendment now be considered, as

:55:14. > :55:19.many of that opinion say content, the contrary not content, the

:55:20. > :55:24.content Dexter habit. Lord Ashman. My Lords, I beg to move that this

:55:25. > :55:29.has do not insist on amendment Bay and agree with the Commons on the

:55:30. > :55:34.amendments 18, one B, once EMU. This group covers two areas where the

:55:35. > :55:40.other place has offered amendments in view of your Lordships's

:55:41. > :55:44.amendments. Lords amendment one on the universal service obligation

:55:45. > :55:48.challenged the government to be more ambitious on universal Digital

:55:49. > :55:53.connectivity. A broadband was set initially at 10 megabits per second,

:55:54. > :55:57.formed part of our plans to make sure that no one is digitally

:55:58. > :56:03.excluded. Lords amendment one would have disrupted those plans. In our

:56:04. > :56:08.view it makes this an workable and because of the risk of legal

:56:09. > :56:14.challenge would lead to delays in implementation. The US over can only

:56:15. > :56:18.work if it is legally robust and enforceable. EU law requires it to

:56:19. > :56:22.take into account technologies used by the majority of subscribers.

:56:23. > :56:27.Today 30 megabits per second is enjoyed by less than Teddy percent.

:56:28. > :56:33.Two gigabits per second is enjoyed by less than 1%. While we may have a

:56:34. > :56:45.majority taking up 30 megabits in a few years' time, the government

:56:46. > :56:50.wants to implement a USO now. This would be difficult to achieve. No

:56:51. > :56:53.concern to many is that the whole country should access superfast

:56:54. > :56:58.speeds of 30 megabits per second. We show that ambition, we therefore

:56:59. > :57:02.propose that a superfast USO will be reconsidered by Ofcom was 75% of

:57:03. > :57:09.premises across the UK subscribe to superfast broadband. On Lords

:57:10. > :57:14.amendment to the other place agreed with your Lordships's concerns in

:57:15. > :57:20.relation to Bill capping and proposed amendment to a Hindu. As

:57:21. > :57:23.with the Lords amendments we provide that mobile phone customers must

:57:24. > :57:27.have the opportunity to place a limit on their bill. Any limits and

:57:28. > :57:31.cannot be exceeded unless the customer agrees and Ofcom is given

:57:32. > :57:35.enforcement powers. The requirement placed on providers to ensure that

:57:36. > :57:43.customers can contact the emergency services will not be affected. The

:57:44. > :57:49.government also reflected on roving elements but was not convinced of

:57:50. > :57:55.their merit. We do not believe that roaming is the right solution and I

:57:56. > :57:58.will set out our reasons. With regards to switching the bill goes

:57:59. > :58:03.further than the proposed amendment, the provision in the bill confirms

:58:04. > :58:07.Ofcom's power to set a condition about switching relates to operators

:58:08. > :58:12.of all telecom services including fixed line, broadband, and pay-TV,

:58:13. > :58:23.not just mobile phones. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that

:58:24. > :58:26.motion A B agreed to. My Lords, speaking about motion when, as

:58:27. > :58:31.someone who was renovated Victorian house I know one thing to be true,

:58:32. > :58:39.it is all very well stripping off the woodchip and slapping on some

:58:40. > :58:44.thing else and it's all very well improving the coving and putting up

:58:45. > :58:49.a dado rail but if you don't tackle the fundamentals you soon raising

:58:50. > :58:55.floorboards again. It's the roof, the electricals and the plumbing

:58:56. > :58:59.that call you out. My Lords, I had hoped that this bill would tackle

:59:00. > :59:08.the fundamentals of the nation's Digital plumbing. I had hoped that

:59:09. > :59:12.it would put in train a revolution for our Digital network and really

:59:13. > :59:17.enable the entire country to participate in the digital economy

:59:18. > :59:22.that I believe this bill will be setting out to achieve. I still hope

:59:23. > :59:32.that that is true but I have my doubts. I think without a

:59:33. > :59:45.requirement for a fast digital for the arrival of that fast digital

:59:46. > :59:51.network, we will struggle. I think the notion of 75% threshold

:59:52. > :59:57.description is a tricky way of going about this. I think we will have to

:59:58. > :00:04.use the reporting requirements of gone obliges to do and that is a

:00:05. > :00:09.move forward, how they are driving usage of broadband because we are

:00:10. > :00:18.using the commercial arms of the same companies asked to deliver

:00:19. > :00:22.broadband, to promote the use of the broadband itself. We have a closed

:00:23. > :00:28.loop here that does not have an incentive necessarily to drive up to

:00:29. > :00:35.the 75% threshold. Because I would be more confident in the progress of

:00:36. > :00:41.this country in delivering this network if there was not a dominant

:00:42. > :00:48.player that sits on a Victorian asset of copy wire which it wants to

:00:49. > :00:57.sweat, quite understandably, it has to be for Ofcom to drive our desire,

:00:58. > :01:03.to move forward. We are closing the door on a shiny new bill which tills

:01:04. > :01:06.smells of new paint that just like Mike has I can't help thinking that

:01:07. > :01:11.we will be raising the floorboards on this time and again in

:01:12. > :01:18.Parliaments to come. -- just like in my house. My Lords, we welcome the

:01:19. > :01:23.two amendments proposed in lieu in the motion, just proposed by the

:01:24. > :01:28.noble Lord and Mr. I think we are also at liberty to regret that they

:01:29. > :01:36.don't go further. The is you we are in, which has been well picked up,

:01:37. > :01:44.59% of rural Britain has no access to Internet and that is a concern

:01:45. > :01:50.for a major concern, the root of the problem is that while USO sounds

:01:51. > :01:53.good and is an effective way of getting across the argument that

:01:54. > :01:57.this service should be for everyone, the reality is that unless there are

:01:58. > :02:00.sanctions to make sure that it happens and there is an incentive in

:02:01. > :02:03.terms of investment to make sure that the funding is there for them

:02:04. > :02:07.to take place at an appropriate time, it will never happen, so it's

:02:08. > :02:15.only part of the story. And the effort we have got locked into

:02:16. > :02:20.unfortunately seems to be one that divides the floor, we have that with

:02:21. > :02:22.this amendment although it is a very low floor. But they don't have the

:02:23. > :02:31.aspiration yet embodied in the amendments that this has agrees to

:02:32. > :02:37.get the theme up. We are stuck in a situation where the spirit may be

:02:38. > :02:40.willing, the flesh is weak and we cannot say that we will look forward

:02:41. > :02:44.to this in the immediate future. The root of the problem is another

:02:45. > :02:48.source which is the reliance on the Europe European Commission

:02:49. > :02:52.requirements. The government has made great play of this but I think

:02:53. > :02:56.the point is the only legislative framework under which Europe is

:02:57. > :03:04.operating, one which will fall away in 2019 if the new government gets

:03:05. > :03:09.its way, is that they should be a non-biding guidance in terms of what

:03:10. > :03:12.constitutes a universal service. And yet the government has chosen to

:03:13. > :03:15.interpret that as a limit on what they are doing rather than an

:03:16. > :03:21.opportunity of going further. While we welcome what is happening here we

:03:22. > :03:29.do not think of the mechanics chosen would be at 30 megabits per second,

:03:30. > :03:35.I think we will be back having to look at this in very short order. On

:03:36. > :03:39.the question of mobile phone capping we are pleased that the government

:03:40. > :03:43.has accepted the amendments made to the bill at an earlier stage. This

:03:44. > :03:52.will help consumers not to get into trouble with bills and we're glad

:03:53. > :03:57.they accepted it. I am grateful for those remarks by the noble Lords, if

:03:58. > :04:01.I could refer to the noble Lord Fox he talks about the fundamentals,

:04:02. > :04:07.these are the things we have tried to address in this bill, we have

:04:08. > :04:16.tried to increase digital connectivity around the country and

:04:17. > :04:26.its measures did not... They are part of that. The USO is slightly

:04:27. > :04:32.different. It was never intended to drive increased speeds. We said

:04:33. > :04:42.separately that we share the ambition of the noble Lords to

:04:43. > :04:51.increase those. But of course the USO is there to tackle social

:04:52. > :05:03.exclusiveness. Exclusion is the word I'm looking for, eventually! But I

:05:04. > :05:11.can assure the noble Lords that it's not about delaying superfast

:05:12. > :05:15.connectivity, to the contrary we don't want to be involved in

:05:16. > :05:20.protracted legal disputes. The fact is that the House can legislate for

:05:21. > :05:24.whatever speed it likes but it will only make a difference to people up

:05:25. > :05:27.and down the country if it is implemented properly. That means

:05:28. > :05:35.that the bill must be legally watertight and realistic. The

:05:36. > :05:39.government will put its money where its mouth is and as the noble Lord

:05:40. > :05:44.Stevenson mentioned we have now put in legislation that the broadband

:05:45. > :05:50.USO will be set at a minimum of 10 megabits per second and we will

:05:51. > :05:54.ensure that if the minimum has not been raised to 30 megabits per

:05:55. > :06:00.second by the time take-up of broadband has reached seven the and

:06:01. > :06:02.premises a review must be triggered. That is practical and interesting,

:06:03. > :06:12.it will give this country the fastest USO in Europe. I do hope, my

:06:13. > :06:13.Lords, that we do concentrate on the benefits, so we are receiving from

:06:14. > :06:26.this and I beg to move. The question is that the motion be

:06:27. > :06:30.moved. The contents have it. The question is that Motion B be agreed

:06:31. > :06:47.to. If many of the opinion, say content. The content Abbott. -- the

:06:48. > :06:54.contents have it. I move that the House do not insist on Amendment be,

:06:55. > :06:59.I want to start again, my Lords, by saying the Government accepts and

:07:00. > :07:05.agrees with the spirit of the Amendment 40 which is drafted, it

:07:06. > :07:11.risks potential consequences. It is not clear who would be notifying

:07:12. > :07:17.social media content. The requirement to notify the police if

:07:18. > :07:24.it contravenes any existing legislation could have... This would

:07:25. > :07:32.do little to increase public protection. Amendment 48, we believe

:07:33. > :07:37.will achieve a similar outcome by setting out the expected behaviour

:07:38. > :07:41.while protecting users. As explained in the other place by my right

:07:42. > :07:45.honourable friend, the Minister of state for digital and culture, there

:07:46. > :07:48.is good work being done by some companies to prevent the use of

:07:49. > :07:53.platforms for illegal purposes, but we agree that more can be done by

:07:54. > :07:57.social media to tackle harmful conduct online. Particularly

:07:58. > :08:01.bullying behaviour which can have serious consequences. Our intention

:08:02. > :08:06.is that the code would set out a guidance on what social media

:08:07. > :08:11.providers should do in relation to conduct that is lawful, but

:08:12. > :08:15.nonetheless distressing or upsetting. The intention is that the

:08:16. > :08:19.guidance and legislation will address companies proportionately.

:08:20. > :08:23.We believe that this code, together with the Internet safety strategy,

:08:24. > :08:30.will result in a properly considered copperheads of approach to online

:08:31. > :08:35.safety. One that will deliver protections that this Amendment

:08:36. > :08:42.seeks to procure. The question is that Motion C be agreed to. I have

:08:43. > :08:46.no doubt that the noble lord Stevenson will want to give a more

:08:47. > :08:53.substantial response, but this was supported on these benches very

:08:54. > :08:56.strongly. I do accept that the Minister has tried to incorporate

:08:57. > :09:03.the spirit of the original Amendment in this Amendment coming from the

:09:04. > :09:08.Commons, and my Lord made a number of detailed points about projections

:09:09. > :09:13.to the drafting of the original Amendment, but my Lords, there is

:09:14. > :09:21.one thundering great hole in the Amendment as brought forward by the

:09:22. > :09:24.Minister, which is their is no obligation on the providers to

:09:25. > :09:29.comply with the code of practice once it comes into force, so my

:09:30. > :09:34.Lords, it is nakedly voluntarily code rather than any code that is

:09:35. > :09:37.actually able to be enforced by the secretary of state and that is the

:09:38. > :09:40.major difference between the Amendment that this House passed and

:09:41. > :09:46.the Amendment that is now come forward to us. My Lords, I wonder,

:09:47. > :09:50.he mentioned the Internet safety strategy and the work being done

:09:51. > :09:53.about. Many of us are convinced that when the work on that is done, it

:09:54. > :10:02.will become quite clear that there will be a need for an enforcement

:10:03. > :10:07.power in this kind of obligation, on this kind of code of conduct. I

:10:08. > :10:09.wonder if the Minister will give us an assurance that that will be

:10:10. > :10:12.considered, that the question of enforcement of this kind of code of

:10:13. > :10:18.conduct will be considered as part of the Internet safety strategy and

:10:19. > :10:22.if the overwhelming body of evidence is that such a form of compliance is

:10:23. > :10:35.needed, that the Government will come forward with amendments. My

:10:36. > :10:38.Lords, I want to lay the House too much to repeat what Lord Clement

:10:39. > :10:45.Jones is just sad. No enforcement and no sanctions, but the important

:10:46. > :10:49.thing, and I do recognise the words of the noble lord, the Minister, in

:10:50. > :10:55.reflecting the spirit and intent of our original motion, and I think

:10:56. > :11:01.this is what this Amendment now seeks to do, the Government

:11:02. > :11:08.Amendment, which is to give notice to the social networks. That failure

:11:09. > :11:12.to comply will result in further Government action. And I, like

:11:13. > :11:18.global North Lord Clement Jones, would hope that the Minister would

:11:19. > :11:23.be able to respond positively, particularly on the Internet

:11:24. > :11:28.strategy review, but I think in conclusion, we have had an extremely

:11:29. > :11:34.good examination of the issue at committee stage in the Lords and at

:11:35. > :11:37.the core stage and I do think we now have a policy which is clearly

:11:38. > :11:46.setting out and giving notice to social networks that we do want to

:11:47. > :11:51.ensure proper standards are maintained an action is taken when

:11:52. > :11:54.evidence of abuse occurs. It shouldn't be a matter of days or

:11:55. > :12:01.weeks as it has been to take material down, that is offensive. We

:12:02. > :12:06.have seen evidence of some of the horrendous things that have gone on

:12:07. > :12:11.social networks from the US and Thailand and we do want to ensure

:12:12. > :12:22.that they fully understand the gravity of the situation. I am

:12:23. > :12:27.grateful to the noble lord's marks. Starting right at the last remarks,

:12:28. > :12:32.I think the social media companies are absolutely in no doubt about the

:12:33. > :12:38.Government's determination to her view what they do and live up to

:12:39. > :12:42.their responsibilities. I think we are all agreed on that. We realise,

:12:43. > :12:47.even when some things are technically lawful, they are very

:12:48. > :12:54.damaging and unpleasant and things that are set out to humiliate people

:12:55. > :12:57.have no place in our society. I of course understand why some noble

:12:58. > :13:02.Lords are disappointed that the code of practice is a mandatory, what I

:13:03. > :13:09.think we should have confidence that it will make a difference, if we

:13:10. > :13:13.take it seriously as I suggested that we do, and that the social

:13:14. > :13:19.media companies do. The code of practice will clearly set out our

:13:20. > :13:25.expectations on social media providers. It is in their interest

:13:26. > :13:29.to be responsible in regards to online safety. It is critical for

:13:30. > :13:35.their future, for the users to trust them and protect the health of their

:13:36. > :13:39.brand. . As far as the Internet safety strategy is concerned, and

:13:40. > :13:42.there has been a lot of talk about that, I except that, we haven't

:13:43. > :13:47.ruled anything out of that strategy that we have clearly heard the views

:13:48. > :13:50.of the House and I can say that we will consider the points raised

:13:51. > :13:55.carefully in the development of the strategy and we welcome

:13:56. > :14:01.contributions from noble Lords and other interested parties. I repeat,

:14:02. > :14:07.my department has absolutely taken on board the views of this House, in

:14:08. > :14:13.addition to many other state courts in relation to social media

:14:14. > :14:18.companies, and we will see what comes of it. The fact is, after this

:14:19. > :14:25.Amendment, if it is accepted, the code must be produced and it will be

:14:26. > :14:32.and I'm convinced it will have a beneficial effect. The question is

:14:33. > :14:38.Motion C be agreed to. As many of that opinion, the same content. On

:14:39. > :14:48.the contrary, say not content. The contents have it.

:14:49. > :14:56.I beg to move motion D, that this House do not insist on it amendments

:14:57. > :15:02.237, 238 and 239, to which the comments have disagreed for their

:15:03. > :15:08.recent 239A. My Lords, we return once again to the issue of BBC

:15:09. > :15:11.funding, having debated this at length during the committee and

:15:12. > :15:15.report. Honourable members and the other place have disagreed with the

:15:16. > :15:21.amendments that were inserted into this bill at report stage, which

:15:22. > :15:23.sought to establish a BBC license fee commission. The Government

:15:24. > :15:30.remains clear that it must have a free hand in determining the BBC's

:15:31. > :15:34.overall funding deals on the level of the license be, following

:15:35. > :15:36.negotiation with the BBC itself. Noble Lords will appreciate the

:15:37. > :15:40.decisions on the level of the license be our a matter for the

:15:41. > :15:46.elected Government. Similarly, we are not convinced that consulting

:15:47. > :15:48.the public on the level of BBC funding is the right approach to

:15:49. > :15:55.determining its funding settlements. The BBC's funding needs are a

:15:56. > :15:59.complicated and technical issue, not one that lends itself easily to

:16:00. > :16:03.public consultation. Although the Government has persuaded the

:16:04. > :16:07.honourable members of the other place, the Government has listened

:16:08. > :16:11.to concerns from noble Lords about the process about setting the BBC's

:16:12. > :16:16.funding settlement, and about making sure the BBC has an appropriate

:16:17. > :16:20.level of funding. The new charter endorses the BBC's mission and

:16:21. > :16:23.reinforces the role and independence of the BBC in a much changed and

:16:24. > :16:31.much changing beauty landscape. The specific provisions that the BBC

:16:32. > :16:34.Charter has for setting the next settlement, it should also give the

:16:35. > :16:37.noble Lords that have some concerns him comfort. We know exactly when

:16:38. > :16:43.the next funding period will commence. The Government will allow

:16:44. > :16:46.the BBC to make its case and it will consider taking independent advice

:16:47. > :16:51.before reaching the final decision. I hope the noble Lords who supported

:16:52. > :16:54.the noble lord Lord asked at earlier stages will recognise that their

:16:55. > :17:01.efforts and their arguments on this matter have not been wasted. The

:17:02. > :17:03.Government is under no illusions that the next funding settlement

:17:04. > :17:07.should be one that is carefully considered. There will be no

:17:08. > :17:13.question of the so-called midnight raids with a five-year settlement,

:17:14. > :17:18.which is inflation protected, has been agreed. Everyone knows when the

:17:19. > :17:22.next settlement will begin. I'm turning to motion the EE, which

:17:23. > :17:27.relates to public service rod casting prominence on the electronic

:17:28. > :17:32.programme guide, an issue that has been much debated in this House and

:17:33. > :17:35.the other place. The Government has heard the strength of feeling on

:17:36. > :17:39.this issue. The Government has concluded that he can see no

:17:40. > :17:46.compelling evidence of harm, we do recognise that this is a fast moving

:17:47. > :17:51.technological landscape which must be under review, a point I think was

:17:52. > :17:57.made clearly by the Lord Boyd at report stage. Amendment Will Place a

:17:58. > :18:05.new requirement on Ofcom to publish a report which looks at the ease of

:18:06. > :18:09.content across all television platforms, both on a linear and

:18:10. > :18:15.nonlinear basis. The report will focus consumer pressure on TV

:18:16. > :18:21.manufacturers to improve the prominence of PSP on-demand services

:18:22. > :18:25.where this has been identified as an issue. We know that platform

:18:26. > :18:31.providers and TV manufacturers respond most strongly to consumer

:18:32. > :18:35.needs and developing their products, therefore developments in EPG should

:18:36. > :18:40.be customer driven. The new duty will also impose an ongoing

:18:41. > :18:46.obligation on Ofcom to report its EPG care by the 1st of December 2020

:18:47. > :18:53.and to publish its first report on the ease of accessing and finding

:18:54. > :18:58.PSP content before then. As my right honourable friend made clear

:18:59. > :19:02.yesterday, if Ofcom's report makes it clear that there is a problem in

:19:03. > :19:08.this area, and one which can only be fixed by legislation and assuming

:19:09. > :19:11.the Government is returned in June, the Government will bring forward

:19:12. > :19:15.that legislation as soon as possible and I think that is why the Labour

:19:16. > :19:20.front bench spokesman said she was happy to support the Government

:19:21. > :19:26.Amendment. I beg to move. Side the question is that motion D be agreed

:19:27. > :19:30.to. The three amendments that are the subject of motion D K before

:19:31. > :19:36.your Lordship 's in the name of myself, Aaron is Carter and Lord

:19:37. > :19:41.Inglewood and Stevenson. They were passed by your Lordship 's with a

:19:42. > :19:46.thumping majority. But they are now to be rejected with no alternative

:19:47. > :19:50.amendments in lieu of these. My Lords, the issue here concerns the

:19:51. > :19:55.process by which the BBC license fee is determined. There has been

:19:56. > :20:00.extensive condemnation of the current process, condemnation from

:20:01. > :20:04.the right honourable John Whittingdale wintering the CMS

:20:05. > :20:09.Select Committee in the other place from the chair of the BBC trust,

:20:10. > :20:13.along with a range of organisations including the voice of the listener

:20:14. > :20:17.and viewer, and you Jay, and your own Select Committee on

:20:18. > :20:20.communications which I have the honour of chairing, at least until

:20:21. > :20:24.the dissolution of Parliament. What everyone agrees is that the current

:20:25. > :20:29.process has met the secretary of state deciding on this vital matter

:20:30. > :20:36.in a most unsatisfactory way behind locked doors in secret on a basis

:20:37. > :20:43.that has, on the last two occasions, involved as well as freezing the

:20:44. > :20:49.fever many years, the allocation of the feed to many other purposes,

:20:50. > :20:54.midnight raids, broadband roll-out to free licenses to the over 75. --

:20:55. > :20:58.fee. The amendments which turn out to be rejected would not tie the

:20:59. > :21:05.hands of the secretary of state, who would still make the determination,

:21:06. > :21:09.but the revised process would involve public and parliamentary

:21:10. > :21:16.consultation and expert advice from a specialist BBC license fee

:21:17. > :21:21.commission. On the decision over the license fee hangs the future of the

:21:22. > :21:25.BBC. It does seem vital to ensure that that decision is based on an

:21:26. > :21:31.understanding of both what the public wants and on hard evidence of

:21:32. > :21:37.what expenditure the BBC needs to make, to fulfil its public or

:21:38. > :21:44.Chris's. But I conclude this expression of disappointment with

:21:45. > :21:47.the rather limited things to the noble Lords the Minister for a

:21:48. > :21:52.technology that this is a technical and complicated matter, which is one

:21:53. > :21:57.on which Government will consider taking advice. I think they would be

:21:58. > :22:03.very well advised to take advice on this matter am a but we have five

:22:04. > :22:06.years until the license fee is reset and during that time I think it

:22:07. > :22:12.might be worth your Lordship's returning to this matter.

:22:13. > :22:21.I think it was about one year ago when I introduced a Private members

:22:22. > :22:28.Bill as too low in the ballot to have any chance of being debated and

:22:29. > :22:38.passed. And when that became evident I decided instead to use this bill

:22:39. > :22:45.as a vehicle to protect the financing of the BBC. And as the

:22:46. > :22:52.Minister will I'm afraid recalled painfully throughout most of the

:22:53. > :23:04.last year we have been debating this is to do with the independence and

:23:05. > :23:08.funding of the BBC. The first subject was whether it was proper to

:23:09. > :23:11.have legislation and a charter. The government originally took the

:23:12. > :23:15.position that they were inconsistent. I am grateful for the

:23:16. > :23:19.fact that eventually, having listened to the noble Lords with the

:23:20. > :23:28.authority of Lord Inglewood, Lord Fowler while he was a free man and

:23:29. > :23:34.Lord best about how a charter is not anything more than what the Minister

:23:35. > :23:37.'s desire, it is not like legislation, and eventually the

:23:38. > :23:41.government came to the conclusion I believe that there was nothing

:23:42. > :23:46.incompatible between having a charter and having statutory

:23:47. > :23:51.underpinning. So the next question was, why do you need any statutory

:23:52. > :23:55.underpinning. And the answer is, because if you read the Charter,

:23:56. > :24:03.including the current charter, there is no obligation in it upon the

:24:04. > :24:09.government to provide sufficient funding or for that matter even to

:24:10. > :24:14.respect the independence of the BBC. I made it clear before this bill

:24:15. > :24:20.left this has for the other place that I was not wedded to any

:24:21. > :24:28.particular solution to the problem, of ensuring that the government

:24:29. > :24:38.would be providing sufficient funding and would respect the

:24:39. > :24:43.independence of the BBC and would do everything in its power to secure

:24:44. > :24:48.that. And one of the ways as this has as syndicated, expressed our

:24:49. > :24:53.view that by adopting his more moderate approach than mine, since

:24:54. > :24:58.his approach, or his commission would not bind the government to

:24:59. > :25:02.anything in particular other than considering the outcome of the

:25:03. > :25:06.review commissions, whereas my approach would create an obligation

:25:07. > :25:11.upon the government as regards funding and a prohibition against

:25:12. > :25:18.the kind of top slicing the transferred to the BBC of matters

:25:19. > :25:21.that were the obligation of the Department for Work and Pensions to

:25:22. > :25:34.ensure that that never happened again. Before we finally approve

:25:35. > :25:39.this motion, one point is that the government does not accept any

:25:40. > :25:44.obligations as I understand it about the sufficiency of funding or any

:25:45. > :25:50.obligation upon it as to respecting the independence of the BBC. So I

:25:51. > :25:54.asked the Minister, I asked him last time and he wasn't able to answer, I

:25:55. > :26:02.asked him this time can he please assure the House that the government

:26:03. > :26:05.does accept that there is an obligation to provide sufficient

:26:06. > :26:13.funds to the BBC, whether through the licence fee or otherwise, to

:26:14. > :26:19.ensure that the BBC can fulfil the public purposes as an independent

:26:20. > :26:29.public service broadcaster that are enunciated in the charter. And does

:26:30. > :26:32.not accept also that there is an obligation to ensure that the

:26:33. > :26:38.independence of the BBC is guaranteed and that there will be no

:26:39. > :26:42.further raid upon it to top slicing, if the government can give those

:26:43. > :26:46.assurances today than I will not feel that I have wasted most of the

:26:47. > :26:53.best part of the last year in these debates. If he cannot do so, and I

:26:54. > :26:57.very much hope that he will be able to do so, if he cannot do so I'm

:26:58. > :27:05.afraid I shall have to bring in another Private members Bill and a

:27:06. > :27:09.ballot. I just want to say that I regret that the government did not

:27:10. > :27:13.accept the laws Amendment two 42. The Minister of State in the other

:27:14. > :27:20.place in a speech yesterday said that an Internet based on demand

:27:21. > :27:26.viewing is different. I don't think that's right. The two technologies

:27:27. > :27:30.are emerging as television sets become multipurpose computers we are

:27:31. > :27:35.seeing convergence between TV and Internet increasing at a rapid pace.

:27:36. > :27:38.It is crucial that the regime should keep pace with changing viewing

:27:39. > :27:42.habits. However the response from the other place does give me some

:27:43. > :27:47.heart. At least there will be an Ofcom review of the PSP Providence

:27:48. > :27:52.guidelines, I would like to urge the noble Lord the Minister to ensure

:27:53. > :27:59.that Ofcom starts the review as soon as possible, and not allow them to

:28:00. > :28:02.put it off until late 2020. Every month we are seeing the PSP on

:28:03. > :28:06.demand and digital services are becoming more important for

:28:07. > :28:09.broadcasters. I'm sure your Lordships would like to see viewers

:28:10. > :28:14.having easy access to programmes which in the case of the BBC funded

:28:15. > :28:22.by public money and in the case of Channel 4 are publicly owned. My

:28:23. > :28:26.lord, I very much hope that the Lord Minister will take the threat from

:28:27. > :28:31.my noble friend seriously and will rise to the challenges that is put

:28:32. > :28:34.to the Minister on the question of funding and independence and

:28:35. > :28:40.carrying out the activities of the BBC. I do in particular want to

:28:41. > :28:54.agree with the noble Best with in his disappointment with the decision

:28:55. > :28:58.today. My noble friend Baroness Bonham Carter added her name

:28:59. > :29:05.this. It was the product of the committee occasions select

:29:06. > :29:13.committee,... Independent oversight and the setting of a licensee and of

:29:14. > :29:18.course my Lords the Minister pushed back a report, committee and a

:29:19. > :29:22.reading by talking about the licensee being attacked but of

:29:23. > :29:26.course my Lords it's a rather exceptional tax, it is a hub tax,

:29:27. > :29:33.paid by the public to fund the BBC. So my Lords it's entirely correct

:29:34. > :29:38.that there should be a different mechanism for the setting of that

:29:39. > :29:43.licensee. My Lords, it arises because of the midnight raids by the

:29:44. > :29:45.Treasury, the hijacking by the treachery of the licence fee

:29:46. > :29:52.progress that has taken place at least twice recently my Lord. And,

:29:53. > :29:58.my Lords, the minister, and this is one of the worrying phrases users,

:29:59. > :30:03.the government wants a free hand following negotiations with the BBC,

:30:04. > :30:11.my Lords, that is exactly what the original amendment was designed to

:30:12. > :30:15.prevent. My Lords, what I think is the nub of the concern is that

:30:16. > :30:20.assurances, and the Minister did give assurances, he gave some new

:30:21. > :30:23.language to lead my Lords, assurances given by government, we

:30:24. > :30:28.have seen what assurances are worth in terms of snap elections, my Lord!

:30:29. > :30:33.Assurances can be given by government one minute which can be

:30:34. > :30:37.broken the next, my lords. And my Lords, however carefully we

:30:38. > :30:42.scrutinise the noble Lord's wording today, if his government is in a

:30:43. > :30:50.position in the future to negotiate the licence fee my Lords, we have no

:30:51. > :30:56.absolute assurance that those words will be followed. So my Lords I join

:30:57. > :31:00.with deep disappointment with I am sure almost all benches around the

:31:01. > :31:07.house in sharing that disappointment. I do apologise. I

:31:08. > :31:15.haven't dealt with the second amendment, Amendment E. In many ways

:31:16. > :31:24.it's even more disappointing. I think that it is a perfectly valid

:31:25. > :31:27.thing that Viscount Colwill expressed some reports of the Ofcom

:31:28. > :31:31.review but given that the government can say it is a political decision

:31:32. > :31:39.whether or not they have the BBC licence fee commission, my Lords,

:31:40. > :31:46.this is much more miles, and at least two occasions we've heard DC

:31:47. > :31:52.MS secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Maria Miller both saying that the position

:31:53. > :32:03.of the public service broadcasters was very important way of

:32:04. > :32:11.safeguarding that position. We already know the Minister has

:32:12. > :32:16.undertaken a review by Ofcom but my Lords Ofcom already know that there

:32:17. > :32:23.is a problem. They recommended in their 2015 PSB review that

:32:24. > :32:34.policymakers should form the rules... So that does not seem to be

:32:35. > :32:37.a particularly constructive way forward, despite appearances. So, my

:32:38. > :32:43.Lords, there are a number of questions that arise from the

:32:44. > :32:48.government amendment E. Can the Minister confirm that statutory

:32:49. > :32:52.change will be necessary to bring on demand PSP content and the

:32:53. > :33:01.collective EPG is where they are found into the scope of Ofcom's EPG

:33:02. > :33:05.code, my Lords? The Minister has claimed in conversation that it

:33:06. > :33:09.wasn't possible to have a Henry VIII power that would implement Ofcom's

:33:10. > :33:15.recommendations for OnDemand, my lords. So I am assuming that there

:33:16. > :33:19.is no current statutory power and we would be talking about primary

:33:20. > :33:23.legislation in that respect but it would be helpful to have that

:33:24. > :33:33.confirmation, my lords. Is the Minister going to give an assurance

:33:34. > :33:38.that the government will act? We would not have brought forward the

:33:39. > :33:43.amendment unless we thought this was a real and present is see that

:33:44. > :33:45.needed to be tackled. This wasn't a frivolous amendment, but the

:33:46. > :33:56.government seems to have a completely different view. The

:33:57. > :34:00.earnest attention is important. The amendment sets a first December 2020

:34:01. > :34:03.statutory deadline for the review and the revision of the EPG code

:34:04. > :34:09.that does the Minister not agree that it would be desirable to

:34:10. > :34:13.commence work earlier, given the need for prior statutory changes,

:34:14. > :34:21.probably? In order to bring on demand contact into scope? And

:34:22. > :34:28.finally my Lords, it does appear that there is the statutory power to

:34:29. > :34:32.bring the prominence of PSP children's channels into EPG's. And

:34:33. > :34:41.my Lords, does the Minister agree with that and would he agree that if

:34:42. > :34:47.Ofcom so recommends, it could be brought in earlier than the OnDemand

:34:48. > :34:53.provision? I very much up that the Minister can answer those questions,

:34:54. > :34:57.my lords. My Lord, these elements taken together workshops of the

:34:58. > :35:00.government. I think with predictable certainty they've fallen into both.

:35:01. > :35:09.-- they were traps for the government. The one discussed on the

:35:10. > :35:15.question of the need for Ofcom to have powers to make sure that there

:35:16. > :35:19.was a proper rule about provenance applying not only to the linear but

:35:20. > :35:22.also the off-line world, the world via player and others, it was really

:35:23. > :35:25.a test about whether or not the government believed in public sector

:35:26. > :35:34.broadcasting. And if it did it needed to make proposals for a

:35:35. > :35:39.channel funded by the public to have access on a fair and equal basis to

:35:40. > :35:43.other commercial channels. By bringing forward a moment which was

:35:44. > :35:48.simply one for report without the necessary requirement that there

:35:49. > :35:51.should be legislation, in three areas that I think we are agreed

:35:52. > :35:55.should be happened and I think they've failed this test. But we

:35:56. > :35:59.welcome they have got to, a further review is important I hope it will

:36:00. > :36:02.bring out the complexity of the issue, the changing technology and

:36:03. > :36:09.the difficulties of assessing this in a way which will make it easier

:36:10. > :36:13.for the to honour its commitment and if the report does make it clear

:36:14. > :36:17.that there is a problem in this area which can only be fixed by

:36:18. > :36:23.legislation, that the government will bring forward that legislation

:36:24. > :36:26.as soon as possible and may I also, if elected, give the commitment from

:36:27. > :36:32.this side of the house that we will do the same.

:36:33. > :36:39.On the BBC license fee, the issue again is of trust. There is a real

:36:40. > :36:45.danger that those institutions that seek protection in Royal charters

:36:46. > :36:51.from what might be a Government of the day, will not be able to rely on

:36:52. > :36:54.that as we go forward. I think the smoke and mirrors effect that was

:36:55. > :36:59.always there with Royal charters is now gone. Therefore there is a real

:37:00. > :37:05.problem about BBC. The Government will only end up convincing if he

:37:06. > :37:09.can show by its actions that it does believe in the independence of the

:37:10. > :37:14.organisations for which Royal charter protection are so important.

:37:15. > :37:18.We are visiting attacks in higher education, where it is no longer

:37:19. > :37:21.possible for those who have guardianship of the funds that we

:37:22. > :37:24.put into research to have Royal charters, they are being removed.

:37:25. > :37:30.There was a threat to universities that will no longer be able to

:37:31. > :37:33.continue to have or change their existing Royal charters, and

:37:34. > :37:37.therefore we've got to be careful on where we are going on this. I think

:37:38. > :37:41.the Government has not been very successful in convincing and we will

:37:42. > :37:47.do both the charter and fee for the BBC. I had some hope during

:37:48. > :37:50.discussions on the charter this time around, with the care and

:37:51. > :37:55.consideration of the Government did give to the question of how the

:37:56. > :37:57.renewal of the BBC Charter and the settlement of the license fee would

:37:58. > :38:01.be protected from the electoral cycle, that we would get somewhere

:38:02. > :38:07.with this and we would continue to trust them. But we've just change

:38:08. > :38:12.the electoral cycle. We have an election in 2017, which means the

:38:13. > :38:15.next election will be in 2022, the year in which the BBC license fee is

:38:16. > :38:21.settled. The election after that will be in 2027, the year of the

:38:22. > :38:24.charter renewal will take place. Do you, my Lords, really believe that

:38:25. > :38:27.we have the best system of protection in place? If we do not

:38:28. > :38:31.seek more information and transparency about a Government that

:38:32. > :38:37.deals with such an important institution as the BBC. I think the

:38:38. > :38:41.noble lord Leicester is right to think again about how we might want

:38:42. > :38:45.to protect in statute the organisations for which we have

:38:46. > :38:49.care, and I'm very sad the very step on that which might've protected us

:38:50. > :38:53.against the move that way in terms of the BBC license fee commission,

:38:54. > :39:00.which after all is not an new idea, it did operate in 2005 /6, it was so

:39:01. > :39:04.successful it annoyed the Government of the day that it recommended to

:39:05. > :39:08.hide the license fee, it recommended Ali offered advice on the detailed

:39:09. > :39:13.examination on the case for what the BBC needed to the fillets charter

:39:14. > :39:17.obligations. That is what we were tied to do without an Amendment and

:39:18. > :39:19.I supported the one that came out of the communication committee. It was

:39:20. > :39:24.right at the time it was proposed, it was supported here at the time

:39:25. > :39:28.that may be supported in the absence of the trump card, which is to

:39:29. > :39:31.change the electoral cycle. If we don't get a commitment from the

:39:32. > :39:35.Government today that there is going to need to be another look at this

:39:36. > :39:44.whole question of the timing, I do think we are in a very bad place. My

:39:45. > :39:49.Lords, I am grateful for all his contributions in May I start with

:39:50. > :39:53.the noble lord Best, I am grateful for the limited thanks he gave me

:39:54. > :39:57.and I give him unqualified things in return, because we have talked about

:39:58. > :40:01.this for a long time both in and out of the chamber. The one thing I can

:40:02. > :40:07.say about the Government's view on the BBC license fee is that we have

:40:08. > :40:11.been entirely consistent. I think I can say to Lord Leicester that, in

:40:12. > :40:22.conversations over a period of time both in and out of the chamber, I

:40:23. > :40:28.have never given him any reason to expect that we should change our

:40:29. > :40:31.view on this and he said he was apathetically optimistic, and I hope

:40:32. > :40:35.he remains optimistic and other things, but we have been entirely

:40:36. > :40:42.consistent on this matter. Because, as they explained at length, we do

:40:43. > :40:49.not believe that it is right for a tax to be consulted on. I do

:40:50. > :40:54.understand that the issues, and I do understand the strength of feeling

:40:55. > :41:02.in this House, but that is why we have made some changes and during

:41:03. > :41:08.the charter renewal process, we have outlined, as I said earlier, that we

:41:09. > :41:13.protected the funding for five years, we won't have any so-called

:41:14. > :41:17.midnight raids. It has been protected from inflation, which it

:41:18. > :41:22.wasn't before. We agree that we will take in information and take expert

:41:23. > :41:30.advice before this process goes ahead in five years' time. Of

:41:31. > :41:37.course, I do take the noble lord Leicester's threat of a Private

:41:38. > :41:41.member's bill extremely seriously and I must assume there is a

:41:42. > :41:48.possibility it will be forthcoming, and I look forward to debating with

:41:49. > :41:53.him on that will stop at the moment, I do not believe that there are

:41:54. > :41:58.situations that are likely to change, but of course in 11 years'

:41:59. > :42:04.time, it might. I don't think I'll be involved with it at that time. He

:42:05. > :42:09.asked a number of questions about the Government guaranteeing the

:42:10. > :42:16.independence of the BBC. Will we adequately funded? The new charter,

:42:17. > :42:19.it indoors is the role of independence and increases the

:42:20. > :42:26.independence of the BBC in a number of ways. Of course, this Government

:42:27. > :42:31.will live by the provisions of the Royal charter as far as independence

:42:32. > :42:38.of the BBC is concerned. On funding, we agreed that we will give it a

:42:39. > :42:43.five-year period, and of course we will ensure that it is properly

:42:44. > :42:51.funded for the future, but it will be a negotiation that takes place at

:42:52. > :42:56.that time. As far as the noble lord's point about timing, Ofcom

:42:57. > :43:00.will get going when they feel it is necessary. But what we have done by

:43:01. > :43:04.our Amendment is put in and day on that so they will have to reduce the

:43:05. > :43:15.report by about 2.5 years' time. That is a great advantage. I am

:43:16. > :43:20.sorry... Just now, to have given an assurance to the House that the

:43:21. > :43:24.Government does regard itself as under a duty to respect the

:43:25. > :43:30.independence of the BBC and to provide sufficient funding to pursue

:43:31. > :43:33.its purposes as an independent public service broadcaster, because

:43:34. > :43:37.if the answer to those questions is yes, I am extremely grateful and if

:43:38. > :43:43.the answer is no, that I would say to the Minister, power is delightful

:43:44. > :43:50.and absolute power is absolutely delightful, but that should not be

:43:51. > :43:57.his motto. What I said was, we of coarse abide by what we put into the

:43:58. > :44:01.Royal charter and it mentions the independence of the BBC and it

:44:02. > :44:05.enhanced the independence of the BBC from what came before. As far as

:44:06. > :44:10.funding is concerned, we have a five-year deal and the funding will

:44:11. > :44:16.be in negotiation as it goes on, but it is clearly not the Government's

:44:17. > :44:20.desire to prevent the BBC carrying out its purposes. But there will be

:44:21. > :44:25.an negotiation, this is a tax to provide for the BBC and each

:44:26. > :44:34.five-year period will be taken on a separate basis.

:44:35. > :44:40.So I'm just moving it on to the EPG now. I'm sorry, I should mention

:44:41. > :44:48.also that the noble lord Stevenson mentioned the problem with win the

:44:49. > :44:54.next funding period is coming around in connection with the election

:44:55. > :44:59.cycle and of course it was carefully, the 11 year cycle was

:45:00. > :45:03.carefully chosen to remove it from the electoral cycle I think at the

:45:04. > :45:09.suggestion of this House, amongst others. It is of course unfortunate

:45:10. > :45:15.that it is... Has been changed by the absence of the fixed term, but

:45:16. > :45:19.of course the fixed term parliaments act is not an absolute guarantee for

:45:20. > :45:27.a five-year parliament and it is true that...

:45:28. > :45:31.The provision was written into the act itself to make sure it was the

:45:32. > :45:36.case. Of course, the five-year settlement will be reached, the new

:45:37. > :45:40.settlement will be reached before the next election, assuming it goes

:45:41. > :45:47.to the full five years. The funding settlement is an 18-24 month

:45:48. > :45:51.negotiation, so that will take place before the election takes place, if

:45:52. > :45:55.it goes to the full five-year term. Fundamentally, though, a long

:45:56. > :45:58.charter allows the BBC to operate with greater certainty and with the

:45:59. > :46:08.freedom and confidence to deliver its object is. And it is also worth

:46:09. > :46:12.remembering that, it in the course, where the charter process has

:46:13. > :46:17.collided with the electoral cycle, it has always managed to conclude

:46:18. > :46:24.successfully that the continue will continue -- Micah BBC will continue

:46:25. > :46:27.to thrive. Moving onto the EPG, there was a suggestion that we

:46:28. > :46:33.should take a broad Henry VIII power, I think both the noble Lords

:46:34. > :46:39.Steven Finn mentioned this, the problem with that, there is an

:46:40. > :46:46.unusual situation where both some French benches -- front benches are

:46:47. > :46:50.almost amending the Government to take a broad Henry VIII power and

:46:51. > :46:57.normally I would say I agree with that. But in this case, this would

:46:58. > :47:01.really have a broad and wide ranging... He would have to be very

:47:02. > :47:06.broad and wide reaching, because amendments could be necessary to the

:47:07. > :47:12.communication act. The broadcasting act in 1990, the broadcasting act

:47:13. > :47:15.1996. Depending on what Ofcom recommended, a wider Amendment might

:47:16. > :47:20.be needed beyond traditional legislation beyond delete back to

:47:21. > :47:24.other areas, which we would not necessarily want to capture, such as

:47:25. > :47:31.online services. We think that this is the best way forward. The noble

:47:32. > :47:36.lord Stevenson also asked about our belief in public sector broadcasting

:47:37. > :47:42.and we have accepted the arguments of your Lordship's house to maintain

:47:43. > :47:48.on our free to air channels, children's TV from the noble

:47:49. > :47:58.Baroness Lady Benjamin, so they are evidence of our support for PSP 's.

:47:59. > :48:03.-- PSB 's. I know noble Lords were disappointed about the BBC license

:48:04. > :48:08.be will stop as I said, we were entirely consistent on this and I

:48:09. > :48:16.think the commitment that we have made on EPG and the Minister in the

:48:17. > :48:22.other place made should be some comfort to those who were

:48:23. > :48:28.disappointed with our answers on this and, as a result, I hope they

:48:29. > :48:34.will be able to accept them and I beg to move. The question is that

:48:35. > :48:40.motion deed be agreed to. As many of that opinion essay, content. To the

:48:41. > :48:46.contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that Motion

:48:47. > :48:52.B he agreed to. As many of that opinion, say content. To the

:48:53. > :48:56.contrary, not content. The contents have it. I beg to move motion as,

:48:57. > :49:02.this House to agree with the comments in there and manage 2468.

:49:03. > :49:08.We recommend the good intentions behind the original amendments and

:49:09. > :49:12.we have accepted it, but we need to make some technical amendments to it

:49:13. > :49:18.and that is the purpose of this Amendment. The Government's

:49:19. > :49:22.Amendment clarifies that it should refer to the unique ticket put up

:49:23. > :49:27.for resale and enable the buyer to identify the location of the ticket

:49:28. > :49:32.within the venue. Our Amendment also removes the provision requiring

:49:33. > :49:38.ticket sellers to provide, quote, at any specific condition attached to

:49:39. > :49:41.the resale of the ticket. Many global Lords have asked me about

:49:42. > :49:45.this, I want to put on record why. The Government is firmly of the view

:49:46. > :49:49.that when a secondary ticket provider with the ticket on sale,

:49:50. > :49:52.they must give the buyer clearer information about the conditions

:49:53. > :49:58.attached to the ticket regarding resale. This is in provision 93 B of

:49:59. > :50:03.the consumer rights act 2015. Duplication can only add to

:50:04. > :50:08.confusion. It can only add confusion, where as we want

:50:09. > :50:13.secondary ticket sellers absolutely clear on this point. This Amendment

:50:14. > :50:17.is in addition to DMM meant of buying tickets to it and maximum

:50:18. > :50:30.amount by a bot illegal. I begin by declaring an interest as

:50:31. > :50:35.co-chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on ticket abuse

:50:36. > :50:41.and pay tribute to my co-chair for the standing work she has done on

:50:42. > :50:48.the subject. In brief, I welcome the Government's amendment and I also

:50:49. > :50:52.welcome their response by the Government to the Waterson review

:50:53. > :50:58.accepting the recommendations in full. The power of God but now to

:50:59. > :51:02.introduce a criminal offence to stop the use of bots to purchase tickets,

:51:03. > :51:08.the provision of funding for enforcement action and I hope that a

:51:09. > :51:16.future government will work to strengthen enforcement and I also

:51:17. > :51:20.look forward to the outcome of the Competition and Markets Authority in